Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, 21st plenary meeting, followed by an informal working group meeting)

Distinguished delegates, this morning we will resume our meeting in plenary for a presentation by China of its offer to host the Secretariat established under the Agreement, followed by the oral reports on the discussions held yesterday under item 5 of the agenda. Afterwards, we will resume the consideration of item 5 of our agenda in parallel meetings. In this conference room, we will continue our discussions regarding arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat. And, time permitting, we will move to consider the draft text of potential terms of reference for the Voluntary Trust Fund with a view to completing a full reading of the draft text. In Conference Room 11, deliberations will continue on the Rules of Procedure for the Conference of the Parties. Distinguished delegates, we shall now proceed to hear the presentation from the delegation of the People's Republic of China of its offer to host the seat of the Secretariat established under Article 50 of the Agreement. The delegation of China will have 20 minutes for its presentation. And this will be followed by a 10-minute question and answer segment, during which the delegation of China will respond to questions that other delegations may wish to raise. I am pleased to now invite Her Excellency Hua Qingying, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China to deliver the presentation. Your Excellency, you have the floor.

Dear Co-Chairs, Excellencies, colleagues, the Chinese Government attaches great importance to the bid for the BBNJ Secretariat. You see, we have a big delegation today from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Natural Resources, Fujian Province, and the city of Xiamen. It's a clear demonstration of the Chinese government's full support for the bid. Foreign Minister Wang Yi could not be here due to a prior commitment. He has recorded a video message. Please watch.

Distinguished co-chairs, Your Excellencies, dear colleagues, The adoption and entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement marks a victory for multilateralism and an important milestone in global marine governance. Its full and effective implementation matters to the well-being of all humanity. As such, we need a secretariat that fits the agreement's significance and potential. China is both willing and able to make major contribution to this effort. China is a steadfast supporter, defender, and builder of the United Nations. As the first country to sign the UN Charter, China is now the second largest contributor to the UN regular budget. It always pays its dues on time and in full, and often goes beyond that. China is among the first to have signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and also one of the largest contributors to both the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. China stands ready to provide strong support for the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement. In this fluid and turbulent world, China remains firm in upholding the central role of the UN and a strong pillar in defending multilateralism. Choosing China means choosing a future of greater certainty and stability. China has a long and rich maritime civilization. More than 600 years ago, the Chinese navigator Zheng He made seven voyages to the Western Seas, using the ocean as a bridge to build friendly ties with countries along the route. Today, China is committed to advancing a modernization characterized by harmony between humanity and nature. It is among the first of countries to have attained the UN Millennium Development Goals. and is now fully implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. China also played a key role in adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and set a 30-30 target. China always attaches equal importance to protecting the ocean and using it sustainably. and is promoting joint efforts to build a community of all life on Earth. Choosing China means choosing a more comprehensive and effective implementation of the agreement to ensure the ocean's sustainable development for the good of all humanity. Colleagues, the Asia-Pacific is the world's most dynamic region. It has the longest coastline and the largest ocean economy, and makes important contribution to global peace and development. Yet, to this day, not a single UN organization is headquartered in the Asia-Pacific. China's bid to host the BBNJ Secretariat in Xiamen reflects the sense of responsibility of a major developing country that will help increase representation of the Global South and the Asia-Pacific in global marine governance. Choosing China means choosing a more just and equitable global marine governance system. The Chinese government fully supports Xiamen's bid. It will provide robust policy and financial backing, and highly competitive and convenient logistical support. I am confident that locating the Secretariat in Xiamen will make further major contribution to advancing global marine governance. China is ready. Xiamen is ready. We look forward to welcoming all of you in Xiamen. Thank you.

Now, on behalf of the Chinese government, it is my great pleasure to present to you China's bid. I will proceed from three perspectives: why China, why Xiamen, and what can we offer. First, why China? China is a staunch supporter of the UN. As a founding member and one of the P5 countries, China has stood with the UN through strong commitment, action, and contributions. China is now the second largest contributor to the UN regular budget, and we take up.

Our dues on time and in full.

China is a member of almost all intergovernmental organizations and is a party to over 600 international conventions. In the area of sustainable development, for example, China has provided 200 million US dollars to set up the China-UN Peace and Development Fund, as well as 4 billion US dollars to set up the Global Development and South-South Cooperation Fund to support other developing countries in meeting the 2030 SDGs. In terms of marine development, China is the biggest contributor to the ISA and the ITLOS under UNCLOS. We highly value the important role of the BBNJ in improving global marine governance and serving the common good of all humanity. China is among the first countries that have signed and ratified the BBNJ agreement, and we will continue to play a constructive role in its full and effective implementation. China has actively sought human ocean harmony. China has a long coastline. And it is also one of the most biodiverse countries for marine species. We have gained rich experience in preserving and restoring marine ecosystems. Our ecological conservation redline policy covers a total of 150,000 square kilometers, and 353 MPAs have been set up. We have also initiated a voluntary fishing moratorium in high seas and have engaged constructively in setting up MPAs. We also take an active part in the events under the UN Ocean Decade and UN Science Decade. We attach high importance to innovation in marine science and technology. With our own scientific expertise, we have trained over 100,000 marine professionals from over 50 developing countries. Be it the conservation or sustainable use of biodiversity, China is both capable and ready to play an important role. China is an important member of the Global South and the Asia-Pacific. For historical reasons, most of the UN's regional headquarters, specialized agencies, and important treaty organizations are located in Europe. The Asia-Pacific takes up 60% of the world's population, almost 60% of the world's GDP, and over 75% to the growth of the global marine economy. However, none of such organs sits in Asia. If Saemaeung is chosen to host the BBNG Secretariat, it will be the first UN organization to be headquartered in the Asia-Pacific. This will surely make global governance more just, equitable, balanced, and beneficial for all. It will also facilitate the Global South and the Asia-Pacific in making even greater contributions to global ocean governance. China is firmly committed to peaceful development, to the UN, and to multilateralism. In a turbulent and changing world, China remains a staunch force for stability and certainty. We believe with progress in China's modernization, we will not only deliver a better life to our people, but also contribute more to peace and development of the world. Just as Foreign Minister Wang Yi just pointed out, choosing China means choosing the future of greater certainty and stability. Second, why Xiamen? Saimin is a typical garden city on the sea, with advanced marine technology, vibrant ocean cooperation and exchanges, and deep engagement with the world. Just like the BBNJ, the city is fully committed to marine sustainable development. Xiamen has a superb ecological environment. It has won the UN Habitat Scroll of Honor Award and the UN Biodiversity Charm City Award. It has 265 kilometers of beautiful coastline. Near its shores, a national nature reserve for rare marine species have been established, covering 70 square kilometers. It's also one of the few areas in the world with a net increase in the mangrove forests. Strolling along the coastline, people can interact joyfully with Chinese white dolphins, which is a unique sight of the city. Xiamen's effective protection of the marine environment has been widely recognized by the world. It was picked as a case of excellence by the UN Development Program and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Xiamen has strong marine research capabilities. It is the birthplace of China's marine science and a marine research hub in the Asia-Pacific. It brings together world-class marine research institutions, such as the Third Institute of Oceanography, Xiamen University and Jimei University, some 5,000 marine researchers drive innovation across 30 R&D platforms. Xiamen has also established the Marine Culture Collection of China, a major marine microbial resource repository. It also serves as a home port for several world-class research vessels, giving it the capacity for deep sea and offshore scientific surveys, data consolidation, and application of research outcomes. Xiamen is a key hub for international marine cooperation. It hosts multilateral platforms such as the APAC Marine Sustainable Development Center and the China-ASEAN Marine Cooperation Center. In recent years, through programs such as the China Ocean Scholarship, it has trained over 7,000 marine research and professionals for developing countries. We also have the Global Ocean Negative Carbon Emissions Program initiated by Xiamen University. It has the participation from 104 research institutions in 35 countries. Xiamen has also hosted the World Ocean Week for 20 years and organized over 40 international seminars on blue carbon and other cutting edge topics, and has the participation from 130 countries and over 50 international organizations. Xiamen is an open and inclusive global city with diverse features. Xiamen has always been a key trading port and a vital hub along the ancient maritime Silk Road. As one of China's first special economic zones, China has established sister city relations with 42 cities and states, and sister port relations with 19 world-famous seaports. Xiamen Airlines is the first airline in the world to support UN SDGs. It operates direct flights to over 20 global aviation hubs. With China's largest green and smart airport, Xiang'an International Airport, putting into operation in Xiamen by the end of this year, more international routes will be open to connect Xiamen to other big cities. It will take you less than 4 hours to travel from Xiamen to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the Yangtze River Delta to world-class city clusters by high-speed trains. There are also many hospitals, international schools in Xiamen to provide modern, high-end services, fully in keeping with international standards. We also have global companies in supply chains, consumer goods, and international technology make their home in Xiamen. With all these, the city offers highly efficient logistics, one-stop international services, and a modern lifestyle for all. Third, what can China offer? At previous sessions, many parties expressed their expectations for the BBNJ Secretariat to function efficiently and to grow stronger. Here is our promise: we will provide robust, all-round, and modernized support that meets all your expectations in both the creation and operation of the Secretariat. We have a fully equipped, state-of-the-art office space for the secretariat. There's a ready space in Salmon's central business district by the sea. It is a 15 story modern office building of 1200,000 square meters, plus two sets of three story premium villas of 1500 square meters.

There is also a complete set of modern office facilities.

The Secretariat can move in and start working right away. We have ample room reserved for the Secretariat to take on more staff and for capacity-building programs. We will also provide complete conference facilities for the Secretariat. The International Conference Center in Xiamen is only three minutes' walk away from the Secretariat building. It is 140,000 square meters with all sizes of meeting rooms that have modern audiovisual equipment, among which there are eight rooms each more than 2,000 square meters, great for events over 10,000 people. This will be very helpful when multiple events are going on at the same time in the Secretariat, such as the COP meeting, Bureau meetings, side events, and bilateral consultations. We will provide strong financial support for the Secretariat to make it financially easier for parties. China will provide all the above-mentioned office space and facilities for free on a long-term basis. We will offer office equipment necessary to begin operations, and we will waive utility fees for the first five years. Put together, this could cut at least US$70 million for the Secretariat. As the first step, China will give US$3 million to the BBNJ Trust Fund to help developing countries in attending meetings. After the Secretariat opens in Xiamen, China will further contribute to the BBNJ Special Fund. We will provide ease of travel for Secretariat staff and delegates. China is now visa-free for diplomatic passport holders from 160 countries, service passport holders from 139 countries, and ordinary passport holders from 77 countries. The visa regime will be further liberalized. We will ensure privileges and immunities for the Secretariat, its staff, and delegates in performing their duties. We will provide efficient and free visa services for Secretariat officials, their families, and delegates. To sum up, we are offering first-class facilities and services. Salmon will give everyone working and living there an experience of rich history, an experience of open generosity, as well as next-level professionalism coming from China's modernization.

I now invite you to watch with us two videos.

This is the voice of the ocean. Soaring, resonant, echoing across the waves. This is the chorus of humankind, steadfast, enduring in its strength. Together, we join in a symphony's flow, ocean and humanity, one unified song. With the BB&J We embark on a new era of global ocean governance. In China, we believe in a future of human-ocean harmony, where people and the sea thrive as one. Along our coasts, we have established over 350 marine protected areas. On the high seas, our voluntary fishing moratoriums restore marine life. Globally, we are advancing the 2030 Agenda to foster a shared future for the planet. Through global blue partnerships, we join hands to preserve marine vitality. As co-lead of 10 major UN Ocean Decade programs, we have launched international expeditions, advanced marine science, and strengthened worldwide collaboration with developing nations and global partners to understand, protect, and sustain our ocean. As a key advocate, As an early signatory and state party to the BBNJ Agreement, we proudly propose Xiamen, China as the home of its Secretariat. Xiamen is known as a garden city on the sea, a place where people and ocean meet in harmony. More than seven centuries ago, Marco Polo gazed upon these shores and marveled at the ships, the silk, the tales of the maritime Silk Road. Today, this city reaches across continents, its spirit shaped and its shores sustained by the sea. Here, we have never ceased to explore her depths, nor wavered in our pledge to protect her. For the BBNJ Secretariat, we offer a vibrant home, A modern 15-story smart office tower, two premium three-story villas, an international conference center steps away, and advanced facilities throughout, supported by world-class healthcare and education, and embraced by charming cafes and restaurants. This is a space designed for dialogue, sharing, and collaboration. backed by the full commitment of a city ready to serve. Here, every voice will be heard, every nation welcomed, every mission strengthened by a shared devotion to the sea. Yet Xiamen is more than a place to work. It is a place to belong. Warm, welcoming, deeply livable. It offers not just a base, but a home. We invite you to Saimen. Together, let us write the next chapter of this symphony, one of human-ocean harmony for our ocean and for our future.

Welcome to Japan. Next

station is Terminal Station.

Good morning.

Now my colleagues and I are happy to take your questions.

I thank the Honorable Vice Minister for the presentation, and I will now open the floor for questions. The distinguished representative of Pakistan has asked for the floor. Pakistan, the floor is yours.

Well, thank you, Vice Foreign Minister from the People's Republic of China.

I would like to express its solid support to China for hosting the Secretariat of BBNJ. Xiamen is known for its open and inclusive spirit, flourishing blue economy, state-of-the-art infrastructure, and robust maritime research culture. If selected for hosting the BBNJ Secretariat, the city can serve as an operational hub for implementing the BBNJ agreement and for enhancing the common well-being of humanity. Selecting Xiamen for hosting the Secretariat will also be a befitting acknowledgment of China's persistent efforts for conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, combating marine pollution, and for its commitment to green shipping corridors. Pakistan, therefore, would like to extend its support to China and express our best wishes to the Government of China for a successful campaign.

Thank you very much.

I thank you, and I now give the floor to the European Union. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Minister, for this presentation. Clearing house mechanism of the BBNJ agreement is really the powerhouse of the agreement. And we wanted to, I'm speaking on behalf of the EU and its member states, we wanted to ask you how you envisage the secretariat's management of clearing house mechanism as regards ensuring long-term stability, accessibility to the data and information accessibility and confidentiality of data? Also, would this proposal allow for a governance model in which the Secretariat ensures coordination and management for the clearinghouse mechanism, while the underlying data infrastructure is facilitated by an internationally trusted institution? Thank you very much.

On the future model of the Secretariat, we've discussed that with relevant delegates and parties involved. The BBIANJ Secretariat, it is an independent and new body. Thus, if China has the chance to host the Secretariat, We will be fair and we will be objective to ensure that the Secretariat can perform its duties, and we will work to build a platform for equal-footed consultation, for data sharing under the Secretariat. Considering that over the past 20 years, DOALUS has played a very important role for the negotiations. adoption and entering to force of the BBNJ agreement, we believe in this transitional phase, the Office of DUALIS should continue to play its role and to ensure a certain continuity between DUALIS and the new Secretariat. And also, we support the future Secretariat to have closer link with the UN. This is also our firm support to the UN multilateralism under current circumstances. Also, now many parties think that the Secretariat should also have a certain degree of autonomy. China is also in support of that. So China will be very open and very constructive. We will continue to discuss with all sides and to set out a best model for the Secretariat for all, which will also best serve the discharge of duties of the Secretariat. Thank you.

I thank the Vice Minister, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belarus.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the Foreign Minister for this comprehensive presentation. For our part, I’d like to comment that the Republic of Belarus wholeheartedly supports the nomination of Xia Min. proposed by the People's Republic of China for the Secretariat of the Organization, namely the BBNJ. We acknowledge the strong role and the contribution of China to managing marine resources. It is our conviction that putting the Secretariat in Xiamen will be an important contribution to the consolidation of international cooperation in terms of strengthening the Law of the Sea, and thus will facilitate sustainable development, both at the regional level and at the global scale. We’d like to note the strong expertise and that China has in managing the whole range of management of marine resources and supporting biological diversity. We are convinced that the nomination of Xiamen meets all necessary requirements and merits universal support. The Republic of Belarus assures its unconditional support to this Chinese initiative. I thank you.

I thank Belarus and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nicaragua.

Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Chair, and a very good morning, everyone. The delegation of the Republic of Nicaragua applauds and welcomes the distinguished representative Hua Chunying, representing the People's Republic of China. We also thank and congratulate the sister People's Republic of China for the presentation and for their bids to propose the city of Xiamen as the headquarters of the Secretariat of the BBNJ on the conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The candidature is being proposed at a highly relevant moment and is an appropriate alternative to host the permanent secretariat of the Secretariat of the BBNJ. We reiterate Nicaragua's firm support to this bid, certain of the fact that the People's Republic of China, in their capacity as host country, will provide the BBNJ Agreement Secretariat with all of the logistical, technical, and cooperation conditions required for the efficient discharging of its role. Furthermore, the city of Xiamen being proposed as the headquarters for the Secretariat is important since it shares a privilege with the continents of the Americas, Africa, and Europe in having geographical distribution for different headquarters of UN bodies is important. The People's Republic of China has been characterized as a nation that is firmly committed to multilateralism and to the strengthening of the Global South to benefit developing countries. We can underscore their support for marine research and protecting the marine environment on the oceans and the seas, as well as the leading role that they played in the negotiations for the BBNJ agreement. In this regard, their bid reaffirms a clear commitment on the part of the PRC to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Chair.

Nicaragua. Delegates, I have a reasonably long list. Can I suggest the following? In the time we have available, we will seek to take questions from Maldives, Vietnam, and Germany. I then have on the list the State of Palestine, France, Japan, and Liberia. I don’t think we will get to them in time. Could I encourage the delegation of China to reach out to those countries to seek to answer questions directly? And with that, I will give the floor to the Maldives.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The Maldives would like to thank China for its comprehensive presentation this morning.

The Maldives is pleased to express its full support for China's bid to host the Secretariat.

We wish the delegation all the best in their effort to seek support.

The Maldives commends China's thoughtful and practical proposal to host the BBNJ Secretariat.

The offer demonstrates a clear readiness, including dedicated facilities, support for capacity building, and sustained engagement.

The Maldives commends China's strong commitment to multilateralism.

We also note China’s hosting of BBNJ

Secretariat will ensure equitable geographical representation under UNCLOS framework, with no existing hub in Asia as of now.

For small island developing states such as the Maldives,

the emphasis on the implementation support and financial support is especially meaningful.

I wish you all the best.

Thank you.

I thank the Maldives and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Vietnam.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. The delegation of Vietnam thanks China for its detailed and informative briefing and notes with appreciation its proposal to host the Secretariat in Xiamen. We take note in particular of the proposal's emphasis on fostering international cooperation, advancing marine science and technology, and promoting knowledge sharing among parties. These elements could make a meaningful contribution to the implementation of the agreement, particularly in support of developing countries. Vietnam will continue to follow this candidacy as discussions progress. With a view to further consideration by the PrepCom and by COP1 regarding the location of the Secretariat, we would welcome further clarification on two points. First, how does China envisage mobilizing Xiamen’s strength in marine science and technology to support the work of the Secretariat, including in the areas of capacity building and knowledge sharing for developing countries? And second, what forms of assistance, financial, logistical, and technical, could be made available by the host country to facilitate the attendance and effective participation of geographically distant developing states, in particular small island developing states, in meeting under the BBNJ agreement? I thank you.

Well, thank you, representative from Vietnam. The questions you raised are all very important. China is always committed to marine science cooperation, and we've worked actively for marine biodiversity restoration and development of blue economy. We've been sharing our experiences with many parties. From my presentation and videos, you must have seen that we have many scientific institutions that have taken an active part Under the UN Ocean Decade, we've also provided the international community with large language models such as DEPS-GDP, and we've been sharing all our technologies and data in an open manner. Over the years, we've also pushed forward biodiversity conservation and offshore environmental conservation with other developing countries. Going forward, China will initiate more joint deep sea research expedition tours with other countries and open up our technology data platform to other countries and continue such joint expedition. I mentioned Xiamen is the birthplace of China's marine science and also a very influential research hub on marine science in Xiamen. It has many world-class research institutes. Xiamen is the home port of many scientific vessels. For instance, the Tachen research vessels have invited many global scientists on board for deep sea We will continue to do that in the future. And for developing countries, in terms of capacity building, in terms of providing financial support to least developed countries and small island countries for their participation in relevant meetings, as I mentioned, we will provide, as a first step, 3 million US dollars to help developing countries and least developed countries to take part in meetings. And going forward, we will also consider making more contributions, and Salmon will also give best conditions for participation. For instance, we have facilities ready for training programs. I invite my – well, that's my response. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vice Minister. And I give the floor to Germany.

Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of Germany as a member state of the EU, and I thank you very much for your presentation and for the possibility to ask questions. A specific question from our side would be that the BBNJ agreement, as it provides that the COP shall promote transparency in a decision-making procedure, and it also provides, as a rule, all meetings of the COP shall be open for observers. So the question is, how do you intend to facilitate participation of all delegates, experts, and civil society representatives, including observers? Also, given the situation that if your country has objected to observers, how do you address that? How do you plan to address that in the context of the BBNJ agreement? And one additional point, if I may, as we ran out of time, or we run out of time, if it's possible to also convey questions in written form. Thank you very much.

Well, first of all, let me say that we welcome anyone to give us questions in writing at any time. We will give you as much details as possible.

Your question is about how to ensure the participation of all sides? Let me say this.

Please rest assured, we welcome delegates from all countries. from all levels, including NGOs, including those from countries without diplomatic relations with China, to attend BBNG-related meetings in Xiamen. In fact, in China, we always hold all kinds of multilateral meetings at various levels, and there has never been any restriction for the participation. After we deposited our instrument, actually, many NGOs have given China the praise. We believe that China's participation will help with the full and effective implementation of the BBNJ. This shows that all sides and all observers, they very much look forward to China's contribution to the BBNJ's implementation. Of course, we welcome foreign NGOs and observers to come to China for meetings in accordance with laws and rules. If the secretariat is in Xiamen, then we will act with the COP’s Rules of Procedure, the Headquarter Agreement, as well as other relevant laws and regulations to ensure that observers, to ensure that NGOs have the right to take part in the meetings. And we will provide them with the facilities from their visa procedure to come here for the meeting. So please assured we will do everything we can and provide convenience. Thank you.

I thank the Vice Minister. Delegates, I have three states inscribed on my speakers list, the State of Palestine, Japan, and the Solomon Islands. Given that the time has expired, I will pass the names of those countries and ask the Chinese delegation to liaise with them direct. I note that the Honourable Vice Minister has also extended the offer to answer any questions that are provided in writing. We have gone slightly over time for this session, so I will note to the other two bidding countries that we will keep a record and ensure that the same amount of time is also available to the other two bidding countries. And with that, I would thank the Honourable Vice Minister very much for her presence here this morning, and have a great day. Thank you. Distinguished delegates, thank you for your attention this morning. Just a short procedural note, particularly for the delegations of Belgium and Chile. The time that was utilized in that session was 42 minutes. So we will, of course, ensure that the same amount of time of 42 minutes is provided for the respective presentations of both Belgium and Chile for presentations and then questions and answer. With that, we will now provide brief oral reports on the parallel discussions that took place yesterday under item five of the agenda. In this respect, we wish to note that oral reports are not meant to be an exhaustive and detailed summary of all of the views expressed and the proposals made, but rather to provide an idea of the topics that seem to be the focus of delegations, interventions, and the general trends in the discussions. The reports are, of course, without prejudice to the discussions still to be held at PrepCom 3. I think this is a comment we've made every day now for the PrepCom, so maybe if we can take that as read for all future sessions, we can save ourselves a little bit of time. And with that, I will pass the floor to Janine first to provide the oral reports for her sessions.

Thank you very much, and good morning to everyone. A second meeting on operationalization of other provisions on financial resources and mechanism under the agreement. with a focus on the Special Fund and the Voluntary Trust Fund, took place yesterday afternoon in Conference Room 4. With regard to the Special Fund, delegations considered the appendix of the draft decision of the Conference of the Parties for the purpose of operationalizing the Special Fund as contained in the annex to the note by the co-chairs. which contains terms of reference for the process to assist in such operationalization, thereby completing a full reading of the draft decision. Thank you very much. During the meeting, different views were expressed on a range of issues, including the purpose and mandate of the process, including its output, the key elements for the process to consider, with additional elements proposed, and the modalities of the process, with proposals made to further elaborate decision-making procedures, quorum requirements, and the possibility of inviting experts to participate in the process. While we understand the position of the need for an open-ended ad hoc working group, delegates did express flexibility and focus mainly on the inclusivity and participatory nature of the process. Furthermore, given the weight of the room in favor of the ad hoc committee with limited size, The co-chairs will consider working modalities that may involve meeting in an informal format to help identify a possible landing zone. We will, of course, inform delegation in advance of our next meeting on this matter, scheduled for Friday afternoon, which is just a day away. We then turned to the Voluntary Trust Fund, where we completed a reading of the first seven paragraphs of the draft text of potential terms of reference, as contained in the annex to the aid to discussions and negotiations prepared by the co-chairs. There appeared to be general openness to elaborating terms of reference for the Voluntary Trust Fund, with some support expressed for such terms to be annexed to the Financial Rules. However, further discussions will be required on the appropriate level of detail so as to provide sufficient guidance while avoiding micromanaging the administration of the Voluntary Trust Fund. There was also broad support for limited financial assistance from the Voluntary Trust Fund to the scope set out in Article 52, paragraph 4 of the Agreement, while some support was expressed for expanding that scope subject to certain conditions. Further discussions will be required on which meetings should be eligible for funding and on whether there should be a limit on the number of representatives from each developing State Party that may receive funding for each meeting. Regarding the way forward, our intention is to complete a full reading of the draft text later today, time permitting, following our consideration of arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat. turning next to the meeting on arrangements with the Global Environment Facility to give effect to the relevant provisions on funding. We had our first meeting yesterday morning, 24 March, in the Trusteeship Council chamber, based on the further revised aid to discussions and negotiations prepared by the co-chairs. Discussions focused on bracketed texts, without prejudice to any proposals of delegations on other texts, and some progress was made. There was broad support for referring to Article 7 of the Agreement on general principles and approaches in the preamble and in paragraph 2, while further consideration will be required on whether to refer to specific principles and approaches in the preamble. Further consideration will also be required on bracketed text and proposals made relating to guidance from the COP and conformity therewith, including those concerning Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and those concerning redress in the event of a decision of GEF is considered inconsistent with COP guidance. We started discussing bracketed text relating to reporting requirements and will continue when this issue is next considered. In the meantime, we as co-chairs will consult with delegations with a view to identifying appropriate working methods to advance discussions on this matter, in particular on issues where divergence remain. Thank you very much, Adam. Over back to you.

Thank you, Janine. Turning to rules of procedure, which continue during a second meeting on the topic held yesterday morning, 24 March. The discussions continued to focus on bracketed text in the document, in particular on draft rule 4, on the date of meetings, and draft rule 6, on observers. With regard to draft rule 4, there seemed to be convergence that unless otherwise decided by the Conference of the Parties, the meetings of the Conference of the Parties should be held annually initially, shifting to meeting every other year at some point. Discussions addressed whether to include a sunset clause on annual meetings in the text of the rule. Delegations also discussed the threshold for deciding on the holding of extraordinary meetings, whether this was decided during an ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties or upon the written request of a Party. With regard to draft rule 6, delegations generally supported the new structure of the draft rule. Discussions addressed the modalities of decision-making on the participation of observers, including possible thresholds for objections and whether to include a non-objection procedure in relation to some categories of observers. whether observers, once approved, could participate in all future sessions of the Conference of Parties; the modalities for the delivery of statements by observers; and whether to include a specific provision on the participation of Indigenous Peoples. Following the delivery of oral reports, we will continue the consideration of the Rules of Procedure the Conference of Parties this morning in CR11, starting with the bracketed text in draft section 4 on the agenda, that is rules 9 to 13, after which we will discuss the composition of the Bureau, rule 22, the draft rules relating to subsidiary bodies, section 7, and other resolved issues. For those who were present yesterday morning, at the end of the session, I did read out the list of issues that are remaining for us to consider and resolve, and it is fair to say that while we've been working well and productively, there remains a lot to do in the remaining two sessions. So if necessary, in order to progress the work on this document, We will be looking for other opportunities to accommodate continued conversation on the Rules of Procedure throughout this week, in addition to sessions scheduled in the organisation of work. This includes if other scheduled items finish early. As such, please note the following: delegations should be prepared to consider the Rules of Procedure at short notice should that opportunity arise. And as ever, Janine and I will try to ensure that we provide as much notice in advance of that as we possibly can. If I can turn now to subsidiary bodies. The second meeting on subsidiary bodies was held yesterday afternoon, 24 March, continuing discussions based on the aid prepared by the co-chairs. The discussions focused on cross-cutting modalities for the operation of the subsidiary bodies, including the program of work, decision-making, recommendations, reporting requirements, experts, financial arrangements, and cooperation and coordination with IFBs. A number of delegations observed that the work of the subsidiary bodies should not be micromanaged. It was generally recognized that subsidiary bodies should have flexibility in developing their own programs of work. Discussions considered the level of COP oversight, a joint work program for small island developing states across subsidiary bodies, and a dedicated agenda item for IFB cooperation. In terms of decision making, delegations converged on consensus as a primary objective, with voting as a last resort. Discussions also addressed reflecting minority views in the reports and the possibility of developing a silent or non-objection procedure for virtual or intercessional work. Concerning recommendations, delegations generally supported the inclusion of options where appropriate, and as reasons for recommendations, where appropriate, and reasons for recommendations. On reporting requirements, delegations discussed the contents, frequency, and timeline of reports. On possible engagement with the proposed advisory group on the mechanism on Indigenous peoples and local communities, discussions highlighted various cross-cutting issues in the work of the subsidiary bodies that may be relevant. such a group or mechanism be established under the Agreement. On the topic of experts, delegations appeared to converge on the need for subsidiary bodies to have the ability to invite experts to participate in their work and in the work of any subgroups, while taking into account gender and geographical considerations in this respect. The establishment of rosters of experts under the scientific and technical body was discussed. On financial arrangements, delegations highlighted the need for alignment with ongoing work under other work streams, including the voluntary trust fund. With regard to cooperation and coordination between subsidiary bodies and the relevant IFBs, and the importance of ensuring consistency with ongoing work under other work streams was highlighted. We will take up the subsidiary bodies again on Thursday afternoon, where we will aim to complete the first round of consideration of the document. We will begin with Part 4, Conflicts of Interest, followed by the cross-cutting paragraphs of Part 2, Purposes and Functions, after which we will discuss observers and any other essential items from delegations in order to conclude the first round consideration of the document. For those delegations who were present yesterday in subsidiary bodies, I thank you. We worked extremely well and very efficiently, and perhaps even had a little bit of fun along the way. We're now ahead of schedule, and if we can conclude consideration of subsidiary bodies in the next session, that will create much needed space in our program for consideration of other issues. And with that, the floor is now open for comments on the reports just made, bearing in mind that they are not meant to be an exhaustive reflection of all of the views and proposals, but rather to identify the main issues that have been the focus of delegations, interventions, and the way forward. I see that the Dominican Republic has requested the floor. The floor is yours.

Distinguished co-chairs, colleagues, for the Dominican Republic, it's the highest honor to announce today the ratification of the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, and to become the the 87th State Party. With this step, our country reaffirms its unequivocal commitment to multilateralism, to international law, and to the responsible governance of the oceans. We assume this ratification with the conviction that protecting marine biodiversity is not an option, but rather it is a shared responsibility. For the Dominican Republic, in our capacity as an island state, the ocean is not a distant or abstract reality, it is a vital resource. It is sustenance, it's protection, it's an opportunity, but above all, it's an indissociable part of our identity, of our economy, and of our culture. Our history, our communities, our coastal communities, Our ways of life and our aspirations for sustainable development are profoundly linked to the sea. The Dominican Republic joins with determination the collective effort to strengthen the health of the oceans, to preserve their ecosystems, to promote a just and sustainable use of their resources, and to ensure that the benefits also reach developing countries, in particular small island. States. Our message today is clear: we believe in a healthy, resilient and productive ocean; we believe in equity, in access to its benefits on an equitable basis; and we believe in collective action as the only way to respond to the environmental challenges of our times. We therefore reiterate our firm commitment to the swift, active implementation of the Agreement, and we urge States who have not yet done so to join this common effort. Thank you very much, co-Chairs.

Muchas gracias to the Dominican Republic, and delegates, I think it's become custom in these proceedings to greet such welcome announcements with a round of applause. Congratulations to the Dominican Republic. I will assume we've got no questions, other questions on the oral reports. No, Cote d'Ivoire has sought the floor. The floor is yours.

Good morning, everyone. I want to thank you for the excellent work and report, and.

I want to ask a question about the roster of experts.

In the reports, we heard that the roster of experts was discussed. I would like to know what was written for this question, the roster of experts for the STB. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cote d’Ivoire, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. Yes. I do remember the discussion. I have to be frank, I can't remember the exact outcome. Allow me to recheck our notes and I will come back to you at a minimum at the beginning of the session on this item tomorrow afternoon. But I'll come back to you before then for relaying on to other members of the Africa Group. Thank you. Okay, I see no other questions, so we will now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow delegations to rearrange themselves as needed. In this conference room, conference room 4, we will continue our consideration of arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat, and time permitting, we will then return to the consideration of the draft text on potential terms of reference for the Voluntary Trust Fund with a view to completing a full reading of the draft text. That session will be chaired by Janine, and at the same time in conference room 11, delegations will continue considering rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties, and that will be chaired by myself. This session is now suspended for five minutes. Thank you.

Distinguished colleagues, we shall now resume the meeting to consider arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat. May I invite those delegations who wish to have a conversation, if you can do so outside of the room, please? Thank you. You will recall that during our meeting on Monday, there was broad support for the development of a draft decision of the Conference of the Parties addressing the type of relationship that may be established between the Secretariat and the United Nations. A number of delegations also supported the Preparatory Commission developing modalities for the appointment of the head of the Secretariat for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its first meeting. Accordingly, a co-chairs non-paper on arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat established under the BBNG agreement was circulated to delegations on Monday evening for consideration during our meeting today, and I wish to thank Dwalis for helping out with getting that out to you despite the late hour. The co-chairs non-paper contains a draft COP decision offering two alternative options for the establishment of an institutional relationship between the United Nations and the Secretariat, inspired by precedents from the secretariats of existing entities. The draft decision also addresses the appointment of the head of the Secretariat, offering two alternative options depending on the type of institutional relationship to be established between the United Nations and and the Secretariat. My plan for today is to take up that non-paper and to go through the paragraphs, and where there may be need for some further elaboration, I would invite you to provide that elaboration, and I will prompt you with specific questions if need be. I also wanted to thank many of you who actually posted your statements. It was very helpful to see where sort of the weight is tending, but also it did, for me, it did highlight some of the issues that we might need to clarify during our conversation today. And I want this to be more of a conversation so we can move towards a common understanding of where it's more likely that we will land. So I will start off treating with the preamble together. There are only two paragraphs in the preamble, so hopefully we can move forward from there and then go into option one. Ahead of option one and option two, in regards to the different types of arrangements, I do want to highlight that regardless of which option we choose, there is a need for certain steps to be taken by the PrepCom with engagement of the Secretary General. And I will specify those once we come to those. So let me first open the floor on paragraphs, preamble paragraphs one and two, the only preamble paragraphs. European Union, you have the floor.

Good morning, colleagues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've heard your comments and your wish that we address preamble paragraphs one and two, but we're also going to address option one in our statement, if that's okay. We won't address the selection of the head for the moment. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member states. The EU and its member states would first like to commend you and your team for the prompt preparation and timely circulation of the draft decision concerning the relationship between the Secretariat and the United Nations. In light of the tight schedule we have at PrepCom, we truly appreciate your responsiveness in engaging with your mandate by preparing this draft text, which aids our negotiations and advances our discussions. Madam Co-Chair, following our meeting on Monday, the EU and its Member States reflected on the statements delivered, and we believe that there was broad support across most regions for a number of shared core principles for the Secretariat's design. In particular, we noted that many delegations called for a Secretariat that has strong institutional links to the UN, but retains functional, operational, and budgetary control under the supervision of the Conference of the Parties. We noted that while some delegations supported these core principles, they also used the word autonomy or autonomous when describing their preferred model. We understand that those delegations use these terms in the sense that the Secretariat would not be integrated into the work programme and management structure of any particular UN department or programme, and shall perform its functions under the guidance of the COP. We believe that the term was not used to describe a standalone Secretariat that operates autonomously from the United Nations, such as the ISA-type model. In light of these observations, the EU and its Member States have carefully reviewed the draft decision and the proposed options set out in it. We strongly support option 1 for the institutional relationship, and we anticipate that the majority of delegations would also support this option. We believe this option closely aligns with the core principles identified in most statements on Monday. Specifically, Option 1 creates an institutional link to the UN while preserving functional, operational, and budgetary autonomy for the Secretariat. This form of Secretariat will also be able to operate in a cost-efficient and effective manner by leveraging existing UN expertise in areas such as conference services and administrative support. Option 1 is a pragmatic choice that reflects the common elements expressed predominantly when we last met. Critically, By advancing with option one, we can achieve our goal for the rapid establishment of the Secretariat and avoid the inevitable lengthy delays associated with negotiating the multiple distinct elements of an ad hoc relationship agreement with the UN as required under option two. Option one also ensures that the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities applies automatically and thus does not require the negotiation and ratification of a separate privileges and immunities instrument. Madam Co-Chair, I have some suggestions as how we should advance with option one, but perhaps I will leave that till we come back to that part as requested. Thank you.

Thank you very much, European Union. I appreciate your reflections on the debate or the discussion that we had on Monday. And let's hear from other delegations. I think I have Ghana speaking on behalf of the African group.

Yes, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you. Like the EU, we'd also like to address the preamble together with the issue of the arrangements for the Secretariat. We support most of what the EU said. So for the African Group, we would also like to thank you for submitting the non-drafts for the consideration of the first COP. And on the preamble, we agree with both preamble paragraphs. On the relationship between the BBNJ Secretariat and the United Nations Secretariat, the African Group supports option one, which establishes the Secretariat as an entity institutionally linked to the United Nations, but functionally independent. This ensures administrative efficiency through the United Nations while preserving full operational and decision-making authority under the COP. The African Group is, in principle, supportive of the COP accepting the administrative support arrangements to be proposed by the Secretary-General under paragraph 2 of option 1. It is our understanding that these arrangements will serve as a guarantee for essential functions, including full access to conference services, extension of privileges and immunities to all Secretariat personnel, and any other matter that will be for the benefit of the BBNJ Secretariat. The African Group supports a review of the arrangements as envisaged in paragraph 3 of option 1 within a four-year period to ensure stability while allowing for adjustments based on performance and represents responsiveness to developing states. The duration is necessary to provide a sufficient operational baseline to evaluate the effectiveness of the linkage and incorporate any necessary modifications. Furthermore, we support in principle the inclusion of the placeholder in paragraph 8X concerning interim arrangements, as such measures are vital to ensure functional continuity and a smooth transition until the Secretariat established under Article 50 fully commences its duties. That will be all for now. We'll come back later on the appointment of the head of the Secretariat. Thank you, madam.

Thank you very much, Ghana, speaking on behalf of the African group. And then we've naturally transitioned into discussing the options. So let's assume that there aren't any burning issues with the preamble, and we'll just continue into the discussion on the options. Palau, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of EOSIS. We would like to thank you, Madam Chair, for your non-paper on the functioning of the Secretariat. We believe it captures much of the key issues that were discussed on Monday and helpfully focuses our discussions. More importantly, the draft decision demonstrates that discussions on this issue have matured, and we are coming closer together to identifying the best way forward. For EOSIS, we feel that starting from option one on establishing an institutional link between the UN and BBNJ secretariats allows us to get the BBNJ where it really needs to be, that is out of these UN rooms and into the communities, classrooms, and villages that will make a difference. Having said that, we think there is still opportunity to merge some of the text in both options that have been provided. And we do have some bigger questions on which we would appreciate the advice from the Office of Legal Affairs. So, as we said earlier, we support option one, paragraph one. Some of the questions We support option 1, paragraph 1, and we strongly support the last part of that paragraph to ensure that the future BBNJ Secretariat is appropriately insulated from the liquidity issues and budgetary control of other organizations. We know that this was the similar approach that was taken in the UNFCCC and UNCCD. I'll stop there. Thank you.

I wish to thank Palau, speaking on behalf of EOSIS and for setting out the preference of the group. I now turn to Canada. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. With your indulgence, I would like to speak on behalf of CANZI, but given that Canada has not yet had an opportunity to deliver introductory remarks, we would like to do so at this point. It will be very brief. Thank you. So, consistent with views expressed by others in the first session, Canada wishes to indicate its general preference for a UN-linked secretariat that enjoys sufficient autonomy to optimize cost efficiency, service delivery, and institutional legitimacy while maintaining appropriate accountability to the COP. Turning now to speak on behalf of CANZIE, we would like to thank the co-chair for facilitating a constructive discussion on secretariat arrangements and for circulating the draft decision concerning the relationship between the secretariat established under Article 50 of the Agreement and the United Nations. With respect to the relationship between the Secretariat and the UN, as well as the appointment of the head of the Secretariat, CANZI would appreciate clarification from the co-chair on the following two points: If the organization is fully independent, would it still be able to make use of UN rules and systems related to staffing and financial management? Would such use require subsequent negotiations by Member States? Secondly, If the organization has an institutional link to the UN, could the co-chair clarify whether the COP can still elect the head of the secretariat? If there are any legal or practical issues with such a mix of options, we would appreciate clarity on these. And of course, if the co-chair find appropriate and helpful, we would be happy to hear from the Office of Legal Affairs on those questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Canada, and also speaking on behalf of KENZI. And thank you for the questions. And as we heard just now from Palau, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, there may be other questions that arise. And so we will collect those and have the appropriate expertise to respond to them. Thank you. I wish to offer the floor to Fiji.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Pacific Islands, small islands and developing states. PCID aligns itself with the statement delivered by OSIS.

We have already communicated our position on this issue, but there are points that we are repeating.

On the institutional model, PCID is able to work with either options under consideration.

What is essential for PCID is that the parties to the agreement elect the head of the Secretariat.

Will remain solely accountable to the parties and that the Secretariat operates under its own budget.

These are foundational elements of institutional accountability and ownership by the parties.

PCH also considers the synergies in maintaining a link to the United Nations and its common systems.

Access to the established framework of the United Nations would support the effective operationalization of the Secretariat.

We will conclude here, as OSIS has already conveyed the substance of our position.

Thank you.

I wish to thank Fiji speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. And I wish now to give the floor to Turkey.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We also would like to thank you for preparing non-paper on this matter. And with regard to the relationship between the Secretariat and the United Nations, we also support option one. In our view, this option provides an appropriate basis for ensuring a clear institutional linkage with the UN while preserving the autonomy of the Secretariat under the authority of the COP. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you very much, Toki. So we're entering the option one. which has, well, naturally, sequentially, that's the one we will address. And we've already heard the positions on paragraph one, operative paragraph one. I'd like to offer the floor to any other delegation that wishes to speak to this. Mexico speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madame Co-Chair. Just like other groups, like the European Union and AOSIS, we would like to thank you and your team for all of the work you did and for your swift responses for us to make headway with this work. I would like to clarify a little bit the position of CLAM. First of all, underscoring that what we want is a secretariat. that combines operational functionality and functionalness, and that responds to the COP with a specific relationship through agreements with the United Nations system to make inclusive and efficient use, but also for it to be led by states. We believe that it's important for the designation of the Secretariat to be done by the COP itself and for it to only be responsible to the COP. We would also be interested in it having its own legal capacity and personality, and in this regard, in principle, we would incline for option two, we would be inclined to support option 2, and we believe that before we advance, we could answer some questions that were raised by colleagues such as the delegation of Canada. However, in principle, we also have some suggestions for text for option 2. Can we read them now? Can we read them now?

If we could do, you said option two, right?

Yeah, option dos.

Yes, that's right, option two.

Go ahead, it's a short decision, so.

Okay, for one, we would like.

In B? Instead of cooperation, we could use consultations between the secretariats. In C, we could use exchange of data, information, and documentation. In D, we would like to put administrative cooperation, comma, including a standardization of personnel. In the next one, in respect of D, E, sorry, is participation in the United Nations Pension Fund. In F, just to add UN facilities, which could be now Now, subparagraph (g) could be cooperation in budgetary and financial matters. And in the last one, which could be another subparagraph, is the use of the United Nations laissez-passer for Secretariat of the B&J Agreement staff without prejudice to the issuance of its own travel documents. So We can.

Send these additions in writing also. And finally, we'd like to talk about interim arrangements, like other people have, at the right moment, if you agree.

Thank you. Yes, I appreciate that, Mexico. Speaking on behalf of COM, let's hold off on those issues. I also appreciate the point that you made that having heard the questions that have been raised now by several delegations, CLAM would also be interested to hear responses on those questions as well. And I think perhaps that might, some of those questions and maybe more, might be helpful for us to try to build an understanding of where we want to go in terms of this autonomy of the of the BBNJ Secretariat that has been highlighted by all delegations. It's a point that everyone agrees is critical. I wish to revert to Palau, speaking on behalf of AOSIS.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So just on this discussion around the next steps, the process, as we said earlier, we do feel that there is some potential for merger. So from options one and option two, the paragraph two, we think that there is a, they can be merged. So, as we, instead of picking one or the other, we can draw elements from both. Starting from option one, we note that it speaks to a package of administrative support. We certainly think that it is important that we have this ahead of time. Hence, on timing and process, we would like to convey the request to the UNSG sooner rather than later. The UNFCCC INC did this through a co-chair's letter, and we think it could also be done here. This request to the UNSG could include a non-exhaustive indicative list based on paragraph two in option two as guidance. In addition to what is listed there, we would also like to add access to conference services on an interim basis and subject to cost implications. Given we want option, we're going with AOC supports an institutional model link, we think that we should remove item F. We think auditing should be part of this list, support from the Office of Internal Oversight Services, consideration on the process for selecting, evaluating, and removal of the BBNJ SG, and any other matters which the UNSG would like to offer. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Palau, speaking on behalf of IOSIS. So, colleagues, looking at operative paragraph two under option one, we've heard from EOSIS on additional matters that might be requested in some form to the Secretary General, and that would probably sit outside of this decision, unless I'm mistaken, but I think the list is helpful. And I'd like to invite any reflections on the suggestions that have just been made. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, and thank you to Palau for the very sensible suggestion on behalf of AOSIS, which we were largely in agreement with. In our view, in order to advance with this suggested model, we believe that it is necessary for PrepCom to entrust the co-chairs with a mandate to write to the UN Secretary General to request that he commence the internal UN consultations to give effect to the institutional arrangements envisaged by delegations under option one. We suggest that the letter should request the Secretary General advises on what specific institutional arrangements are necessary to address the following elements of the linkages we would like to see: 1. Privileges and immunities; 2. Personnel arrangements; 3. Pension arrangements; 4. Audit oversight; 5. Conference services; 6. Operational support; 7. Cooperation and coordination; Eight, legal capacity and international legal capacity. And finally, nine, interim arrangements. The arrangements proposed by the Secretary-General would then be considered by COP1 and would be given effect to by paragraph 2 of the draft COP decision. Thereafter, we believe that they should be reviewed periodically every four years. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I will revert on the head of the Secretariat in due course.

Thank you very much, European Union. Are there any other reflections then on this preliminary step, but specifically on the issues that would be requested for engagement with the Secretary General? So we've had Palau speak on a list that I will have to check the congruence of what the EU has stated, but Palau has indicated, EOSIS has indicated, sorry, European Union has indicated. Are there any other reflections that we may wish to address in this particular context? I don't see any. If Mexico speak on behalf of CLAM, you have the floor.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. I think that precisely the elements identified in paragraph 2 by several delegations and by ourselves could be a good basis to move forward. And in this regard, it would also be worth asking for flexibility for these cooperation schemes with the United Nations to also be done through specific arrangements. And we also have a doubt about whether in a scheme like the proposal where we have institutional linkage with the UN, the election, would the election be done by the conference of the parties? Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you very much, Mexico, speaking on behalf of CLAM. I will take your intervention as in the same vein of seeking clarification on the mechanics of how these arrangements actually work and the implications it would have effectively for the the institutional linkage and what that means. So as we continue, I'll just continue through this, but I'm collecting all the questions, and then I will just take a pause to make sure that I've had them correctly, because I think this is a helpful discussion to kind of clarify what exactly is the option we need to be focused on. So let's go to paragraph three. I've heard already indications that there is a willingness to have a review, but no specifications on dates and meetings, et cetera. Let me offer the floor to Japan. You will give us some guidance here.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. And firstly, let me join others to appreciate your swift efforts to provide this draft text and to move the discussion forward in an efficient manner. Japan also shares a general support to option one. And on this particular paragraph, we also have a specific suggestion. to specify the meeting currently in the bracket, we consider that the fourth meeting will be the appropriate timing for the review. as it will be the one to be, depending on the outcome of the rules of procedure, but as far as our preference is concerned, we are now supporting the chair's text, which provides that the first three meetings will be yearly convened, and then we will move on to the biannual meeting. So, on that basis, the fourth meeting will be convened in five years from the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. So, we consider that that would be the right time frame to see how things will run through the first several years. It shouldn't be too early in the stage, but it shouldn't be too late. So, I think five years' time will be a sufficient and appropriate time frame for the review. And also, if I may come back to the earlier paragraph, paragraph two, we would like to add something about this, one of the elements which would be covered by this arrangement with the UN Secretary General. As some delegations has mentioned, the need for the the legal, international legal capacity. We have been considering about the need for this and still has some flexibility. But as far as Japan is concerned, we haven't been aware of a very particular case where the lack of legal capacity under the experience of the UNFCCC has caused to the proper functioning of the Secretariat. But if any other parties are aware, we are open to such further explanation for the need, specific need for giving the legal capacity in an international legal basis. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan, and thanks for the clarity, as well as for indicating your willingness to listen. to the proponents for the international legal capacity of the Secretariat. So now let me offer the floor to Iran. You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. While we are still assessing between these two options, option one and option two, and there are very good deliberations by different colleagues, we are looking into these rational and reasonings that are being provided. But if the conference finally decides to opt for option two, we would like to suggest two subcategories in relation to the matters that needs to be referred to in the relationships agreement between the United Nations and the BBNJ Secretariat. The first one is related to the obligation of the United Nations to facilitate access to the UN HQ and relevant meetings for the secretary, the staff, and also representatives of member states. We have seen in relationship agreements that have been concluded between the United Nations and some other international organization, this provision has been included therein, and it's actually a practice. Also, another topic might be considered by the PREPCOM is the internal accountability mechanism. We also have seen that some international organizations have utilized the internal justice system of the United Nations to be used for their own staff. not to, it would be cost effective, actually, and usually when they enter into a relationship with the United Nations, this is also those matters that have been discussed. This could be another matter for the staff, or if there is any particular case provided by a representative of a member state. So these two matters are I think, related to our discussions if the final decision is option two. But then again, as I mentioned, we're not yet inclined towards anyone, just wanted to provide a good face proposal that might be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Iran, for that suggestion. And it is well noted. I wish to give now the floor to Singapore.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. At the outset, we align this intervention with that made by Palau on behalf of ALOSIS. Thank you very much for preparing in such a short period of time the draft text of a COP decision for us to consider at this relatively still early stage of PrepCom 3. We are in agreement with the modality that has been suggested on the floor today of the co-chairs being given the mandate by this PrepCom to send a letter to the UN Secretary-General in order to obtain certain advice on the modalities that we would need to put in place in order to have in order to have a permanent secretariat with institutional linkages to the United Nations for all the benefits that this arrangement would give us. In relation to the question that Mexico, on behalf of CLAM, raised on whether we are able to have a permanent secretariat institutionally linked to the United Nations and yet have its head of secretariat still accountable to the Conference of the Parties of this Agreement, as well as the election by the Conference of the Parties of such head of secretariat, We consider that it would be feasible for the co-chairs of this PrepCom to include such a criterion in the letter that is going to be sent to the UN Secretary-General, so that the advice of the UN Secretary-General can be framed on the basis that it is the wish of the PrepCom to consider the establishment of a permanent secretariat such that the head of the secretariat is elected by the Conference of the Parties and accountable to the Conference of the Parties. We think that would make it clear that that is the basis on which we would appreciate the advice of the UN Secretary-General as to the arrangements that we need to make in order for such a secretariat and head of secretariat that we, the PrepCom, for the Conference of the Parties, envisage. If it would be helpful, we would also be happy to review any draft text that the co-chairs may want to put together by way of that letter to the UN Secretary-General, and we can also perhaps have some time to discuss the text of that letter if you think that that is helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Singapore, and thank you for the offer. I wish to give the floor to Ghana, speaking on behalf of the African Group, and followed by United Kingdom. Ghana.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We would like to support the EU with respect to the list, and would like to add reciprocal representation and administration of justice for staff. Thank you.

Thank you very much. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Good morning, colleagues and distinguished Chair. I'd also like to express my thanks for the prompt circulation of the draft text. I will not repeat at length our intervention on Monday, but save to apologise that our statement doesn't appear to have been properly submitted on Monday evening, which is entirely my fault. So just to repeat and clarify that the UK is strongly supportive of option one and is aligned with the position expressed by many delegates in the room. We also support the proposal from PCID and the EU on the process, which I won't repeat here because we've just heard of, but thank and welcome the offer of Singapore to prepare some draft text. And as regards timing for a review, we also agree with Japan on the fourth meeting and the rationale behind that. Thank you.

Thank you, United Kingdom. I think you offered Singapore a role. But all in good nature. Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you for the reflections on some of the issues that might need to be, that there is a desire to address. And thank you, Singapore, for raising the point that, in fact, the issue that was raised by our colleague from KLAM could actually be a part of one of those issues that's put forward to the Secretary General. Give me one minute, please. Thank you very much, colleagues. I would like to park any discussion on the X paragraph, which is a placeholder for interim arrangements, which is contemplating transitions, just so that we can focus really on how we move forward with this text in a coherent and consistent manner and taking on board all the views that have been expressed so far. So we have also the option two, but I am hearing whilst there is still, and not everyone is settled on option one, there is a lean in towards that, subject to certain reflections, of course. But to be fair, I just wanted to quickly go to option two. And maybe just focusing on the paragraph two, which set out all the different points that would have to be addressed within the context of the relationship agreement. Mexico has already elaborated on some additions there. Iran has also offered additional suggestions. Are there any other that colleagues would wish to address? The floor is open, and then we'll move to, I think, the issue that's really perhaps core to our discussion on the relationship, which is the head of the Secretariat. So any other views in relation to the issues under paragraph two that any delegate wishes to address? I don't see any. So let's move to the matter of the head of the Secretariat. I would open the floor on the two options, because I think I heard some issues around potentially dealing with mergers or other ways of looking at appointment or selection or election, whatever the terminology will be. I have European Union followed by Palau.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Turning to the question of the leadership of the Secretariat, as we previously expressed, the EU and its Member States believe that it is essential that there is a rigorous, open, transparent, and inclusive process for the selection of the head. Within this process, due regard should be given to equal and fair geographic distribution and taking into account gender balance of suitably qualified candidates. In our view, this process can be achieved by the parties nominating candidates, which are evaluated by the COP and subject to a vote by the COP, with the candidate achieving the highest number of votes thereafter being appointed by the UN Secretary-General as head of the Secretariat. This is a hybrid of option one and two in the draft decision. We propose that the head should be at the undersecretary general level and would serve a renewable term of four years, bearing the title of executive secretary. Madam co-chair, as it's the shared goal of all delegations for the BBNJ secretariat to be operational without delay, and given that the first COP will not meet until January 2027, we believe there is sufficient time for parties to submit nominations for candidates for the position of the head before COP1. In this regard, we suggest that nominations could be transmitted to the Wallis by, for example, September of this year, to compile and then publish details of the nominations to parties through the BBNJ's website. This would then enable voting for the head of the Secretariat to take place at COP1, rather than at COP2, as is suggested in the draft decision. The EU and its member states therefore We propose that PREPCom should adopt a decision that establishes the modalities for the nomination process in line with the text suggested in the draft decision. We believe that this will provide a path for certainty for the first meeting of the COP to make definitive arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat, including the choice of its head. And, Madam Chair, just to mention that we totally support Singapore in its suggestion that these issues should be addressed in the letter to the Secretary-General. Thank you.

Thank you, and thanks for that response, because I was going to ask. Palau, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Similar to the EU, we also see potential for merging these options. We don't have any specific textual proposals, but we'd like to present perhaps what AOSIS envisions for this part. At the outset, it is imperative to AOSIS that our BBNJ Secretary General should be chosen by the BBNJ COP. The role of the UNSG in this process should be minimal and completely in support of the BBNJ COP. The process we envision is that firstly, parties will submit nominations to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will circulate those nominations to parties at least six months before the next meeting of the COP with all relevant information, and then the COP would review the nominees and elect the head, and convey this decision to the UN Secretary-General through a BBNJ COP decision. We also feel that there should be term limits. Secretary-Generals should not hold this post for more than two terms with no automatic renewal. Detailed criteria for selecting the Secretary-General, such as geographical rotation, qualifications, and modalities for performance review, can be dealt with in a later COP decision. So we have a couple of questions for OLA or whoever can answer. The first is that in an institutional link model, is it necessary for the UNSG to have a role in selecting the head of the BBNJ Secretariat? Second question, as we indicated earlier, part of the offer from the UNSG could be discussions on the process for selecting, evaluating, and removing the BBNJ SG through and with the BBNJ COP. We are keen to understand if this is possible through the model, if the UNSG makes the final appointments. And also, Madam Chair, if I may just for posterity and transparency. AOSIS has no issues with the preambular paragraphs, and we do have some comments on OPX if you would like to return to that at a later time. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Palau, speaking on behalf of AOSIS. And I do want to just reflect back on what Singapore had indicated about the PrepCom itself potentially establishing one of the criteria being that there's a wish of the PrepCom to elect its own head by the COP and to be accountable to the COP. Just to flag that, having heard your last couple questions. I wish now to give the floor to Ghana, speaking on behalf of the African group, followed then by Mexico, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Co-Chair. So in principle, we support the EU and Palau to some extent, speaking on behalf of AOSIS. Regarding the appointment of the head of the Secretariat, the African Group strongly supports a COP-led selection process contained in Chapter Option 1. This option ensures that the COP retains the primary authority to elect or select the head of the Secretariat and will, in our view, ensure transparency. We propose that this process must, following the election by the COP, involve the UN Secretary-General to carry out the formal appointment and thereby implement the decision of the COP to appoint the head, who shall become a member of staff of the United Nations, bound by the UN Staff Rules and Regulations. The African Group proposes the appointment of the head of the Secretariat for a term of four years, but not in excess of five years. The term can be renewable once, to ensure both institutional continuity and accountability, and to afford the head enough time to make meaningful contributions. Although for the African group, functional independence and accountability to the COP are more critical than rank, we support the proposal that the position of the head must be a senior level position. The African Group notes proposals made in favor of the rank of the head of the Secretariat being at either Assistant Secretary-General or Undersecretary-General, as appropriate. The group is considering the implications that come with each proposed rank and will provide its position in due course. The African Group further expresses support for the administrative procedures proposed under option two, as they ensure that the COP retains its authority over the first and subsequent appointments of the head. However, we would like clarity on paragraph 6, which seems to suggest that OLOS will retain the responsibility of facilitating the nominations of the head of secretariat even after the secretariat is established and fully functional. If the intention is to elect the head of the Secretariat at the first COP, the African groups suggest that the invitations for nominations of candidates should be made soon, following the conclusion of this prep comm, to ensure that states are afforded enough time to submit nominations. And that would be all for now, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Ghana, and for raising that point on paragraph five. That isn't the intention that DUALS would continue. It's just on the assumption that the Secretariat wouldn't be fully functional, and so you would need someone to carry out the process until, of course, the Secretariat is fully functional. But it's not the intention of DUALS being there forever. Even though we love them, we do love them. I wish to now give the floor to Mexico, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We think that the question made by AOSIS is a relevant one, pertaining to the selection on the part of the COP of the BBNJ Secretariat. believe that from our perspective anyway, it's important for the COP to be the body that elects the Secretariat. Also, when it comes to this and other questions that were raised by some of the other groups, on the level, the rank of the Secretariat, relating to other organizations created under the UNCLOS, whether it would be at the level of Secretary General or under Secretariat, which would it be? And coming back to the text, we agree with the importance of geographic representation, like other delegations have mentioned. We believe that a four-year term would be adequate. As pertains to the last question raised by the African Group, perhaps we could amend the text to say “Secretariat generally”. and so that it doesn't entail that it's provisional, or so that we don't make this differentiation and that we make it clear in the text. And this would apply in the same way to paragraph 5. Now, as regards the modalities for the election of the head of the Secretariat, We believe that it's important to lay down clear rules from this moment and build on the basis that was debated in the Rules of Procedure. We believe that we could seek consensus and make all efforts to do so, and we could use majority of two thirds with consecutive rounds. However, we could work on a text on the basis of this idea. And I think, as regards this option, I think that's all for now. Thank you, madam co-chair.

I wish to thank Mexico and also thank you for the suggested edits and for agreeing to the need for some clarity on what role the UN Secretary General could have. And I guess there's one thing about seeking that clarification now from OLA. Or is it a matter of just setting out, this is the criteria that the Prep Com has for, and this is not directed to you in particular, to the room, setting out the criteria under the various arrangements, as was detailed by your group and by other groups, and that is what goes to the Secretary General, because that's what the PREPCOM decides it wants to see as being part of this arrangement with the UN. So just, in my mind, it's a sequencing issue, and maybe if I take a pause and look at it, I might be completely wrong, but it's just maybe thinking through the sequences that we're working with as we proceed with trying to land something for the secretariat arrangements. I do see Ghana. You did ask for the floor again, and my apologies. I think you meant to come back in after I had spoken. So please, Ghana for the Africa Group, and then I'll go to Iran, followed by Turkey, and then Singapore.

Thank you very much, Madame Kocher. Just a minor correction that could have a huge implication. So in our statements, we opted for option two, but in speaking, I inadvertently said option one. That's the minor correction I want to make. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm also mindful that listening to the conversation that we're having right now, it's looking like there could be some potential merger of the option one and option two. So maybe that's some homework that I may have. But let's continue with the list of speakers. I have Iran, followed by Turkey.

Thank you, Madam Kocher. We are mostly inclined to option two, as many delegations also mentioned. That would provide a better opportunity for all parties to engage in this process. However, we believe that it's important that we take appropriate measures to ensure that developing countries are represented at this level, the head of secretariat, properly. Maybe we could add at the end of paragraph 3 a language concerning this, like, while ensuring that the post of head of the Secretariat is rotated in a manner that at least every two terms, the head of the Secretariat is from a developing party. Of course, I'm sure that we could explore more about this. But we believe the geographical representation might not necessarily respond to the important element of developing countries, and we know that developing countries is a cross-cutting element throughout the whole agreement, an important element that we need to take into account, and this is our suggestion in that line. Thank you so much.

Thank you, and thank you for the suggestion. Let me offer the floor now to Turkey.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. With regard to the appointment of the head of the Secretariat, we also would like to align ourselves with the support of option two. We believe that the head of the Secretariat should be elected by the Conference of the Parties, as this would best ensure independence, accountability to State Parties, and the authority of the COP over the Secretariat established under Article 50 of the Agreement. With respect to the nomination process under para 4, as you before mentioned, we see merit in a phased approach. For the initial appointment, nominations could be submitted through the interim secretariat, which for this purpose could be performed by DOLUS. Once the secretariat becomes operational, it could therefore receive nominations directly. And paragraph 5 should be revised accordingly. We will provide our written comments on this paragraph in due course. We would also appreciate seeing the proposal to merge these two options reflected in the text, and we remain open to further consultations and stand ready to engage constructively with other delegations. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you very much, Turkey, and thanks again for highlighting that point about who we're talking to in terms of giving the instructions to conduct these nomination processes. And just to recall that we do sort of have a neat fix because Article 50, which deals with the Secretariat, already recognizes that the interim secretariat functions will be carried out by DUALA, so we might just need to use the terminology that Mexico suggested, secretariat. Let me offer the floor then to Singapore.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. What you just said was exactly what I was going to suggest, making a reference somewhere in this draft decision. to Article 50, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, which states that until such time as our Permanent Secretary commences its function, its functions would then be carried out by DUALOS. Having said that, so that would be in line with the suggestion that was previously made by Mexico on behalf of CLAM and by Turkey. And in terms of fixing maybe the drafting with regard to how the subsequent heads of the Secretariat should be elected. If we do find ourselves in a bind over how to draft this, our suggestion would be that there is no need for this first COP decision to indicate how the future heads or the subsequent heads of the Secretariat will be elected. We think that it is possible. for the COP in a subsequent session to adopt a separate decision on how the subsequent heads of the Secretariat shall be elected. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Singapore, for your comments and for that approach that might be taken in relation to a draft decision here. I wish to give the floor to the European Union, and then I’ll come back to Thailand and then Japan. European Union.

Thank you, madam co-chair. I’m just taking the floor for a quick reaction to Iran’s suggestion in relation to qualifications on the head of the Secretariat. While we said in our statement we support a transparent process with due regard to equitable and fair geographic distribution, we don’t think it’s necessary in this decision to put in any qualifications on how that would work in practice. We believe that would be for a subsequent modalities resolution or decision of the PrepCom, but not in this particular decision that’s under discussion today. There are further suggestions we would have for the head of the Secretariat on qualifications that may apply, but we're not going to get into that detail here at the moment while we're discussing still the format of the election process. Thank you.

I thank the European Union, and I now give the floor to Thailand.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So Thailand wishes to thank the Co-Chair for the updated non-paper, which allow us to have this discussion today. On the section of the head of secretariat, so we are inclined to support option two, but we can see the merit in merging the two options that you mentioned. So in principle, we believe that the election of the head by the COP ensured maximum accountability to the state parties. We think the head of secretariat should be selected from candidates nominated by the parties, and we believe a six month nomination window would allow for vetting process. We also prefer a two-term limit to ensure fresh leadership. And we also echo Awas’s question earlier regarding the possibility of the removal of the head of Secretariat by COP, and this should be included in the letter to the UNSG. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Thailand. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Well, Japan also supports the idea of making a kind of hybrid formulation of option one and two. We had initially supposed that these two options were kind of linked with the first half of this document. So we based our consideration on this option one for the head of the Secretariat, but we also thought that it would require elements of paragraph 3, 4, and 5 to be incorporated into the option one. So the basic idea that the COP should have the substantial role in electing the head of the Secretariat should be the basis of any formulation. And with that, in mind, we thought that the text of the paragraph 4 could be adjusted to read as: "requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations to appoint, following the nomination by the Conference of Parties at its first meeting, the head of the Secretariat" and so on. But this may depend on the whole of the result of the communication with the UN side, whether the formulation is feasible under the legal structure of the UN side. But based on that assumption, We thought that in order to achieve that formulation, the PrepCom needs to decide to establish a process to realize the nomination of the head of the Secretariat by the COP at its first meeting. And as part of such process, parties should be invited to submit nominations for candidates for the the head of the Secretariat to do as the interim Secretariat at least four months before the COP 1, and should be requested to compile and circulate parties' nomination list at least three months before the COP. join others for a preference for a four-year term of the office, and which may be renewed for one additional term, subject to a decision by the COP. So those are the elements that we'd like to have included in the Pact. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. Okay, so I think what I want, if you may, if I may, suggest that we can look to rework those option one and option two through to five, which would cover the paragraphs four through to five, and then having heard the room, and then maybe propose some language on how that could look, recognizing that We still have some other issues to clarify in relation to the earlier discussion regarding institutional linkage. And with that, I will give the floor to Indonesia, then I will just come back to paragraph 6, just for any additional reflections on that particular paragraph. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Ms. Co-Chair. Indonesia would like to, first of all, agree with the views that the head of secretariat shall be elected by COP and remain accountable to the COP. And we were hearing the observations of member states. And one thing that Indonesia highlights is in the UNFCCC model that is currently being one of the most chosen method and mechanism of BBNJ secretariat. There is a wording in the UNGA resolution and in the COP decision that establishes this linkage on the accountability of the UNFCCC Head of Secretariat to UN Secretary General for administrative and budgetary or financial matters. And Indonesia also observes that it hasn't been discussed. in the current agenda item, since Indonesia, within Indonesia's understanding, this practice will remain the case for the BBNJ Head of Secretariat. Secondly, Indonesia also follows closely the suggestion by the EU on the level of the Executive Secretary or Head of Secretariat. which is the ASG level, Indonesia believes that it is an acceptable suggestion, as the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities also extends the PNI to the head of SEC if they have the ASG level itself. And Indonesia also underlines that this will need to be included in the letter to the SecGen. And Indonesia would like to highlight again, as we have said in the previous discussion on this agenda item, that having the applicability of the 1946 Convention on PNI will be a very practicable arrangement, especially for also the staffs and also the head of secretariat of the BBNJ, because not having these applicability will result in a practical hassle or possibly separate host country agreements if the COP and subsidiary body meetings decide to be held in different countries every year. So Indonesia would like to also highlight that possibility. And on paragraph 4 of option 2, Indonesia believes that it is better to consider both situations where the first COP is unable to operationalize the Secretariat, thus unable to administer the selection process of the head of the Secretariat through the Bureau, and if another situation where the selection of the head of the BBNGS Secretariat is carried out much later, after the first COP, and then the Bureau has possibly been formed. And also, last one, probably a question for members of delegation that support an independent secretariat. If the head of secretariat is elected by COP but not appointed by the UN Secretary General, would there be any separate arrangement or protocol, like the ISA practice, and how that might affect For example, the freedom of movement and the operational movement of the head of Secretariat of the BBNJ agreement, and also its officials. Thank you, Ms. Co-Chair. We will send the written input.

Thank you. That is always helpful. And thank you for your comments. The European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, madam co-chair. Just to briefly respond to those comments, maybe I misspoke or I'm not sure that my colleague from Indonesia misspeak, but the European Union supports the Executive Secretary as the head of the Secretariat at Under-Secretary-General level. That's the same level as the head of the UNFCCC Secretariat, and it's the same level as the ISA, not Assistant Secretary level, Secretary-General level. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification. With that, let me just quickly revert now to paragraph 6, just to offer the floor for comments on this paragraph. I do note that Singapore had indicated a comment on this for others to reflect on as well. The final, well, there are other paragraphs I'm sure that colleagues would like to address their minds to, but I think in the first instance, we want to really understand where the weight is lying, and from the conversation we've had with all delegations now, second time around, there is this interest in having the institutional linkage, but with the autonomy. And the question is, what is that autonomy and how can it be captured in an arrangement that is consistent with the UN rules? There's a suggestion that we might seek some clarification from the appropriate experts in the Secretariat regarding this issue about the appointment or election of the head of the Secretariat. We've taken note of that. I note that Mexico did, in fact, on behalf of CLAM, also raise the question of whether or not there is a a difference in the, I guess, parity between a head that's appointed by the Secretary General versus one that is not. And that's also relevant to the conversation, and I think useful for Clam to have some clarity on. In the meantime, I will give the floor to Chile, and then I'll come back to reflect on some further thoughts. Chile.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We'd just like to ask a question to clarify some of the elements that were mentioned here on the floor. We'd like to direct our question to the International Seabed Authority to clarify what their hierarchy relationship is with the United Nations Secretary General. Some comments have been made about that on the floor, and it would be useful for us to have some more clarity on that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tilly. Indeed, the question was raised in relation to the position that your group had indicated. And so we've taken note of that, and we will get the appropriate expertise to speak to these issues, especially since there's this formula that's now being proposed of a possible nomination process and election within the context of a COP. and then a subsequent appointment by the UN Secretary General. So we'll try to gather the right expertise to be able to respond to the questions to bring some clarity. Give me one moment to collect my thoughts. Thank you very much. The first thing that I, well, i see United Kingdom, you've asked for the floor. Please, go ahead.

Sorry, I just had one further question to add to the growing list of questions that we're going to refer to the experts, relevant experts, which is just to say that we support the proposal of the EU, the Africa Group, and Japan, that given the first conference of the parties will not take place until January, we should progress of nominations ahead of the first conference of the parties to allow a decision on the head to be taken in January 2027 and support the modalities proposed by the EU and Japan. But I guess I think it would be helpful for the question of, is that indeed possible or are there impediments that we're unaware of in the room? If that could be added to the list, I think that would be helpful to reflect on. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom, and in fact, There are two separate lists that we're talking about. So there's a list of the potential arrangements that the Secretary General would be invited to comment on, and then there are some questions that have been posed specifically for clarification now. And in relation to those, I'm hearing two, and then the third one would be, can we actually conduct the nomination process ahead of COP in order for COP1 to elect. So that's a third. But the first one, and we need to have some, I need to ensure that we are clear on what is being asked of our colleagues at the Office of Legal Affairs or wherever the expertise might sit. The first one was with regards to the Let me see if I can get it correct. The possibility of the COP electing, and Canada, you'll have to help me here, electing the head of the Secretariat and the appointment then being formally done by the Secretary General, and whether or not this is possible. And then the second issue is clarity on basically the status of a head of secretariat that's elected by the COP, but appointed by the Secretary-General, vis-à-vis one that's just appointed by the, elected and appointed by, or elected by the COP, by a COP. Is that correct? Canada.

Yes, that's correct. Thank you.

Okay. So here are my two tracks of work then. With your permission, I will have this non-paper refreshed with the comments that have been made. And I know that you have further additions, but I think there needs to be some clarification. So we're heading in the right direction with everybody on board, or as much of you on board as possible. We'll seek out those clarifications that are required now, and then we'll come back to you whenever we have this meeting again. I have no idea when we're meeting on Secretariat Arrangement.

Friday.

Friday. Sorry. But you'll have something from us at least before Friday so that you can reflect further. And please, may I encourage you to continue your conversations with each other, because I think this has been a really constructive discussion. It's helped us tremendously to gain some clarity of where we're leaning, but clearly there are some legal issues that might need to be addressed in order for us to really take a decisive step forward on this. Thank you once again. I had such great ambition that we could do VTF, and I hope that you're okay with us moving over to the Voluntary Trust Fund. We only have a few paragraphs left, and we can push through till the time runs out on us in this room. So if I can ask you to now take out your documents on the Voluntary Trust Fund. And I think we're on eight. Number eight, right? I wish to give the floor to Colombia, speaking on behalf of CLAR.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. Just to give us two minutes. Could you give us two minutes? Because we're waiting for two more people to come into the room. Thank you.

Columbia, is your colleague here? Okay. Let us proceed and hopefully other colleagues will join us shortly. We had ended on seven, and so we want to then turn our attention to paragraph eight of the eight discussions with a draft text of potential terms for the voluntary trust fund. I open the floor on paragraph 8. Palau, speaking on behalf of EOSIS.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So on paragraph 8, we'd prefer that the body that is evaluating these requests would rather be the Bureau, noting the great importance of the Bureau having a dedicated SID seat if that is the case. Thank you. So then we would delete all the reference to an advisory panel of experts, all the way from SIDS. Thanks a lot.

I wish to thank Palau, speaking on behalf of AUCIS, and I now give the floor to the European Union, followed by Nigeria for the African Group.

Thank you very much, Madame Co-Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the UN and its member states, and on their behalf, I can say that we consider that engaging an advisory panel of experts would probably add a layer and would be cumbersome, so we have also a preference for the Secretariat to consult the Bureau. This would be more appropriate, we believe. In the interest of time, I would like to tell you too that we do not have comments on paragraph 9 and 10. Thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to Nigeria, speaking on behalf of.

Africa. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, in the same vein, the Africa Group believes that constituting an advisory panel of experts to assist the Secretariat in evaluating requests and selection of recipients when number of applications exceeds available fund would introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy that is neither necessary nor proportionate for a fund of this nature. So we would like to support the views expressed earlier that the Bureau should be resorted to in this case. Thank you.

I wish to thank Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, and I now give the floor to Papua New Guinea, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. The PSIDS Alliance itself with the G77 and China and AOSIS. As this is the first time I am taking the floor, I wish to thank the co-chairs and the secretariat for the hard work in preparing for this PrepCom and to assure you of the full and wholehearted support of Papua New Guinea. With respect to the draft terms of reference for the voluntary trust fund, the PSEDS fully aligns itself with AOSIS, and we reaffirm the AOSIS positions that have been and will have been stated by the distinguished representative of Palau. As such, in an effort to be expeditious, we We will limit our interventions and not repeat the AOSIS positions unless we feel the need to highlight particular priorities. We thank you again and look forward to a constructive discussion.

I wish to thank Papua New Guinea, speaking on behalf of PICES. Well noted. Egypt, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, madam co-chair, for giving me the floor. We align ourselves with the intervention made by Nigeria on behalf of the African group and join others, PSIDs and EUSAs, for supporting deleting such reference to this advisory board, especially that with all the financial constraints that is already faced, we don't need to add another layer, especially that the Bureau would have a merit because it has a geographical representation. So in case we are setting a priority for assistance that would give a clear guidance and also inclusivity for a decision to be made by the Bureau instead of advisory that wouldn't be clear enough to have the composition and their decision and its institutional capacity, so we already have the Bureau that could serve as advisors and no need for further bureaucracies in this regard. Thank you.

I wish to thank Egypt. I now give the floor to Turkey.

Thank you, madam co-chair. We also would like to echo the room. We support retaining the reference to the Bureau, as it provides a more efficient and practical approach without creating additional structures. Thank you, madam co-chair.

Thank you very much, Turkey. I now give the floor to the Philippines, followed then by Japan.

Thank you, co-chair. The Philippines supports engagement with the Bureau, which incorporates equitable geographic representation. Thank you.

Thank you. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Initially, Japan thought that the selection of recipients would be sufficiently handled by the Secretariat and thought there would be no need to keep this paragraph, but having listened to other delegations and noting that there is broad support for keeping the Bureau taking this role, we are open to that option. And taking this opportunity, I'd like to add technical comments on other paragraphs, paragraph 9, which seems to be an overlap with the financial rule 4.4 bis, so we suggest to delete this for streamlining. And also for the paragraph 13, this is also similar to financial rule 8.1, so we don't see the need to keep this revision paragraph. Thank you.

To thank Japan for those reflections and observations. I'm conscious that we'll probably not finish, but let's continue to paragraphs 9 and 10 together. So Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry for taking the floor a little late, just to join other delegations. that we do support that it be the Bureau and not an advisory group for this election. Thank you.

I wish to thank Brazil. The floor is open. Palau speaking on behalf of AOSIS.

Thanks a lot, madam co-chair. So on 10, we have textual edits. We're okay with nine. We're flexible on what it is, and we heard the position from the delegate from Japan, and we thank her for that. On 10, we would want to include, in addition to the head of the secretary tracking the use and the status of the funds, as well as the number of unfunded requests for financial assistance. We find that that's important information that we would need if we engage in this reporting. The report shall include also information on contributions received, This is disbursements made, administrative cost, comma, as well as forward-looking projections ahead of the next financial period, full stop. So that would be our suggestion, as well as then the next sentence would read, the data and information included in these reports shall be disaggregated by cost category of developing states parties, as it reads there. On 11, that's our only other addition. We chose "urge" as opposed to "encourage," and then we deleted "parties in a position to do so" and are okay with "on a voluntary basis" as it is a voluntary trust fund. That's all of EOSIS's submissions for the remaining paragraphs. They remain unchanged. Over to you, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you, and perhaps I could do that in bulk with the other colleagues to maximize, to optimize the use of our time. I give the floor to Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just to be quick, our views are aligned with everything that has been submitted by the delegation of Palau on behalf of EOSIS, except that the new addition Except that the new addition in paragraph 10, we're just hearing about those proposals now, so we'll have to reflect on them and give our feedback. But the points he made about paragraph 11, we agree to use of the word *******" instead of the lighter term, and then we also support the use of the latter part of paragraph 11. Thank you very much.

Thank you, colleagues. I don't see any more. Okay, Brazil, you have the floor, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair.

I think I did my record run to the UN meeting today.

But thank you very much. Just a quick reaction. We are also going to come back on the EOs as I'm out of breath.

To the IOSCE's proposal very soon in the next reading of the document.

But just on paragraph 11, we would like to.

As of now, support the word "encourage" other parties, and we were not in a position to support the.

Idea of in a position to do so?

We prefer on a voluntary basis in the latter part of OP 11.

Thank you.

You're young. It's an advantage. I wish to give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you very much, co-chair. And I apologize because I said I would not intervene on paragraph 10, but I've heard the intervention of EUSIS. We do not have a priori any problem with the addition that are requested for this paragraph, but we would like to avoid the status of the Fund to be reported by the Secretariat to be confused with the exercise that the Finance Committee has to do regarding the spending of the Fund in general. So this is the first comment, and as far as I understand, we can also go on paragraph 11. So, regarding this paragraph, we could support it, but we believe that the language should take into account the voluntary nature of the contribution possibly provided by the donors. Thus, we would amend the language of this paragraph so that it says At the end, the Secretariat, at least six months prior to each ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties, shall invite parties to contribute to the voluntary trust fund and encourage parties, and there we are in favor of the words "in a position to do so" to ensure that any contributions are paid, et cetera. Thank you very much, co-chair.

Thank you very much, European Union. Are there any other requests for the floor? United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to paragraph 11, to note that we agree with the points made by the delegation from the European Union in terms of encourage and in a position to do so. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, United Kingdom. I don't have any other requests for the floor. Oh, Philippines. I did want to just quickly interject here that in relation to paragraph 11, I know that the focus has been on parties, but there is a well-established precedent that the invitation could actually go to all others, not just parties, and a formulation in that regard could be provided for your reflection. Philippines.

Yes, thank you, co-chair. On OP.11, the Philippines has a preference for "urges" instead of "encourages". Given the importance of funding availability to ensure inclusivity, the Philippines also finds that in a position to do so and voluntary would be unnecessary, given that this is implied by the name of the fund and by the word encourage. In a position to do so is also language that is not used in the agreement. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Philippines. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam.

Co-Chair. As pertains paragraph 11, we would like to strike out "in a position to do so." Thank you.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia. I'm conscious that we have two more minutes, and I think we've covered the whole document, so thank you for that. We will be giving you some guidance on how we'll move forward with this, but clearly it needs to be refreshed in a way. We also need to address two of the core issues on the VTF, which we had discussed before, which is the matter relating to meetings and caps. That's the best way I can think of it right now. I do recognize two additional speakers. I'm not sure how we're going with sound, but Nigeria, do you want to risk it? We might get our mics cut off, but Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African group.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Very quickly, this morning when you presented a summary of our discussions previously, you mentioned regarding what was said about the adoption of the Voluntary Trust Fund. The Africa Group has not actually taken a position, because when we read the documents for this meeting, we saw that there are two options: whether we could annex it to the financial rules, or we could adopt it as a separate item. It seems the Africa Group might be in favor of the second or the latter option, because we do not know what might be the fate of the financial rules during COP1. So if the terms of reference for the VTF is ready, it would be expedient and useful to have it adopted while we continue with the combination of financial were it not to be ready during COP1. So that will be our preference. I just want to point that out for reflections.

Thank you very much. It'll be ready, I think, with your good help. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to announce at quarter past one, I would like to use this very small window we'd like to invite you to a side event in the delegates' cafeteria on the fourth floor. Our Vice Minister, Madam Hua Chunying, and the Mayor of Xiamen will host this event. So after this session, we invite you to go to the delegates' cafeteria on the fourth floor to partake of the lunch and to join the event. Thank you.

And thank you for the announcement. Colleagues, let me first thank the interpreters for their support this morning. We really appreciate it because it helps with our conversations. I'm just looking to the secretary, no announcements. We will continue this afternoon, 3:00 PM sharp, with item five of our agenda. This room will be talking about arrangements to enhance the cooperation with the IFB's decision. I'm not going to read the whole thing. And then in room 11, we'll talk about clearing house mechanism. Thank you very much. Enjoy your lunch. Meeting is adjourned.