Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, Informal Working Group)

Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you very much. Hope you had a good lunch and you will be wide awake for this very stimulating discussion we're about to enter. We will now resume our work under item 5 of the Agenda to consider modalities for the operation of the Clearinghouse mechanism.

I will, just as we've done in the past, in the past, sessions held in room 11, just emphasize that interpretation services are not available and that prior to Seaton is for States. So we really are grateful to observers.

If you see that a State needs a seat, if you could please yield your seat. We're discouraging standing in the room, but I see that we do seem to have enough seats for everyone at this point in time, but for safety reasons we are discouraging standing in the room. You will recall that after our discussion during the second session of the Commission and following consultations with the Bureau, we with a view to delivering on various tasks that were set out, we concluded that the work to be undertaken under the authority of the co Chairs with the support of the Division, would, among others, include the preparation of a draft study, which happily this has been done through a consultancy under the supervision of the Division. You will recall that we had convened online briefings, we had two in fact, 13th of January and February to present progress on the preparations of that draft study to facilitate the exchange of views among delegations to the Commission. You will also recall that there was an advanced unedited version of the consolidated draft study that was circulated to delegations on the 9th of March.

I think it's safe to say we've been at this and I'm really looking forward to hearing your views. I also want to note that the Consultant undertaking this work, Ms. Hiroko Muraki Gottlieb, has held on the margins of the session two questions and answer sessions with delegations on Monday and Tuesday of this week regarding the draft study, and I hope that the delegations had an opportunity to engage during those sessions to get clarity where that was needed. Additionally, the Secretariat circulated on our behalf yesterday morning a list of guiding questions to assist our discussion today. So we will try to tackle those questions and hopefully get a stare as to where we need to go. So the first question asked, considering the consolidated draft study on the technical aspects of the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism, which option A, B or C or hybrid configuration of elements from those options as set out in the draft study, is the preferred model for the Clearinghouse mechanism under the BBNG Agreement?

Just a note, as was pointed out in the study option C would require a decision on the existing platform that would be retrofitted and on the oversight and management arrangements, I.e. Central system only or central system plus nodes. A further hybrid configuration would also require decision on the combination of the functional elements. In relation to paragraph 131 of the Consolidated Draft Study, this is the second question. Are there any positions on any of the key parameters for the BB&J Clearinghouse Mechanism you wish to raise?

And I note that paragraph 131 consolidates the different parameters, but the study does elaborate on what those could potentially look like in an illustrative manner. And then the third question was what are the next steps for the Preparatory Commission or the Secretariat to progress the work on the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism? And there are several sub builts, sub bullets there. How will the work for the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism be delivered? How will the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism be resourced?

And what is the timing for starting the delivery arrangements for the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism? We did expand on those and I trust that you've been able to review those. I'm looking forward to an engagement on this. I will take your interventions. Ideally we could try to go through each individually, but I know oftentimes you have comprehensive interventions and I'm happy to take those so that we could have kind of a holistic view of how you wish to have the approach to the Clearinghouse Mechanism.

So I will now open the floor and I recognize our colleague from Uruguay speaking on behalf of the group of 77 and China.

Thank you very much, Madam Co Chair and good afternoon colleagues. On behalf of the group of 77 and China, we would like to express our appreciation for the draft study circulated on 6 February, including parts B, C and D, as well as the document titled Consolidated RAFT Study on the Technical Aspects of the Operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism under the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The group of 77 and China acknowledges the importance of establishing a clear direction towards which Member States can converge in reaching a decision on specified models, and appreciates the illustrative examples of how the functions of the Mechanism could be implemented. The Group notes that these options should not be viewed as a mere menu of independent features. Instead, it suggests that there should be flexibility to explore elements that can be combined or adopted to develop an effective and appropriate operational model.

Notwithstanding the outcome of that direction, the Group wishes to stress the following general A. The Clearinghouse Mechanism must serve as a platform to facilitate international cooperation, including the matching of capacity development needs with the support available and providers for the transfer of marine technology. The functionality of the Mechanism is particularly important for developing countries that will rely on the Mechanism to access information and technical resources, as well as matching of capacity building needs with the programs available and with the providers for for the transfer of marine technology. In this regard, the Group considers that it is important to ensure an approach that promotes equitable access. The Clearinghouse Mechanism under the Agreement will also play a critical role in promoting transparency in its implementation.

The Mechanism should be accessible, user friendly, interactive, multilingual and interoperable. We recall its role in facilitating coherent information exchange between and among BBNG subsidiary bodies and Parties, as well as in relation to other relevant stakeholders, international frameworks and bodies in accordance with Article 51, while providing an effective platform to match needs for capacity building and transfer of technology of parties.

B. The Group also highlights the critical role the Mechanism will play in the implementation of all provisions related to marine genetic resources, digital sequences, information and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. In this regard, we are open to explore provisional arrangement for its early operationalization through a phased development. We firmly believe that the discussions on design of the Mechanism should focus on MCR related matters, including the process for generating the BBNG standardized batch identifiers, as well as on the creation of capacity building for developing countries Parties to the agreements whereby form shall follow function C pursuant to Article 515 in the Management of the Clearinghouse Mechanism, the special requirements of Developing State Parties as well as the special circumstances of seats are to be fully recognized. While we note the consideration of user friendliness of the Platform and accessibility via Internet, as well as financial support mechanism and capacity building workshops in the respective Draft Documents presented by the Secretariat, we consider that the needs of developing countries need to be addressed in a broader scope.

Article 52 is also responsible for facilitating international cooperation and collaboration, including scientific and technical cooperation and collaboration. This should encompass appropriate ways and means to promote such cooperation while developing countries and to address the the obstacles that these countries encounter in this area. D. Given that in accordance with 514 of the Agreement, the Secretariat manages the Mechanism, further consideration may be made as to duties and mandates of the Secretariat specifically with regard to the role of the Mechanism, including in facilitating international cooperation and addressing related challenges of developing countries. E. Facilitating the access of developing countries to information and data, promoting capacity building, support, transfer of technology and enhancing funding opportunities for developing countries, as well as appropriate training and technology assistance and scientific scholarship for such countries are also among the areas that the Mechanism could address and facilitate. Lastly, it is of utmost importance to ensure in the design of the Mechanism cohesion and coordination in structuring communication among the Subsidiary bodies.

Our Group will reflect its further observations and views on the topic related to the Clearinghouse Mechanism at a later stage. We are looking forward to a fruitful discussion on this matter. I thank you very much, Madam Co Chair.

I thank the Representative of Uruguay speaking on behalf of the group of 77 in China for your statement. I wish to now give the floor to the Bahamas speaking on behalf of caricom.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Caribbean Community in response, the guiding questions posed by the Co Chairs drawing from the consolidated draft study on the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. CARICOM thanks the Consultant for the clarity with which the Consolidated Report distinguishes between issues that affect architectural design, operational workflows and political competence. On Question one, CARICOM supports the establishment of a centralized Phase one Clearinghouse Mechanism under Secretariat Oversight, serving as the authoritative source for records generated pursuant to the Agreement.

This centralized configuration is necessary at launch, particularly Phase one, to ensure legal clarity and institutional accountability, coherence across interdependent system components, including confidentiality, controls, user roles and validation, and timely delivery of a minimal viable product focused on treaty required functions. At the same time, CARICOM also supports the inclusion of regional or thematic nodes as part of a pragmatic hybrid configuration, recognizing the important role that they can play in enhancing accessibility, participation and practical support, particularly for developing States and small island developing States. CARICOM does not view nodes as a rigid or uniform in feature. Rather, nodes could be understood as felicitative mechanisms. As such, the form, function and level of operational engagement of nodes may vary across regions depending on capacity, connectivity conditions and institutional context.

Their introduction should therefore be sequenced, informed by experienced gain in Phase one.

In this regard, CARICOM considers that nodes are not a prerequisite for Phase one but represent a clear and intentional direction of travel. They will require careful attention to governance arrangements, minimum standards, cybersecurity requirements and sustained capacity building support.

Regions with greater resource resource or infrastructure constraints should not be excluded.

On the contrary, these are regions most likely to require additional support to ensure nodes operate securely and effectively.

On Option C involving the retrofit of an existing platform. It is not caricom's preferred approach as a primary model, particularly where it can constrain flexibility, governance clarity or future decision making by the Conference of Parties that said, CARICOM has not ruled out the selective use or adaptation of existing technological tools or platforms where appropriate and effective in supporting the realization and functionality of the Clearinghouse without compromising institutional oversight or the ability of the mechanism to evolve under COP guidance. CARICOM therefore favors a phased hybrid model with option A type centralization at launch, combined with the progressive introduction of option B elements, including nodes subject to the guidance from the from the Conference of Parties and built in modalities for supporting nodes to ensure their viability in this federated system. Chair, we consider that paragraph 131 of the Consolidated draft study correctly identifies those parameters that must be sufficiently clarified to enable phase one implementation of the chm. And we will elaborate on this question in our intervention under question two.

Thank you. I wish to thank the Bahamas, speaking on behalf of caricom, and I just want for my own clarity because I know we've used terminology in the previous session like phases and things of that nature and I want to be clear that when you say phase one, you're referring to the discovery in the consolidated study. Thank you very much. I wish to give the floor to Vanuatu, speaking on behalf of P6I. I don't know.

Oh, there you are. Thank.

You.

Thank you, Ambassador. But I think some more is somewh taking the floor. I would just defer to Samoa, then I can take the floor. Okay, so Samoa is speaking for Aosis. Aosis.

Okay, I'm looking up. Sorry. Thank you. You guys are confusing me. And, and also I realized I was using the screen here and really and truly we should be using the flags.

Or maybe two words of clarification.

Yes, please.

Thank you. For those colleagues that are new to room 11, please don't press your mics. When you ask for the floor.

Please use your name plates or raise. Your hand with your name plate, especially if you're in one of the back. Rows so the Secretariat can see you. And we will compile a list by. Hand and every one will get a chance to speak.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Dmitry. So yes, Samoa. And I don't know where Samoa is. Oh, you have the floor.

Speaking on behalf of psids and then Australia speaking on behalf of of kens.

Thank you. Thank you, Co Chair. Also thank you to Von Watu for giving us the floor first. Samoa takes the floor on behalf of aosis.

In response to question one from the outset, please allow us to thank the co Chairs, Dualos and the consultant for the work done to help us examine these issues more deeply through the preparation of the drafts that study for sids, we are of the view that the mechanism would be operationalized through a secretariat managed central system that remains the authoritative source for records generated pursuant to the Agreement and complemented by the regional or sub regional nodes that can provide localized support, assisted workflows and improve connectivity. While drawing on the lessons from existing mechanisms, the design of the Clearinghouse mechanism should not be constrained by them. Nodes can offer hands on local support for sids, help manage limited connectivity and bandwidth, allow offline synchronization, support traditional knowledge activities closer to communities, and strengthen long term system resilience and scalability. AOC has traditionally called for a approach to the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. It is important for the mechanism to be designed in such a way to allow for the development and evolution of regional or sub regional nodes over time to support its functions.

Additional guidance and decision making on the management of nodes, types of workflows and expected support and service levels should be determined as we continue to examine and review the functions functioning of each phase of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. We also we must also ensure the Mechanism remains responsive to evolving needs consistent with Article 476 of the agreement. Thank you Co Chair.

Thank you very much. Samoa speaking on behalf of the alliance of Small Island States and I'm going to Vanuatu. Forgive me, I'll come back to you. I'll follow my my list here so I did have Australia speaking on behalf of Cairns.

Thank you Chair. I make this statement on behalf of Cairnsy. I should add the I Iceland would never forgive me if I we drop them off the end thank you. First to Hiroko and her team for the tremendous amount of work on the study. I'm going to address all three questions briefly.

On the first guiding question regarding the preferred model, we note that the Clearinghouse mechanism bills options A, B and C are different pathways to meet the same baseline requirements. However, each does not necessarily have the equivalent value to the international community and ability to integrate with national or international systems, nor does each have the equivalent risk in terms of enthusiasm for uptake by parties, design, architecture and sustainable funding for a team of developers or integration with best practiced information standards and frameworks. We do not think that a high price and a long lead time necessarily reflects better value, but we do think that the cheapest and quickest option is not necessarily the best one. Kanzi is open to considering a hybrid option of options A, B and C that could build on proven infrastructures where a central system aggregates, validates and governs information interoperability standards and Metadata frameworks are enforced centrally and national or regional nodes that manage data publishing and local engagement. As mentioned by my colleague from Samoa, a hybrid option could balance scalability, inclusivity and efficiency, leveraging existing strengths in standards, trusted coordination and existing global networks and positioning pre existing infrastructures as key technical partners in Clearinghouse Mechanism implementation.

Briefly, in answer to guiding question number two on the key parameters, we would be very interested to hear from hear the advice of technical experts on the best way forward. This could form initial advice on any potential design or other technical work of any potential technical partner. On question three about next steps, Guiding question three on next steps, we need to engage a technical partner to commence development of the Clearinghouse Mechanism as soon as possible. We hope there are technical experts in a position to assist in the design and development of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. We would encourage the Commission to invite any such available experts, as appropriate and subject to the availability of resources, to undertake technical work taking into account the study and to make available information on the outcomes of this work in the final report of the Commission.

We are hoping that the progress on the initial technical aspects for operation oh man, I get this one every time for making the Clearinghouse Mechanism work can move forward between this meeting of the Commission and COP1 and looking at options. Thank you Chair.

Thank you Australia speaking on behalf of Kansi, I have the European Union, followed then by Vanuatu speaking on behalf of P. SIDS and then Senegal on behalf of the African Group European Union.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its torture 27 member states and I would like to reiterate our strong commitment to the implementation of a BB&J agreement. The BB&J agreement has been and is a proof of successful multilateralism and we are committed to find the collaborative ways in making the implementation of the U.S. agreement as effective as possible while remaining practicable and cost efficient. This is just not a statement. This is just a reminder today that we need to find a solution for the beating heart of the agreement which is the Clearinghouse Mechanism.

We would like to thank the Secretariat, the Co Chair and the Consultant for the immense work they undertook and for circulating the draft study. The study provides an informative overview of existing system and the comprehensive analysis of feedback feature to be considered for a fully fledged Clearinghouse Mechanism. We are here to constructively find a way to operationalize the beating heart, the Clearinghouse Mechanism designed to ensure full transparency of all the activities that will be undertaken by parties within the framework of the Agreement. We should Also be mindful of the challenges we have encountered so far in this process and draw on lessons learned from prep guys. We also want to reiterate the technical nature of this process and of the need to provide the appropriate expertise available for its development.

Time is of essence now as the agreement has already entered into force and the core functionality of the CHM need to be developed and made available as soon as possible to ensure that parties can comply with the key requirement of the Agreement. The un, its Member States have expressed their understanding that the CHM is an information management system that fulfills the function of a treaty. It should ensure interoperability with existing global ocean data repositories, avoiding duplication. The UN Member States support the incremental approach which is endorsed in the Draft study. As well, we support a pilot phase that should focus on developing the essential core function that are required by the Agreement to enable compliance with the obligation.

The operationalization of a clearinghouse mechanism shall be undertaken in a cost efficient way, building as much as possible on existing infrastructure and available expertise. This infrastructure, as sought out already in the Draft study in Part A, provide important services in relation to scientific data and capacity building also through regional and sub regional nodes and regional training centers. We want to underline that building upon the experience of existing knowledge and system appears to us to be the quickest, most efficient and most efficient approach. We would also have a question during PrepCom 2 we were informed that the Secretariat was reflecting on how to prepare a tool to provide the minimal requirement service to enable parties to fulfill their obligations stemming from the agreement. We would also look forward to hearing on the progress that has been made in this regard.

On Question one, we have studied the different options outlined in the draft study. We don't see them as mutually exclusive but but rather as potentially element building blocks of a clearinghouse mechanism. We consider a flexible modular approach that drones on the strength of all the options as the most practical way forward, ensuring that the Clearinghouse mechanism is robust, cost effective and aligned with the mandate of the BB&J agreement. We would see value in focusing on the functional elements that are required to operate effectively. In this regard, it is important to recognize that there is currently no existing clearinghouse mechanism that can be retrofitted as one to one basis to fully meet the requirement of a BB&J agreement which are new.

At the same time, there are a number of existing system, platform and experiences that can be and should be learned from this can provide important technical components of lessons learned and established practices which could inform the development of a CHM in our view, this points towards an approach where elements from existing system are combined with newly developed functionality tailored specifically to the needs of agreement regarding regional elements or node. We recognize that accessibility and usability across all the region will be crucial for the success of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. I stop here and we would like to go back to the other question later. Thank you for your time.

Thank you European Union I wish to now give the floor to Vanuatu on behalf of the pits.

Thank you Ambassador for giving us the floor as this is the first time we are taking the floor. We would like to thank you and your Co Chair for your stellar leadership. Through you we would also like to thank the consultants for their valuable report. Vanuatu speaks on behalf of PSIDS on clearing house mechanism so PSIDS align with the statements made by G77 in China and would like to add the following for the PCIDs, we have a strong preference for Option B, a federated system. Such a system avoids the risks associated with centralizing operational data management in a single location.

We would be which would be difficult to sustain and govern at a global scale. A Pacific node can help support low connectivity for Pacific SIDS regional help desk provision, traditional knowledge safeguarding, including local context, traditional knowledge labels and interoperability pipelines. We see nodes as critical for maintaining Pacific data sovereignty, particularly for traditional knowledge, and supporting distributed governance, validation and quality control of information which cannot be achieved through a purely centralized model. Thank you.

I wish to thank Van Water speaking on behalf of pseuds and I now give the floor to Senegal speaking on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you Madam Co Chair for giving me the floor. Senegal has the honor to speak on behalf of the African Group at the outset. The Group thanks the Consultant and the Co Chairs for the consolidated draft study. This document provide information, instructive information. It should serve the advancement of our deliberation for the earliest operationalization of the Mechanism as envisaged under Article 51 of the agreement.

The Group acknowledges the progresses made in reflecting key priorities of developing States including accessibility, phased implementation and capacity building function. Now turning to the guiding question number one, the African Group considered that Option B represents the most responsive architecture for developing States, including African countries and small end seats. This option effectively combines a strong authoritative central system managed by the Secretariat with practical regional and sub regional nodes. This approach directly addresses connectivity constraints, delivers localized assistance and responds to the special requirements of developing States Parties and the special security circumstances of States. Option B also best reconciles institutional coherence with equitable access.

It preserves a Secretariat managed central system as the authoritative platform of the mechanism while enabling regional and sub regional nodes to deliver that localized support, assist in workflows in offline continuity and improve that connectivity. In the view of the African Group, this architecture responds most directly to the requirement in Article 51, paragraph 5 that developing states be able to access and use the Mechanism without undue obstacles or administrative burdens, and is also the option best suited to operationalize the Mechanism Role in capacity building and transfer of marine technology the African Groups note that the CO Chairs Guide in question referred to the possibility of a hybrid configuration. This is not the preferred position of the Group. Most clear preference remains Option B. At the same time, the Group considered that certain limited features reflected in Option A and C may usefully inform the implementation of Option B where they address issues not sufficiently resolved within that option.

For Option A, the African Group sees value in the focus on speed to initial readiness, lower early complexity and a disciplined minimum viable rollout. For Option C, the Group see only limited value in the possible use of selected existing technical tools and only where those reduce development burden without creating dependence, reducing flexibility or constraint. BBNG Specific functions Against this backdrop, any hybrid configuration that draw functional elements from the option presented must preserve the core strength of Option B, meaning a single authority, central hub paired with decentralized support function under common standards. We look forward to further discussion on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you Senegal. Speaking on behalf of the Africa Group, I now give the floor to Mexico speaking on behalf of clem.

Thank you, Madam Couture.

From the outset, CLEM wishes to reiterate that for our Group it is essential that the Mechanism fully reflects the core characteristics agreed in Article 51 of the agreement, namely that its functions as a centralized open access platform through which parties can inter alia, access, provide and disseminate information in respect to activities carried out under the Agreement. CLAM expresses its appreciation to the CO Chairs and also to Duallos for the work undertaken in preparation for PrepCom 3. We also thank the consultant engaged by Dualos for the comprehensive study on the technical aspects of operationalizing the Clearinghouse Mechanism.

I will turn to your questions and I will just address this time the first one. CLAM recognizes the importance of providing clear direction toward the well defined recommendation on the design options of the Greenhouse Mechanism contained in Part B of the study. In this respect, CLAM expresses a preference for option A, namely a centralized platform and completely independent and not associated with existing models or databases. From our perspective, this option offers the most efficient and straightforward pathway for operationalization while also appearing to strike an appropriate balance in Terms of cost effectiveness, CLAMP considers that the Greenhouse Mechanism should be progressive and adaptable. While early operationalization is essential, CLAMP considers that the mechanism may retain a degree of flexibility to allow for future adjustments and system evolution, and the COP should retain a central role in guiding the development of the system.

In this regard, CLAM believes that the Mechanism could become complemented as needed by local support arrangements such as regional offices, training and technical assistance. This is aimed at facilitating access without affecting the overall coherence of the system or its standardized procedures. CLAM considers essential to avoid creating differentiated forms of access for different regions. Bearing in mind that one of the main objectives of the Greenhouse Mechanism is is to ensure equal access for all state parties to the information hosted in the Mechanism. In this context, any future complement to the centralized system through regional support structures should be strictly limited to facilitating access, enhancing capacity building and providing technical assistance without compromising the standardization or registration processes or the integrity of validation standards.

I will leave it there, Madam Kutcher. So, thank you.

Thank you very much, Mexico. Speaking on behalf of clam, I now give the floor to the United Kingdom, followed then by Japan.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Secretariat and to Hiroko and the team for the preparation of the consolidated draft study. I'm just going to address the guiding question, the first guiding question, but we will obviously be happy to engage in the other specific question questions as and when we get to them. The United Kingdom recognizes the urgency of establishing a functional clearinghouse mechanism to enable parties to begin implementing the BB&J agreement. With this in mind, we consider option A, the fully centralized system, to be the most feasible and least complex model for initial operationalization. We think it offers the highest clarity of governance, is the quickest to construct and, and is the most cost efficient.

Key considerations as we aim to deliver core capabilities by conference of the Parties, we do acknowledge the interest expressed by many delegations and regional nodes as set out in option B. The UK is open to understanding and exploring this concept further, but we would welcome more detail on precisely what is envisaged by nodes, how they would function in practice, how duplication and additional governance burdens could be avoided. Just to briefly address option C, retrofitting an existing platform, we feel that carries risks, including timelines and dependency on external governance, which may hinder the rapid delivery. We look forward to engaging and exploring on these options further. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom and now give the floor to Japan.

Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you, Co Chair. Japan appreciates a study conducted by Hiroko and Aron for presenting a phased roadmap, also creating house mechanism and clarifying deliverables and decision point. At the same time, we noted field level evidence is still further necessary including national reporting realities, interoperability, cost and governance alignment.

Zeho Japan stressed that no architectural options should be subject to any premature design locking at this stage, PreComp3 should instead focus on establishing clear design pathway for COP1, including identifying what evidence and evolution criteria discovered phase must deliver. Japan emphasize discovery phase must incorporate lessons learned from existing clearinghouse mechanisms such as Nagoya Protocol, ABS clearing hacks mechanism and examine feasible load sharing and intact operation ability with systems like the orbis core mandate and identifier should be certainly maintained in the clearinghouse mechanism. While scientific data should continue to be reside within established infrastructure, technical cooperation with technical partners such as UNESCO IOC Secretariat will be indispensable for ensuring scientifically robust and practical implementation arrangement. Japan also underscore national level implementation, especially MGR notification must be granted in field reality. Understanding how each country systems actually function including data flow and management, administrative process and workload is essential.

Japan is developing national MGI reporting guidelines and conducting trials with several research institutions to assess real workflow and burdens. Japan also stressed that for the BB Energy Agreement to realize the full potential in reporting marine scientific research, it is essential that researchers retain ability to conduct activities on the high seas as freely as they have to date.

The cheat HM must avoid creating unnecessary administrative burdens that would impede scientific work or limit practical use of research results. That consideration should guide early stage of creating hazard mechanism design and reinholds the need to avoid design locking before scientific evidence is gathered. On this basis, Japan respond to Kocher's three guiding arm and basically the first two two guiding questions strictly as working hypothesis without projecting the final architecture. Regarding first question respond to the preferred option, Japan considers that BBNJ specific mechanism BBNJ specific mechanism. The clearinghouse mechanism should begin with option A to ensure the core function to operate rapidly and demonstrability early success is essential.

At the same time, Japan leans toward option B or B centered hybrid as our working hypothesis. The reason is that while pre collection notification can be handled by a central system, post collection and utilization reporting require connection with existing national repository and database which option A alone cannot support. A node based or hybrid structure is therefore necessary or other component such as capacity such as capacity okay for other components such as capacity building. Japan noted that UNESCO IOC already manage relevant databases and existing database systems should be leveraged wherever possible feasible final option selection however must be based on technical partners input and evidence based understanding of national reporting workflows. Japan is prepared to proceed on the basis of the option B or B centered hybrid as a working hypothesis, but emphasizes again that this is provisional because MGR personification and utilization reporting depend heavily on existing national system architectural designs must rely on verified field evidence.

Japan therefore proposed that Discovery phase include three concrete target deliverables. First one a concise lesson learned review of existing clearinghouse mechanisms Number two a mapping of national workflow and expected workflow for MGR and other clearinghouse mechanism functions. Thirdly, a basic interoperability assessment with existing systems such as orbis.

These are the essential evidence based decision making at COP1 and to avoid any premature design loquim, behold sufficient field evidence is secured. Japan also stressed the need for close collaboration such as with UNESCO IOC in the Discovery phase, Japan look forward to working with delegates, dollars and technical partners to ensure creating a health mechanism built on solid evidence and align with BVNJ implementation. Thank you,.

Thank you very much Japan. I will give the floor to Turkey followed by the Philippines.

Thank you Co Chair. I would like to start with thank Secretariat you, Hiroko and her team for preparing preparing a consolidated draft study on chm. On the first guiding question, in our view, centralized model represents the most effective approach as it would ensure coherent and efficient management of BBNG related workflows while avoiding the additional operational complexity that regional nodes may introduce. We also consider that retrofitting an existing platform may present important challenges given the specific requirements of the BBNG agreement. In this regard, we recall that the study identifies a centralized system as the most suitable, cost effective and fastest option to implement.

Therefore, we support option a. On the second guiding question, with regard to para. 131, We consider that several of the identified parameters will need to be clarified at an early stage as they directly affect the architecture, functioning and cost of mechanism. In particular, we would underline the importance of clarity on minimum metadata and submission requirements, confidentiality classification, user roles and verification arrangements, interoperability priorities and the minimum cybersecurity baseline. With regard to notes, we consider that this issue would require particular caution as it may have stick significant implication for the complexity, governance and cost of the mechanism.

More generally, we believe that decisions at this stage should focus on what is necessary for the initial operationalization of the mechanism while allowing for further refinement over time. On the third guiding question, we support a phased and practical approach to operationalization. With regard to how the work should be delivered, we would favor a pragmatic approach combining institutional oversight with the use of the necessary technical expertise as appropriate. In our view, a flexible model, including in house coordination supported by external technical expertise where needed, may be the most practical approach with regard to resourcing. In our view, the core functions of the CHR should be financed through the general institutional budgets under the Agreement, given that the Mechanism constitutes a standing institutional function.

At the same time, voluntary or supplementary resources could be considered where appropriate for additional or capacity related elements. As regards timing, we believe that the necessary preparatory work should begin as early as feasible so as to allow sufficient time for any required hiring, contracting or procurement processes. In our view, the initial phase should focus on the core functions of the Mechanism while allowing further development. We also consider that delivery arrangements should be designed in a pragmatic and cost effective manner and that the work should begin in a timely way. Thank you Co Chair.

Thank you very much. Turkey I have three more speakers and then I will go to question two. But so far what I'm hearing is an interest in having this beaten heart as the European Union has described it, actually functioning with attention to cost, but definitely a lot of focus on the functionality and what can be done to ensure that it can over time evolve to fit the needs as the COP may so determine will be required for the Clearinghouse mechanism. So this is very helpful. Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair. First, on the preferred model, the Philippines expresses its support for for option B as the most balanced and future proof approach. This model appropriately combines central authoritative platform for agreement generated records such as notifications and the issuance of the BBNJ standardized batch identifier with the flexibility of regional and sub regional nodes. These nodes can provide assisted workflows, localized user support and low bandwidth or offline functionality which are critical to ensuring equitable participation in developing States and small island developing States. At the same time, the Philippines remains open to a broader hybrid approach provided that it serves a strong centralized and transparent governance and standard setting function while enabling flexible interoperable linkages with existing global, regional and sectoral systems.

In this regard, any model should maintain coherence, legal certainty and consistency while allowing for scalability and adaptation over time. This system of systems approach also allows the mechanisms to build the mechanism to build an existing platforms, ensuring interoperability while avoiding duplication. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you Philippines. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair. Indonesia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the delegation of Uruguay on the on behalf of the G77 in China. We thank the Co Chair for providing this clearing question to facilitate our technical deliberation on the personalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism or ghm. Regarding question one, Indonesia is open to discussing a hybrid configuration of the elements set out in the consolidated Draft study. We believe that the preferred model must ensure that mechanism may remain accessible, user friendly, interactive, multilingual and interoperable, serving as truly global platform.

Indonesia emphasized that the selection of a model should be guided by the tiered approach detailed in paragraph 87 and appendix A of the Consolidated study. This approach allows the mechanism to evolve systematically and pragmatically, starting from basic data referencing in its initial phase or Tier one and progressing toward complex interoperability with external repositories and decentralized nodes or tiers 2 and 3. In designing this hybrid model, Indonesia draft on the successful technical precedent set out the other legal precedent like Convention on Biological Diversity as noted in the UNEP CBD COP 1, 4. Therefore, the CSM should function as a decentralized network of national and regional centers that utilize existing institutions and databases such as those of fao, ioc, UNESCO and UNEP rather than starting from the scratch. This ensures that mechanism is driven by the real needs of contracting parties and remain cost effective during its pilot phase.

Furthermore, any preferred model must give full recognition to the special requirement of developing State and arithmetic State in accordance with Article 51, paragraph 5 of the Agerium Agreement. For Indonesia, a hybrid configuration is only viable if it is designed with low bandwidth accessibility, multilingual interfaces and offline data access capabilities to accommodate the unique infrastructure challenges faced by our experts. Finally, Indonesia maintains that while the mechanism should utilize a decentralized structure of notes, the Secretariat must retain its central Management and Oversight rule estimated by Article 51, paragraph 4 to ensure the process remains state, party led and institutionally integrity is preserved. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. Thank you Indonesia.

I wish to give the floor to China.

Would like to express the gratitude to the Co Chairs, the Secretary Aide and the Consultant for the study. For the draft study this report circulated have listed and summarized various aspects concerning the information exchange mechanism. Laying a solid foundation for in depth discussion on the operation models and the specific functions of China would align with the statement made by the group 77 and China. We hold that defining a clear direction and advancing concerns on specific models is essential and the selection of specific SHEN is not a one size fits all approach. Flexibility should be maintained and integration conducted in lies of needs and feasibility.

To facilitate the effective operation of the agreement, a phase and incremental approach to development should be adopted. In the initial stage, priority are supposed to give the basic functions such as data management of marine genetic resources, the generation of standardized batch identifiers and the capacity building. We also respond to the current demands of developing countries that care about offline operation and multilingual interfaces and integrate the needs of developing countries into the function design of the CHM through throughout its life circle. For the options of these three models, we intend to support operation models of establishing a central system and at the same time keep an open attitude towards the establishment of regional nodes and connection with existing platforms to ensure the operation of the agreement. We support that in initial establishment a lightweight, efficient and cost effective information exchange mechanism to guarantee the operation of the basic function such as the notification of information and agreement and the distribution of the identity filer.

Meanwhile, China knows concerns of developing countries regarding accessibility and the supposed gradual expansion of functions and consideration of establishing regional notes in the follow up in light of actual needs. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you very much. China. I give the floor now to Malaysia.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving Malaysia the floor and on the behalf of the Malaysian delegation I wish to express our sincere appreciation for your understanding work to date outstanding. Sorry. With regards to guiding question number one, Malaysia strongly supports the face development of CF functionalities bringing with a basic centralized platform with notes and for information exchange on marine diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and to support cooperation among stakeholders. This includes activities such as tracking and generating identifiers for marine genetic resources and publishing notifications related to planned undertakings including EIAs.

Consequently, Malaysia has opted for option B for initial stage covering the first two years of operation. This decision considers needs for technical inoperability with existing international databases, with a view to gradually transitioning to option three in the third year as a preferred model for the chm. In the long term, Option C appears to be the most advantageous choice given that numerous parties have established their national CHM within other multilateral frameworks such as the CBD and its protocols. This option can leverage the enhanced CHM which contains extensive national biology data, including marine biology data, while ensuring that data the governance upholds national sovereignty. Thank you, mj.

Thank you very much. Malaysia Malaysia is the last state to speak. I will now give the floor to the ioc.

UNESCO, thank you very much. I have the honor to deliver these statements on behalf of the Integral Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.

With the agreement having entered its into force on 17th of January, the IOC views the operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism as an urgent priority that is central to the success of a treaty across all four pillars. In preparing this statement, the IOC has drawn on the work of its Open ended Working Group of experts on BB&J established by the IOC assembly last year with a view to provide scientific and technical advice on matters related to the implementation of the BBNG Agreement within the IOC mandate. This open ended group brings together expertise in ocean data, biodiversity observation and capacity development from across the IOC networks and member states and its analysis underpins the approach we present today for the ioc. The CHM must be inclusive, secure, transparent, interoperable and sustain over time. While the consolidated study has clarified what the system needs to do, we believe that the focus must now shift to the how the actual technical development processes.

In this context, the IOC sees several concrete entry points to support this transition. Firstly, we must move from general requirements to technical specifications. This includes defining clear workflows, data standards and crucially, the minimum required metadata fields. This process should be guided by inclusive consultations to ensure the need of all parties, particularly developing States, small island developing States and least developing countries are reflected in the system design. Secondly, provided that the necessary financial resources are put in place, the IOC is prepared to develop a prototype of a clearinghouse mechanism for demonstration at COP1.

This minimum viable product would showcase practical modules such as the Cruise Notification Systems and the Standard Batch Identifier Lifecycle, a capacity building and TMT matchmaking interface user registration with role based access in a document management layer. To support this, we can also present a detailed work plan and cost estimate for the transition from a prototype to a fully operational systems for consideration by the first cop. Thirdly, the IOC offers an existing operational network of over 100 national and regional data and training centers that can serve as regional and sub regional mechanisms. As foreseen in article 51. Our 17 ocean teacher training centers, 62 associated national oceanographic data centers and 36 national and regional nodes under the Ocean Biodiversity Information Systems already deliver localized capacity building and data management support where it is most needed.

We wish to be clear that the operational authority of the Clearinghouse Mechanism remains with the Secretariat. The IOC sees itself as a technical partner offering infrastructure and expertise as identified in Article 51, paragraph 4 of the agreement. According to its statutes, the IOC is a competent international organization that responds to requirements under ENCLAUSE and other international instruments. It may act as a specialized body for UN system organizations that assign its specific responsibilities within its mandate. As the Agreement explicitly identifies IOC as a body with which the Secretariat may cooperate in relation to the Clearinghouse Mechanism, it may activate this provision of the IOC Statute.

In this spirit, Madam Co Chair, we respectively encourage the PREPCOM to reach a consensus that gives a mandate to competent international organizations like the IOC to support BB&J in the development of a prototype Clearinghouse Mechanism. The IOC stands ready to act and please note that any formal requests coming from this PREP PREPCOM would also need to be endorsed by the forthcoming IOC executive council. In June 2026, we will publish our statement on the PREPCOM website and also include in the annex of that statement an IOC Brief on Technical Considerations and Operational frameworks for the BB&J Clearinghouse Mechanism. Thank you very much.

I wish to thank the ioc, UNESCO and I now give the floor to the UNEP Representative.

Thank you so much. Kotir Excellency, Distinguished Delegates and Partner As a global authoritative arm of the United nations on Environment, UNAI plays a critical role in keeping the environment under review, providing scientific based decision making, decision making tools and guidance to the Member States and partners as well as access to extensive technical expertise on biological conservation, biodiversity conservation, restoration and sustainable use and improve governance through network of expertise around the world. UNE brings extensive expertise in design and operationalization of greenhouse mechanisms that are inclusive, interoperable and purpose driven, supporting evidence based decision making and foster international cooperation. This expertise is directly relevant to the institutional architecture of the envisioned the BBNG Agreement Greenhouse Mechanism. UNEP is currently hosting and supporting a range of greenhouse mechanisms that provide parties to access to extensive and up to date scientific data, thereby enhancing policy formulation and program development.

Our support goes beyond platform establishment. It includes capacity building training integrated into broader knowledge management system. This effort aims to reduce red reporting burden and promote efficient, well coordinated workflow that deliver accurate and trusted information. To mention some of this mechanism, the UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System the World Environment Situation Room is a data, information and knowledge sharing platform that support global, regional and local efforts to address the Triple Planetary crisis. Second, Global Environment Monitoring Services for the the Ocean and the Coast James Ocean is a transdisciplinary partnership platform program convened by UNEP to integrate global observation system to provide fit for purpose information and data to the member state and regional bodies.

Third, the Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and Marine Litter is sorry is a stakeholder partnership that brings together all actors working to prevent marine litter and plastic pollution.

Importantly, UNEP has extensive span of Clean House Mechanism development experience under multilateral environmental agreement and the regional Convention and Action plans. Some of the examples are the CBD National Biodiversity Greenhouse Mechanism under the Cartagena Protocol, the CBD Access and Beneficiary Cleaning House Mechanism under Nagoya Protocol, the BRS Cleaning House Mechanism, the Nairobi Convention Cleaning House Mechanism. UNEP also established a regional network of Advisors.

An innovative initiative that comprises experts from various sectors that provide demand driven technical support to Clean House mechanisms and member states since 2004. Complement to this network, UNEP developed a virtual learning environment and a platform for training, experience sharing, collaboration and learning among Member States. Similarly, UNEP World Conservation and Monitoring sector support the World Database on Protected Area and the World Database on Ocean, the most comprehensive global repository of territorial in the Marine Protected area and Conserved Areas, serving as a formal reporting platform for Target 3 of the Kumi Montreal Protocol and the Sustainable Development Goal. 14 In this context, UNEP stand ready to support the establishment of the BBNG Agreement, in particular through contribution to the works of the formal and informal groups of scientific and technical aspects of the operationalization of of the Clean House Mechanism through engaging expertise to Member States support technical assistance to Cleaning House Mechanism design and operationalization target capacity building to least develop countries and the States in line with the item 6e of the draft Terms of Reference Resource mobilization through UNEP convening power as well as leveraging existing partnership to strengthen data and information sharing mechanism. Thus, UNEP is ready to extend its expertise experiences in other Clean House Mechanism to support the establishment and operationalization of the BBNG Agreement Greenhouse Mechanism I thank.

You Chair I thank our colleague from unep. I wish to now give the floor to the High Seas Alliance.

Does it thank you, thank you Madam Chair. High Cecil Lines Again thanks Dualos and the and Hiroko and her team for the work so far. As other delegations here have expressed with regard to key parameters, the High Seas alliance recommends to focus on basic core functions, meaning those directly relating to facilitating State obligations under the Agreement, including the BB and J Standard batch identifier and notifications required by Part four, as well as the IT functions necessary to support them. Reflecting on the Consultant study, we believe that the connection with existing IFB data can be phased and start with linked modalities only. We believe dedicated staff and human support, as well as functionalities tailored to the special circumstances of sids, including addressing the challenges associated with low data connectivity and should be included from the onset and tested during a pilot phase and then scaled based on user feedback.

We believe that the question of where we want the Clearinghouse Mechanism to go is an important one, but on the path there. It is also critical to consider what the Clearinghouse Mechanism that we need quickly or as quickly as possible is. We have consistently highlighted our belief that an early pilot phase that allows states and stakeholders to interact with the Clearinghouse Mechanism, learn lessons and recommend improvements as necessary. We align with the thinking expressed by Canzi, the eu, Turkey and some others that to get there, it would be good to pick a technical partner to start development of a pilot phase as soon as possible. In line with this, we believe PrepCom3 could instruct on next steps, which would include things like what are the basic core functions to be addressed, who to instruct in terms of project management, and how to identify the entity during the development of the pilot phase.

Given the centrality of the Clearinghouse mechanism in implementing the BB&J agreement, we hope that the roadmap would aim for a pilot by Cop1 and a full prototype, including functions that go beyond core and immediate obligations on States by COP2. Thank you.

Thank you very much. High Seas Alliance I will be moving on to the second question. I think from from what we've from the exchange we've had so far, and I don't want to use terminology that that has different meanings in different settings, so where it comes to what we want to see happen, it seems as though there's an interest in potentially going first with something that's centralized or starting with one that's federated. But in either case there is an interest in seeing an evolution which could be potentially then it seems as though we're heading right into what could eventually, somewhere down the line, be basically hybrid. But what I'm not hearing is that, at least from the voices in the room, I'm not hearing that there is an interest in starting from retrofitting an existing platform.

So I appreciate your comments and I think that has been helpful. So now let's move to the second question, which looks at some of the parameters that were identified in the consolidated draft study and what are maybe some positions that you might have on key parameters that would be relevant in the for us to get a sense of where we go? Floor is open.

I know I heard many of you say you will respond to Question two, so please someone break the ice. Samoa on behalf of aoc,.

Thank you. Co Chair Samoa takes the floor again on behalf of the alliance of Small Island States. In Response to question two, we have views to share on the nine parameter issues outlined by paragraph 131. However, with your permission and for the sake of efficiency and facilitating exchange of views, we will speak to subparas A, B and C and reserve to return on the remaining on subpara A on metadata field eosis is of the view that Article 12, paragraphs 2, 5 and 8 of the Agreement already stick the information that needs to constitute MGR notifications. AOC therefore remains committed to ensuring that the Clearinghouse Mechanism is designed to input these types of data and information with support of offline accessibility and ease in downloadability.

In particular, the Geographical Areas field would have to be designed to trigger the notification and alert system for activities with proximity to States who might have interest. Moreover, opportunities for scientists from developing States to be involved with or associated with the project should be notified specifically or at the very least be a feature that users may subscribe to be notified of. Reporting templates for the Mechanism should be streamlined to avoid excessive bureaucracy burden for users of the mechanism. EOSIS is open to drawing from existing templates that are used in current international scientific practice for the submission of Pre cruise and Pre Cruise Report post CRWS report. The Clearinghouse Mechanism should also be designed to allow entries to be updated over time.

Regarding subpara B on categories of data and information, we note that Article 38 stipulates that the scientific and technical body shall develop standards or guidelines for the COP on what constitutes confidential or proprietary information. This must also take into account the principles of transparency that the Agreement is premised on and which is Article 48. The clearinghouse mechanism is also specifically tasked with fostering enhancing transparency, including by facilitating the sharing of environmental baseline data and information relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction between parties and other relevant stakeholders. In the interim, the data and information required by the Agreement must be disclosed and any information that is considered restricted, proprietary or confidential may be redacted as such, accompanied by a rationale or justification for why it is considered such. This added information could also help the STB in its eventual development of standards or guidelines.

There must be a feature for uploaders to indicate the specific category or the data information Public, restricted or proprietary for public information will be viewed only to public users. Regarding subpar C on user roles in view of the category of users listed by the study, AOCS agrees In vein of efficiency in the vein of efficiency, the Mechanism should allow for different user access types, for example, administrators who can serve as focal points with the responsibility of organizing data and information for their respective country profiles. Administrators should have the operational visibility necessary to facilitate participation and support the effective functioning of the Clearinghouse Mechanism in accordance with agreed modalities and procedures, including appropriate visibility over activities such as ongoing expeditions and available capacity building opportunities. As reflected in the Clearinghouse Mechanism. Administrators could also validate and authorize party users such as public servants with relevant ministries and authorities to upload and access data and information in the Clearinghouse Mechanism.

Non party users such as academia, scientists Private sector, civil society and indigenous peoples and local communities may register to access and make use of the Mechanism, including via uploading capabilities, in accordance with the parameters of the Agreement, standard best practice and guidance from Parties. The Secretariat can ensure safeguards and monitor activity from non party users pursuant to Article 13. The legislative, administrative or policy measures Parties may take nationally in relation to the IP and IC and the Clearinghouse Mechanism could include arrangements for designated IPNIC bodies, councils or authorities to be able to contribute to confirming user access rather than solely in the hands of the Administrator. Thank you Cocher. As mentioned earlier, we'll return to the floor to provide inputs on the remaining parameters.

Thank you. I wish to thank Samo on behalf of aoc, speaking on behalf of AOSIS and I now give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you for giving us the floor. So, regarding question two on paragraph 131 of the draft study, we appreciated the work undertaken on the parameters. The list of parameters seems to us sufficiently comprehensive to address the function of a clearinghouse mechanism as described in the Agreement. The UN UN Member States are looking forward to hearing the views of the other delegation and are willing to show flexibility in this regard. We would like to note that we do not see the list of parameters as reflecting any prioritization.

We notice also, as the colleague from Moses just noticed, that some of the parameters are already quite straightforward described in the agreement. For example, the metadata for notification for MGR is quite clear in the article 12. We see value also in obtaining interim guidance on these parameters before the COP, as it is suggested in the chapeau of paragraph 131 of the draft study. As we support these possibilities in view of the urgency to start developing a pilot, the development of a pilot or a prototype through a potential technical partner, as it was suggested by Kanzi in question one will also help to shed light on which element of a parameter will require further guidance from the COP later and help identify technical constraints. So in this regards, the UN Member States would like to welcome the willingness of IOC UNESCO to start collaborating, would like to thank for their effort and we would also have some questions.

They seem to be open to share more about work plan and costs. This would be very interesting to hear and maybe also about terminology. We were using pilot, they were using prototype. The question would be a prototype stick, a design or it's more design with some feature already developed. On the question of the parameters, again we wish to highlight our concerns about the terminology proximity based approach.

As we already communicate through written comments, we reiterate our support for the automatic alert system as it was proposed by us during the Intergovernmental Conference. But we are of the view that it is far from clear on which basis a State shall be included or not in such a restricted alert system. Such an issue might give rise to confusion and touch upon sensitivities. We believe that alternatives such as using regional geographical areas could be explored to ensure more effective and context appropriate system. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. European Union Just a follow up on that and recognizing that you indicated that this is not a priority list, but I do note that there are some issues perhaps that would require some guidance if we if if the decided it wanted to move forward with any offer.

For instance the confidentiality classifications, user role taxonomies, the traditional knowledge, cybersecurity. Those perhaps are issues that would require guidance from the PREPCOM as opposed to it being imposed upon the PrepCom. So I wonder if in another reflection you could maybe address some of those issues. But let me give the floor then to Bahama, speaking on behalf of caricom.

Thank you Co Chair for the floor and speaking on behalf of caricom, we would like to align ourselves with the statement delivered on behalf of AOSIS regarding the key parameters outlined in paragraph 131 of the Consolidated Report.

CARICOM offers the following observations regarding metadata. CARICOM supports standardized metadata with minimum fields aligned with treaty obligations, with flexibility for assisted and offline submissions to accommodate low connectivity contexts, including where such assistance may be facilitated through nodes. We note that it will be particularly important for metadata requirements to support subscription based alerts and geographic filtering regarding confidentiality pending standards from the Scientific and Technical Body. Interim arrangements for confidentiality should preserve transparency while allowing for justified redaction supported by clear rationale without locking in future COP decisions on user roles and governance. CARICOM supports differentiated user roles under a centrally governed system, with the Secretariat retaining authority over the official work record and workflows and with verification and delegation aligned with confidentiality safeguards.

We can support user categories like those listed in the Consultant's Report, noting that focal points designated by the Member State would only be responsible for for managing government users and civil servants.

With respect to traditional knowledge, CARICOM supports strong rights based safeguards including free prior and informed consent regarding proximity based alert. CARICOM recognizes the value of proximity based alerts or geographical based alerts, particularly for sids in developing countries who may face capacity constraints where the monitoring of large volumes of information may become onerous. To this end, subscription based notifications whereby users can select and filter those notifications it wishes to receive may provide a practical starting point regarding interoperability, we feel that link mode interoperability is the most viable approach at launch and that more advanced modes such as harvesting may be introduced progressively, subject to governance safeguards and resources. Regarding cybersecurity, CARICOM supports robust baseline standards proportionate to the initial scope of the chm, with further elaboration guided by COP decisions on multilingualism. CARICOM supports multilingualism access in principle.

At the start this could mean ensuring that users can navigate, understand and discover CHM information across languages from launch. But where most robust, where more robust translations, if feasible and possible, is phased in over time on the regional and thematic nodes. We already spoke on this, but for further clarification.

CARICOM sees nodes as facilitative mechanisms supporting users and workflows rather than as parallel authorities over records or decision making. CARICOM considers that the effective realization of nodes is inseparable from capacity building and targeted support, including support to meet minimum cybersecurity, data protection, audit and operation operational resilience standards. We want to emphasize that regions facing greater infrastructure resource constraints should not be disadvantaged and rather these are precisely the regions that may require greater support to ensure that nodes operate securely and consistently.

CARICOM agrees and understands that this that the discovery phase cannot proceed without defining workflows that will ensure the CHM can receive information required under the agreement, validate and manage that information appropriately, publish or restrict it in accordance with agreed rules, and maintain a single authority authoritative and reliable record. Specifically on workflows on environmental impact assessments. The CHM must be able from launch to receive, publish and make searchable information on screening decisions, planned activities, opportunities for participation, draft and final EIA reports, monitoring outcomes and related notifications in accordance with the agreements. These workflows require a single authoritative record with any collaboration features operating under that oversight on area based management tools. The CHM should function as a central registrar adopting measures and updates including basic geographic tagging and Milestone alerts on MGRs.

Centralized workflows for pre collection notifications identify issuance and tracking, and pre and post collection notifications. These functions are inherently global and must remain centrally administered even if assisted workflows are introduced over time. On capacity building, the transfer of marine technology. CARICOM views this as foundational to the CHM's function.

The phase one should enable structured articulation of needs by SIDS in developing countries, discoverable offers and meaningful matching rather than passive information displays. These workshop workflow sorry should be operational from launch under Secretariat Oversight.

We believe that taken together defining these these workflows will leave greater clarity to the architecture and coordinating authority of the Clara Counts Mechanism, while supporting and facilitating elements to be incorporated incorporated over time in a way that preserves accountability and end to end process integrity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Bahamas Speaking on behalf of caricom, let me offer the floor to Mexico Speaking on behalf of clam,.

Thank you Madame Couture. We will as CLAM not be exhausted of each and every topic identified, but we wanted to highlight some of them, reserving to the possibility to come back to any of the issues that are listed in the study. So CLAMP considers it essential that the Mechanism be transparent and provide equitable access to all users while ensuring appropriate set words for governance, confidential information and overall applicable measures for data security, including notice to parties of any data breach affecting the provision of the data under the Mechanism. In this regard, it is necessary to clearly define which data should be publicly accessible and which should be subject to restricted access, including private and confidential data. This is in order to identify the minimum set of information that should be public.

Furthermore, it would be advisable to determine corresponding tiers of access and clearly define access modalities in order to ensure that information is handled in a manner that is both secure and fit for purpose. Pursuant to Article 51, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, each State is should retain the prerogative to determine the information that is protected from disclosure under the domestic law of a Party or other applicable law. Where information is intended to become public, it would be advisable to establish a mechanism requiring prior authorization before disclosure. Dynamic mechanisms over time could also envisage whereby certain information remains confidential during initial reporting phases and is subsequently made public subject to prior authorization on user role, Taxonomy verification rules and delegation mechanisms could be established and it is important to do these differentiated categories of users within the Clearinghouse Mechanism. A designated a national focal point should be responsible for submitting official information, while varying levels of access and interaction should be provided to enable broader participation without compromising the integrity of official inputs.

CLAM further considers it important to assure that the Mechanism is multilingual and accessible to users with varying levels of technical expertise. In this regard, online support should be available in multiple languages, including Spanish and the interface documentation and training materials should be also multilingual. However, the CLIM is flexible in the initial phase of the operationalization of the Mechanism. In this respect. CLAM underscores also that while interoperability with external information and data system is essential and should be pursued, the BB&J mechanism should remain a self standing system specifically tailored to meet the requirements of the BBJ Agreement.

Its design should neither be constrained by existing structures nor create dependencies on external platforms. In addition, it is important to bear in mind that the Greenhouse Mechanism is intended to serve the BBNJ institutional framework as a whole. Accordingly, its design should take into account the needs and work of the subsidiary bodies established under the Agreement and in this regard. Sorry, Yeah, I will leave it there. Thank you, Madame Kutcher.

And the third question Kut be addressed in in the following intervention.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Mexico speaking on behalf of CLAM and yes, we'll come to the third question.

Okay. May I offer the floor to japan?

Thank you. Co Chair Japan supports tiered prioritization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism development. Japan believes early success should focus on parameters that can already be sourced from existing scientific and administrative processes. Only after establishing the First Priority foundation should be the CHM progress to other priorities. First Priorities holds the discovery phase is essential element such as core mandate rules, confidentiality, governance, user authorization, pollution not minimal.

Cyber security must be fully defined first as a priority should be pursued only when technically and financially justified. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. I'd like to offer the floor to Kenya speaking on behalf of the African Group and then the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Co Chair Kenya is taking the floor on behalf of the African Group and I shall try to be brief and provide a written submission in respect of this item.

The African Group wishes to raise the following positions on key parameters on minimum required metafills. The African Groove envisage general requirement to support interoperability and facilitate searching. This requirement should include the record type, the date of submission, the submitting party geographical tags, information on the status of submission, keywords sorry, Keywords and links to any document to any relevant document on definition and governance of confidential classification, the African Group support role based access control, differentiation of users role, official user designation of person parties and central role of focal national points. However, we recognize that this requires a clearer governance framework for who conducts verification, how incidents should be reported, how incidents also should be escalated and what minimum cybersecurity architecture must be in place before the public launch on alerts. The African Group is of the view that the global alert should serve as the default baseline on interoperability priorities.

The African Group has constantly emphasized interlinkages with existing clearinghouse mechanism databases and ocean data infrastructures to avoid duplication and to benefit from the existing mechanism and information system. The Group has taken note of the various system and databases identified by the consultants for their specific or cross cutting relevance, but we also remain engaged in identifying those which should be given priority at the first phase. Onod's policy and consistent with our our choice of option B. The African Group would like to stress the need for a robust governance framework for the regional and sub regional nodes and for the national focal points. The policy should clearly address the respective roles and reporting respective roles, reporting lines and accountability arrangements, including how nodes relate to the central hub, how focal points interact with the nodes and what common standards are there to govern quality control, confidentiality, service delivery and oversight.

In addition, the African Group is of the view that the national data centers could be possible contributors while retaining data sovereignty on language and translation Policy the African Group stresses that multilingualism must be the baseline requirement from the outset, not a later upgrade, and should apply to key functionalities of the mechanism from the get go on minimum cybersecurity baseline and audit requirements. The African Group is of the view that two factor authentication, encryption, access reviews, audit mechanism, retention policies and confidentiality controls, including for traditional knowledge, are to be considered as the minimum cybersecurity architecture before launch. The African Group continues to advocate for a human LED verification model for users and the content. Automated tools may assist, but they cannot replace proper verification processes and protect sensitive information, traditional knowledge and the integrity of official records. Also, any consideration of AI enabled tools should occur only at the appropriate time and strictly as a supplementary layer.

AI must not replace the authoritative records, human oversight or agreed confidentiality and audit safeguards. I thank you.

I thank Kenya speaking on behalf of the African Group and you know, listening to your intervention, I would it would be useful when we have another go at this and we're talking about nodes, those who want nodes. If we're talking about regional nodes, are those regional nodes by the standard UN type of regions or is there something else that's being contemplated and many have indicated an interest in multilingualism and it would be good to understand if that's the multilingualism based on the UN official languages or is it just two languages? You know, it might be helpful to to hear a little bit about that.

I have.

I do have vanuatu for PIDs, but I did. It's okay. Okay, vanuatu for PIDs, you have the floor.

Thank you, Ambassador.

So we align with Eosis and would like to add the following.

We have a more detailed submission to send in, but I'll just go through them briefly. So on metadata 15 we see the need for core global schema plus regional extensions. A core schema would assist with ensuring standardization of information at the global level, enabling better interoperability.

Regional or node extension extensions would allow for additional fields which could reflect local context, e.g. Customary marine tenure, regional institutions or unique environmental conditions. On confidentiality categories, PCIDs view the four suggested tiers as helpful starting points, though we will need clear clear classification rules. We can also see value in including time limited embargoes for proprietary data. TK labels relatedly thought will have to be given to how and where confidential information will be managed and stored, stored or protected.

Linking to the safeguard elements provided by the Consultant's paper on user roles and verification, PSID sees value in providing for different user access types. As noted by EOCs, there could be national administrators collating, validating and authorizing other public servants in their ministries to upload information. There should also be provisions for non party users to have a to have to be able to fully interact with the mechanism across the full suite of actions, including uploading information. Cognizant that the more open the submission model, the greater the risk of introducing information integrity, governance and system security issues, we suggest that a structured validation and classification framework would be preferable no matter who uploads rather than restricting submission to a few specific groups. For example, a validation process might translate to clear visible metadata on authority validation status, governance conditions as well as checks on sensitive data and a fitness for use assessment.

This would allow the system to remain open while enabling users to access reliability and ensure appropriate use. In considering TK safeguards, we think a proper system will adopt a rights based obligations approach. Right recognizing TK as a separate data or information category with differentiated data governance needs and will ensure FPIC protocol as baseline before accepting any TK information uploads.

TK stored locally Clearinghouse mechanism holds pointers only. Traditional knowledge content should remain in community or national repositories unless explicit consent allows hosting. Clearinghouse mechanism should operate via metadata records with provenance, FPIC indicators, TK labels, role based access and digitally controlled access pathways on alerts.

They should be triggered based on distance from ABMTs, sensitive species ranges or proposed EIA sites. Minimum spatial accuracy must be defined with strong controls to prevent overage or accidental surveillance. PCID C's alerts and a well designed alert system as foundation in a fit for purpose clearinghouse mechanism. The flow of information can easily overwhelm a small administration as is clear from signature and rectification numbers through. Though PSITs are keenly interested in what is taking place in the abnj, so PC value to all three modes, Link Harvest and API Federation.

This matches our regional Pacific Data Hubs. Existing architecture Priority integrators include obiz, gbif, INSDC and regional data hubs such as Pacific Data Hub and inform Pacific Interoperability.

It's a mouthful. It's a priority and a feasibility of integrating Pacific hubs such as sprep, SPC Portals and the Data Hub. Also USP.

Repository. Sorry Pacific PCIDS endorse regional nodes with security and governance baselines. Nodes like those in the Pacific which we have mentioned earlier should be formally endorsed. Nodes should have clear oversight, audit mechanisms and security requirements which those from our region possess on user interfaces including navigation, submission templates and summaries must be multilingual Secretariat leads, translations, regional notes assist Traditional knowledge or legal content must be human verified even if initially machine translated.

Lastly, PSIDs recommend using best Practice Practice for Cyber Security and a strict security baseline incorporating logging, audit trails and data retention controls. I will also note that we believe. That.

Human elements will be quite important. We did not see it covered in the list above, but having people on hand who are able to answer questions, troubleshoot and assist and to do so in a time frame and time zone which works for the Pacific is imperative. Thank you and apologies for the mispronunciations.

Thanks. My co chair mispronounces I'm joking, don't apologize.

We all trip up on those very difficult words. Let me give the floor to the United Kingdom and I should say the Australian delegation did not hear that.

Many thanks. I would like to make the following observations in relation to some of the key parameters for the Clearinghouse Mechanism so the United Kingdom supports establishing minimum metadata fields, but stresses the need for flexibility. Many documents such as ABMT proposals or EIA reports could contain complex and varied information that cannot be captured by rigid templates. Metadata should support FEAR principles, findability and accessibility, while allowing parties to upload documents in in offline formats such as Word or PDF and on this and many other issues we would welcome guidance an area we would welcome guidance from experienced technical partners on confidentiality classifications we strongly support the development of clear confidentiality classifications, whether that is public, restricted, confidential and which will apply to different stakeholders together with rules for assigning permissions and redaction protocols with clear rationales. These classifications will obviously need to evolve over time as experience is developed in terms of we would echo on proximity based alerts we echo the concerns of the EU on these proximity based alerts, stressing the need to reflect the global nature of the agreement.

However, subscription based notifications such as by Ocean Basin may be a pragmatic way of managing information flow on interoperability priorities see, it's tricky even for a native English speaker. We support the tiered model in the consultancy report. Given the need for a phased approach, interoperability with existing databases and repositories must be developed as the clearinghouse mechanism transitions from an initial phase of developing core functions to becoming a more holistic mechanism that supports direct access to data and information. Simple hyperlinks to existing websites can be achieved with minimal complexity. However, future integration will need to be recognized as BB&J implementation expands.

We've already touched on nodes and remain open to hearing further details. We're grateful for some of the clarifications given already in the room from CARICOM and distinguished delegates from psids. However, we would stress again that they shouldn't duplicate functions, increase governance burdens or undermine a unified system.

On language and translation policy, again, the native English speaker in the room probably shouldn't speak to this and I must say the awe with which I interact with you all speaking in second, third, fourth languages, especially in this room without translation services and obviously we recognize the importance of multilingualism, but we would note that technical documents may require careful translation to avoid inaccuracies. Website level automated translation may suffice, while core documents may need special handling.

And. On cyber security based on we'd obviously support a sort of a very high level of cyber security, but we'll leave it to further experts to opine on that. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom. I give the floor to the Philippines, followed then by the Maldives.

Thank you Madam Chair. With respect to key parameters, the Philippines expresses its general support for the parameters identified in the study and underscores that these provide a strong foundation for the operationalization of a functional and user oriented clearinghouse mechanism. In terms of specific elements, the Philippines wish to highlight the importance of proximity based alerts which in our view should be established as a mandatory core function from the initial phase of operationalization rather than as an optional or progressive feature, particularly in relation to environmental impact assessments. Such alerts may serve as an objective and practical tool to enhance timely dissemination of information without prejudice to the rights of all parties or the open accessibility of the mechanism. They are integral to the effective implementation of Article 32 which requires parties to notify planned activities through clearinghouse mechanism prior to the commencement of the EIA process as the procedural entry point of the EIA regime.

This obligation is best realized when notifications are efficiently brought to the attention of States with potential geographic interest while remaining accessible to all. The Philippines further notes that such alerts may also be extended, where appropriate, to notifications relating to area based management tools. In this regard, the Conference of Parties at its first meeting or through interim guidance may wish to consider establishing minimum geospatial data requirements as well as default buffer zone standards to operationalize such alerts in a consistent and predictable manner. Building on these elements, the Philippines considers that pending decisions of the Conference of Parties work on the key parameters may proceed on an interim basis as well, with a view to identifying baseline functionalities for the initial phase of operation. In this context, parties may wish to exchange views on practical modalities and use cases to ensure that the mechanism remains user oriented and implementation focused.

Identify areas where provisional approaches may be appropriate without prejudice to final co op decisions. Encourage the voluntary sharing of experiences and existing practices, particularly on interoperability, low bandwidth accessibility and safeguards for traditional knowledge. Explore opportunities for pilot testing or demonstration activities where feasible to illustrate how specific parameters such as notification systems or interoperability functions could operate in practice and structure discussions in a thematic and modular manner, allowing parties to progressively build convergence and elements that are sufficiently mature while identifying those requiring further technical work. In addition, should the centralized with regional nodes model be selected, it would be important to clarify common policy on nodes, including their relationship to their central system, as well as oversight, management, oversight management, security and operational standards. Such an approach would support progressive convergence on key technical parameters while preserving flexibility and ensuring that final decisions remain with the mandate of the Conference of the Parties.

Thank you Madame Cocher.

Thank you very much. Philippines Maldives, you have the floor.

Thank you Co Chair, with with your indulgence I would like to intervene on both questions one and two.

Thank you. The mall is aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of G77 in China as well as that delivered on behalf of aoc. So on question one regarding a preferred model, we do have a preference for option B, the centralized system which is complemented by regional and sub regional nodes, and we are also flexible in considering option A or a hybrid thereof, as you said. At the same time we wish to emphasize that while lessons can indeed be drawn from existing mechanisms and these are valuable, but the design of the CHM should not be constrained by them. As we have noted in previous prepcoms, this work ahead of us represents a once in a generation opportunity to develop a forward looking system that can respond to our evolving needs and that of the agreement as well as priorities.

So for this region we would not support a retrofit approach. As many others said as well and Chair, we also wish to take this opportunity to emphasize that the CHM should be understood as a living, dynamic or evolving system and so it should be supported by consultative and iterative processes and it should continue to remain responsive as its functions expand in the future. In particular, we wanted to note that building such responsiveness into the CHM would be consistent with Article 47.6 of the agreement.

And on question two regarding parameters, we just wanted to reiterate our support for the Proximity based Alert Policy as previously presented by EOCIS in previous prepcoms as well as discussed today by caricom. We believe that the CSM should include a targeted notification system based on user defined subscriptions, including geography themes and keywords, and we believe this is particularly important for all coastal states and especially sids, given the interconnected nature of farmerian ecosystems and the potential for cross boundary impacts. I thank you Chair,

I thank the. Maldives and I now give the floor to Indonesia.

Thank you Madam Co Chair question number two Indonesia maintains that the parameter identified in the paragraph 131 of the Conservative study are those that materially affect the architecture, functioning and cost of the mechanism. This must be determined by the COP at the first meeting to ensure a predictable and equitable operational foundation. In this regard, consistent with Indonesia's position on the TRR for informal group and our intervention on subsidiary bodies, we highlight the following priority parameter first Architecture and configuration with the hybrid model the determination of hybrid configuration integrating a central system with regional and sub regional nodes is a critical architectural priority for archipelagic states. These nodes are essential for localized support and data federation. This configuration must follow the tiered approach described in paragraph 82 of the study, allowing the mechanism to evolve systematically from basic data referencing Tier 1 to fuel interoperability or Tier 3 as resources and the technical readiness alone then functioning and accessibility.

Article 51, paragraph 5 To ensure that CHM is functional for all, the COP must prioritize the determination of accessibility standards. This includes the requirement for low bandwidth optimization, offline submission format and a fully multilingual interface. These features are not merely technical preference but are necessary to fulfill the full recognition of special requirement of developing state and as well as arithmetic state, institutional coordination and MOUs. In line with our position, that capacity to enter into memorandums resides at the Secretary level. The COP should determine the framework for for formal cooperation with relevant legal instrument framework and bodies IFBs such as IOC, UNESCO and FAO.

This ensure a structured and institutional approach to data harvesting while preserving the legal and administrative hierarchy of the Agreement and we also observe that cost and financial integration within article 52 paragraph 12 the parameter affecting affecting the cost of the mechanism including hosting, maintenance and capacity building must explicitly link to the financial mechanism. The COP must ensure that the mobilization of resources is responsive to the self identified needs of the evolving State, providing a clear budgetary path for GSM's sustainable operations as global public good. Confirmat governance of confidelity the COP must establish the technical modalities for the management of restricted and confidential information including the TK of indigenous people and local communities. This include clear metadata only referencing system and constant based access protocol. Indonesia emphasized that while these parameter are technical in nature, the determination must remain State party led process control conducted under the authority and guidance of the cop.

We believe that informal group on technical aspects should be mandated to refine this parameter for COP's consideration, ensuring they are grounded in the principal transparency and international equity. In conclusion, Indonesia maintains that by prioritizing this foundational environment at the first cop, we ensure that the Clearinghouse Mechanism is built on architecture that inclusive by design, functioning for the benefit of all parties and research in a manner that ensure its long term viability. Thank you Madam Chair.

I wish to thank Indonesia. I have Samoa speaking on behalf of auss.

Sorry thank you co chair.

Some no, there we go. My laptop was glitching for a minute there so thank you Co Chair Samoa takes the floor on behalf of AOSIS to complete our intervention on the parameters. From the outset we support the notion that some degree of guidance indeed needs to come from responding to these parameter questions at the including for example on user roles, categories of information, TK and cybersecurity issues. Achieving some clarity on these issues is critical because they would certainly have implications for the design and implementation of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. This was also emphasized by the study itself.

On subparagraph D, AOSIS agrees with the TK safeguards drawn from the best practices practices and stipulated by the study, including on means of indicating FPIC approval or involvement and access conditions, TK specific permissions and protecting against public disclosure of TK among others. Importantly, however, the linkage to external repositories and or information systems where TK may have been shared in one context but is linked with approval to the Clearinghouse Mechanism is a concern. Safeguards should therefore be implemented to ensure that the carryover is done in a way that is rights based and aligned with indigenous data governance principles. On subpara e proximity based Alert policy the Clearinghouse Mechanism must include a targeted notification, an alert system that would trigger alerts especially to sids that need to be aware of, for example Activities happening adjacent to or to or otherwise close to their respective eez, exclusive economic zones and or extended continental shelves. This should be done through designing a subscription type profile system where users can select for example key activities, themes and issues they would like to be notified of based on their geographical location or proximity to activities.

Users should be defined for themselves the scope of geographical area that they would like to be attuned to. Keywords tags should be used to help filter and identify activities, issues and themes users can create or need to be alerted on. The proximity based alert policy can be defined by user subscription via topics like we mentioned. Key for example Keywords or tags or features Geography and Periodic Summary Reports as proposed by Draft Revised Part B on subparrel F To enable interoperability between the Clearinghouse Mechanism and existing systems, the platform must allow for the seamless translation of data and information from other systems to be incorporated into the Clearinghouse mechanism. As one example, data collected by regional fishery bodies and regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements can be pertinent for BB&J activities.

There would therefore need to be standardized methodologies and formats for information and data to be transferred. However, this should not be done in such a way to disrupt protocols in place for existing mechanisms and systems. AOC therefore prefers the harvest mode to ensure the data is reaped and centralized to the Clearinghouse mechanism in a non disruptive and transparent manner. However, recognizing the resource requirements, the time needed to harvest the first phase could rely on link mode and external links to existing systems while the Clearinghouse mechanism continues to harvest and update over time on subpara g node policy. There are examples of regional or sub regional arrangements in SID regions that could support the Clearinghouse mechanism.

This would also help with linkage to relevant regional and sub regional clearinghouse mechanisms and other gene banks, repositories and databases. It will be important especially for SIDS for nodes to be situated in locations that would support better connectivity, efficiency and localized support. This could be determined by the Secretariat as continued centralized authority. As the continued centralized authority on the Clearinghouse mechanism. There must also be technical compatibility with the central Clearinghouse mechanism and if not specific support to achieve this.

Where the previous requirements are are all satisfied, operational standards on nodes can be developed and reviewed over time to support the functions of the Clearinghouse mechanism. On subpara h, the Clearinghouse mechanism must be multilingual the six UN languages and employee librarian features with access to a human resource and real time access to help and assistance, including for where they may be language barriers. Searching for information in one language should also trigger results that may have been submitted in another language. The format of submissions will therefore require readability and interactivity. Appropriate software, tools and technology could also potentially be used to support translation, noting the most accurate software be employed and is specifically indicated where such tools or technology have been used and what software finally, on subpara I Cybersecurity the use of nodes would help to offset pressure on centralized system and avoid incidents like crashing.

At minimum, there should be a cloud like backup of all data and information held in the Clearinghouse Mechanism. There must also be contingency plan for incidents including crashing, especially where failure to access relevant data and information may prejudice some parties or stakeholders. Finally, at minimum, cybersecurity verification and scan should be periodic at a reasonable frequency based on the best practices but scaled to the capacity of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. I thank you, I thank Samo and I will give the floor to the International Indian Treaty Council and then afterwards I will ask the Consultant to make a clarification on terminology as used as was raised by the European Union International Indian Treaty Council, you have the floor.

Thank you very much Madam Co Chair, I'm all the way in the back. By the way, I have the honor to intervene on behalf of the IATC, which is an organization of over 100 indigenous peoples from North America, Latin America, Caribbean, the Arctic and Pacific working on the rights of indigenous peoples. On the outside, we join others as well other delegations in thanking the consultants for their hard work in preparing the study and based on the interventions we have heard so far, it proves to be a good basis of discussion. Regarding question two, on the operational parameters of paragraph 131, we proposed the CHM to include some strict legal boundaries across all nine listed parameters. However, allow us to highlight a few on a Metadata and offline formats Metadata requirements must mandate for dynamic pending consent flags within the intake forms when it comes to tk.

Furthermore, the system must support offline submission formats and queue synchronization to accommodate those operating in remote and or low bandwidth environments, ensuring they are not technically locked out of the notification process. Arm B Confidentiality vis a vis personal knowledge the baseline must be signaling, not transferring. We are concerned that classifying substantive knowledge as restricted on a central server still transfers possession to a third party administrator. From an indigenous people's point of view, true confidentiality and data sovereignty dictates that the system only signals the existence of traditional knowledge, while substantive data never leaves the physical and legal jurisdiction of the distinct rights holders on SEA user roles. The use of taxonomy must distinctly include a category for indigenous peoples.

Legacy database schemes exclude indigenous peoples or conflate us with civil society and or local communities or default to using state governments as proxies for consent are structurally invalid and incompatible with a distinct right to free prior and informed consent on the TK Safeguards the system should structurally reject all narrative or file uploads of substantive traditional knowledge. It should act solely as in as a metadata routing directory. Crucially sorry Crucially, the access pathways should bypass state national focal points and direct requests exclusively to designated indigenous peoples, their representatives and or institutions. Additionally, we proposed a mechanism to include a red light default feature where the BB and J batch identifier is frozen and cannot clear for operational use until a digital receipt proving off platform consent is actively verified and to echo Vanuatu on behalf of the PSITs and others. For indigenous peoples, a rights based approach is important, particularly consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indonesian Peoples on F interoperability.

Bringing in TK from legacy or other mechanisms without a strict consent audit is essentially data laundering, allowing all databases as a backdoor to bypass strict new BB&J rules. The CHM could be built with open application programming interfaces to guarantee future federation with nodes. The CHM should prevent automatic grandfathering or carryover of TK from other registries. Older systems lack the strict consent parameters mandated by BMJ article as well as the preamble paragraphs on the Unit Decoration on Rights of Indonese Peoples. Permitting automatic interoperability creates a loophole where data collected under outdated weaker standards bypasses our new safeguards.

Therefore, any legacy traditional knowledge seeking integration into the BBJ mechanism should pass through a methodology designed by the proposed Indigenous Advisory Mechanism ensuring it meets the current baseline for free prior form consent before it is granted a BBJ identifier. And finally, on Cyber security sub I, the security baseline must treat automated data extraction as a threat factor. Indigenous people require hard coded boundaries against artificial intelligence, automated scraping, large language model ingestion or algorithmic training on indigenous metadata should be strictly prohibited and actively audited to prevent digital biopiracy.

I thank you, thank you very much to our colleague from the International Indian Treaty Council and I will invite the Consultant to clarify the terms pilot and prototype for us since we're using one technical basis for our discussion. Thank you,.

Thank you very much. Co Chair so our understanding of the concept of a prototype and piloting are based on industry best practices. A prototype is an early version of a specific function or functions in a whole information system which can be Piloted meaning tested by a group of users in in the draft consolidated study. Phase two is prototyping the functions that are confirmed through the Phase one process and Phase three is a pilot. To be clear, a prototype cannot be built without a discovery phase.

Phase one, which provides clear guidance on what will be built. And thank you very much for the opportunity.

Thank you for the clarification. We will now turn to paragraph three. We're now going to turn to the question three which speaks to the issue of next steps.

And I thank those who have already begun to highlight some of the next steps that need to be contemplated. But let me open the floor for any delegation that had not had the opportunity to pronounce on next steps. The floor is open. Please use your name plates to indicate your interest in taking the floor.

Samoa, on behalf of aoc, you have the floor.

Thank you, Kochia. Regarding next steps, AOC would request clarity on a few issues. Firstly, it would appear that the sub questions on the next steps are contingent on how we address the previous questions. Example, the Clearinghouse mechanism, model parameters, other options for operationalization, operationalizing the Clearinghouse mechanism. We would therefore propose that we try to resolve those questions to the furtherest extent possible.

Secondly, AOC is in favor of ensuring there is a pilot of the clearinghouse mechanism. Following prep comments 2R3 and before cop 1, this pilot could be based on design elements and specific priority functions of the Clearinghouse mechanism that are agreed Here at the PrepCom 3 this pilot could be user tested and then reviewed to enable COP decisions that can facilitate the development of an effective mechanism. In light of the foregoing, AUSS would see seek guidance and clarity from the co chairs and dualists on the legal and procedural requirements of potential innovative solutions possible to help facilitate the development of a pilot that potentially can be stepwise and further developed after the first COP without prejudice to the COP having the ability to pursue another approach to design and implement implementation of the Clearinghouse mechanism. Thirdly, in light of the foregoing, AOSIS would seek guidance and clarity from the coaches.

Sorry, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much Samoa and thank you for the questions. My. My takeaway is the interest in going to pilot by COP1, so going through discovery and the alpha phase and then going into the beta phase. Got it. And you would want some clarity on what would be needed in terms of legal requirements in order to do that and I assume resource requirements as well.

I don't have an answer for you, but I will go to the Bahamas. Speaking on behalf of caricom,.

Thank you co Chair and thank you for that pressure as well. Just to answer your earlier question, I know that in our intervention on question two, if you'll permit me, we had raised the point of multilingualism and now that we had the context of the full AOSIS intervention, we were referring yes, to the six official languages of the United Nations. On question three regarding the next steps, CARICOM considers that in order to enable meaningful progress prior to the first meeting of the Conference of Parties, it would be appropriate for the Preparatory Commission to request the Secretariat to engage relevant technical experts, including through potentially the engagement of consultants or other short term technical support, to undertake a preparatory technical testing or pilot of the Clearinghouse mechanism. So this would be from the discovery to the beta phase, as has been suggested by the EU and other delegations informed by the model and parameters identified by this Preparatory Commission. On timeline, we reiterate the AOS statement that it should be between PrepCom 3 and COP1 on who should undertake this pilot.

CARICOM is still considering this and has taken note of the IOC proposal. CARICOM emphasizes that this preparatory pilot would be non binding and technical in nature, aimed at testing feasibility, gathering evidence and validating assumptions made with respect to the modalities, parameters and workflows associated with the identified model and parameters as determined by the Preparatory Commission in formulating sound and evidence based recommendations for consideration by the cop. The outputs of this preparatory pilot should be submitted to the Preparatory the PREPCOM and transmitted to the Conference of Parties as analytical and informational inputs to guide COP decisions on the final design, governance, resourcing and operation modalities of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. Regarding financing, how this would be done we'll reserve for the moment. Thank you.

I wish to thank the Bahama speaking on behalf of caricom and I now give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you very much for giving us the floor.

So we seem to hear in the room appetite for a pilot in place for COP one. We would like to just go back to the premises of our answer to question 1 so to remember the lessons learned from PrepCom 2 and also to be remindful that this is a technical discussion that I believe we already acknowledge that we don't have the technical capacity in the room to unravel it all. This is why we went for technical advice. However, some of the parameters seem to be more straightforward and we hear lots of common sense consideration. Nothing that we would not be open to consideration.

Definitely there are ones that might need more time option and again we would welcome technical advice on the different option, how to operationalize the needs, because we are talking about needs of different region, of different legislation maybe. So it's a matter of having some option in front of us that could come from technical expertise. So how we see it is more a pilot in twofold. One elements being more functional, pragmatic and more easy to be implemented probably. And the second being identifying option that would require the COP to take decision on certain option how to proceed.

And also the study already refers to to them in paragraph 139C at page 37. So the pilot would also be very useful to unravel the criticalities around them. And we also think that an element of consultation with stakeholders and delegation will be very important in the pilot phase. And in our view this should be done under the facilitation of the Secretariat and the CO chairs. And also as mentioned by, we would like to thank EOSIS and CARICOM for their intervention.

We will consider them. There were very important elements inside. And also as mentioned before by Kansas, we could consider the program to invite mandate relevant technical organization entities to start working. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

European Union I have Australia speaking on behalf of Kanzi.

Thank you, Chair.

Apologies for speaking again. We just thought we'd having heard from IAC UNESCO earlier, just wanted to note that we welcome their presentation and we would be keen to hear more from them on the process that they would envisage for the building of the Clearinghouse Mechanism, including what early steps that they think should be taken between now and Cop 1, as well as any guidance that they would need from us to do so. So if that's possible, we would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Australia and I speaking on behalf of Kanzi. I'll give the floor next to Mexico speaking on behalf of clam.

Thank you. Madame Kusher. In regard to this question concerning the operationalization of the Greenhouse Mechanism, CLAM is of the view that a combined approach ensuring in house guidance, coordination and oversight, alongside the engagement of consultants, individual contractors and where appropriate, vendor services could be most suitable. Such an approach could allow for the effective use of the of a specialized expertise, while ensuring that the development and functioning of the Mechanism remain fully aligned with the objectives of the agreement and under the direction of the cop. In this sense, clam, and in similar terms of what was said by carcium, takes note of the offer by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO to act as a technical partner in respect not only of the development of the Greenhouse Mechanism, but also hosting and maintaining its infrastructure.

We of course welcomes UNESCO's valuable expertise in supporting the structuring of the Mechanism. At the same time and as noted earlier, the BB&J mechanism for exchange of information, that is to say, the Clearinghouse Mechanism must remain a self standing system specifically tailored to meet the requirements of the Agreement. We are therefore cautious about creating any dependencies on external systems and stress that the development and operation of the Mechanism must remain under the guidance of the cop. As the beating heart of the Agreement, the Greenhouse Mechanism must remain firmly within its institutional chest. That said, we do appreciate the offer and will be happy to further analyze what a possible formal cooperation arrangement with the IOC would entail.

Thank you. I thank Mexico speaking on behalf of clam and I now give the floor to Senegal speaking on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you Madam Co Chair. First we thank you the different speakers from UNEP and OIC IOC for their IC alliance for sharing their views and input on this process. Now turning to the third question, the African Group reiterates its support for a phased approach to operationalization and insists on the fact that the roadmap must go beyond a simple description of faces. It should put in place a minimum viable package that should be prioritized and made available at the earliest convenience. This package should include at minimum the standardized batch identifiers for MGRs, core matching functions for capacity building and transfer of marine technology, EIAs and ABMTs, notification and bundled document workflows, multilingual navigation, basic translation support, low bandwidth and offline continuity tools and basic alerts function with a simple geospatial viewer.

Turning to the sub Question A on how this operationalization will work, the African Group is of the view that this could be delivered through a combination of in House Secretariat effort as leading force, targeted engagement of consultants or individual contractors where specialized expertise is required and possible vendor support for specific infrastructure or software component if deemed necessary. Turning to Sub Question C on the timing, the African Group notes that the delivery arrangement should commence as soon as possible after Prepcom 3, ideally in the immediate length speed up to COP1 to enable a realistic better phase and minimum viable functionalities at the earliest convenience. The African Group also urged Secretariat to initiate necessary preparatory processes promptly upon receipt of guidance from Preparatory Commission so that concrete progress on implementation can be reported to COP1. In our views, delay at this stage would risk compressing implementation timeline and undermine the practice practical readiness of the Mechanism. At the same time, the African Group emphasizes that the objective of initial phase should not be to achieve full technical maturity from the outset, rather consistent with the phased approach to operationalization.

The priority should be to establish a mechanism that is already functional, accessible and useful in practice with a clear central architecture, meaningful support, renewal nodes and a delivery pathway that is both financially and institutionally sustainable. Thank you very much. I wish to thank Senegal and I now wish to give the floor, speaking on behalf of the African Group and I now wish to give the floor to the Philippines.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the question on the next steps, the Philippines considers that the Commission should move towards operational readiness by 1. Advancing agreement on the operational model and its governance and institutional arrangements, including clear roles for the COP, the Secretariat and the subsidiary bodies 2. Mandating the Secretariat to proceed with the development of system architecture and workflows including the engagement of a technical partner and pilot implementation and 3. Developing a phased implementation roadmap identifying priority corps functionalities for the initial phase alongside resource requirements and partnership arrangements.

With respect to delivery arrangements, the Philippines supports a hybrid approach combining Secretariat led coordination and oversight with targeted engagement of technical partners. Such an approach would ensure both institutional continuity and technical efficiency while allowing flexibility to scale over time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Philippines. Now I wish to give the floor to Japan and then the United Kingdom after Japan.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Japan supports a phased and evidence based approach to the operationalization of the creating a house mechanism. Also, as you mentioned, we have a limited. I mean the expertise because I mean we need several expert people dealing with a database, research repository and also system. But Japan would like to propose the following timeline and we need.

I mean reality check with a small group. But first I think minimum pathway to the in bloom party to meet our obligation. It's quota 2 and quota 3 this year 2026 Ideally they are launching in house rate development pilot interim clearinghouse mechanism supported by targeted consultancy and limited procurement focusing on minimum required function. End of the 2026 deploy the interior clearing house mechanism with minimum required function by COP1 2027 present full clearinghouse mechanism design or adoption informed by operational experience from the pilot phase Regarding the delivery arrangement, Japan conscious early work should prioritize in house coordination with focus consultancy support rather than Hulu outsourcing. The initial delivery phase should deliver three targeted output only and as I've already explained, but I'll repeat a concise lesson learning review of the existing clearing house mechanisms.

Second one, mapping of national workflow and expected workload including MGR related functions. Number three, a basic interoperability assessment with relevant systems such as Orbis 3 Deliverers are necessary to support evidence based decisions at Copang and to Avoid premature design locking. Japan also stresses the importance of close collaboration with relevant partners including UNESCO IOC during this phase, hiring consultant and procurement process should begin in Quarter 2 or Quarter 32026 to enable timely deployment of the interim cooling house mechanism and informed decision making on the full systems. Regarding the full project management approach of this process. We can call this project as a hybrid project in the sense it has Agile part and it also has waterfall part.

Agile part means system development focusing on the approach to focus, minimum variable product, continuous improvement with a consultation with key stakeholders and waterhole part. We need to gather the evidence from the field combining the agile part and waterhole part, so called the hybrid project, we can I mean developed more in home. Thank you very much.

Thank you Japan for that very clear outline of work. I wish to give the floor to the United Kingdom.

Thank you. Like many in the room, the United Kingdom has already stated that we believe PrepCom 3 should recommend that COP1 adopt a phased operational pathway enabling immediate commencement of system development. We echo the statements from the distinguished delegates from clam, caricom, Kanzi, Japan and those of others in the room on the value of leveraging existing global technical expertise. To that extent, we also welcome statement by IOC and echo the request from Australia Kanzi to provide more information and guidance as to timings for delivery arrangements. We all know that depends on the decisions taken here at PrepCom3.

Scoping of the initial phase can start immediately should a decision on who should do this be taken and if funding is provided. That is why calling on those who have experience in developing clearinghouse mechanisms such as the IOC would be invaluable in minimizing the time in getting the work started. We welcome the detailed timeline suggested by Japan, but won't comment on it now. We'll reflect further. Thank you.

Thank you very much. First of all, let me encourage everyone to put your statements online. It's very helpful for us when we're reviewing the various comments and especially to help us organize how we can structure our next discussions. We've now heard from the European Union Kanzi and the United Kingdom requesting further information from IOC UNESCO. If the representative is in the room and wishes to provide a further elaboration as has been requested, you're welcome to do so.

Otherwise we can do so. I think we've meeting tomorrow if you want to do it then, but open to whatever you decide.

We have required further clarifications. If this is agreeable, we would actually provide a statement tomorrow to build on the comments we've heard this evening and Try to provide some clarification on some of those questions. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Okay, that was the last intervention for today. Let me first of all, thank you all for your very thoughtful reflections on the questions that we had put forward to guide our discussion today. As I mentioned, it would be helpful to actually see some of these statements holistically, because you divided them up to respond each in turn. And then tomorrow we will provide some guidance on how we'd like to take forward this discussion. Actually, don't know when we've got tomorrow.

In the morning. Okay, that'll be in the morning. So please make sure that you upload your statements for us and then we'll of course provide time for any further clarifications that you may wish to make. We shall be convening at 10am sharp tomorrow morning. We will first of course meet in plenary in Conference Room 4 for the oral reports of the discussions held today under item 5 of the agenda.

Afterwards, we will resume our consideration of item five of our agenda and in Conference Room four, we will continue our consideration on this topic, the Clarin House mechanism in parallel, in Conference Room 11. Unless there's a change. There is a change. One second.

So, in Conference Room 11, instead of rules of procedures for the Conference of the Parties, my co chair will take up the issue of the subsidiary bodies in terms of reference and you know the long thing.

Before you leave, I just want to also mention that before the lunch break at 12:30, we might start a little bit earlier. There will be a presentation by Chile of its offer to host the Secretariat established under the agreement. That will be in a plenary format. So our meeting on the Clearinghouse mechanism will actually be shorter than the full three hours. So just to flag that, and that also equally applies to whatever is happening here in conference room 11.

So please look out for announcements on the website for any further guidance on how we might proceed tomorrow morning on this particular topic. With that, I will release you. Wait, you wanted to do something? No?

Yeah. Meeting is adjourned.