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

Je vais commencer. Nous allons reprendre la séance pour examiner les arrangements avec le Fonds mondial pour l'environnement afin de donner effet aux dispositions pertinentes en matière de financement. Les délégations sont informées que, en raison de la crise de liquidité en cours, bien que je sois présent au sein des Nations Unies, les services d'interprétation ne seront pas disponibles dans cette salle. Nous vous remercions d'avance de votre compréhension et de votre flexibilité. Nous souhaitons également, je ne sais pas à quel point cette phrase est appropriée, mais je vais la lire de toute façon, rappeler aux délégations d'observer que la priorité dans le siège devrait être donnée aux délégations d'État. Les observateurs devraient être assis sur les sièges arrière ou céder leur siège. C'est vraiment plus approprié pour le CR 11, alors sautons celui-là. La diffusion en direct est disponible, si quelqu'un le souhaite. not find a seat, but really and truly, there are a lot of seats. Delegations will recall that the Commission, at its second session, requested the co-chairs that the co-chairs prepare a further revised aid to discussions and negotiations concerning a draft memorandum of understanding between the Conference of the Parties and the JEF Council for consideration by PrepCom 3. Le texte révisé est contenu dans le document A/AC.296/2026/7. Le texte actuel est basé sur le texte actualisé d'un projet de mémorandum d'entente entre la Conférence des Parties et le Conseil du JEV, distribué lors de la deuxième session de la CP. and includes further updates that incorporate the views expressed and written input provided during the second week of the second session of the Preparatory Commission. My Co-Chair and I have sought to capture the state of discussions and negotiations at the conclusion of the second session, with efforts made to streamline options and reduce the use of brackets. It is also noted that certain proposals reflected in the further revised aid may overlap with discussions on other issues being addressed by the Commission, including those relating to subsidiary bodies and arrangements for the functioning of the secretariat established under the Agreement. We have consulted with the JEF secretariat in the preparation of this aid, including with respect to the general issue of whether the draft memorandum of understanding should, in specific instances, refer to JEF or to the JEF Council. The further revised aid reflects the advice received from the JEF Secretariat on this matter. Let me go over how I intend to proceed with this. So we've had several discussions on the draft MOU. We should be now at a position to find solutions and landing zones. There's no need for further positioning on these issues. There are several clusters of issues, some dealing with how we will reflect principles, some dealing with the relationship, specifically around the guidance, de la COP au GEF, au Fonds mondial pour l'environnement. Et puis, il y a d'autres questions qui peuvent nécessiter une réflexion plus approfondie, en ce qui concerne ce qui se passe dans d'autres chambres, en particulier dans les organes subsidiaires, ainsi qu'en ce qui concerne la coopération entre les organes subsidiaires et les autres IFB. So let's try to work towards finding those landing ground. We might also want to look at ways in which some texts can simply be streamlined, where wording might be superfluous given the context that the various provisions are found. So we'll start, we'll focus on the bracketed text. As Adam mentioned in our statements to the plenary this morning, of course, if any delegation wishes to go to unbracketed text, sorry, yes, unbracketed text, that will be fine, but let's try to work through the brackets and see how we go. So we'll start off with the preamble, and I note in the preamble, the first set of brackets appear in PP9. So I will open the floor and take comments on this. This is one that relates to some issues relating to principles, and you will see similar issues arising in OP-2 and OP-6. Floor is open. Any proposals of how we might be able to clean this up? I wish to give the floor to Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

Je vous remercie, Madame la Présidente. Encore une fois, comme je l'ai dit hier, je m'excuse de ne pas avoir suivi votre procédure concernant le test de pragmatique. Je vais faire une déclaration générale au nom du groupe 77 et des pays en développement. Nous vous remercions pour le document A/AC.296/2026/7, les arrangements avec le Fonds mondial pour l'environnement. As our group is still considering the various aspects of arrangements with the Global Environment Facility for the moment, we would like to touch upon a few general points along with some observations in relation to those arrangements. Le Groupe des Sept-Sept et la Chine souhaitent souligner que l'octroi d'un soutien aux pays en développement par le biais de la consolidation des capacités et du transfert de technologie marine est un élément essentiel pour atteindre les objectifs de conservation et d'utilisation durable de la diversité biologique marine dans les zones relevant de la juridiction nationale. À la lumière de ces éléments essentiels, qui ont été abordés dans diverses dispositions, of the agreement, including article 52, appropriate consideration should be given, among others, to the arrangements with the JEF to support developing state parties in implementing the agreement while taking into account the special circumstances of small island developing states, least developed countries and special interests and needs of landlocked developing countries. We would like to stress the need for funding in support of the implementation of the BBNJ agreement to enable developing states to fulfill their obligations and secure their rights in the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of the ocean in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. We further stress that the financial resources under the BBNJ agreement shall be adequate, accessible, new and additional and predictable. Le processus d'orientation de la COP vers le GEF devrait déterminer les orientations et les priorités de programmation des fonds à allouer en soutien à la mise en œuvre de l'Accord BBNJ en soutien aux Parties en développement sur la base des besoins et des priorités auto-identifiés et de la non-discrimination. the reporting of the JEF should allow for the COP to have full picture of the current portfolio projects under the BB&J funding window, as well as information on access modalities, program streams, and priorities and their respective gaps. Finally, we would like to mention that our group is still considering various aspects of the memorandum of understanding between the COP and the Council of JEF and those who are in positions on these matters. However, our member states will want to further detail in this context and we will look forward to the discussions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Uragai, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. And I appreciate that you apologize. You don't need to apologize. Happy to have your statement. Let me offer the floor now to the European Union, followed then by Brazil speaking on behalf of CLAM. European Union.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 Member States. At the outset, we wish to express our sincere gratitude to the Co-Chairs for their further revised aid to discussions and negotiations on the arrangement with the Global Environment Facility to give effect to the relevant BBNJ provisions on financial resources. Ce document fournit sans aucun doute une base solide pour les délibérations d'aujourd'hui et nous espérons parvenir à un accord au sein de cette commission préparatoire. Pour des raisons de concision, nous nous concentrerons sur les points clés qui nécessiteraient encore des améliorations pour obtenir le soutien de l'UE et de ses États membres. Nous soumettrons bien sûr des propositions détaillées et écrites sur tous les aspects identifiés en temps voulu. Generally speaking, it is important for the EU and Member States that GEF is fully involved in the process of elaboration of this MOU. While being a very technical document, we should aim to agree on provisions that will allow the GEF Trust Fund to play its role as part of the financial mechanism of the agreement. We have almost no problem with the preamble paragraphs, except the one which still contains brackets, which should be considerably shortened. There is no reason for reflecting specifically one or another element included in this article. This would be cherry picking and would trigger a discussion on the hierarchy between these principles and approaches. In our view, no such hierarchy does exist. Thus, the general mention of Article 7 is sufficient. Finally, we believe that the preamble paragraphs could be further streamlined as they are mainly quoting paragraphs of the agreement. I thank you.

I wish to thank the European Union and I now give the floor to Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I also have the honour Je voudrais commencer par remercier les coprésidents d'avoir préparé cette discussion sur le JEF MOU, qui, pour notre groupe, peut encore être une base pour notre discussion. we would also like to commend the effort of reaching out to the JEF in regard to the terminology. Our group was very active in this discussion in PrepCom 2, and our overall impression is that this issue of terminology is solved out throughout the text, mindful, of course, that there are some provisions that still have brackets around the references to Jeff Trust Fund and Council, and we'll come to that when time allows. In regards to the preamble paragraph referring to Article 7 of the agreement, as you might recall, CLAM was putting until PREP COM 2 a general reservation on such a reference. We were trying to understand la température de la salle en ce qui concerne la meilleure façon de refléter l'articulation de l'article 7. C'est parce que nous voyons en effet cet article comme pertinent pour la discussion du JAF, du MOU et de beaucoup d'autres. many, not to say all, of the elements that are now under bracket, including the principle of equity and fair and equitable sharing of benefits, but also the reference to IPLC and the special circumstances of seeds and the seas are dear to members of CLAM. However, we would like to take the floor also in addressing your request, Madam Co-Chair, to bring us forward to consensus. to say that this group could also entertain lifting our reservation in terms of making a broad reference to Article 7 of the agreement and including, of course, that reference throughout the text in specific parts. We also see a reference to Article 7 in the purpose section. So we would be able to entertain this broad reference to Article 7. mindful, of course, of the overall balance that we need to strike in terms of the MOU with the JEF. Thank you.

Thank you, or as Adam would want to say, obrigado. Thanks for your work as well, Matthias, in helping us with some of the terminology, the engagement of CLAM in that regard, and I should have said that from the outset. Thank you also for demonstrating your group's flexibility and consideration of the importance of Article 7. with a view to moving us forward and I hope we can hear some reaction to these proposals so far made. I believe Maldives will be speaking for AOSIS. Maldives, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and also for your recommended guidance on how we will tackle this text. In regards to the bracketed text in the preamble of paragraphs, EOSIS recommends retaining the principle of equity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, and also retaining the special circumstances of small island developing states and of least developed countries because of its high relevance to the execution of DEFS role as part of the BBNJ's financial mechanism. And while you have mentioned your ambition to find solutions to the bracketed text, I apologize and would like to note that EOSIS does have a comment/addition to 1E as well, and if you would allow us to bring it in when we can. Thank you, Chair.

I wish to thank Maldives speaking on behalf of EOSIS. I will now give the floor to Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of PSEDS. And I think now I see Seychelles, I believe, speaking for the Africa group, but you can correct me. Papua New Guinea.

Thank you, co-chair. First, let me say again what a pleasure it is to see you this morning co-chairing us. We thank you and the Secretariat very much for the work on the JEF MOU. I have the honour and pleasure of speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, the PSIDS. We align with G77 and China and AOSIS. I would reaffirm the remarks of the distinguished representative of the Maldives made just a moment ago on this PP, preamble paragraph. We would request to open the brackets and retain the text as is on this paragraph. Thank you very much.

I thank Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of PSETS, and I now give the floor to Seychelles speaking for Africa Group.

Yes, good morning, Chair, and allow me to just make some preliminary comments before I jump into, uh, um, regarding SAARC. So, distinguished Chair, thank you for giving the African Group the floor. I have the honor to speak today on behalf of the African Group. The African Group aligns itself with the G77 and China. We recognize that the MOU defines the relationship between the BBNJ COP and the JEF Council, and that it articulates how the JEF is accountable to the BBNJ COP and how the JEF is functioning under the guidance, authority and decisions of the BBNJ COP. The African Group recognizes that following a request from the co-chairs at PrepCom 2, the JEF Secretariat provided legal comments on the use of the JEF and Council. Throughout the text, we wish to thank the co-chairs for considering these comments and integrating them as appropriate in the official version of the PrepCom 3 documents. Furthermore, the African Group appreciates that the JEF Council still needs to review the BBNJ COP JEF Council MOU, and if the MOU text is agreed here at this PrepCom 3, it will be It will provide the JEF Council sufficient time to review it at its 71st JEF Council meeting in June 2026. In addition, the African Group appreciates that discussing the MOU in June of this year, 2026, at the 71st JEF Council meeting should provide sufficient time for the JEF Council to provide comments to be included in the version of the MOU that would be under discussion by the JEF by the first BBNJ COP. Given this timeline, the African Group wishes to be constructive in supporting the agreement of the MOU text at this PrepCom 3. Moving now to the text on definitions, the African Group recommends adding, including its Assembly Council and Secretariat to include all of its main decision-making bodies. And then specifically on the question that you ask on seven power one, the African group also recommends opening the brackets. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Seychelles. I assume you were referring to PP9 for opening the brackets. Apologies. And then And then we'll come to definitions shortly, but thanks for flagging that for us. I wish to give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Good morning to you and good morning to our colleagues. we align our position with the we align the statement with the statement given by Uruguay on G7 on behalf of G77 and China and also by the Maldives on behalf of EOSIS and we'd like to echo comments in the room that we generally approve of we welcome the document and um we we can definitely see the work that has been done in in advancing it from the discussions we had at PC2 um And we have at this point in time, we think that we've had a lot of time to deliberate this document and we look forward to constructive documents with colleagues in the room as so that we can close this. Um, uh, so in regards to the par the discussion on article seven, we reaffirm the statement delivered by Maldives on behalf of AOSIS and we request to remove the brackets and, regarding the including the principle of equity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. And we also seek to retain the language regarding full recognition of special circumstances of SIDS and LDCs and acknowledge the special interests of the needs of landlocked developing countries. Thank you.

I wish to thank Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM. I now give the floor to Japan.

Thank you, co-chair. Japan wishes to express a sincere gratitude to the co-chairs and to Dorlos for preparing this draft MOU. Japan believes that this draft MOU should be developed so as to ensure transparency in JEF activities, avoiding duplication with other funds under the agreement. while bearing in mind that the COP should not impose excessive demands or directives on the JAF. And on preamble paragraph nine, Japan proposes to open the larger bracket but delay the small bracket. Of course, Japan values the principle of equity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. However, we think it is not relevant here as benefit sharing is not the purpose of the JEF Trust Fund. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you very much. Japan, I now give the floor to Switzerland.

Thank you very much. First, we would like to also join others in thanking you for preparing the aid for discussion and the revised draft MOU. Our understanding is that this MOU is strictly between the COP and the GEF and regulates the relationship between the COP and the GEF to enable the GEF to fulfill its role efficiently as part of the financial mechanism. However, it is also our understanding that it's the GEF Council that would report to the COP As a general comment, we consider that the current draft is a bit detailed and we think that there is room indeed for simplification and streamlining. So we will propose targeted adjustments as we go along and submit this in writing if possible. With respect to the preamble paragraphs, and as we are advised to streamline, to bring it forward towards consensus, and hearing the views of others in the room, as the European Union and Brazil on behalf of CLAM, we think that an approach could be to rather have a general recalling of relevant articles of the agreements that might be sufficient in order to avoid the risk of cherry picking or having a lack of consistency with the agreement and that would actually relate to a number of paragraphs in the preamble, paragraphs that actually refer to the agreement and are almost verbatim of the agreement. So our suggestion would be to see if there is appetite to streamline this paragraph and replace them with a general reference. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Switzerland. I wish now to give the floor to Canada, followed by Indonesia.

Thank you, Co-Chair. First of all, I would like to thank Co-Chairs, your teams and DUALIS for a great work to streamline this document. In our view, we should be able to finalize this document at PrepCom III. So our approach is to support you and travailler avec tout le monde de manière constructive pour atteindre cet objectif. En ce qui concerne le préambule, je ne pense pas que nous devrions consacrer trop de temps à ce texte. En ce qui concerne le paragraphe faisant référence à l'article 7, nous préférons le simplifier en supprimant simplement la liste détaillée des principes généraux applicables. Nous comprenons qu'ils sont importants. you know, specific approach or principle is important to specific groups. And, you know, the same for us, you know, we do have one specific reference there as well, but our strong preference would be simply to remove that list and basically just end the paragraph where it says, in order to achieve the objectives of the agreement, we think that this should suffice. Thank you, co-chair.

Madame la Présidente, l'Indonésie s'aligne sur la déclaration faite par la délégation de l'Uruguay au nom du Groupe des 77 et de la Chine concernant le préambule de l'accord, rappelant l'article 7 de l'accord. L'Indonésie souhaite affirmer l'importance fondamentale de cet article dans la mise en œuvre de nos objectifs communs. In particular, echoing previous distinguished delegates from Maldives, Papua New Guinea and Antigua and Barbuda, we underscore the principle of equity and fair and equitable sharing of benefits as core pillars of the BBNJ framework. This principle must remain at the forefront of our arrangement with the JEF to ensure that the financial mechanism effectively serves the interests of all parties. In this regard, we suggest to lift the bracket around the paragraph nine. Furthermore, Indonesia also emphasized that the needs and special interests of developing states are clearly recognized and must strictly align with the provision under Article 52, paragraph 6 of the agreement. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, and thank you for that exchange of views. I think this is, we've basically heard these views before. Again, I want to encourage delegations to consider ways in which we can move forward. et et et en fait, streamliner, reconnaissons que dans ce cas, l'article 7 est considéré important pour toutes les délégations qui ont parlé. Je vais donner brièvement la parole aux Maldives, qui souhaitent aborder, je pense, la même question que les Seychelles avaient déjà soulevée. Maldives au nom de l'AOSIS.

Merci, Monsieur le Président. en regard au paragraphe un, euh, on aimerait, euh, on aimerait proposer le texte additionnel de pour la clarté pour s'assurer que le paragraphe couvre tous les organes de prise de décision de la CEE. Donc, on recommanderait l'ajout de après le Fonds pour l'environnement mondial, y compris son assemblée, son conseil et son secrétariat. Merci, monsieur le président.

Thank you. Maldives speaking on behalf of EOSIS. I wish to give the floor to Bangladesh.

The preamble paragraph under article 16 paragraph 16 of article 52, we believe that the rules of procedures for the Conference of the Parties will be finalized during this Pre-COP 3 or soon, but once finalized, the duration of the periodic review should be clearly and specifically defined in this JEF document. Moreover, we also support the principles of equity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, and therefore we propose that the deletion of the brackets to reflect consensus on this provision. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you very much, Bangladesh. Philippines, and then I want to move on to purpose. Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Philippines associates itself with the statement made on behalf of the G77 and China. On preamble paragraph nine, the Philippines supports inclusion of principles of equity, rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and special circumstances of SIDS and LDCs. We find that cherry picking these specific principles is beneficial to highlight their particular relevance to funding needs, to address challenges developing countries face in the implementation of the agreement. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Philippines. I am moving on to operative paragraph two. Any delegation that wishes to reflect on the previous discussion on PP9 may do so, but I would like to focus on OP2. which picks up the same issue of whether or not we refer to Article 7 in addition to other references. I will give the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor, and sorry for taking you a little bit back. Egypt would like to align itself with the intervention made by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China, and we would like to stress on the importance of the insertion of fair and equitable sharing of benefits principle as we see it's so close to the application of this MOU and we see a good merit of such insertion. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Egypt. I will now give the floor to the European Union followed by Maldives.

Thank you, Madam Chair. En deuxième paragraphe de la partie opérationnelle du document, l'UE et ses États membres conviennent d'ajouter la référence au paragraphe sept de l'article cinquante-deux de la BBNJ. Mais dans la dernière partie du paragraphe, nous remplacerions le mot « assurer » par les mots « contribuer à assurer ». En effet, même si l'objectif du traité est d'assurer la conservation et l'utilisation durable de la diversité biologique marine dans les zones au-delà de la juridiction nationale, the MOU on its own cannot ensure this. Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification and for indicating flexibility to accept seven and for the further improvements to the language in the brackets.

Maldives on behalf of AOSIS. Thank you, Chair, for OP2. Elis propose d'ouvrir les parenthèses autour de la référence deux sept pour que les orientations vers le mécanisme financier évitent la duplication et continuent de promouvoir la complémentarité et la cohérence. Et au paragraphe deux, nous soutenons également la réitération et le maintien de l'objectif ultime de l'accord BBJ dans le contexte du soutien financier nécessaire. Nous voudrions donc supprimer les parenthèses autour de cela également.

Thank you, Chair. Maldives, can you reflect on what EU suggested on the language in the language in brackets, so contribute to ensuring? Thank you.

We would want to retain it as it is currently in the text. Thank you.

Thank you. I wish to now give the floor to Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLEAM.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. So CLEAM also supports lifting brackets in both the reference to Article 7 of the agreement, as well as the objective of the agreement in the last appearance. We would also not be in a position to now entertain the proposal from the EU. We understand that the current articulation on ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity is the one that is most true to the actual text of the agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. Brazil speaking on behalf of CLAM. I will now give the floor to Canada.

Thank you, co-chair. Like the others, we also support the inclusion reference to Article 7 given its relevance. Also support lifting the brackets around the last set of brackets as the key objective of the agreement and we're comfortable with the proposal view in terms of the slight reformulation. Thank you, co-chair.

Je vous remercie, Canada. Je souhaite donner la parole à l'Indonésie.

Merci, Madame la co-présidente. En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 2 du projet de MOU, l'Indonésie exprime son soutien ferme à l'inclusion de l'élément de l'OLP pour s'assurer que l'arrangement soit à la fois complet et objectif. Merci, Madame.

Merci, l'Indonésie.

L'Australie, vous avez la parole.

Merci, Madame la co-présidente. L'Australie soutient le retrait des parenthèses autour de l'article 52. And we support removing the brackets around the last part of the paragraph. And the proposal just put by the EU on adding the words contribute to ensuring is acceptable to Australia. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia. Switzerland, you have the floor?

Thank you very much. On RP2, we actually think that the last part of the sentence, so as to ensure until the end of the sentence, would actually be unnecessary and repetitive. But if we hear that there is appetite to an interest in keeping this reference, then we would go along with the proposed textual adaptation proposed by the EU, which contribute to ensuring to better reflect the specific role of the JEF and this MOU in that context. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Switzerland. So I'm going to suggest that it seems as though the leaning is towards removing the brackets around seven and take that as a measure of flexibility of everyone. And then in respect of the last part, there is an interest in keeping a reflection of the objective. There's just a question on the verb. So that would be the only portion that potentially could remain in brackets based on what the EU has proposed. So United Kingdom, I'll give the floor and then we'll move on. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try and make this rather quick. But given this is the UK's first intervention, I would like to provide our sincere thanks to the co-chairs and secretariat for this revised draft MOU and for working closely with the JAF secretariat to progress key issues, including those around terminology. The UK is also very grateful to the input from delegations so far, and we look forward to making meaningful progress towards finalising this draft in the coming days and week. Much of the MOU is acceptable and we don't consider there to be missing elements. As others have said, we are guided by consistency with current MOUs of multilateral environmental agreements with the JEF, in particular Minamata. And as many of us have acknowledged, we too are conscious of what works in practice and are mindful of not overburdening the JEF or unduly constraining its discretion. However, all that said, we are also mindful that certain elements in the current draft go beyond precedent, and we intend to flag some constructive suggestions for specific amendments or clarification in that regard as we go. Very happy to take those in turn as we proceed. But on OP2, let me just say that we would support the removal of the brackets around seven, and we also support the EU's suggestion to add in the words contribute to ensuring. Thank you.

Thank you very much, United Kingdom. Look forward to hearing your constructive proposals as we move forward. So thank you everybody for showing your flexibility there. We will come back to how we'll treat with the matter of the verbiage around the objective. I'm mindful, of course, that the objective stands conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Let us now move to operative paragraph three. There are a set of brackets around the last sentence in that operative paragraph, or that paragraph. Floor is open. How do we clean this up? European Union.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to paragraph 3, we note that in practice, overly detailed COP guidance results in massive documents and reports that might be unnecessarily complex and heavy to manage while not being more relevant. Consequently, we suggest adding that the guidance to be provided should be concise and operative. Moreover, we do not understand the new addition at the end of the paragraph, requesting the COP and the JEF Council to agree on additional arrangements that may be necessary. If such a need occurs, the two organizations will consider it. We consequently prefer not taking this addition on board.

Thank you. Thank you very much. You mentioned you want to see concise and operative in the text. Yeah, okay. Thank you. I wish to give the floor to Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So CLAM notes, first of all, on OP3, there was a change in the second sentence on the reference to the JEF, and now we have a reference to the Council. We can go along with that. It's not under brackets, but we just would like to note that from the floor. Secondly, as we have already expressed in previous sessions, we would also be supportive of lifting the brackets in the last sentence. This is indeed text coming from the MOU with the Minamata Convention, and we see that there's value added on this provision. So there's precedent, and of course, we would be just giving the JEF and the COP leeway to further enhance their relationship as the regime of the BB&J agreement evolves over time. If I may, just a quick reaction to the comment and proposal just made by the European Union. Clem's overall approach to this JAF MOU is that we are now regulating a relationship between the JAF and the COP without necessarily bringing policy or programming directions which are to be sent by the COP itself to the JAF, and by the JAF I'm referring to the entire architecture of the fund. So, we are not in a position to entertain how the guidance of the COP will take place or form. We do believe that the qualifiers encroach upon something that the conference of the party itself needs to decide upon. So, this is why we are ready to support the draft text as presented now without the qualifiers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Brazil speaking on behalf of CLAM. I would like to give the floor to Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of PCITS.

Thank you, Coche. I'm happy to follow the distinguished representative of Brazil because he has spoken very, very well on this paragraph. This is OP3. As Brazil has rightly mentioned, this last sentence is from the Minamata Convention. Indeed, it's almost word for word, almost speak. The only one word difference, as Brazil has pointed out, is it says Jeff in Minamata and it says Council here, but otherwise it's word for word. So we would definitely support opening the brackets and we see the value added of that sentence based on precedent. Uh, initial reaction on the EU's, uh, new proposals, not really in favor for the reasons I think Brazil has already eloquently expressed. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Papua New Guinea. I now give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We do, so very quickly, we do, we see this as our colleagues have said, and we definitely align with the statement made by Brazil on behalf of CLAM and PNG on behalf of PICES. We see this as a guided agreement between the COP and the JEF, and that sort of caveat, sort of prejudges and changes that agreement. So we do not, we would preserve on the, or we don't, we would have to take pause on the proposal of the EU in this regard. And we'll also, we'd also like to see the removal of the brackets at the end of paragraph three. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Antigua and Barbuda. I now give the floor to Switzerland.

Thank you very much. With respect to OP3, we would welcome the suggestion from the EU regarding the conciseness of the guidance. And regarding the last sentence, we understand that this is taken from Minamata MOU, but however, we see duplication with paragraph 27 of this draft MOU which says that the MOU may be amended at any time by written consent. So we wonder if there is duplication, if we could, in order to streamline and move forward, perhaps delete this last sentence. Thank you.

Je vous remercie. La Suisse a donné la parole aux délégations qui ont parlé en faveur de la dernière phrase pour qu'elles puissent réfléchir à votre commentaire. En attendant, je donne la parole au Canada.

Thank you, co-chair. We've been considering this paragraph, of course, applying the approach of consistency with the MOU between the Minamata Convention COP and the JEF. So if I could propose that if we are going to apply this approach or this view, can we do it consistently throughout the MOU document? Because if we considère le reste du document, je vois qu'il y a des éléments vraiment inquiétants, des ajouts qui sont entre parenthèses, comme les processus d'examen excessifs et autres. Nous pouvons donc soutenir la cohérence avec la convention Minamata pour ce paragraphe, à condition que nous l'appliquions également dans l'ensemble du document. Just to keep it consistent, but also fairly simple and streamlined. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you, Canada, for that reflection. Brazil, speaking on behalf.

Of CLM. Thank you very much, Madam co-chair. Just to quickly refer to the comment made by the caller from Switzerland. So we heard previously from that delegation that they are willing to apply the benchmark of the Minamata Convention. As we said before, this bracketed part comes from the Minamata and now we heard a comment that is duplicative when it comes to the provisions on review of the MOU. First of all, just to flag that in the Minamata Convention, we also have that provision. We have both text. So we would be able to support the Minamata benchmark. But a follow-up question that we would have for the colleague from Switzerland is that what would be, if we include that reference that is indeed Minamata Convention, how would this jeopardize the actual relationship implementation of the MOU since we do have a precedent from the Minamata Convention and as far as our group and this delegation understand. There's been a very healthy relationship between the COP, the Minamata COP and the JEF in light of that MOU. So we're not necessarily seeing the element of duplication leading towards something that is to the detriment of what we're trying to achieve through this MOU. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, for that reflection. And I would note that in the paragraph, the sentence refers to any additional arrangement beyond the present MOU, so it's distinct from an amendment, presumably. I will now give the floor to Fiji, followed by Egypt.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. First of all, since this is the first time I'm taking the floor, I would like to congratulate you and thank you for your hard work and join others in thanking the rest of the delegates that have worked hard in presenting this new iteration. Madam Co-Chair, allow me to first align myself with the comments made by Brazil as well as Papua New Guinea on behalf of PSEDS. we can support the retention of these texts. For us, I think, speaking from our experience, this is also a modest, practical and consistent way with the reality that additional operational arrangements may be needed as implementation would evolve. For us as well, this does not prejudge anything, it simply is to preserve the level of flexibility that is required. And apart from Minamata, allow me to also refer the delegates in this room to the benchmarks that are also set under the UNFCCC Article 11 that actually confirms that financial mechanism functions under the guidance of and accountable to the COP and with the COP deciding policies, program priorities and eligibility criteria. This, I think, is what EU is mentioning that if there are further arrangements that need to be made, the COP and the GEF Council could just amend this MOU. But from experience, if you look at the CBD JEF memorandum of understanding, it is also built around the principles of ongoing COP JEF guidance relationship. So just to explain that rationale in further clarity with benchmarks as well, that this does not prejudge anything, it's simply to preserve the level of flexibility that we require. Thank you.

Thank you, Fiji. Good to see you. not in UNFCCC. I now give the floor to Egypt, followed by Philippines.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. En lien avec les nombreuses interventions qui ont eu lieu dans cette salle concernant cette OP3, nous voudrions soutenir les demandes de BSED et de CLAM de supprimer les parenthèses de la dernière phrase de cette OP. Et en accord avec le raisonnement qui sous-tend cette OP et la la question de l'honorable collègue de la Suisse qui disait qu'il pourrait s'agir d'une duplication, c'est le paragraphe 27. Selon la lecture de cette dernière phrase, il ne s'agit pas d'une duplication. Je ne suis pas un grand fan de la comparaison avec d'autres cadres, comme Minamata ou l'UNFCCC, avec tout le respect que je vous dois, parce que des erreurs peuvent se produire, mais ma compréhension juridique est la suivante: Not all the changes could be amendments. Et dans ce sens, je veux dire que ce dernier paragraphe laisse juste un espace ou une marge pour les actions nécessaires qui doivent être requises. Et il y a des garanties, même dans ce paragraphe, que cela. any change or measures that needs to be taken should be with an agreement between the Council and the Conference of Parties. And that puts guarantee for both sides that still there is some flexibility that doesn't have to reach the point of amending the MOU with all the procedure required for amendments that might need time and to do so. So both of them, if we read them together, it is really, really has an added value for the flexibility application, but also it's not a duplication of efforts or a duplication of a procedure to have both of them in the same time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Egypt, for your further elaboration on this particular bracketed text. I will give the floor to Philippines and then do a summation so we can move on to the other paragraphs. Philippines.

Thank you on OP3, the Philippines supports retaining the bracketed text on additional arrangements, which is language as earlier pointed out by colleagues from CLAM, language similar to that found in the Minamata conventions. pop guidance to the JEF. This allows for flexibility and ensures that the JEF trust fund remains responsive to the needs of the BBNJ agreement. We note also the significance of the difference in language pertaining to additional guidance and review that were earlier pointed out by our colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you for your reflections on this paragraph. Je pense qu'on peut travailler pour aller de l'avant. Je sais qu'on a du mal avec les précédents et la question de savoir dans quelle mesure les précédents devraient nous guider dans l'application de la MRA. En même temps, il y a une reconnaissance générale que l'entente BBJ est une entente à part entière et qu'elle exige des choses. provisions that are applicable or bespoke to it. So we'll come back to this, but in the meantime, let's try to aim towards cleaning this particular text in paragraph three. Let's now move to paragraph four. The first set of brackets really is a decision of whether or not we're reflecting JEF or the JEF Trust Fund. And then in the second part of the paragraph, we're looking at how to reflect the relationship of what the council is expected to do vis-à-vis the guidance. And I think this should not take too long, but I might regret saying those words. The floor is open for reflections on a best way forward on this. Je donne la parole aux Maldives au nom de l'AOSIS, puis à l'Union européenne, puis au Brésil au nom de la CLM.

Thank you, Chair. For the first part, EOSIS would support opening the brackets around Jeff Trust Fund, and we would like to support the language in conformity with, since the agreement is clear that the Jeff Trust Fund, as part of the BBNJ financial mechanism, is obligated to function under the BBNJ COP in guidance with Article 52. And so we would support this language to be more in line with the obligations set out in the agreement. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, EOSIS, European Union.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The EU and its Member States ask to reformulate paragraph four to indicate that the Council will ensure the effective operation of the JEF Trust Fund in serving as part of the financial mechanism under the agreement. and taking fully into account the guidance of the COP rather than in conformity with this guidance. Thank you.

Thank you. Brazil has the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So in regard to the reference to the JAF or the JAF Trust Fund, our initial preference would be to go with the reference, the broader reference to the JEF in light of the definitions we have just passed by, referring to the instrument established of the Restructured Global Environmental Facility. But we don't have stronger views on this one, so we would join consensus around those two options. However, we have stronger views when it comes to the second set of bracketed language. We prefer to go along with language around in conformity with. This reflects the current formulation of Article 52 of the agreement, which says that the financial mechanism shall operate under the authority of the Conference of the Parties. And once again, since we have been listening to many delegations and groupings referring to benchmarks, once again, this is the approach we took also in the Minamata Convention, which has a very similar provision on how the COP operates in relationship to its financial mechanism and its operating entities. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM. I now give the floor to Seychelles, speaking on behalf of the African group.

Thank you, Chair. So the African group would like to delete the first JEF and open the brackets around the JEF Trust Fund. We'd also like to delete the next set of brackets around, we'd like to delete actually taking fully into account. Thank you.

Thank you, Seychelles, speaking on behalf of the African Group. I now give the floor to Papua New Guinea, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Development States.

Thank you, Co-Chair. The PSIDS align itself with AOSIS, and Maldives, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, we also fully appreciate the comments made by the distinguished representative of Brazil on behalf of CLAM. We are fully in support of, in conformity with, on that paragraph. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And growing traction, at least around one set of brackets. Let's now go to Japan.

Thank you, co-chair. As for the first set of brackets, we believe it should be the JEF Trust Fund since As mentioned earlier, Article 52, paragraph 4 of the agreement designated the JEF Trust Fund as a component of the agreement's financial mechanism. And for the second set of the bracket, we support in conformity with. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. I wish to give the floor to Canada.

Thank you, co-chair. Like Japan, we would support lifting the brackets around the Jeff Trust Fund and around in conformity with. Thank you.

Thank you. Canada, I give the floor to Svetlana.

Thank you very much. With your indulgence, I just wanted to briefly thank the distinguished delegates from Brazil for his explanation regarding OP3, as well as Egypt for their views. We also see benefits in using models that are being inspired by models that work. Our intention was primarily to streamline, but we appreciate the nuance between additional arrangements and the review of the MOU. And on OP4, we have a preference to refer to JEF and to use the wording in conformity with. Thank you.

I wish to give the floor to Indonesia. Thank you, Switzerland. Thank you, Switzerland. Indonesia, you have the floor?

Yeah, thank you, co-chair. Regarding operational paragraph four, Indonesia suggests to lift the bracket around the GEF Trust Fund and remove JEF. ensure that the Council's responsibility for effective operation covers the specific financial resources within its trust fund intended to serve the agreement. Furthermore, regarding the level of adherence to the COP guidance, Indonesia expresses its preference for bracketed price taking fully into account. This position firmly grounded in established international practice, specifically under the CBD. We know that MOU which operational article 21 of the CBD use this word, taking full into account. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you, Indonesia. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam co-chair. We would like to align ourselves with the intervention made by Seychelles on behalf of the AGN and also EOSIS, BCCIT and CLAM for the preference of lifting the brackets in conformity with rather than taking into account. And we would like to add a little bit of rationale behind such selection. When we say in conformity with, it has a different degree of consistency because we are adding the benchmark of the Conference of Parties as the governing body of this convention. So by adding in conformity with here, it means it's 100% up to the COP to decide on this one, which is a good guarantee to have in this situation. And for the first brackets, our preference would go to the GEF Trust Fund instead of GEF because it's more relevant because we are talking about the operationalization of the trust fund, not GEF in general, so it would make more sense to be precise to where we are heading for the GIEF Trust Fund. And we end our intervention here. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Egypt, and thank you for your explanation. I wish to give the floor to the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. As mentioned, we are grateful for the clarity from co-chairs engagement with the JEF Secretariat in respect of usage in the MOU of the JEF as against JEF Council and for the very helpful explanations for the varied use throughout. On that and the bracketed options of GEF or GEF Council in the first line of OP4, the UK, as with many others including Seychelles, Japan and Indonesia, would submit that the GEF Trust Fund rather than GEF is more appropriate here as the clause concerns operation of the specific funding component under Article 52 4c rather than the GEF's broader institutional role. In the second lot of bracketed text, let me say that we can be flexible here. We do recognize that in conformity with is a benchmark taken over from the Minamata MOU, but we would also add that taking fully into account perhaps more closely aligns with Article 52.9. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom for that demonstration of flexibility, and I do appreciate all those who have been sharing their flexibility. Philippine, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Co-Chair. The Philippines can support lifting the brackets around GEF Trust Fund to align with the financial mechanism under the agreement. But we have also been listening to colleagues explanation for their preference for Jeff. The Philippines also supports lifting the brackets around in conformity with which is language used also under the Minamata Convention COPS guidance. This reflects latest practice drawing from lessons learned from previous practice such as those under the CBD COPS guidance. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Philippines. Okay, so I think if I've heard the room correctly, whilst there were delegations who mentioned that they would prefer JEF, there seemed to be some flexibility to do the JEF trust fund. So I would propose that we take that text. And then in the last part, I hear that there's still group focus on taking fully into account and another delegation that mentioned it, but a general leaning to using the words in conformity with, and I'm mindful also that we're in the section that deals conformity with guidance. So I want to clean this text with your agreement to have at least just Jeff Trust Fund and in conformity with for your reflection it's not final I will now move to operative paragraph five sorry six European Union you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Just coming on paragraph five, sorry. So we appreciate using existing MOUs with other MEAs, but we also believe that we should build on lessons learned. And in that perspective, at the end of paragraph five, we would like to suggest adding that the guidance should be provided in a concise and operative manner. to avoid that its consideration by the GEF Secretariat and the GEF Council represents a massive bureaucratic exercise. And on paragraph six, we can agree on the new language with a minor editorial change by adding parties after developing states. Thank you.

Thank you very much. European Union, are there any reflections on operative paragraph six and of course if you come in there I'm happy to also take any reflections on what was just proposed on behalf by the EU I see Canada you have the floor.

Thank you co-chair I just wanted to quickly support the suggestion by you to add developing state parties and accept the text that's within the brackets thank you.

Le plan est ouvert, mais si je ne vois rien, puis-je supposer que les délégués sont d'accord avec la suggestion qui a été faite? Royaume-Uni, oui.

I suppose just for the record, we would actually suggest deleting the bracketed text at OP6. That's because we'd note that COP already have to consider those factors under Article 7, and it is not strictly relevant to the relationship between the COP and the JEF. The bracketed text also strays into COP's deliberations, which is not really what this MOU is about. In addition, we note that it's not rooted in precedent like Minamata. Thank you.

Are there any other views on OP6? Brazil speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Just to reiterate that CLAM fully supports lifting the brackets around the reference of the COP taking the needs and priorities of developing countries when addressing the matters related to the JEF Council. we will take back on the EU's proposal to reflect developing state parties to the agreement as far as I understood but just to quickly react to the previous intervention from the UK we see the piece around the needs and priorities of developing countries articulated throughout the entire agreement not only in article 7 if you look at article 52 There is a clear reference to the financial mechanism taking into account such needs and priorities, including in terms of eligibility and resource mobilization. There's references to needs and priorities in terms of the financial committee making assessments in that regard and also under CBTMT. So once again, this is a matter of relevance to this draft MOU, and we appreciate that some delegations, including the EU and Canada, are trying to seek for flexibility to include that part that is dear to CLAM and developing countries. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. I wish to give the floor to Seychelles, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The African group as well, like CLAM and others have stated, supports the removal of the brackets and the inclusion of parties after states. Thank you.

Thank you, Seychelles, speaking on behalf of Africa group. I now give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM.

Thank you. we regarding paragraph six we would support the removal of the brackets and we can consider the addition of states parties but I'm still considering and um if I'm if my if if I gathered the the comments regarding paragraph five that would be provides concise guidance to the council in the third line not be in support of that addition. We spoke about, we mentioned earlier that we're not in, at this point, we're not able to take that sort of conditionality on the guidance as it may be too prescriptive at this point in time. Thanks.

Thank you. Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM. I now give the floor to Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of PCITs.

Thank you, Chair, Co-Chair. On OP6, the PCITs support opening the brackets on that sentence. We can consider adding the word parties. With respect to adding new text to OP5, we are not in favor. Thank you.

Thank you. Egypt, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We would like to align ourselves with the intervention made by Seychelles on behalf of the African group. And we also would like to join others CLAM EOS. of the preference of lifting the brackets on the last part of OB6. I'm not going to repeat the rationale mentioned by others in the room and how relevant and important it is to have it here. It adds an advantage also to the inconsistency to Article 52 within the agreement. and also is an important factor to consider when taking decision in the financial mechanism and it's not a contradiction or a challenge to make sure that the needs and priorities of developing states to be taken into account in this regard and we are flexible of adding parties to developing state parties in this regard. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. Indonesia, you have the floor?

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We support to lift the bracket, and then this is directly aligned with Article 52, paragraph 12 of the agreement, which recognizes the diverse needs of various developing state categories. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you, Indonesia. Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. The Philippines supports lifting the brackets around needs and priorities of developing states and can accept the EU's proposal to add the word parties after. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues. There is wide support for lifting the brackets here. I do hear the point raised by the United Kingdom. And I do hear some countries indicating, some delegations indicating the need to reflect on the addition in OP6 of the term parties, but seeming flexibility there. We'll come back to this, but I hope that perhaps colleagues might have a little chat with each other so that we could clean this text also. OP six et euh, j'espère qu'on va revenir à OP trois euh, dans une autre discussion. Alors, passons au paragraphe sept et il y a un certain nombre de parenthèses ici. Je donne la parole au Canada. Désolé, c'est pour OP six? Oh, OP sept alors.

Merci, co-présidente. Maybe just two quick comments. It is a priority for Canada that we retain the language around Indigenous people here, given that Indigenous people and local community, given that it is in the agreement, in article 52, paragraph 6, so paragraph c clearly provides for this, and that also applies to further references to another entity recognized by COP or entity-entity. However, for the rest of the paragraph, and this is where I think we don't want to miss the mark of providing clear guidance, in terms of how the cases where the implementation is not consistent with the guidance. And I think that will be helpful in terms of meeting the clause about conformity. However, we don't need to reinvent the wheel here, so I would urge to adopt the existing precedent from the Minamata MOU, and just like the distinguished colleague from Brazil pointed earlier, that there is a positive relationship between Minamata uh, COP and IGES, so, um, we hope that we could, um, follow that, um, model, uh, consistently here. Thank you, co-chair.

Thank you, Canada, and, um, for making that reference as well. Maldives, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Um, for OP7, AOSIS would suggest opening the brackets around, indigenous people or local community and the reference to the entity or another entity recognized by the Conference of the Parties to be in line with the position on ensuring indigenous peoples and local community entities are able to directly access the resources under the financial mechanism on the on the BBNJ and for the remaining bracket we could support it but it could also be covered under the initial guidance to the Jeff Trust Fund at COP1. Thank you Chair.

Thank you Maldives speaking on behalf of EOSIS. I wish to give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you Madam Co-Chair. On OP7, we note firstly that it is not possible within the JEF instrument that indigenous peoples and local communities as such conclude specific projects or activities without the involvement of their country party. Secondly, in reference to the last part of the paragraph, we believe that the consistency with the overall strategies, policies and programme priorities determined by the COP's guidance should be ensured preferably through a cooperation process between the JEF Council and the COP, based on mutual information, regular coordination and exchanges, participation in respective meetings, instead of a process where one puts into question the decisions of the other. Still in paragraph seven, we do not agree with the proposed addition of the words "or not an appropriate response to its needs and challenges". Il faut rappeler que les pays sont ceux qui identifient et appuient les projets GEF et soumettent des propositions au GEF par l'intermédiaire d'une agence accréditée. Nous insistons sur la suppression du mot « et dans un délai à déterminer par la COP », car cette formulation ne reflète pas la formulation des autres MOU avec le GEF. In our view, the COP setting a deadline for the Cancun would exceed the COP's guidance competence and could be counterproductive. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. I wish to give the floor to Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of P-SEDS. Can I give the floor to Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of PCCIT?

Thank you, Khaocheang. So on OP7, we align with AOSIS, but I want to speak a little bit about indigenous peoples. And I do thank the distinguished representative of Canada for his support. This is a key priority for us. So we are definitely in favor of opening the brackets around and the indigenous people, local community, that's a key priority, as well as the other brackets around another entity recognized by the COP and all other entities in two places further below. we believe that we don't want to certainly as Canada has expressed the agreement expressly provides for utilization of the Jeff Trust Fund for purposes of supporting programs by indigenous peoples and local communities so we want to be faithful to that and the or another entity is language that allows the cop to recognize other entities non-state parties to accomplish, to achieve the objectives of Article 52, as Canada has indicated. So we stress the opening of the brackets relating to Indigenous people. Thank you.

Thank you, Papua New Guinea, on behalf of PSETS. I now give the floor to Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you, madam co chair. So since the very beginning of the discussions around this MOU on paragraph seven, Clem has identified three main buckets for discussion and for further clarification. First of all, is the reference to IPLCs. Second, we have this proposal around another entity or entity. And thirdly, how the COP can further engage in terms of the project approval process of the JAF. When it comes to the first bucket, Clem is overall positive in terms of discussing ways to operationalize the provisions of the agreement when it comes to access of resources from indigenous people and local community. However, we also need to bear in mind that this draft MOU will establish a relationship, as we have been highlighting, between the COP and the JAF. the Council or Trust Fund, which has already its policies and programming directions. We heard very carefully the consideration from PSEEDS Canada, but also from the European Union, and we tend to agree that there are practical boundaries in terms of the current proposal on IPLCs in the first part of this paragraph, mainly because the current policy on IPLCs from the JAFF and the current project approval does not allow for their specific participation, direct participation in projects. And this is something also that is cross-cutting to the financial mechanism. In the other room on the special fund, we've been very clear on the need to include IPLCs in the drafting of the governing instrument of the special fund, precisely because this is a gap of the CHAF. So once again, we're not very sure if we are practically able to include such a reference, not because we do not support it, it's just because there is an architecture of the JAF that would impede this being operationalized. But if we are able to solve that out, we are pretty much open to further engaging on this one. The second bucket on other entities, bears similar concerns from our side. We have an entire track under this PREP COM referring to the relationship of the COP with IFBs and other instruments and relevant entities. We are afraid that we are encroaching upon that discussion here through the JAF MOU, so we would like to still seek clarity on how this would be indeed operationalized, what sort of other entities the COP, the Conference of the parties would be recognizing and how they would, of course, engage with the JAF architecture. So we would need further clarity for us to accept such proposals. And finally, on the last bucket on how the Conference of the Parties will take position or any sort of leverage in terms of the specific project decision. We fully support the COP having more relevance in that specific process. And this is something we would like to build upon other MOUs, including the Minamata. We understand that this is not, the current proposals under bracket in the very last part of paragraph seven are not part of the Minamata MOU. But we do learn from practice that there are ways to improve such a relationship between the COP and the JAF Council, including on giving further guidance on the decisions from the Council to allocate resources. We do need to give leverage and leeway for the parties of the agreement to weigh in on specific decisions of the Council, including in light of the provisions of Article 52 on the JAF as one of the operating entities of the financial mechanism operating under the guidance and the authority of the COP. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM. And thank you for that useful structural approach to how we might look at paragraph seven. And I note that so far there is an inclination to, and this is from the previous discussions in Part Com II as well. an interest in addressing the IP and LC questions around operationalizing those provisions, including questions around what might be contemplated as other entity. And then, of course, the issues around the approval process and interaction in that regard. So if others might find that structural approach to the paragraph useful, please can you do so. And I look forward to hearing the interventions now of the Maldives speaking on behalf of AOSIS, followed then by Antigua and Barbuda for CARICOM. Maldives.

Thank you, Chair, and for letting me come back in just to comment on the latter part of paragraph seven relating to the project decisions and the approval processes. We would support including the process of asking the council for further clarification on specific project decisions since it is important for the COP to have a clear and time-bound process for dealing with Jeff project decisions that are not consistent with its guidance. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And just for my benefit, again, you know, in line with the way we just heard Brazil for CLAM speak and also what we heard previously from others, there's interest in finding a way to deal with this, but we're not stuck with how the language is currently articulated. Okay, thank you. Antigua and Barbuda for CARICOM, followed by Seychelles for, oh, you were on, you're still on.

Thank you. So to answer your question, we do appreciate the structure that our colleague from Brazil has laid out regarding this paragraph. And of course, we align with the statements made by EOSIS regarding the IPLC mechanism. We just have some questions. comments. So, of course, CARICOM is interested in including IPLCs in this discussion and we look forward to further discussions on how it's reflected across the text that we're considering these two weeks and in particular here. We're conscious that there is a proposal by the PCCs on the IPLC mechanism. And so we see that there's value in understanding the nuances of how the entity will perform, how do IOPLCs intend to interact with this, with the JEF, through the COP with the JEF, and again in other areas, as mentioned by other colleagues. So we're still, before we can particularly weigh in on the language that we have here, we'd like to hear a little more to see how that specifically would work as we're introducing some new concepts that from our perspective, we haven't had, we don't feel that we've had a full reflection of this yet. And again, taking your advice that we see, we can look at this paragraph, the second part regarding the decision-making process conceptually, but referring to the text, we do have a preference for the COP be asked for further clarification by the next ordinary meeting of the COP for a reconsideration of that decision within a timeline to be specified and with all efforts to ensure that this does not go beyond the timeline of the proposed projects. These are some of the specific challenges that are our delegations have with when engaging with the JEF and the implementing agencies so we see value as how we can reflect that in this document here. Thank you.

I wish to thank Antigua.

And Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM and I now give the floor to Seychelles speaking on behalf.

Of African Group. Thank you, Chair. And just to follow your guidance on we're not permitted totally to this exact text. We're definitely open to the structure that was just introduced by Brazil on behalf of CLAM, as well as the statements that were recently stated by EOSIS. And as we start to formulate a structure based on what was just introduced by Brazil and CLAM, the group will be happy to come back in with more remarks. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Seychelles, speaking on behalf of.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. For Fiji, I think as explained by Papua New Guinea on behalf of Pacific States, it's important on the retention of language around indigenous peoples and local communities, but I would like to reflect on the latter paragraph. We are looking at under Article 52 the financial mechanism including the JEF Trust Fund which operates under the authority and the guidance of the Conference of Parties and accountable thereto. For us, we consider this as an essential and that is a clear and effective process through which Parties can raise concern when a funding decision does not appear to be consistent with the guidance of the COP. I think it's important that just to reflect on some of the views that have been mentioned in the room, that we do not view this as establishing an appeal mechanism, but rather as a necessary accountability process that ensures that the guidance agreed by parties is faithfully reflected in the funding decisions. For example, projects that SEEDS could have actually benefited from that the Council decides otherwise for. And such a process should allow COP to seek clarification from the Council and where appropriate request reconsideration of a decision with a refined defined time frame. For us, this is also particularly important in circumstances where project proposals from developing state parties, including SEEDS, may not be approved as I have mentioned. Je pense que sans cette sauvegarde, pour Fidji en particulier, nous considérons que c'est un risque réel que les décisions prises au niveau opérationnel puissent diverger de l'orientation collective des Parties, y compris l'orientation future, ce qui compromet à la fois l'efficacité et la crédibilité du mécanisme financier, comme l'a expliqué le Brésil. Par conséquent, nous soutenons vraiment le maintien d'un mécanisme financier approprié. strengthening this provision to ensure consistency, accountability and, most importantly, the responsiveness in the implementation of the COP guidance. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Fiji. Switzerland, you have the floor?

Thank you very much. On the reference to IPLC, we also share the concern raised with respect to the practicability of that. So, we, with respect to the reference to another entity recognized by the Conference of the Parties, we would also be inclined to delete or seek clarification on that. We also support the deletion of or not an appropriate response to its needs and challenges in the middle of the paragraph and with respect to the last part of the paragraph we would also favor deletion because the review and approval is the responsibility of the Council and the proposed request by the COP to the JEF Council with we fear that would infringe this responsibility or authority. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Switzerland. I wish to give the floor to Australia, followed then by the United Kingdom.

Thank you, co-chair. So on the first set of brackets on indigenous peoples and local communities, we agree with the lifting of the brackets for the reasons given by my colleague from Canada earlier about the text of the agreement itself. Australia does not support the bracketed text or another entity recognized by the COP and then the subsequent references to or entity in the paragraph. Australia does not support the text or not an appropriate response to its needs and challenges. And that's because the frame of reference should really remain on how the JEF has responded to the guidance it has received from the COP. And just to note that this language wasn't included in the Minamata JEF MOU and that's a point of reference for Australia. On the final part of the paragraph, again, Australia supports text which would be consistent with the Minamata MOU. So that text would be, it may request the council to propose and implement a course of action to address the concerns regarding the project in question. We don't think it's necessary to preempt the outcome of requesting the council propose and implement a course of action. And we think this would encourage constructive engagement with the JEF without intruding too much on the mandate of the Council. We also don't support the imposition of a timeline on the JEF to provide clarification, again, for reasons of this not being included in the Minamata MOU. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Australia. I wish to give the floor now to the United Kingdom, followed by Canada.

Thank you, Co-Chair. Just to note that we have reflected on OP6 and the comments in the room which we have listened to carefully. While the UK does maintain its view that the added language does not properly belong in this MOU, I'm happy to confirm that the UK is content for the brackets to be lifted. Turning to OP7, we do have a number of comments. As with the EU and Switzerland, while we understand strengthening IPLC participation, we query whether the first bracketed text is accurate, since we would anticipate that Jeff would be liaising with states rather than IPLCs directly or separately. if the intention is to include the two together where needed, it may be better to say the developing state concerned alongside any indigenous peoples and local communities as appropriate. Then the reference to another entity recognized by the conference of the parties and multiple references to entity appear to the UK to go beyond Minamata, which limits this provision to parties. It also suggests a very wide engagement by others directly in the decision process with the council, and we would caution against excessive micromanagement of the decision-making process by the Jeff council. So as with Australia, we would support deletion of reference to these entities. We also query the addition of the bracketed text or not an appropriate response to its needs and challenges. the unbracketed formulation immediately before that focuses on consistency with COP guidance, which aligns with Minamata practice and preserves a clear accountability test, whereas this additional needs and challenges limb introduces a more subjective project merits based trigger and appears to the UK to go beyond precedent. So would, as with Switzerland, suggest its deletion. Another point we'd like to raise is that where the COP considers that the project decision by the JEF is not consistent with overall strategies and so on, we do appreciate that the COP may ask JEF for clarification on a project decision and that is consistent with Minamata. But fixing clarification or reconsideration to COP timelines is not reflected in precedent. While the UK does recognize that some indication of timeliness may be helpful to provide parties with reassurance that issues will be addressed, formulations like as soon as possible add little operational clarity and we are obviously keen to preserve Jeff discretion so like the EU and Australia we would suggest deleting that and finally again we understand that the cop may request Jeff to propose and implement a course of action we know that this is also in Minamata But as before, we would want to avoid linking such requests to COP specified timelines and introducing timing expectations here could go beyond precedent and risk constraining Jeff discretion. So similarly, we would suggest deletion of references to a timeline mandated by the COP. Thank you.

Thank you very much, United Kingdom, and thanks for indicating flexibility on OP5, OP6, sorry. Canata, would you take the floor and maybe shed some further light? Thanks.

Thank you so much, co-chair. And apologies for coming back again. Maybe I could state maybe more clearly that the operationalization of Article 52, paragraph 6, subparagraph c is not optional. It's a must, direct, which to us it means a direct access. for indigenous people, for local communities, as holders of traditional knowledge. We appreciate that the current policies of the JEF, including JEF instrument, do not provide for this currently, but these are current policies. Um, which, uh, we would, uh, like to see evolve, uh, to adapt again within the, uh, scope of the, this relationship and this MOU. So we do not accept the premise that, um, given that it's not a current policies, it's never gonna happen again. This is a forward looking. l'accord. Donc, à cet égard, pour le Canada, nous aimerions conserver la référence. La formulation exacte, bien sûr, nous sommes heureux de travailler avec d'autres pour savoir exactement comment elle est formulée. Pour nous, la référence à l'entité ou à l'autre entité est utile parce que cela aiderait à nouveau à personnaliser la référence aux CPI. And for the rest of the paragraph, just like others who also raised, provided comments, raised concerns regarding going beyond Minamata MOU references or inclusion of the text such as or not appropriate response to its needs or challenges or as soon as possible and the others, we don't find them helpful at all. en fait, le texte entre parenthèses qui parle de réponse inappropriée, qu'est-ce qui est inapproprié, on trouve ça très subjectif, pas utile pour, vous savez, commencer une relation avec le chef sur une note positive, donc on encourage à trouver des moyens de rationaliser le reste de ce texte. Merci, coprésident.

Thank you very much for your clarification, Canada. I wish to give the floor to Seychelles on behalf of the Africa Group.

Thank you, Chair. So since we are still working with the current text, I just would like to reflect the African Group's reflections on this para. So as I stated before, we are in favour of removing the brackets around and indigenous people and local communities, also removing the brackets around or another entity recognized by the Conference of the Parties. On the text within the brackets that Canada was just referring to, where it says or not an appropriate response, et cetera, the African Group is flexible in this regard. The brackets around or entity, we would like to see those removed. In the second para, we would like to see the brackets around le conseil supprimé. Et en allant de l'avant, nous aimerions voir la suppression du texte entre parenthèses dès que possible. Aussi, la suppression de dans les temps. Ensuite, la suppression de et demander au conseil de proposer, se terminant par une question. you also provide these comments written and then also the deletion of the last line that starts with and with all efforts made to ensure etc etc of the proposed project.

Thank you thank you um colleagues I know there are others still waiting to come in on this um paragraph It's clear that this needs a little bit more work to get it to reflect what generally many have indicated, and I'm going back to the way Brazil had sort of structured it. Many had exhibited a willingness to consider how to accommodate these references to the IP and LC and maybe potentially other entity. depending on how that's operationalized. And then, of course, there's a strong interest in addressing the treatment of the project approval process, although there are concerns that have been raised in respect of that. So I think we've heard a lot of discussion on this, and I probably would want to park some of this discussion so that we could figure out a modality to really work through some of the ideas and clarify it so that we can come back on this text at a later point. I have Papua New-Guinée, l'Indonésie, le Japon, les Fidji et les Philippines, probablement tous sur ce paragraphe. Si vous avez quelque chose d'additionnel à fournir, en gardant à l'esprit que je chercherai une modalité différente pour traiter avec cela et potentiellement d'autres, s'il vous plaît, je vous offrirai la parole, mais si c'est quelque chose que vous avez déjà entendu, please, if you can wait so we can go along with to the other paragraphs and try to get through as much as we can on this MOU. Indonesia, you still wish to have the floor?

Madam co-chair, for the operational paragraph seven, we'd like to support or not an appropriate response and challenges. et puis support dans le conseil pour la qualification sur le projet spécifique et aussi support pour la reconsidération de cette décision, retenez le mot et et le mot pour le reste, nous aimons soutenir la demande du conseil jusqu'à la question et aussi le dernier est mais dans un délai à préciser par la conférence des parties. Merci Madame la Présidente.

For this clarification. We also have noted the GEF's disadvantage with respect to small grants for direct access by IPLCs and we are assessing if and how the GEF or the whole financial mechanism can address this. Thank you.

Thank you. Philippines, Papua New Guinea on behalf of PCITS.

Thank you, co-chair, for giving me the floor again. I'll be very brief. We want to thank Canada for strong support for indigenous peoples and in line with your invitation to think of solutions oriented modalities, one food for thought item is we wonder whether there's any JEF representative at this prep com three and whether it would be appropriate to perhaps invite that JEF representative to give informal views on this language. We've heard delegations say that there is no substantive objection to the important issue of IP, but there are practicalities, so we wondered whether, you know, as food for thought for the co-chairs, whether if there's a JEF representative, he or she could be invited to express views on this language and perhaps provide some solutions-oriented modality for us. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Papua New Guinea speaking on behalf of PCCID. I think they are somewhere up there. But I think in this case, this issue probably needs some clarity of legal concepts in relation to how the language is currently reflected. So I would like to give the opportunity for the interested States to work together. And if there are interests from delegations to speak to the JEF representative, he's in the bleachers. Let me offer the floor to Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of.

Thank you, and I'll be very brief. Just reflecting on the useful discussion that we've been having, particularly on the second part of this paragraph, which sort of lays out a communication framework, and some delegations have indicated that MINAMATA is centered on timelines, and we think that that's something that we should address here. Timelines are basic parameter of a relationship. And I don't, I haven't heard, and maybe I'm still taking my notes, I haven't heard anybody ask for as soon as possible. We're asking for things like by the next COP, within a time limit to be specified by the COP. So I think there is sufficient flexibility to make the timeline work, but it would be a big challenge for us to remain silent on the timeline as we see that that's a very big gap that the example of the Minamata MOU has that we think we have the excellent opportunity at this time and space to address for the benefits of us all. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Antigua and Barbuda. And then I'll give the floor to Fiji, and then we'll move on to what I will take together, 7-BIS and 7-TER. Fiji, you have the floor?

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. And I guess my comment is more general as well. I think this, we are here with limited number of days to support you in progressing these discussions and coming to a conclusion. And I think I want to just make one point really clear from us as a national delegation, but also just for the interest of other delegations as well, that continuously references Minamata. We do not consider it appropriate to benchmark these discussions against a single multilateral environmental agreement. And the practice across MEAs is not uniform. Different agreements have evolved different approaches to financial governance, accountability and access. And we have specific learnings and context that cannot be silenced. And we are here to build on those experiences. BBNJ is an agreement that's happening at a time and space you know, where a lot has evolved. It is also being negotiated with extensive experience across MEAs, including well-documented challenges in accessing finance, particularly for SEEDS. So in this context, I think it's for us to put on record and just to support your role, Madam Co-Chair, that it is not our task to replicate the most conservative elements of past arrangements, but to build on existing practice and improve it where necessary. I won't repeat any other points that have been mentioned earlier, but we are of the view that we should not limit ourselves to a single precedent, but instead draw on a broader body of MEA experience to ensure that this mechanism that we are talking about, this MOU, is responsive and it's fit for purpose. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you very much, Fiji, for your reflections. I'll give the floor to Bangladesh. And if you wish to also comment on OP's paragraph seven bis and seven ter, please do.

Co-chair, just a simple reflection on the need of the developing states. Madame Chair, if you kindly allow me to read the article that says the decisions by the Council or JEF under the MEU will be aimed at ensuring efficient access to funding, including through simplified application and approval procedures and enhanced readiness of support for developing states parties, including provisions for expedited disbursement process for funds for our other developing states. Justine, uh, we would like to make an addition that, uh, including provision for expedited disbursement process for funds for developing states parties, small island developing states, landlocked developing countries and least developing countries and vice versa. Just a small, uh, addition of developing state parties for expedited disbursement process for funds. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you very much. And that is in relation to 7 bis. Thank you. The floor is open for comments on 7 bis and 7 ter. European Union, followed by Maldives on behalf of AOSIS.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regards to para 7 bis, the European Union and its Member States could accept invitations to promoting efficient access to funding, including through simplified application and approval procedures, but not to ensuring. In fact, the JAF is continuously working towards that goal already, but this remains its own prerogative. Moreover, we request to delete the second part of the paragraph as from "and enhanced readiness". the reference to expedited disbursement for some country categories is too prescriptive for the JEF and procedures, when they are simplified, they will apply to all developing countries and not only for specific categories. Finally, we believe that this paragraph should also recall that all existing policies and guidelines, standards and safeguards applying to the use of the resources of the Jeff Trust Fund will also apply to the projects and programs contributing to the implementation of the BBNJ. Thank you.

I thank the European Union and I now give the floor to Maldives speaking on behalf of EOSIS.

Thank you, Chair. For paragraph seven bis, EOSIS would prefer using the reference to Jeff in this paragraph. 6, AOSIS sees that the expectation for enhancing access must be the responsibility of all parts of the JEF and not just the Council. And for 7 bis, AOSIS would also recommend using the language from Article 52, 12 in this paragraph for the listing of country categories. And for paragraph 7 ter, again, the language from Article 52 and also the suggested addition of end of least developed countries into the text to be in line with the agreement. Thank you, Chair.

I wish to thank Maldives speaking on behalf of AOSIS and I now give the floor to Indonesia.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. On the operational paragraph 7 bis and 7 ter, I'd like to 10, the word archipelagic states in 7 bis and also archipelagic states in the 7 ter. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you, Indonesia. I wish to give the floor to Seychelles speaking on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you, Chair. So on 7 bis, we would like to see Jeff, not the Council. we are also interested in trying to understand the rationale behind not using the language in 50 to 12 of the agreement. Do you want us to go to 72? Is that fine? Okay, 72 also, we'd like to see Jeff and therefore delete encourage international organizations too, that can be deleted. Same question around the rationale behind not using the listing in not listing, but the countries in the categorization in 5212. And then also we would like to see the addition after developing states, after small and developing states, we would like to see the addition of and of least developed countries. Thank you.

Thank you, Seychelles. I wish to give the floor to Brazil speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. So in regard to paragraph 7 bis and 7 ter, first of all, CLAM fully supports references to the JAF ensuring efficient access to funding and application and approval procedures to developing state parties. But we see that there are conflating elements in both 7 bis and 7 ter that we need to address. First of all, as we have reiterated from the very beginning of this Prep Com, we did not see the JAF MOU as a document in which the Prep Com will send guidance on policy or programming directions. And the second part of 7bis actually touches upon that when referring to expedite disbursement processes for specific La commission a également demandé que les États membres veillent à ce que les personnes ayant des besoins spécifiques soient prises en compte dans les programmes d'investissement et de développement. countries, but once again, this should be done in terms of the actual operationalization and the guidance of the COP and not on the MOU. So we're struggling to understand how, why we need to take time on the second part of the paragraph seven bis. And once again, we just now heard several different views on what articulation or what benchmark from the agreement we should use. And once again, trying to help the work of the co-chairs, we should spare our time to other elements of the MOU. And on seven ter, we also heard comments on using Um, language from, uh, article 52, uh, of the agreement, uh, I understand it would, uh, be referring to, they would be referring to article 52, 13. But once again, that seems to be a different reading of that article because here in the MOU, we're asking for the council to encourage international organizations to grant preferential treatment. While in the agreement, we actually say that in light of capacity constraints, parties shall encourage international organizations to do so. So there is a matter of de l'autorité sur ce point. Nous passons donc des parties au conseil. Le conseil a-t-il le pouvoir d'encourager? Si oui, s'agit-il d'une question liée à la lettre d'entente? Encore une fois, nous avons des doutes à ce sujet. Nous sommes donc prêts à simplifier davantage les deux paragraphes. and keep the core message for the MOU, which is giving signal that the decisions from the JAF should aim at enhancing access for developing countries, state parties to the agreement. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM. I wish to give the floor to Switzerland.

Thank you very much. With respect to 7 bis and 7 ter, Switzerland is of the view that these paragraphs go far beyond the COP's authority as foreseen with Article 52 paragraph 9, which says that the Conference of the Parties shall provide guidance on overall strategies, policies, programme priorities and eligibility for access to and utilisation of financial resources. We would therefore be in favour of deleting both paragraphs, also in view of the streamlining of this text. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. Let me give the floor to the European Union and then the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I wanted to add to the initial statement of the European Union regarding paragraph 7 that we share the doubts that we heard recently from Brazil and CLAM, as well as Switzerland, and we would be in favour of deleting the paragraph entirely.

Thank you, EU. I wish to give the floor to the UK, United Kingdom.

Thank you. On seven bis, we think the correct choice would be the JEF as a participant to the MOU rather than the council. And given this clause is more about project level matters, in alignment with the EU's comments about the rest of OP7, including the, we're sorry, we are in alignment with the EU's comments about the rest of OP7, and including the suggested deletion from and enhanced readiness. Returning to 7 ter, building on what other distinguished delegates have said, we recognize that the expanded wording remains broadly aligned with the objective of 52.13, which envisages parties encouraging international organizations to grant preferential treatment to developing states. But we would add that the formulation to ensure that no developing country is left behind goes beyond the treaty language, namely that parties shall encourage and introduce introduces a more outcome-oriented expectation. So we would therefore suggest the removal of this wording to ensure alignment with the text of the agreement. We also note that the requirement to fully consider in the second line goes beyond the requirement to simply consider in 5213 as does self-identified. Encouraging fidelity to the agreement here I think is very important and therefore we would suggest the deletion of those terms. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom. I wish to give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of CARICOM.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And very quickly, 7 bis, we would prefer the JEF in this context. And as others have indicated, we do prefer in the second half regarding the country groupings mentioned that we remain consistent to the treaty text. Similarly, in paragraph seven ter, regarding the second part, we would also seek to remain true to the treaty text, and in that instance, we would add landlocked developing states. And these two paragraphs we do believe, as we do see as being drawn from elements in treaty article 52.13, so we would prefer to see them retained. Thank you.

Thank you, Antigua and Barbuda. I wish, speaking on behalf of CARICOM, I now give the floor to Japan.

Thank you, Co-Chair. Japan would like to express our support for the proposal by Switzerland. en notre ville on veut éviter que tu sais moi tu sais pas on requiert chef conseil tu streamlines pour les filles juste pour le on y pbj réalisé projet et aussi le coir d'un truc de préférence traitement de spécifique stage pour catégorie merci.

Merci japon et non que le fleur tu le philippins.

Thank you, co-chair. On OP7 bis and ter, the Philippines can broadly support lifting the brackets around both of these paragraphs and fully supports particularly retaining archipelagic states consistent with Article 52, paragraph 12. On 7 ter, we note the point made by CLAM on article 52, paragraph 13, on the COP's encouragement, but can see the benefit of adding this in an MOU between the COP and the JEF Council. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues. Okay, so we still have a mix of views on 7 bis, 7 ter. We've heard, I've heard, quite a bit of focus on ensuring there's fidelity to the agreement, but of course there's still questions on whether or not to retain these two paragraphs. We'll reflect a little bit more on that, or encourage you all to reflect a little bit more on this. I want to now, with the very limited time left, look initially at some of the reporting paragraphs. La première, le premier paragraphe huit traite de la date à laquelle les rapports seront rendus disponibles. À moins qu'il n'y ait une solution sur laquelle vous êtes tous d'accord, je ne pense pas que je veuille passer du temps à obtenir des chiffres. Mais si vous voulez me surprendre, s'il vous plaît, faites-le. Je pense que je n'ai pas de takers sur le paragraphe huit. Sur le paragraphe neuf, oh, l'Union européenne, désolé.

Merci, Madame Korte. Donc, sur le paragraphe huit, nous pouvons soutenir les changements dans ce paragraphe, mais en attendant la suppression du mot imposant une date limite stricte de douze semaines pour la présentation du rapport par le JEF au COP, nous pensons que cette date limite est incohérente avec d'autres. MOU signed between the JEF and other MEAs and it poses a risk to the validity of report as a background document if it is provided beyond the deadline due to unforeseen events. There is also no reason for being more demanding for the JEF reports than for other documents to be presented to the COP and it remains common practice that the JEF publishes these reports quite early ahead of COP. is why we would not like to leave the to leave to lift the brackets.

Thank you European Union any Reflections on what the European Union has stated mal speaking on.

Behalf of aeses thank you chair um we would actually don't know if it's a reflection, but I'm just going to go with our initial position for the paragraph, which is that we are in favour of opening the brackets and keeping the 12 weeks in the text.

Thank you. Okay, we know where this conversation will go. So I'll give the floor to Brazil and then I will go to OP.9. Brazil? On behalf of cloud.

Very quickly, we'd just like to throw support behind EOSIS in lifting the brackets on at least 12 weeks for the reporting presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. Egypt.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Actually, my intervention here is not about OP8. It's more of a clarification question on the MUDWOF work. we have been through the preamble and the operating paragraphs and I can see this is my first prepcom to attend so please bear with me if maybe my question would have been answered in other meetings but I wanted to know now we are just repeating our positions that we shared before in some of these bracketed areas so my expectation was Either to come with a bridging proposals or maybe this is something that would go after the second reading, like would be next week. So I just wanted to know-how the flow or the mood of work gonna happen. So if we are not agreeing on some brackets. comme cet exemple ou d'autres exemples. Donc, nous allons terminer la lecture de ce protocole d'entente, puis nous reviendrons à la deuxième lecture. En tant que coprésidents, vous prendrez toutes ces insertions et vous reviendrez avec une autre itération. Donc, juste une question de clarification, s'il vous plaît. Merci.

Merci, Idris. Je ne veux pas entrer dans le processus parce que je veux continuer à passer en revue. Le but de l'examen du texte entre parenthèses était précisément d'encourager les délégations à venir with landing zones. If delegations are not able to come with landing zones, then the co-chairs have the flexibility to look to other modalities to try to generate those landing zones. So we may, you know, utilize that option. But as we indicated in the opening, our intention is that Wednesday next week, we're going to have a clean text. So whatever modalities we can do to move towards that, we will utilize those. We will encourage all delegations to reach out and speak and find where the where the landing zones can be had. But you're absolutely right. We don't want to hear reassertion of positions, but I think this is the first pass, so so I let it go. mais merci pour la question utile parce que je pense qu'il est utile pour nous de reconnaître continuellement que nous manquons de temps. Je vais passer au paragraphe neuf et je veux juste proposer que nous commencions par les rapports, plutôt que d'avoir un débat sur tout le langage qui précède les rapports. Donc, le paragraphe serait les rapports soumis par le conseil. United Kingdom, you have the floor. Thank you.

Just focusing on this particular wording in paragraph nine, we would suggest the use of lowercase reports, which would better reflect MINAMATA practice and avoid implying a new defined reporting instrument. Thank you.

Okay, thanks United Kingdom. I was proposing that we delete in order to meet the requirements. And so the sentence would just start reports submitted. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, good chair. We'd like to support your proposal. That would really simplify the text. We would also, we're flexible in terms of the remaining two brackets at the end in terms of Jeff and the council. So we would support whichever. you know, make sense for the relationship and I definitely would appreciate the advice here from the GEF Secretariat on this matter. So hopefully we can quickly close this. Thank you, Co-Chair.

Thank you. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The European Union and its member states can agree to this revised proposals and to start with reports. nevertheless we would like to add that the word activities in our opinion is too specific in this case given that most projects and programs include dozens or even hundreds of activities it is thus in our opinion preferable to refer to projects and programs to avoid overburdening the Jeff secretariat when preparing such reports so we would like to have activities being replaced with projects and programmes. Thank you.

Okay, EU, I was trying to get rid of one set of brackets. Seychelles speaking on behalf of the African group and then followed by Brazil speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you, Chair. Just quickly because we're trying to move this on quickly. The African group did not consider deleting this, but I will take it back to the group and we will come back to you very shortly. Thank you.

Thank you, Seychelles. Brazil, on behalf of CLM.

Thank you very much. Very similarly, our initial position was to retain the first sentence on the requirements of the COP, but we will take back to the group and see if we can show flexibility. However, on the European Union's proposal, we prefer the original drafting on def finance activities. We would like to have in those reports a certain level of granularity of information, also in light of the current practice in other MEAs, we do need such information for the Conference of the Parties to better guide the JEF in project proposal approvals. So we would prefer the current drafting as proposed by the co-chairs. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil, and thank you to both Brazil and Seychelles. Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of CARICOM, you have the floor.

Thank you. And we are in, we were fine with your initial proposal to start the sentence at reports. Um, and just initially considering the proposal by the EU, we would prefer to leave the sentence as it stands. We see that activities is an all encompassing, Je pense que Jeff serait celui qui déterminerait si cette activité est trop lourde. Nous ne voyons pas qu'il faille faire cette distinction à ce moment-ci, mais nous y réfléchissons encore.

Merci. Merci, Antigua-et-Barbuda. Je vois que nous n'avons plus que cinq minutes, alors je vais faire une pause à ce moment-ci. just check my notes here one second Okay, thank you colleagues. I was hoping that we would at least get through quite a bit more of this, but we do have another opportunity to come back to this discussion on Friday afternoon. In the meantime, since you've heard some of the clarifications on the earlier paragraphs, it would be helpful if you could be in touch with your colleagues. I'm very keen to see some of the interested, those who have spoken in depth around paragraph seven, to see if we can have some further reflection on that. But we will carry on from where we left off on nine and try to complete a reading of this. Now, if we see that there, if the code, after a consult with my co-chair, we see that there might be a need for some additional modalities to help us along with this text, we will elect to do so. As our colleague from the Seychelles helpfully pointed out, there is a timeline around this JEF MOU that we want to impress upon the delegations. Il y a un calendrier parce qu'il y a un besoin pour ce MOU d'être transféré au conseil, et ils ont une réunion fixée en juin, je crois. Alors, mettons nos têtes ensemble et cherchons des façons de le faire de façon constructive. build an MOU that yes builds off of the good experiences but also learns from those experiences um so that we can have something effective for the BB and J agreement so we will be coming back to this on um on Friday afternoon um this after I've checked with the secretary and there are no announcements at this point in time I do want to remind delegations that in conference room four during lunchtime from 1:15 to 2:45 p.m., a second Q&A session will take place with the consultant who prepared the consolidated draft on the technical aspects of the clearinghouse, of the operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. So please, if you're able and interested in attending, please do so. 00 p.m. sharp this afternoon in conference room four delegates will be considering the issue of operationalization of other provisions on financial resources and mechanism with a focus on the special fund in the first instance so we can go through the appendix followed then by the voluntary trust fund in this room Delegations will consider the terms of reference and modalities for the operation of and rules of procedure for the subsidiary bodies and selection process for members of the scientific and technical body and other subsidiary bodies. So we'll switch around. So I look forward to seeing many of you in conference room four for our next set of discussions on the special fund and then the voluntary trust fund. Thank you for this very helpful exchange. And Fiji.

Thank you, Madam Kocher. Just very briefly, I understand that we would be going through the rest of the comments on the JEF MOU. I just wanted to seek clarity if after we have gone through the MOU, it goes back to the legal team of JEF. and there would be any further changes to that regard. I understand that they may have already looked at the MOU between PrepCom 2 and PrepCom 3 with their comments, but supposedly if there are substantive changes or inclusions of language such as the one earlier by EU on programs and projects, would this mean that it would have to go back to them for legal verification? as then it defeats the purposes of us trying to strengthen the language if the JEF would have, legal team would have other opinions on this.

Well, the process is that we as the PrepCom would forward what we've hopefully finalized to the JEF Council. And then the Council has a, I presume a consideration or comment period, and then it comes back to us. mais c'est le processus qui a été établi. Mais merci pour la question. Merci et bon déjeuner. La réunion est levée.