Working Group II (4th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity – COP 17

Good morning, colleagues, and welcome back. Please take your seats. We are starting our morning session of today in Working Group 2. I hope you got some rest. We will now continue the consideration of CRPs. The Secretary has worked hard Technicians, yeah, now we have sound again. So, the Secretary has worked hard overnight, and we have a long list of CRPs to go through. Yesterday, we made good progress. Today, we have to do better. I count with your support in revolving bracket. So let's get back to CRP 3 on a strategic review, an update of the expand program of work on forests on the agenda item 17B of the COP. We have cleaned most of the paragraphs in the annex and expect for the following paragraphs. So the sound. outcomes and goals. So, paragraphs 1, 5, 15, 20, 23, 38 and were pending. Yesterday, I tasked a small group of parties, including Brazil, Namibia, EU, and Russian Federation, and others, to solve remaining issues in these paragraphs. Let us hear back from the small group if they have made some progress and maybe reach agreement in some paragraphs, please. So, can I hear from Brazil or EU or Namibia or the Russian Federation some update? I think the microphone of.

The instructions were given very late last night and we did not have a chance to actually meet after the end of the session. So we would like to ask for some additional time to be able to organize this small group meeting and discuss the activities in the annex. And we will get back to you. Thank you.

You can meet around the room or in small group and hopefully you can come then we can revisit again the annex so I suggest to proceed now with the operative paragraphs and the preamble paragraphs um of the document um so I invite you to look at the first operative paragraph, which is clean, and the first set of brackets is on para 2 that starts with take note on information document INF-9. My suggestion is if we can leave the brackets. So I'd like to see if we agree. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Just for clarification, are we working with the operative paragraphs or preambular paragraphs too? Because the way I see it, there are two sets of brackets in the preambular paragraphs.

We're starting with the operative ones.

Thank you. Then we agree with lifting the brackets on the operative paragraph. Thank you.

So I don't hear any opposition to delete the brackets. So we have clean text on operational paragraph number 2. Next set of brackets is in paragraph 3 that start with welcomes and notes. I propose to leave the brackets. So, just give me a sec. Thank you for your patience. My suggestion is to, at this stage, since we have a specific document on IBES, by this time, maybe we can go along notes, the potential relevance of the thematic assessment of nexus, transformative change, sorry, and nexus, and leaving the formal adoption or welcoming to the other group. with that formulation can work. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We do agree with your proposal on notes the potential relevance of and with your arguments. However, we think that naming specific assessments here is also redundant. Therefore, we would like the paragraph to be formulated as notes the potential relevance of thematic assessments of IPAs, just the general language. Thank you.

Norway, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. These reports are important documents with key science information, peer-reviewed, delivered by hundreds of scientists working thousands of hours. And they are important to this decision as well. So we prefer welcomes and both of the reports with the names of the specific reports. Thank you.

Switzerland, follow you.

Thank you, Chair. We second Norway in that. I think the mentioning of the specific report is relevant here because especially the transformative change report has many elements that are relevant to the information in the annex, uh, for example, business by economy and all of that, and at the same time, I mean, those we think that these reports are specifically rele- relevant to the, to expand the program and those prefer welcome.

Thank you. EU, followed by Colombia.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support the statement made by Norway and Switzerland. Thank you.

Thank you. Colombia and Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. Along the same lines as previous speakers, we would like to keep welcome and specific mention of the assessments. Thank you.

Argentina.

Thank you very much chair or on the contrary we agree more with you the it best studies are not being considered in specific working groups on it best therefore we'd prefer to leave welcome to that other group and then here just to refer to more general studies thank you

thank you Argentina.

I don't want to entertain very long time on this. This is happening also in other documents. Please be pragmatic. Here, the focus is forest. So what is the utility of this? Well, the mention for transformative change and nexus is because are quite the recent ones that this COP are considering in a different document. So what is the relevance for forest? So that's why as a compromise, what I'm offering is to note the potential relevance of these two. I know some delegations don't want to mention specifically. So my compromise offer is to note the potential relevance of these two assessments. So this will require flexibility of both extremes. Otherwise, I don't want to send brackets to the plenary. I hope my offer can be acceptable. Our focus is on forest. Let's leave the discussion on IPBES to the other document. Actually, Secretary is advising me, and I believe my colleague is right, if we put welcome, It has no connection what we are talking about on forest. Nope. So what we are is knowing the potential relevance of these assessments to forest. So do not mix our discussions. The issue welcoming the outcomes from IPBES is not in this document. We're talking about forest, so please. I look for your cooperation and then we can move forward. Uruguay.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with what some countries have said. We wanted to keep the mention of these very important documents, with a view to maybe reaching a compromise, perhaps we could say taking into account the best assessments, in particular the most recent ones, including those which are now mentioned in the paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Uruguay.

Thank you, Chair. I do apologize. I sadly was not part of the delegation of my country on the IBES negotiations. However, if I may request a clarification from the Secretariat, am I right in my understanding that the assessment reports themselves were not negotiated documents and the summary for policymakers, I believe, were? Is that correct?

I don't believe this has really relevance in this case, but just for you to know, of course, assessments of IPBs are very complex and documents prepared by many scientists. And the only thing that is negotiated by IPBES members is the summary for policymakers, including those key messages as a reference. There is no negotiation about the content of the chapters, but here, what we are doing by making reference to this IPBES assessment is to know the potential relevance for forest. So this is my proposal to move on and not to mix negotiations. The relationship between CBD and IPBES and the different assessments and many other tools is not under discussion here. That's in another document. So I invite you again to follow my suggestion to know the potential relevance of these two assessments, which are the most recent. And this is a potential relevance to forest. So I invite you to move on. So if we move to the extreme, I'm not mentioning anyone, or if you insist in welcoming, I don't see the case of the support for the purposes. We are updating the program work on forest. So please, let's focus on forest. So Russian delegation, followed by Costa Rica.

Thank you. As I said, we were against mentioning the specific assessments. However, seeing as we have to find a compromise, we would be okay with noting the potential relevance of the summaries for policymakers and then mentioning the specific assessments. Thank you.

Thank you. Russian Federation. to consider you are reducing to summary for policy makers. I give the floor to Costa Rica and Chile.

Please help me to find some common language so we can move forwards. We're not trying to see who is more consistent on that position.

Well, thank you, Chair. We could support your proposal. as long as there's a reference specifically to forests, because in the document, we're speaking about the potential importance of, and then the text continues. So if we could add the potential importance for forests of, then it'll be easier for us to support this. Thank you.

Thank you, Costa Rica,

Mr. Chair. I think this is mentioned at the end of the paragraph. It says the work of the Convention, including the expanded programme of work, on forest biodiversity and the implementation of the framework.

Chile?

Thank you very much, Chair. We would prefer to follow your proposal, Co-Chair. I think your proposal is along the lines of compromise that we're looking for.

So thank you, Chile, says the Chair, my original proposal. Yes.

So these two assessments. But the suggestion from Russia is to limit to the summary for policymakers. Is this acceptable? I have Chile, no, Chile already spoke, Brazil followed by Nigeria.

Thank you, Chair. Brazil would not really be in a position to support welcoming these reports here, but I think that both your proposal and with Russia's adjustment strike the right balance and compromise here in noting the potential relevance, whether of the thematic assessment reports or its summaries. We would be flexible on that last point there. Thank you.

Obrigado, Brazil. Nigeria.

Thank you, Chair. We are happy to go with your proposal, but focusing on the reference to the forest biodiversity and the implementation of the framework, I think we would prefer to work within the context of the framework at the end of the paragraph. Thank you.

Can you repeat, Najib, because we are here making reference to forest. And what we have at the end is a combination for the framework and the forest. If you're suggesting just to limit to the framework, then what is the forest? Najib, so can we keep the language as it is?

Our proposal is to still reference forest biodiversity, but in the context of the framework, not to the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity and the implementation of the framework, because we are particularly focused on how this report is relevant to the expanded work of the forest biodiversity. We are concerned about the implementation of the framework.

Can you repeat how should it says the last part, please, just to have clarity.

So the last part will read the last line, including the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity in the context of the KMGPF. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think that that helps. Thank you, Nigeria. I have Switzerland, followed by Costa Rica and Norway.

Thank you, Chair. We are happy to go with your proposal on noting the potential relevance, but exactly because of this potential relevance, we want to keep -- we prefer to keep the thematic reports as a whole, because that's where the technical inputs are that are relevant to the information in the annex, and not just a summary of policymakers. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. I agree. So let's go for Costa Rica and Norway.

Thank you, Chair. As you know, the paragraphs begin from the general section and go towards more specific areas. So we'll be more comfortable if we made a change including the paragraph which references the expanded programme work on forest biodiversity, which is at the end of the paragraph. Perhaps that could be moved up. Then it would read something like, "The potential relevance of the work conducted under the undertaking of the Convention, including the expanded programme work on forest biodiversity, of the publication of the thematic assessment report, etc. So then that can contextualize, as you noted very well, this potential relevance with forest biodiversity. Thank you.

Gracias, Costa Rica.

Thank you, Costa Rica. I think that your suggestion of moving that section up doesn't really change the meaning of the paragraph. I think that as it's written now in English, referencing the potential relevance of the assessments already is contextualized. So I'd ask you for flexibility because I think if not, we risk confusing things further. Perhaps in Spanish it sounds a bit better, but the paragraph is in English here. And so I'd ask you to keep the order as it is here. Costa Rica once again, or Norway first, thank you.

I feel we should be able to welcome the reports that have been requested by member countries to the CBD and the APAS. and should guide our work. But in the spirit of compromise, we can also be agreeing on your proposal. And as Switzerland said, we think it's important to have a reference to the whole of the report. The SPM is a very condensed 40-page version, which does not contain the technical information we need to make good decisions in forest biodiversity. So we prefer then to take notes of the whole reports. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Noemi, and for your flexibility about not keeping welcome. I appreciate that. So I will kindly ask Russian Federation if we can mention the reports in general and not to limit to summary for policymakers. That part is policy relevant information agreed by the parties, but the content on different chapters may be also potentially useful for technical elements on the forest program of work. So I kindly ask flexibility from Russia not to limit to the summary for policymakers, and then we can move on. We have almost half an hour in just this paragraph. Can we accept this formulation as I mentioned, noting the potential relevance of these two reports? for the including the expandable on the work in the context of the framework as amended by Nigeria. Can we accept this formulation? I see two requests. Are you opposing or are you supporting? So this is a balanced compromise, not to limit to summary for policymakers. EU by Russian Federation and Costa Rica.

Thank you very much, Chair. Similar to some previous speakers, we would have preferred to have "welcome" and would still prefer to have "welcome", but in the spirit of compromise, we could agree to "notes". We would then prefer to have "notes, the relevance of" or "notes, the thematic report". Thank you.

So you're suggesting to delete the potential relevance? the potential. Please help me. Don't overcomplicate things. I think we were almost there. I have Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. For us, the mention of not negotiated documents is really something that we are trying to avoid. However, seeing the voices in the room and the importance of the entire reports for several countries, we would agree to your proposal. However, strictly within the language of notes the potential relevance of. We are against deleting potential, deleting relevance, et cetera. I think that we have, as it is shown, a lot of flexibility. Thank you.

Thank you for most delegations showing this flexibility. So I ask you and and Costa Rica not to move more this paragraph. I think we have a balanced one, noting the potential relevance of these two reports to the work undertaken by the Convention, including the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity in the context of the framework. So, thank you. if we just leave like that, it's a balanced proposal. Can we take it? If you agree, please.

Thank you. So the text would be notes the relevance of the thematic assessment, is that correct?

No, the potential relevance. The potential relevance. I don't think that harms It's leave the door open. So anybody can take a look to those assessments and took whatever considered policy relevant and useful. I think it's a nice balance what we have. Thank you, you. Costa Rica.

Maybe we can already accept it as it is. We already have an agreement to everyone. don't think it will help us to change things around now.

Well, yes, thank you, Chair. I understand that it could be a variation between the English and Spanish in this paragraph. For Costa Rica, it's very important that the expanded program work on forest biodiversity features earlier on in the paragraph in English, Spanish, or in any of the six official languages of the United Nations. So we'd like to keep this sentence, placing emphasis on the expanded program work on forest biodiversity. And if we can't move that up, then we'd like to keep this in brackets. Thank you.

Costa Rica, please, as a Chair, I ask for your cooperation. As it is now, really conveys the meaning of the paragraph. We are noting the potential relevance of these two reports for the work of the Convention. the programme of work and the framework. I don't see any contradiction here. I think all other delegations are more or less in agreement on this, so I would ask for your flexibility here. I don't see a reason to keep brackets here when there's not a substantive issue. This is not an issue of substance. This is an issue of editing language, but not really an issue of substance. So I'd ask for your flexibility so we can move on to the other paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you. I understand your position as Chair, but we are a party to the Convention, and we believe it's necessary to have this. And if we don't have this moved up in the paragraph, then we would want to keep it in brackets, please. Could you read out how you want us to have the paragraph? and then the room can see.

But I would hope to be speaking of issues of greater substance here. I would ask all parties to really focus on the most essential issues here. Costa Rica, please.

Gracias.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, Costa Rica. This is essential. So we would like the reference to the expanded program work on forest biodiversity to be moved up in the paragraph, for example, could be to

take note

or notes the potential relevance for the work undertaken under the Convention, including the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity, of the publication of the thematic assessment report on the underlying causes, et cetera. We think that is necessary at the start to contextualize this analysis to the work on forest biodiversity. Thank you.

So, the Secretariat is saying this is not really have great meaning in English, but they're going to try and work on some wording here. But this could cause issues also with the editors. I think we already have the essence of the paragraph here. So I've asked for flexibility. on substance, and that has been shown by all of you. So I'd ask for flexibility on the form as well, but perhaps I'll leave a few minutes for the secretariat while we all kind of digest this. Thank you.

Okay, we need to move on. I'm asking now the Secretary to try to accommodate the language as Costa Rica is suggesting. I see it's complicated in English, but I will ask the Secretary to read it and to see if the floor accepts this formulation. Otherwise, we need to park this paragraph, but this claim as it is and move forward. It's been 40 minutes already on this. Please, Secretary.

Thank you. Notes the potential relevance, comma, for the work of the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity in the context of the framework, comma, of the thematic assessment report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity and the thematic assessment report on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health of the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretary. I hope by moving this to the front is acceptable. I have Nigeria asking for the floor before. Please help us, Nigeria.

Thank you, Chair. As the Secretariat was reading, I was nodding because that did not sound well in English. My advice is, if we cannot resolve this right now, to park this, because our preference is for the initial one, which sounded so clean and very easy to understand. The idea is to use to take note of the assessment report and then see the relevance of it with the program of work under the forest biodiversity, which made more sense, I mean, to us. So, our proposal is to park the significance of this right here and maybe find some time with the Costa Rica delegate to resolve this later. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Nigeria, for your suggestion. I will follow your advice. So let's keep the agreed language as we carefully craft. And if still Costa Rica wants to have changes, then we will put it on brackets. And I will ask Costa Rica to get in touch with other delegations or the Secretary, with the editors to explain to you why this moving is not understandable in English. This is not a matter of substance. This is a language and we shouldn't be entertaining this precious time and interpretation on this. There are editors in the convention also working on this. So once again, Costa Rica, can we keep it?

Can we keep the paragraph clean or would you like to continue keeping it in brackets? I'm in your hands.

I'd like to speak with the secretariat to see whether we could keep drafting, which is agreeable to us. Thank you.

So are you keeping it in brackets then?

Yes, please, says Costa Rica.

Thank you, says the Chair. I would ask for your cooperation so that we can make progress on the next substantive paragraphs. Perhaps you can also conduct informal consultations for pending paragraphs in the annex. And I would now invite you to move on to the next paragraph, which is the fourth. This is connected to the annex, so perhaps we could leave that one pending as well and move on to the fifth paragraph.

As the complementary activities, my proposal is to lift the brackets. Can we support deletion of the brackets on paragraph five? EU?

Thank you, Chair. Sorry. We consider that paragraph five of the draft decision contains selective language from WTO rules that, taken out of its context, goes beyond what WTO members commit. This wording as proposed would undermine the policy space for given under the WTO rules for non-discriminatory measures taken for legitimate environmental objectives. The UN and its member states therefore oppose the addition of paragraph five, but we could consider a more balanced reference to mainstreaming in trade in line with WTO rules, and we could propose that under paragraph 12. Thank you.

Thank you, Yu. Let's hear more interventions. I have Brazil, followed by Russian Federation and Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. Retaining this paragraph is very important for Brazil. This is language that means to safeguard the implementation, the governing of the implementation of this programme of work, and I would like to stress that this is agreed language from principle 12. of the declaration, of the Rio Declaration. The Rio Declaration itself that is fully consistent with this existing program of work and CBD parties have already agreed in decision 15.4, the decision which adopted the KMGPF on Article 7K, that in this, that we should be guided by the principles of the Rio Declaration while implementing the framework. And the annex itself addresses matters such as illegal trade, production and supply chains, corporate disclosure, consumer decisions, and market access. It will therefore be inconsistent to retain activities that may affect trade while excluding language ensuring that their implementation does not result in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restriction on international trade. This is therefore not an attempt to interpret WTO rules or to prejudge discussions in place in other forums. This is merely a safeguard which is necessary where concepts, indicators, or supply chain requirements have not been mutually agreed. So we really support maintaining this paragraph, and this is a safeguard that Brazil thinks that is necessary in order to endorse or take note of the activities in the annex. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. Russian Federation, followed by Argentina and Norway.

Thank you, Chair. We fully support the intervention by Brazil and the line of arguments that they have provided. We think that the paragraph is very important and we would like it to be kept in exactly the same language that it currently has. Thank you.

Thank you. Argentina.

Thank you very much, Chair. We'd like to support the last two speakers. We are viewing the program work on for us here and we're going to add new measures because it's important to focus on that so we have to keep that in the paragraph and that we place the paragraph within its context thank you

thank you Norway followed by China

thank you chair we would like to fully support the intervention by the EU and following their justification for this we think it's very important it does not stay this final bracketed text. Thank you.

Thank you. China, followed by South Africa and Kyrgyzstan.

Thank you, Chair.

We support retaining paragraph number five.

It's important.

China supports promoting the protection of biodiversity, stop deforestation, et cetera, and implementing the framework. We think that parties should use their own initiative to support biodiversity in the forest and the program of work. We want to emphasize that measures should abide by non-discriminative rule and it should not constitute discriminative behavior. It should also be not limiting international trade. We also want to remind parties that when discussing the subject, IBIS, Similar rules and principles should be abided, and we should also take reference to other international treaties.

China, Kyrgyzstan, followed by Panama, and then let me make a proposal. Kyrgyzstan, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, sir.

The Kyrgyz Republic lacks the updating of an expanded program of work on biodiversity of forests and proposes that we should reflect in the text that the preservation of forest ecosystems, especially forests that have not been harmed yet, including the name of the program. In this respect, we would, uh, propose that in item six, we should have something about, uh, supporting forest ecosystems and approaches to forest ecosystems, and in nine, 12, and 13, we should focus attention on preserving forest biosystems and preventing their biodegradation. On paragraph five, we would like to remove the wording about international trade, as we consider it necessary not to allow any limitations on preservation measures, which are intended to preserve these forests. We would like to underscore that preserving existing natural forests that haven't been harmed yet should remain a priority, and the restoration of degraded territories is something that should be complementary, but should not replace this. Thank you.

So, Kyrgyzstan, you're suggesting to delete international trade in paragraph 5. You want to keep the paragraph 5.

Now, we would propose to remove the whole of paragraph 5. So, the proposal international trade, the sentence on international trade.

Thank you. South Africa, followed by Panama.

Thank you very much, Chair. I guess we support the maintenance of the paragraph with the overwhelming consensus from the other countries that have spoken.

Before, because for us, it's a matter of economic sovereignty as well that we need to protect.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

Panama. Thank you. We also and also with countries that prefer to keep paragraph 5. Thank you.

Colleagues, so we have a polarized situation. So a number of parties is supporting retention of paragraph 5, and some are requesting to remove it. Maybe what I can suggest is to soften a little bit the paragraph and maybe taking out the expression at the middle of including unilateral measures. So he can say that recognize the complementary activities in the annex, taking to support implementation of the expanded work should not constitute means of arbitrary or just difficult discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. I don't know if this can help. softened a little bit by taking out including unilateral measures, because we're making reference to the utility of the annex. Can this formulation be acceptable? EU.

Thank you, Chair, for proposing a compromise. If we should keep part of paragraph 5, we would asked to delete the text starting with including unilateral measures until the end. And we could replace it with a text that clearly makes reference to the international agreements and WTO rules. So we could propose something in this regard, which is should be in line with relevant international agreements. including multilateral environmental agreements and with WTO rules. To us, this provides the necessary safeguard under agreed international rules. Thank you.

Thank you, Yu. That's quite a long text, and I don't know how much is changing the meaning of of, uh, the original meaning of the, of the paragraph. Let me hear after the update on the screen. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Although we think that the inclusion of the language on unilateral measures is really important, we would be able to compromise and accept your proposal. However, the proposal of the European Union, we believe, in a big way changes the context and the intended message of the paragraph. Therefore, we would not be able to support it. Thank you.

Thank you. So in principle, can we agree to the lead including unilateral measures? Is there any opposition, Brazil?

First of all, regarding the EU's proposal, if You remove from including all the way to international trade, you take all the substantive part of the paragraph and you leave it basically only with the introduction, which is the same thing as deleting the paragraph, so for the sake of time here, I think we should, uh, try to be more constructive in our initiatives, uh, uh, including… As for deleting, including a natural measure, this would be really important for us. I'm not ready to let it go. I will have to consult on that. But I do see this as a possible way forward. If we can pick, keep should not constitute a means of arbitrary and justifiable discrimination, but I'll have to consult and get back on that. At least one part of the EU's proposal, which would be feasible for us is including ensuring respect to WTO rules at the end. So we could go with adding that to the end of the paragraph, while again repeating keeping including unilateral measures as of now. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. So you have some concerns to delete including unilateral measures, and you are open to include at least from EU suggestion the reference to WTO. I see noting Argentina followed by you.

Thank you, Chair. We could remove the brackets and perhaps only leave brackets in including unilateral measures. Then we'd have a clean paragraph with just this small section in brackets. And then could then include OMS at the end of the paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you. EU.

Thank you, Chair. And I apologize, I missed the first sentence from the intervention by Argentina, so I am not entirely sure what was proposed, but I want to explain what our colleagues with whom we have discussed this particular paragraph dealing with trade have explained to us. So the WTO rules have been carefully designed They do not regulate environmental measures and other legitimate public policy measures that are not discriminatory. And when environmental measures that are discriminatory can be justified under circumstances, essentially if they are genuine environmental measures, then they are also justified. So the reference is proposed would change this interpretation and undermine the space that the WTO rules are given for non-discriminatory measures taken for legitimate environmental objectives. And this can impact on the mutually supportive relationship between WTO and MEA rules. And it's a problematic text for our colleagues dealing with trade. So I do not have a mandate to agree to including this text. But as mentioned earlier, we are very open to including a text that refers to WTO rules.

Thank you.

Can you repeat your proposal of text? I understand that there is some acceptance just to the reference of WTO that can be at the end. I don't know if this helps, but just for clarity with the Secretariat to have what you propose.

Thank you very much. So our first suggestion was to delete paragraph 5 and to add in paragraph 12 at the end of the paragraph.

We are now on 5.

So we.

That was our first suggestion. So it was to just say including trade while ensuring respect for WTO rules and GATT Article 20. Our second suggestion is if we have to keep paragraph 5, then we would propose so recognizes that the complementary activities in the annex taken to support implementation of the program of work should be in line with relevant international agreements, including multilateral environmental agreements and with the WTO rules.

Idem on rules. Are you-- OK. I understand that you want to include this and to delete the last part and that was not accepted, but if I follow properly Brazil's, it can accept just to add, to keep part of 5 as it is, and at the end, just part of EU's proposal and should be in line with relevant international agreements, including relevant MAAs and WTO rules. So to add that the end of current paragraph five and not to have the whole text from EU and replacing the last part because I've been told it changes the spirit of the paragraph. So what we have so far is paragraph five as it is. with the expression of including unilateral measures in brackets for consideration of some delegations, and added at the end, after restriction of international trade, and should be in line with relevant international agreements, including relevant MAAs and WTO rules. This is a hybrid intent to see if we can reach an agreement. I have Brazil and then we need to decide to move on. We have already more than four hours dealing with this document and at this pace, we would need three weeks for the COP. We don't have that luxury. Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, due to the number of brackets previously in this document, I don't think it's surprising that we're spending this much time here in the working group 2 with it. We would be okay with adding European Union's text to the end of the text that we already have, keeping paragraph 5 as it is, and just adding that should be in line with relevant international agreements, MEAs, including WTO rules, but not deleting the text that we proposed. Thank you.

Yes, that's my proposal, to add just at the end, and it should be in line with relevant international agreements, including MEAs and WTO rules. and keeping in brackets including unilateral measures. EU.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Panama, for showing some flexibility. Our proposal is for an alternative text with the part of the paragraph that we disagree with. So we cannot agree with just adding it and keeping the entire paragraph. If we need to move on, maybe we could have to bracket this for now and add it to the topics that we need to discuss bilaterally.

Thanks. It seems we have to bracket this paragraph. Now the question is if we include the language part of what you propose at the end as Brazil is proposing. Or you want to take out also the last part? This is a question for Brazil to consider. Meanwhile, China.

Thank you, Mr. Adding the reference to the others is a thing, but it will lose the key message in the current para 5. In the spirit of compromising, China supports for Brazil's proposal. We could hybrid also, that's the chair's proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you, China, for your support. So let's keep the hybrid version in brackets. So it will be more work for, I see maybe we will need to set up our friends of the chair to work on remaining paragraphs. So let's move as quick as possible to finish operative paragraphs. move to the next one, which is para 8, encourage parties to apply human rights-based and gender-responsive approach. So I open the floor for comments on para 8. UK, followed by Russia, Panama, and Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we suggest replacing the bracketed text with the following: "encourages Parties to implement the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity consistent with section C of the framework and other provisions of the convention"? Our justification is that we should avoid cherry-picking certain parts of section C, It should be read as a whole.

If the programme of work on.

Forests is implemented in a way that is consistent with section C, that is inclusive of all the concepts.

Including the ones in the draft paragraph.

Thank you very much, UK. That is a very good suggestion, for not to repeat part of the language that we already have in section C of the agreed framework, without going into specifics. That's a general call that includes many elements that goes also beyond human rights and gender responsiveness. A general call to make reference to already agreed language. I'd like to put forward this proposal if it's acceptable. I know there are three parties requesting, but please consider this one as a potential solution without going to details. Is anyone opposing to UK's formulations that calls? I will ask the Secretary how exactly is to apply consistent with the section C of the framework. Can you read it, please, Secretary?

As far as we understand, the UK's proposal, with some slight editorial amendment from the Secretariat, would read, "Encourage Parties to implement the expanded programme of work on forest biodiversity in a manner that is consistent with section C of the framework and other provisions of the Convention." Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. I think this is a good proposal. Is anybody opposing? this formulation. I see that the list of speakers is reducing. This is a good sign. I have Argentina and Namibia.

Please.

Thank you, Chair. It's not to oppose the paragraph. We thought it's a better alternative. But here at the end, we would add in line with national circumstances and priorities. So, it's all possible options can be left open for States parties. Thank you.

Thank you. I see we're almost there. Namibia.

Thank you, Chair. We are not completely against the suggestion to reference section C, but we are a little bit concerned about that section C doesn't explicitly reference a gender-responsive approach, and we would like to see this integrated, if UK could maybe reconsider this.

Thank you, Namibia. I don't know if you have alternative language, but this is a general call. Russian Federation, follow by Panama.

Thank you, Chair. Initially, we were in favor of deleting the entire paragraph. However, we would be able to compromise and have the language proposed by the UK with the addition proposed by Argentina. However, we would not support specifically adding a reference to a gender-responsive approach. As we have stated yesterday, it is an issue of terminology and it being a appropriate in certain contexts. Therefore, we believe that the proposals have been pretty balanced and we would like to have the language that's been more or less agreed. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia.

Panama. Thank you, Chair. We believe United Kingdom's proposal is a good one with the comments submitted by Argentina. But we also, like the concern expressed by Namibia, in that we need a reference to gender. Thank you.

Have support for the formulation with the amendment at the end by Argentina. But the thing is, the issue of gender response that Namibia and Panama mentioned is created some difficulties. what can be a potential place to include or even in brackets and to move on. So last is a pleasure to do some magic to see an option and to read for us and maybe moving forward even with some brackets. Meanwhile, tell me when you're ready, meanwhile, Argentina.

Thank you, Chair, to try and find a solution. we assess in line with section C and the targets of the framework taking into account that the gender-based is contained in some targets of the framework thank you.

It's a good proposal So, let's see if we division to the targets, then the gender element is considered. Let's see if it flies. So, I'll ask the Secretary to read the new formulation.

Thank you. This may require some editing, but it would read, encourage parties to implement the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity in a manner that is consistent with section C of the framework, the goals and targets of the framework, and other provisions of the convention in line with national circumstances and priorities.

Thank you very much. I think it sounds very good. Can we go along with this formulation? Namibia.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I think, you know, the gender responsive is kind of, you know, buried under many other aspects and we would not support such formulation. We would, in this case, rather go back to the initial text and lift the brackets from there. Thank you.

So, I see it's complicated. What I propose is to maintain the original paragraph in brackets and to keep the formulation as with the UK and amendments as an alt, both in brackets, and to move on. We still have to go through a number of paragraphs to finish operational and then to decide how to proceed through, maybe, Friends of the Chair and move to other documents. I'm really concerned that we are not making as good progress as the previous days. And I encourage parties to be more flexible and constructive, please. So we keep 8 in the original formulation in brackets, as Namibia requests, and we keep the alt as read by the Secretariat with the amendments of some of you. Now let's move to 9. Paragraph 9, there's a set of brackets at the middle around under dissemination of guidance and tools. So I propose to delete the brackets. Is that acceptable? I see no request. Thank you very much. So paragraph 9 is clean. The next set of brackets is on paragraph 12. which invites parties and governments mainstream for its biodiversity to expand program of work. My suggestion is to leave the brackets. Can we go along? I don't see, almost I don't see Russian Federation.

Distinguished delegates, we ask you to delete the word all. in the sentence "all relevant sectors". Thank you.

Thank you. So we can delete "all" and to retain "across relevant sectors". So I see no requests. Thank you so much. So we have clean text on paragraph 12. Now let's go to last paragraph on the operative section. where we have the whole paragraph in brackets, and also we have some on sub-paragraph B. So I hope we can have the understanding, my recall on the whole paragraph 13 was making reference to executive secretary actions, and we already have a document with the compilation of all requests, so I hope that's a good element for consideration to delete it. And I invite first to go to sub-paragraph B, when there are mentions of all relevant stakeholders, indigenous people, local communities, women and youth. So my suggestion is to replace both set of bracketed text with previously used language on the CBD. that may say relevant organizations, comma, indigenous peoples and local communities, comma, women, youth, and other stakeholders. That is my suggestion. So to replace both set of brackets by relevant organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, comma, youth, and other stakeholders. So this is previously adopted language.

Thank you, Chair. Panama supports your proposal for this new version. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I don't see more requests. Then we replace that with this. We have cleaned the paragraph B, and I suggest then to lift the brackets in paragraph 13. Do we agree? I see no request. Thank you very much. So we have clean text on paragraph 13. So recapping on our progress on the operative part, let me check with the Secretariat how many paragraphs we have pending on the operational part. Okay, on the operational paragraphs, we have cleaned most of them. Paragraph 3 is potentially clean, but waiting for Costa Rica on the language. We have paragraph 4, but this is procedural, let's say, as long as we have agreement on the annex, it can be, it can be lifted. It's pending paragraph 5, and also paragraph 8. So I invite you to go now to the preamble paragraphs after we already pass through operational and mostly to the annex. We have a set of brackets only on-- I think it's the sixth paragraph, starting with recognizing the contribution of the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests in brackets, the mentioned to 2030 agenda and the Convention on Climate Change. My proposal is to leave both set of brackets. Can we accept that, Argentina?

Thank you, Chair. second accounts that the paragraph ends with other global processes and instruments we don't see the need for a specific mention of which ones are necessary therefore we suggest the deletion of the brackets and to leave the paragraph as a clean text thank you

thank you chair we support your proposal to eliminate the brackets in reference to the UNFCCC and target. Thank you.

Thank you, says the chair. Would anyone else like to take the floor? And anyone like to propose a solution?

I see Norway followed by Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to support your suggestion as also supported by Panama. Thank you. We think it's important to have the reference to those very specific and relevant agreements. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. We agree on the action plan on forest because we're speaking about forest here, so Then when it comes to opening up to any other global instruments, I don't think that necessarily contributes the clarity of the paragraph and the goals that we have here when it comes to cherry picking other instruments. So we could provide a very extensive list of many instruments recognized on this paragraph, but I think it's better to keep the text as clean as possible and to avoid mentions of many other initiatives which aren't specifically focused on both forests, which we are focusing on here. if not, we have all these other very similar documents and an interminable list of bodies, organizations, rather than focusing on what we need to focus on, which are increasingly tangible documents. So, here we're trying to have the most concise document possible, which focuses on discussions of substance. Therefore, we suggest the elimination of the brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Indeed, we have a mandate of having texts as concise as possible. That's true. This is a preamble paragraph which sets out the context. But I'm in your hands. In your hands, delegates.

Send these kind of brackets to the plenary. So I invite you to have informal consultations in to find a solution is just naming some elements to recognizing the contribution for forest. And I don't see a way forward right now, but to keep these brackets on the preamble or paragraph. But I see Norway and Russia, maybe you can come with a solution.

Thank you. Yes, it's a preamble and it sets out the context. So we can also then, in the spirit of compromise, agree to keeping the reference to then only the strategic plan of forests for now and then take out the other two. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway, for the flexibility. That's a pretty constructive approach, I hope. we can support Norway's and then to delete these two set of paragraphs is contextual only and we go along to have a streamlined decision. So I look for the indulgence of other delegations to be flexible and so we can have a clean text. It's just contextual information. Russian Federation, I'll follow by Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We thank Norway for the flexibility and we would also support the deletion of text in the brackets. If I may, may I please request the Secretariat to read the final formulation on 13B? Thank you.

Yes, very quickly, Secretariat.

So this is para 13B with the proposal from the chair, which was to introduce text that would replace the text in both sets of the brackets that are currently in brackets. So with the chair's proposal, it would read as follows. Compile and make available relevant experiences from parties, other governments, relevant organizations, Indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth and other stakeholders on the use of the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity and the complementary activities listed in the annex to the present decision in support of the implementation of the framework as it relates to forest biodiversity.

Thank you, Secretariat. I hope that's clear. Now, Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with social flexibility. However, we believe that the mention of the 2030 agenda and the UNFCCC are references to Rio conventions, so I think it would be acceptable to maintain those references. Thank you.

Gracias Panama, pero...

Thank you Panama. However, if there's already been flexibility to eliminate the text in the two brackets, let's do that rather than maybe adding new text. So we can have clean text for this paragraph. So I'd ask that we simply delete the text in brackets. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. I do apologize for the misunderstanding. I've had to take a call for two minutes, but it happens. As you know, on principle, we had the general understanding that all of the paragraphs that contain the requests to the Executive Secretary would have to be in brackets until we have a final list of the requests. However, we do understand that there are several decisions where we are very hard-pressed to make progress this week, and we do hope to, this week, have something final to be adopted by the plenary. Therefore, here in this specific decision, we agree to leave the brackets on the entirety of paragraph 13. The next two is something that we will have to further discuss, but here we agree on it. However, I do apologize, but in point B, we would only be comfortable with relevant experience from parties and actors other than national government or other relevant stakeholders, either that or this. Otherwise, we would not be able to open the brackets on paragraph 13 as a whole, or we just propose to delete paragraph B, because this is something that's really important to us, the list of the requests for the Executive Secretary, and here that's as much as we can do. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia. So, in principle, you are open to leave the brackets of part 13 in order to send something complete to plenary. However, I thought we reached an agreement with the collaboration of all to have clean text based on taking on board my proposal of the text that is already agreed on the CBD. Now you are making a proposal with a different text just to end in with all relevant stakeholders. ending Okay, as a way to make some progress, we can keep both proposals as alt. So one is the formulation we agreed mostly all together until before the last intervention from Russia, as read by the Secretariat, using the language I proposed, and we can keep as an alt version. compile and make available all relevant experiences from parties, other governments, and all relevant stakeholders on the use of the expanded program and so on. And just to leave this, just leaving in brackets, just section B, right? Okay. So these we already covered, preamble and operative paragraphs. And I would like to know if there is some progress on pending paragraphs on the annex. Does any of the delegations would like to take the floor to give us an update?

Yes.

According to our vision, the paragraph three must be read as follows. takes note of the potential importance of the IPBES Thematic Assessment Report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity and the IPBS thematic assessment report on the interlinkage among biodiversity, water, food and health. Comma, for the implementation of the X-Men program of work on forest biodiversity comma, including in support of the implementation of the coming Montreal global biodiversity framework. Now we understand that the phrase that cause some sound to us is the phrase after ecosystem services. to the work undertaken under the Convention. That phrase is the one that we cannot understand and according with our vision, lost the essence of the paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Costa Rica, for your efforts. And I will ask Secretariat to read what you just exposed to see if this is a good way out. Please, Secretariat.

So the paragraph with some slight editorial changes would read as follows. Takes note of the potential relevance of the thematic assessment report on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity, and the thematic assessment report on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food, and health of the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, for the implementation of the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity, including in support of the implementation of the framework. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. I pressed the button of my laptop instead of the microphone. Can we accept this formulation? It's same content in a different order, no substantial changes. I hope we can go along. I don't see any opposition. I know I have a request from India, but I believe it's from other issue. Is anyone opposing? Kyrgyzstan is opposing to the new formulation. Kyrgyzstan, you have the floor. Please help us to move and have this paragraph clean. So let's work for Friends of the Chair. Kyrgyzstan.

Thank you so much, Chair. We back Costa Rica's proposal and the proposal of the Secretariat on creating a group of friends on this document. We believe that the spirit of the KMGBF is important and should be included after, we should include the term and forest ecosystems after forest biodiversity, especially ones that haven't been damaged. Thank you.

Kyrgyzstan, we understand this is the official name of the program work, so we cannot change that name. So my invitation is to accept the text as is now crafted. That's the title. That's a decision already from the Conference of the Parties. Thank you for your understanding. Now, India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. India would like to keep the paragraph four in brackets as we have some important intervention in annex. So I would like to ask clarification from the secretariat that the annex is open for intervention or is still we are discussing on the paragraph three and four.

The reason to maintain the brackets on four is because this is the adoption, let's say, of the annex and the annex still open to negotiation and that will be part of the paragraphs that the friends of the chair will be working with. So that's a procedural thing. So So we should keep it as it is for a while until we have.

So, so, so, so please keep the paragraph forward in record. Hold it. It is. It is. Thank you.

Thank you. Brazil, and I'd like to, to set up the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, to move to next document. Microphone to Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair. Yes. Brazil would like to highlight as well that it is important for us to keep paragraph four in brackets, not only pending the decision on the annex, we also see paragraphs four and five, actually the language in paragraph four directly connected with what we have in five, so for example, for us to be able to endorse the complementary activities It really depends on what we have on the language in paragraph 5. So we want to keep that in brackets, bearing in mind that it's not simply a procedural issue of approving the annex and automatically the brackets are lifted. We believe there's still space for discussion on the text there as soon as the annex is approved. Thank you.

Okay, stay in brackets. So with this, I'd like to establish this, friends of the Chair, that we'll be working with pending paragraphs. in the annex and also in the operative paragraphs. So please be pending when the Secretary announces the time and the place for this. So with this, we finish our deliberations on this agenda item, and we should move to the next document, which I believe is invasive species. I'll give you One minute or two, if you need to change crews to continue. So, dear colleagues, take your seats. We're going to start. So, dear delegates, we will now consider CRP2 under agenda item 18A, invasive alien species of the COP. We still have 10 set of brackets left in this document. So we'll go through the document addressing the different pairs of brackets one by one. So before we start, I would like to remind you of the following. This item was considered at Subsah 27, and I believe there's a good level of understanding among parties on what they want. Invasive alien species are one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss, so I am sure we have the best interest in moving this agenda forward. With that, let's start with the CRP consideration. We will consider first preamble, our paragraph four on emphasizing important connection between invasive alien species and climate change. So my suggestion is if we can remove brackets. I have a request of Kyrgyzstan, this is an old flag. Our...

Sir, delegates, the Kyrgyz Republic welcomes CRP2 on invasive alien species, and we'd like to convey our gratitude to the Secretariat for the work that they have carried out. As a mountain country, the Kyrgyz Republic attaches great importance to the Conference of the Parties. and wants to focus our attention on the vulnerability of mountain systems when it comes to invasive species. Mountainous regions find themselves on the front line of the climate crisis. The rapid melting of glaciers and the degradation of ice coverage all have an impact on the hydrological situation. It now impacts territories which were not impacted in the past and is transforming the ecosystem as a whole. This is creating conducive temperature conditions for the rapid spread of invasive species, both plant and insect species, against which the fauna and flora in the mountainous regions has no natural defenses. For this reason, we would propose to make the following concrete amendments to the text of the draft decision. In the fourth paragraph of the preamble, we would ask you to remove the square brackets and would propose to complement the text with the words "vulnerability of mountainous territories", underscoring the important link between foreign invasive species and climate change. especially that in vulnerable mountainous regions where the melting of glaciers and a change in the cryosphere creates new conditions for the spread of alien species. We will send the text in writing to you. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Kyrgyzstan. But, dear colleagues, we are not in a fashion of open statements. We are now on a CRP document going specifically to work on the language, paragraph by paragraph, so I invite you not to give context unless it's absolutely necessary and to go to the specifics. So I request Kyrgyzstan to tell us exactly what words you were suggesting to add at the end, in this case, on paragraph 4, just for everybody to be on the same page. I recall you mentioned to add some elements on vulnerability and so on, so Secretariat can take note of that and to be considered in the negotiations. So please just repeat what words you want to insert in para four. Kyrgyzstan, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. So after the words climate change, we'd have a comma, especially vulnerable mountain ecosystems. where the melting of glaciers and the degradation of the cryosphere creates new conditions for the spread of alien species.

Okay, I initially suggested just to delete the brackets. I understood Kyrgyzstan was okay to remove the brackets, but now it's adding text. I will ask the Secretary to read it again, and then I will take more interventions. Please, we need to move and try to have short decisions. Secretary, please.

Thank you, Chair. The preamble of paragraph four with the insertion will read, "Emphasizing the important connection between invasive alien species and climate change, especially vulnerable mountains regions where the melting of glaciers and the degradation of the cryosphere create new conditions for the spread of invasive alien species." Thank you, Secretaria.

Colleagues, I invite you to-- this is a preamble part where we have general references to avoid to specific points when it's absolutely necessary. So I open the floor for comments. I have Russian Federation, followed by South Africa, Cook Islands, Colombia, India, and Cote d'Ivoire, just to give you an idea of where we are. Russian Federation.

Distinguished delegates, we are noting the importance of the link between foreign invasive species. However, climate change is just one of the factors that promotes the spread of invasive species. We would therefore propose to remove "emphasizing" and change it to "recognizes" and before "invasive alien species" invasion of alien and alien species and climate change. And in such a way, the sentence would sound as

the important connection between invasion of alien and invasive alien species and climate change.

We are convinced that there is a need to note the key role played by foreign species and climate change, because they become invasive alien species as a result of it.

Okay, Russian Federation, so you propose to replace "emphasizing" by "recognizing" and to add in "alien" to "alien invasive species." So to consider alien alone and also alien invasive species. And then is the text by Kyrgyzstan. Give the floor to South Africa, followed by Cook Islands and Colombia.

Thank you, Chair. We support the removal of the brackets, and also we are fine with what Russia has proposed, but we were happy to retain emphasizing because… This is an area where there's quite a poor understanding, so to speak, in terms of the connections and given a range of the different growth forms of alien and invasive species, but we can work around the language of the Russian delegation. In relation to Kazakhstan's input, we agree with you, Chair, that at this point, let us not focus on specific areas or ecosystems. We need to be as generic as possible so that it's clear that this covers a wide range of systems and different alien and invasive species across the globe. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. So I think you can go along by recognizing, even you prefer emphasizing. So thank you for your flexibility. You also agree that we can include alien, as Russia proposed. And I'd like to put in consideration by Kyrgyzstan to not to include the last part, making any specifics, and keep at this stage the paragraph general. So I look for the budgets of Kyrgyzstan if we can keep general paragraph. Can we just leave as originally the paragraph was without making any reference to specifics? I would like to see if Kyrgyzstan agrees to not to include the last part. Do you agree with my proposal? Could you just say yes? I'm watching at you. If you move your head, I can see that you are consenting not to include the specifics. Yes, thank you for your flexibility. So we take that part out. Now I'll give the floor to Cook Islands for by Colombia and India.

Thank you, Chair. The Cook Islands would like to uplift the brackets around this paragraph and also would like to and after climate change, in particular for islands, because the decision 16/18 already recognizes that the challenges of invasive species is greater with climate change. And also, Chair, with your indulgence, I've got some addition in the preambular first paragraph. It's just a convention text to be included. if I can raise that now or I can come back later on.

Cook Islands, I really need cooperation of all parties. So one of the rules we agreed with the scenario node and the Bureau is not to touch clean text. So I prefer not to go to that. And second, as we are asking Kyrgyzstan to not include any reference to mountains, we know it's important. Also, I invite you to not include islands at this moment. We're just keeping this as a preamble, but just recognizing the connection between invasive species and climate change and keep it like that. Less is more in this case. We can go to specific later, but to keep as it is. Please, I look for your indulgence for not to include any specifics. South Africa already mentioned that, and even the self-recognizing, but just to keep general reference, and I see there is agreement to leave the brackets. I have a long list on this, so to avoid, to save time, can we go along just with the few amendments and to leave general, just saying, recognizing the importance the important connection between invasive alien species and climate change, and that's all. And to lift the brackets, is any opposition to that? We don't need to add more things. I see that the list of parties requesting the floor is disappearing. So, we let only if you are opposing, if we can lift the brackets and leave general, then we can move to next paragraph. I still have few. It was 10. It's only one, two requests. Are you opposing to lift the brackets and to use recognizing that alien and climate change? India, just India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are not opposing the original text, but we would like to retain the original text without any specific reference because This is very important that all the kind of ecosystem that suffers from invasive alien species. And we also recognize the important interlinkage between invasive alien species and climate change. Climate change may facilitate the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive alien species, while their impacts can further undermine biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. We therefore support recognizing this interlinkage to extend the synergies between biodiversity, conservation, and climate change. based on the best available science and taking into account national circumstances and priorities. So we support the original text. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. So we can keep it unchanged, and as I mentioned, with any further additions. Mongolia, followed by Russian Federation. Please, let's move this preamble and paragraphs.

Thank you, Chair. Mongolia has no objection, but then there is some amendments, even though you are not prepared to have. The first one, we support recognizing proposed by Russia. And then also, this delegation believe alien and invasive alien species should be highlighted and kept together. And I do see the colleagues from Kyrgyzstan and the Cook Islands, but instead of listing all the ecosystems, can we just say, recognizing the important connection between alien and invasive alien species and land erosion and ecosystem resilience? And this delegation believe ecosystem resilience can cover the climate change, land degradation and the synergies or the sectoral approaches. Thank you.

Once again, I was asking to keep it very simple. So if you can accept Mongolia, we can just continue with the general reference and move on. Are you saying no? You want to text insert? I mean, everybody's cooperating, so please, let's keep this general. Meanwhile, will you consider Russian Federation?

Thank you so much, sir. Thank you. We have a small change. After the word "between," we'd like to add the words "invasion alien species," so to underscore the fact that we're referring to an invasive process And in such a way, the text was signed.

The important connection between invasion of alien species and invasion, special alien species and climate change.

Thank you.

So this is a precision, including invasions, which makes sense. Unless the Secretary to read with with the invasion.

So with the precision on the invasion, the paragraph will read, "Recognizing the important connection between invasion of alien species and invasive alien species and climate change."

Okay, can we along with that? I see no comments, so. Let's adopt the paragraph as amended. So we can move now to paragraph 2 on the operational section. We have three sets of brackets. The first and the second one are related to stakeholders. And the last set is related to the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity. So My suggestion is to remove brackets around women and youth and other stakeholders, as this is language that has been used in other decisions. Is that acceptable? Russian Federation?

Mr. English, delegates, we believe that there is no need to list every single one of the interested parties. So we would propose to remove women and dias and leave and other stakeholders. Thank you.

Thank you. Panama, follow by you.

Thank you. We support. the proposal to eliminate the brackets and maintain the reference to women and youth. Thank

you.

Thank you, Panama.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We go along with your proposal to remove the brackets and also support Panama in that sense. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mexico?

In addition, we want to support the proposal to remove the brackets and to leave the reference to women and youth, as you mentioned. This is already in various decisions, and we don't see an issue with keeping previously

agreed language.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair. Cote d'Ivoire would like to agree with previous speakers and we should use the usual wording. Thank you.

Thank you. Norway, followed by Cuba.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We support your proposal and also the interventions of Panama, EU and Mexico and Cote d'Ivoire. Merci. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. Cuba?

Thank you, Chair. Cuba supports the proposal. And in this regard, we believe that the proposal is in line with previously agreed upon decisions. Thank you.

Thank you. I heard strong support to lift the brackets on women and youth and other stakeholders. So I look for the indulgence of Russian Federation as in understanding that this is already part of agreed language on decisions and then we can move on.

Russia.

Thank you, sir. Well, we believe it necessary to leave other stakeholders and to delete women and youth. Now, initially, after the word parties, we simply wanted to have the word other stakeholders, but at this point, we are ready to accept this. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia, for your flexibility. So we can accept to lift the brackets and these two points. Just let me check one thing. Okay, thank you for your patience. We were discussing with the secretariat that the other set of brackets calling to implement a global action plan of biodiversity and health, we don't believe it belongs here. So my suggestion is to delete it. So the paragraph which goes as by lifting the brackets, women, youth and all the stakeholders as appropriate. I hope you agree with this because we don't see a relation. I see many heads nodding. So if we can go along, I don't see, I almost don't see EU.

Yes, Mr. Chair, we agree with deleting it here because we also don't think it belongs here specifically, but we would like to have it reintroduced in sub C, but we can come to that, we can explain that when we come to that in a bit. Thank you.

So meanwhile, we can delete it. Thank you.

Panama? Thank you, Chair. Panama believes that this is relevant, in particular in the context of health and invasive alien species, in particular for a health-based approach. Therefore, we think it is relevant. Nevertheless, in line with the European Union, we can show flexibility in order to eliminate it here and keep it in the next.

Thank you. Thank you, Panama. Russia Federation, can we move?

Thank you so much, sir. We back your proposal to fully delete the language between brackets and not to add anything further to it. Thank you.

Thank you. So we have clean text on paragraph 2. Let's start with encourage and let's move on down on B. So paragraph 2B, where we have to consider the use or use integrated and collaborative approaches, I will suggest to go with to consider. So my proposal is to the paragraph which says to consider integrated and collaborative approaches that we need to use or use to get rid of. That's shorter and clean. I hope that can be supported. I have EU followed by Eco Alliance.

Thank you. Our request would be to precisely strike "consider" and so to strike "consider the use of." Sorry, yes, to strike "consider the use of" and simply say "to use integrated and collaborative approaches." The argumentation there is that that is stronger. We don't see the point of simply considering the use. I think it's self-evident that We should be using integrated and collaborative approaches, so we feel that it's simpler and clearer and stronger to simply say to use integrated and collaborative approaches.

Thank you, you. So you prefer to go straight to the use of integrate, the use integrated and collaborative approaches. This is, this is very general. So Cook Islands, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. We agree to your suggestion and to retain the text on consider the use of. This provides more flexibility for parties to use integrated or collaboration depending on national circumstances. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So there is a proposal to consider the use of integrated. Switzerland, followed by Russia.

Thank you, Chair. We would rather keep to use, given that para 2 starts with an encourage anyways, so encouraging to consider seems a little too wordy. And also the spirit of B essentially encapsulates item 14 on mainstreaming, which is an important and sorely needed field of action for biodiversity. So I don't see any need to further weaken down the language here. Thank you.

Thank you. Russian Federation.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. We would like to note that this all falls in the prerogative of states. So we would be willing to either back your proposal, that of the Secretariat, or simply stay with consider the use of.

Indonesia, followed by Argentina, Cameroon and India.

Thank you, Chair.

We would like to support your proposal to use the, to consider or to consider the use of integrated and collaborative approach just to support, to give flexibility for parties.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. So we want to support your proposal and recall parties that want to maintain use, that consider the use implies that parties can use it or not. So if parties believe that their best alternative is to use it, then they can do so. Thank you.

Cameroon, followed by India and Cote d'Ivoire.

Thank you so much, sir. We too believe that we should delete "consider" and simply start with "use integrated and collaborative approaches" and so forth, because we believe that this doesn't change anything to both the spirit and the letter of the paragraph.

I think we're in cycles, colleagues, and we need to move to more substantive discussions. So can we along with "consider the use," I mean, There are more important things that we should be addressing. It's any position to go just by consider the use of integrated and collaborative. I please ask you for your cooperation. Invasive species problems are more serious. And I still have requests. I mean, if you don't agree with my proposal, please keep your request on. I see the list is reducing. I have India and RDC.

Thank you, Chair. We support you in keeping consider the use of.

Thank you. DRC.

Thank you so much, sir. Now, we believe that given the fact that the paragraph starts with the words "encourages", we don't see why there is a need to add the words "consider" because "encourages" really covers everything. It covers all of these sub-paragraphs. So why add "consider" the use because we're starting with the words "encourages". So we don't believe that we should keep the word "consider".

Thank you. I hear support by many delegations on this flexibility by considering. So I still putting my proposal forward to move on. Otherwise, it will be not a good precedent to, I think, brackets on this. Samoa, followed by Benin.

Thank you, Chair. Samoa supports to consider the use, taking that there is a flexibility in that text.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Benin.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Just was underscored by my colleague from the DRC. When one sees at the start, clearly announces the actions which are to be taken to fight against this invasive alien species, I would propose that we simply move forward to what needs to be done. which means to use integrated and so forth. So consider the use as something that seems to us to be superfluous. Thank you.

Colleagues, any flexibility I'm in your hands. There is no agreement to only use. Use. There is some more flexibility considered the use. So I think this is a good way forward. Please, ask your indulgence and move on with no brackets on this and move to real substantial matters. So I invite you to use "consider the use." Senegal.

Now, in my view, there's no problem here with removing the square brackets and simply keep to "consider the use of," because regarding of what the wording is, "consider the use of" or "use," If the party or the parties are not in a position to do something, then they simply won't do it. So I think it would just be simpler. We could just win some time by removing the square brackets and simply to keep the words "to consider the use of" and let's move on to something else. Thank you.

So let's use it and move on. Thank you for your cooperation. So now let's move to paragraph 2c. that has two sets of brackets. The first is around among countries and regional mechanisms in relation to the management of the basic alien species, and this second is on implementation of the one health approach. My suggestion is to remove all brackets in the paragraph, so it leads to strengthening cross-sectoral and cross-border collaboration among countries and regional mechanisms in order to implement the One Health approach in relation to the management of invasive alien species. I hope that can be acceptable. I see a number of requests, starting by Russian Federation, followed by Costa Rica.

Distinguished delegates, We have looked at this text between square brackets and would propose to complement the text with a sentence after the words "implements". We would say "approaches as among others". In such a way, the text between the square brackets will be:.

"To implement approaches as others as the One Health approach".

We are ready to We are only ready to approve the text if this will be the wording. We have a separate request to the Secretariat regarding B, subparagraph B. Could you please just read it again in its final version? Thank you.

Thank you. So paragraph B will read to consider the use of integrated and collaborative approaches that bring together relevant sectors, including the private sector, to address the challenges posed by invasive and potentially invasive alien species to biodiversity, nature's contribution to people, and human well-being.

Thank you, Secretary. The only amendment was to just consider the use. Now, going back to.

See.

With the amendment, as far as I understand, we can leave the brackets, including the suggestion in order to implement approaches, as among others, the one health approach in relation to management. So we're leaving the door open. Costa Rica, followed by EU and Cook Islands.

Thank you, Chair. We think that we can try to organize the different paragraph and keep the main ideas. So we propose the follow paragraph and see to a strength cross sectoral and transboundary collaboration among countries and comma as appropriate, comma through regional mechanisms. comma, for the prevention and management of invasive alien species, comma, including One Health approach and others. Thank you.

I'm working with the Secretary to see how it fits better with the language. So I understand you want to replace cross-border by transboundary. I believe there is no problem with that. But you're including as appropriate. And then the prevention and management of invasive alien species. I don't know if that is redundant because at the end of the paragraph what we have is in relation to management of invasive alien species, which includes many actions, not only prevention. So maybe that part is a little bit redundant. So probably we can take out that so we can go along with transboundary and including as appropriate and then to keep the rest as suggested by Russia. I see noting by Costa Rica. So With those amendments, I will ask Secretary to read the new formulation of the paragraph.

Thank you. So the paragraph will read, "To strengthen cross-sectoral and transboundary collaboration amongst countries and regional mechanisms in order to implement approaches as, among others, the One Health approach in relation to the management of invasive alien species." Thank you, Secretariat.

I hope this is acceptable. I still have a long list. But please think about if this is a good way forward. I don't need intervention supporting. I just like to know if there are someone opposing to this formulation. In that way, we can save time. I see that this is reducing. Thank you. That means support. Still reducing. Thank you. And E is opposing. You have the floor.

The EU is not per se opposing, but we had announced when we accepted to delete in the chapeau paragraph number two to the deletion of to implement the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health, that we would like to return to that in 2C. So there we are. So in this paragraph, and I will take it from the original text, after mechanisms, we had in order to implement the One Health approach, we would propose to delete that, but then add after management of invasive alien species, the following text, including by implementing the global action plan on biodiversity and health in line with the One Health approach. So that takes the idea from the chapeau and brings it into this paragraph because we think that that's a better placement for that concept. And we can work with the changes proposed by Costa Rica.

Thank you, you. So you want to replace one health approach by implementing the global action plan on by the president health. That I remember Russia suggests some language that is brought into approaches. So let me see if the Secretary has a proposal that reads fine.

Play all songs of the Kapil Sharma Show.

Sorry for taking so long, but we are struggling with the formulation by the EU because you are proposing to delete. We already agree to leave the door open to approaches, as among others, the One Health approach. Now your formulation is taking this out, going straight to implementing the Global Action Plan in line with the One Health approach, but we are not leaving the door open for other approaches. So we're trying to accommodate, but one option is that to keep the paragraph as we agreed with the amendments by, I think it was Russia and Costa Rica, and maybe to have a new A/Bs with the concrete language on the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health, because it took us some time trying to accommodate your idea, but it was not leaving the door open. Or maybe can you elaborate more? Because this is in order to include what Costa Rica and Russia propose. give the floor to EU if you are willing to maintain what we craft together and then maybe to add to A to implement the actions related to target six contained in the global action plan on biodiversity and health. That can be a way forward. Let's see if we can fix it. Otherwise, I can call for a small group to work on drafting this paragraph. EU?

But I think I said when we discussed the chapeau of two that we would like to come back to this issue in 2C. So that's what we're doing now. And I find it very difficult to say whether I agree or disagree with something without knowing exactly what I'm trying to agree to. So I'm afraid I cannot be much more helpful than that at this stage. What we simply want to, and maybe just for the sake of everyone's proper understanding, what we want to add to the end of it is including by implementing the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health in line with the One Health approach. So that's simply the addition to the end of this paragraph.

Yeah, I understand that, but Russia was opening for more approaches. And with Costa Rica, it was very clear to replace cross-border by transboundary, which is not a problem, but sounds kind of strange. Or if you can help us, that in your proposal, this not only making reference to the Global Action Plan, but also to leave the door open for other approaches, which I believe was the proposal from Russia. If you can elaborate and make a proposal, I can give you some time, meanwhile, we can move to another paragraph. to really fit your idea and also leave it open for other approaches. That's a problem. So I'll leave you some time. Otherwise, I will ask the secretariat just to read what we have with inclusion of EU. Sounds a little bit strange to me, but please.

Thank you, Chair. So, with the inclusion as we have it, is to strengthen cross-sectoral and transboundary collaboration amongst countries and regional mechanisms in order to implement approaches, as among others, the One Health approach in relation to the management of invasive alien species, including by implementing the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health in line with the One Health approach.

It's a little bit redundant the reference to one-hell approach. And you asked originally to delete from the first part and to put it at the end, but then it's not leaving the door open for other approaches. That's the issue. Go ahead, you.

Sorry, I understand that there is some confusion. We would indeed support striking out the first mention of the One Health approach, so that redundancy we can get rid of.

Go ahead, Secretary.

If we understand you correctly, EU, the amendments are to strengthen cross-sectoral and transboundary collaboration among countries and regional mechanisms in order to implement management of invasive alien species, including by implementing the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health in line with the One Health approach.

I see noting. I hope this formulation can be acceptable. and I have Cook Islands, followed by Panama, Turkey, Chile, Uruguay, and the Russian Federation. So let's move. We have 15 minutes more of interpretation.

Thank you, Chair. The Cook Islands support the inclusion towards the end of this paragraph, and also the inclusion by Costa Rica on transboundary, and would like to uplift the brackets around regional mechanisms. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I understand we are uplifting brackets on regional mechanisms. So, seems we're going fine. Panama, followed by Turkey.

Thank you, Chair. We also support the EU proposal, as mentioned by them. We would like to guarantee that there is a mention of the One Health approach. Thank you. Thank you, Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We recognize the importance of strengthening cooperation among countries and regional mechanisms given the cross-border nature of the pathways of introduction and spread of invasion alien species. Such cooperation is essential for early detection, data sharing, and the effective implementation of management measures.

However, we consider the objectives of cross-sectoral and cross-border cooperation should be not.

Limited to the direct implementation of One Health approach.

While One Health can serve as a complementary approach in cases where interactions between human, animal, plant and ecosystem health are relevant, the management of invasive alien species does not necessarily involve a health-related dimension in all cases.

Thank you.

Okay, trying to interpret what Turkey mentioned, I'm working with the Secretariat to see an alternative language to not only limit to that one. So, please read it.

To accommodate that concern, as well as the previous proposal from Russia, the paragraph will read to strengthen cross-sectoral and transboundary collaboration among countries and regional mechanisms in relation to the management of invasive alien species, including by implementing the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health in line with approaches as, among others, the One Health approach.

I hope that accommodates both EU and what Turkey mentioned, leaving this open. So I have only three requests Chile followed by Uruguay and Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. On the proposal by the EU, we don't see a reason not to incorporate it. However, I'd like to make a point on the suggestion by the delegation of Costa Rica for the inclusion of transboundary. The use of this term has different jurisdictional implications under international law, including for things such as sovereignty, shared resources, and responsibilities of states. So we believe that although the effort by Costa Rica is laudable, in order to add value for Chile, the proposal does not offer a solution to this paragraph. On the contrary, from our point of view, it generates additional concerns with regards to its scope for all parties. Therefore, the use of transboundary is not acceptable within this context. And we would like to strongly come back to cross-border, which is the original term.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chile. Costa Rica. Would you accept that we use cross-border instead of transboundary, taking into account the potential political implications? I see agreement. Thank you, Costa Rica.

To cross-border. Now I give the floor to.

Uruguay, followed by Russian Federation.

We had a bit more creative solution for this paragraph, but we can support the paragraph as it is now.

Gracias.

But in case that the discussions skip, we can share our suggestion later on.

Muchas gracias, Uruguay.

Thank you, Uruguay. Thank you for accepting text edits, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to bring the discussion back a little, uh, to the subsidiary bodies, uh, the reason the brackets around the One Health approach, uh, in a lot of documents, uh, were there by the COP is, uh, because we had reservations at that stage about mentioning one specific approach, however, we have now, uh, done the work and proposed something that we're comfortable with in terms of the One Health approach, which is what we have stated in the beginning. We were not comfortable with mentioning the implementation of the Global Action Plan and the proposal by the European Union. However, seeking as we're trying to seek a text that will be suitable to everyone, we could work off of the proposal of the Secretariat. However, we would like to ask for a small correction of changing places of the Global Action Plan and the One Health approach. So, instead of that language, it would read something along the lines of to strengthen cross-sectoral and cross-border collaboration among countries and regional mechanisms in relation to the management of invasive alien species in order to implement approaches such as, among others, the One Health approach and to implement the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health. I believe that covers both our concern and the concern of the European Union. However, if that is not suitable, then we would like to leave the paragraph in brackets for further discussion at Friends of the Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation, and also for offer a way forward. I just like to be sure that secretariat capture exactly your wording. Just give us a sec so we can read it again. I think we're almost there. So I'll ask the secretariat to read the new formulation. I think it may fly, so go ahead.

So the new formulation will read, "To strengthen cross-sectoral and cross-border collaboration among countries and regional mechanisms in relation to the management of invasive alien species in order to implement approaches such as, among others, the One Health approach and to implement the Global Action Plan on Biodiversity and Health.

Thank you very much. I hope this is acceptable for all. It's considering the different views. I see no requests, so thank you very much. So we approve paragraph 2C. And the next one is on paragraph 3, which has two sets of brackets. The first set is around the concept of synthetic biology on little Roman 3, and the second is around paragraph 3 as a whole. So maybe we can, I would like to suggest if we delete the text on synthetic biology, so to leave development and training materials. I mean, it's complicated to make materials on synthetic biology when we are dealing with invasive species, I believe is most relevant to the context on climate change, environmental DNA analysis, and artificial intelligence-based detection. So I hope it's acceptable if we just simply delete the reference to synthetic biology. I hope it's acceptable. If you are opposing to deletion, please indicate, because I see many requests. But if it's in support of my proposal, we don't need it. So I'll give the floor to Russian Federation, followed by Argentina and Indonesia. So I am proposing to delete synthetic biology at this stage.

Thank you, Chair. As we have mentioned during the previous discussion on the previous document, it is the general approach of our delegation to keep all of the requests to the Executive Secretary in brackets, pending a list, a comprehensive list, where we can prioritize those requests that the parties deem as more important than others, because those parts in all of the documents, and there are a lot of requests. However, since, I believe, the previous document on forests and this one is something that is required to be done by this week, we are ready to work on the requests, however, not in terms of just deleting synthetic biology, but in terms of drafting the specific requests, in forests, we, uh, did not have many suggestions, so it was okay to open the brackets, however, here, uh, we, uh, have, uh, suggestions, uh, uh, in terms of which of the activities should stay and which should be deleted. There are several ways forward, we can talk about that in the Friends of the Chair, we can try to talk about that now or in the next session of the group. but this specific section requires scrutiny and we do not believe that we can open the private round section 3 here until we fully have talked about all of the options because if we cannot prioritize the actions on the long list of all of the requests in all items then we would like to at least prioritize the requests in this specific item on invasive species. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. We are reaching the time of interpretation. I was happy to go through the document in understanding that we have practically clean document. Just reminding this paragraph 3 and so paragraph small Roman 3 by deleting synthetic biology and to I understand your concern to see the whole piece so the whole paragraph 3 is still in brackets but I would like to see if we can devote few minutes to try to get this document clean so maybe I can ask for a few more minutes to interpreters but I like to feel the appetite of the of the group. If we want to go very quickly to the different suggestions of the Executive Secretary, I don't know if you have many concerns, Russia. So the whole paragraph is in brackets. It has three sub-paragraphs, A, B, and C, and A has a number of concrete activities. Or at least can you let us know to flag some the sub-paragraphs that may have shown some concerns, just to assess if we can do this in a few minutes or maybe we can leave it for a later session. So I will ask the Russian Federation, since you were the one who bracketed the whole paragraph 3 at the subsidiary body. You can let us know to which paragraphs you can leave or we have some concerns just to flag them and to assess how.

Long it will take. Yes, thank you. So as you said, there are three paragraphs, A, B, and C. In terms of paragraph A, there is the second point about completion and exploration of proposals and stretches to enable early detection. For us, the concern is that we would like that to be a separate paragraph. So A, B, that would be C, and the request for the sub, that would be D, with some minor changes underlining that completion or guidance should be made through a submission process among parties. So that was the first concern. And in terms of prioritization, we thought that we could possibly delete in point A, the first option and the fifth option, but that is subject to discussion. And also, yes, to delete the reference to synthetic biology. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm trying to save time by seeing the panorama. So my understanding is that you can go along with deletion of symbio. I hope most delegations can agree on that. We have a specific document on symbio, so we can defer those discussions. I don't believe that fits here. And we can entertain some time in paragraph 3A. roman I, paragraph 3A, roman 5, and roman 2 in order to get all the piece clean. I don't know how long it can take, so I'm wondering if we can devote half an hour or better to leave it for later. I have a list of comments. So please, I will listen your arguments on my suggestion to delete Symbio and also on my approach. So if I ask a few minutes more to the interpreters that kindly offer more time, but I need to assess if it's worth to keep working for more. So I have Argentina followed by Costa Rica, Panama, EU, and Guatemala. Argentina.

Gracias, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Our proposal is eliminated, everything on brackets. Because still, or ask for the elimination of synthetic biology, because we're still discussing the scope of this. So you support my proposal, says the chair. Costa Rica, please.

Costa Rica supports your proposal to delete the synthetic biology, because synthetic biology is a broader technological area. Meanwhile, the DNA analysis is a specific detection as well.

Gracias, Panama.

Thank you, Panama. So if you agree with my proposal, you don't have to take the floor, only if you oppose it. Guatemala.

Thank you, Chair. So we support Argentina and Costa Rica. We think it's important to mention causes. There's no direct decision taken at this COP on a link between invasive alien species and synthetic biology, so we don't think we should add it. Thank you.

Microphone to UK.

Thank you, convener. We support the removal of synthetic biology, but we would also like to request some additional text in paragraph 3A, roman numeral 4, around technology transfer. If this is not the right time, we can come back to it later.

You can do it now.

We would like to ask that "on voluntary and mutually agreed terms" be added after the comma after "technology transfer" in paragraph 3. That is because cooperative, voluntary and mutually negotiated agreements are more likely to result in tangible technology transfer than more rigid obligations that face practical, political and legal challenges. Thank you.

Thank you. UK to add on the voluntary and mutual agreed terms after, uh, technology transfer on part of, uh, 3A, Roman IV. Okay. I have two more requests, Brazil and Indonesia.

Thank you, Chair. Um, actually, we can't accept, uh, the language proposed by the UK. Thank you.

So you oppose to the insertion. Okay. Thank you, Brazil. Now, Indonesia.

Thank you, Chair.

We can support your proposal to delete synthetic biology. However, we cannot accept the additions from the UK. So, oppose.

Thank you, Indonesia. Guatemala.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would just like to add some.

Words to four.

We would like to add the, instead of enhancement, the strengthening of research and the rest.

Thanks.

So it would read the strengthening of research and technical capacity? Yes, I see noting. Thank you. So Okay, this is a panorama. Do we want to entertain until half to see if we can have a clean document? So we can, I understand full support to delete Symbio, so there is not an issue there. There's no target, no brackets. There is a submission by a language by the UK that I hear two parties not agreeing with that. So I hope is flexibility from the UK to not to include this language. Maybe it's not necessary at this stage. Can you withdraw your proposal? I know EU is asking for the floor, maybe supporting, but we don't want to come again to this situation. I mean, I'm asking the proposal. UK, if you can withdraw that inclusion so that we can move forward. I give the floor to the UK.

Thank you, Chair. We could suggest a compromise on removing the word "voluntary", so just including "on mutually agreed terms", if that would suit the other parties. Thank you.

Thank you, so we now reduce the inclusion of that on mutually agreed terms, and whether that is acceptable, and hold on a moment. Regarding the UK proposal on mutual agreed terms, I was having an explanation from the Secretariat that since the CHAPO is going on to coordinate with relevant conventions and organizations and to collaborate with the Interagency Liaison Group on invasive species, this is so maybe mutual agreed terms do not make sense because this is not between parties. So maybe this decision is not needed just for taking consideration again by UK by not proposing this language under this rationale. So it seems a little bit strange. So I have EU, Japan, Panama, Cook Islands. Move on, because we need to go back to 3A, Roman 1. Roman 2, I believe, is retentions of the text, but move to a separate sub-paragraph, and also discussions on 3A, Roman 5. Let's see if we can make it in the next 20 minutes. EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You had guessed right. We would like to support the UK, uh, would have preferred the original language, but, uh, we can certainly work with a compromise, um, just a quick reaction to, um, I think it was the Russian intervention. I think we can actually work with some of the shifting around, but at this stage, since the request to the Executive Secretary are under are are subject to the availability of financial resources, we think that we ought to keep all the individual requests there. We are comfortable with those requests. We find them important and they're subject to the availability of resources. So we have no particular concerns there.

Thank you.

Okay, I will ask the Secretary just to have some clarification on, to read here how it looks on Roman IV, right? Please go ahead. Just to have clarity.

So, with the changes that we have been making, little Roman IV will say the strengthening of research and technical capacity and the facilitation of technology transfer. on mutually agreed terms, currently in brackets, especially for developing countries to support data collection, monitoring, and the management of invasive alien species.

So that's where we are now, and also with the explanation by the Secretariat about the chapeau that is calling for coordination with relevant conventions, if still UK want to maintain mutually agreed terms in brackets so far, or maybe just to delete it and move on. microphone to UK please.

Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, this is an important issue for us. Many of the relevant technologies are held by private actors whose governments cannot simply compel to transfer technology or intellectual property. So we would like that to be maintained.

Okay, we'll keep it in brackets. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, Uh, well, I have three requests, and then I will propose to go to the pending, uh, sub-paragraphs that were flagged by Russia Federation to see if we can make it in the next few minutes, uh, Japan, followed by Cook Islands and Brazil.

Oh, thank you, Tier.

Uh, we would like to support inclusion by UK.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cook Islands.

Thank you, Chair. With a small Roman number four, we would like to delete especially and insert in particular to keep within the convention text for developing countries and small island developing states. Also, Chair, we'd like to also insert an additional text in Roman number two when we come to that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. We'll come later. Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Just to reinforce that we won't be accepting any new language on VMAT here as proposed by the UK. So any current should be between brackets. Thank you.

Yes. So we let's leave four with the amendments as strengthening of research, and what are the terms in brackets, and replacing especially by in particular for developing countries as suggested by Cook Islands. So I think this is the most we can do with this paragraph. Then I invite you to go to 3A Roman 1, and I'll ask.

Yes, Chair, if I may, I think it would be more productive to go to Roman too, because we've heard the concerns of the European Union about deleting points, but they are willing to work on the text of the points and shifting things around. So if we could please start there. Thank you. Thank you. So the idea about Roman II was to move it out of the section A and to form it as a separate request. The language, so, is a bit different. It would be 3C, if I may read it out. develop through a submission process among parties, a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species on. on anthropogenically disturbed territories and territories adjacent to protected areas and OECMs with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control. The basic idea is the same, the request is a bit different. Thank you.

It was a lot of text. It was very difficult to follow. So I will ask you to repeat in a slow pace. And so you are replacing little Roman 2 as a new sub-paragraph, but it's a quite different language. So please repeat. at a slower pace so the Secretary can capture your ideas. Microphone to Russian Federation.

Yes, the language is a bit different due to the fact that it's now a request to the Executive Secretary and not a request to coordinate with relevant conventions, organizations, et cetera. So I'll dictate slowly. to develop through a submission process among parties, a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species on anthropogenically disturbed territories and territories adjacent to protected areas and OCMs with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So 3a, Roman 2 now is being turned into a new sub-paragraph that is requesting the Executive Secretary alone, not in coordination with relevant conventions. That's the reason why it's taken out to develop through a process with the parties. this guidance on early detection of Betsey species. A few words on anthropogenically disturbed areas and close to protected areas and OACMs to develop this guidance. But I'll ask the Secretary to read the text as you propose. But that's the idea.

As proposed, if I understand the placement will be as a BBS to develop through a submission process amongst parties, a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species on anthropogenically disturbed territories and territories adjacent to protected areas and OECMs, with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control.

Thank you very much. If I captured properly, so that's replacing 3A, Roman 2. So I'd like to know reactions to this formulation, and then we will have pending two more paragraphs, which is Roman 1 and Roman 5 to finish with this document. I'll give the floor to South Africa, followed by EU.

Thank you, Chair. Um, we are supportive of the Russian, um, additional proposal, uh, but we'd like to actually, uh, for them, the Russian delegation to in charge us on. instead of us being specific in terms of OECMs, protected areas and so on, we just leave it like open and then we understand their qualification on anthropogenically perturbed areas. But considering that if you were to look at the whole biological invasion process, the way it plays out, I think it's much more safer to make it more generic, because in that way, it allows for progressiveness going forward in recognition of the certain areas that we still need to develop that include pathways of introduction where the knowledge is still very much at its infancy, and also in areas of sites as well as species, you know, in the context of Target 6. Thank you, Chair.

But do you have some suggestions to make it broader?

Yeah, we just say management of species instead of being specific on sites and OECMs, et cetera. Thanks.

Thank you, South Africa. So on that, it's shorter. Will Russia can go along with this suggestion to deleting the specific references to anthropogenicity, serve areas and protected areas and OECMs and to leave it open. I see no in. Thank you so much. So we can count with the reduced version. You still want to go on the floor? Okay, Russia.

Yes, if we may, we understand the sentiment by South Africa. We do think that we could change the text, but as a proposal. So if we keep invasive alien species on anthropogenically disturbed territories and other territories without mentioning protected areas or OECMs, just underlining the disturbed territories and then saying and others, would that work? Thank you.

Thank you for the flexibility. I was hoping to take all the ones, but you want to keep the anthropogenically disturbed areas. Okay, that's less. Okay, I have EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was thinking also about the Russian proposal, whether we could not make that more general. So I would actually be supporting the South African idea to which I understand is to stop after species. Because I think it's super important that we cover all of the territory, also the airports and the ports and, you know, everywhere basically we need to have early detection. That's extremely important, I think, for invasive species. So I think the South African proposal is probably the best one here because then it's clear, it's short, it covers all the territory. very generously said before that we could work with the moving around of the text, but now that I see the text, I think it's actually better to keep also the original, because the original alludes to or it fits under a chapeau where there is cooperation requested between various UN agencies, et cetera, which is what we need, of course. We need a whole of government approach or invasive alien species. So I would be happy to accept the addition, but I would also like to keep the original language so that we simply have an additional request to the ES.

Thank you, Ju. So unless we can keep then 3.a little Roman 2, and also the BBs as draft by Russian Federation with the reduction proposed by South Africa and with preference to have all including anthropogenic disturbed territories deleted. So it's open to all ones. So is acceptable for Russian Federation, once again, not to make mention to anthropogenic and also to keep 3a Roman II. Russian Federation.

Sorry. Yes, we could live with deleting anthropogenically disturbed territories. So it would be invasive alien species with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control. It's also quite a general formulation. About the Roman 2, as well as the Roman 1 and the Roman 5, we would be open to keeping them in brackets. However, again, to the general approach, the way we see, there are two ways. We could try now to open the brackets around the whole third paragraph, or we could keep it in brackets and keep 1, 2, and 5. I understand that those are extra-budgetary requests, however, even the extra-budgetary resources are not indefinite, and there is an issue of prioritization, which our party is very concerned with, which was our reasoning for bracketing all of the paragraphs with requests to the Executive Secretary. So we don't mind keeping it as long as it's still in brackets to work on further. Or we're open on this one and the previous document to work in an informal group with prioritization. But we cannot just accept all of the requests. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So in order to leave the brackets from all paragraph 3, Meanwhile, we can just keep brackets on 3a, little Roman 1, little Roman 2, and little Roman 5. And then we can have clean text with the exception of these brackets here on 3 and I think that's all, right.

3, 2, 1.

Yes. And leave the door open for some informal consultations, and probably you can come with some in order to take out the brackets around paragraph 3, and only leaving brackets on these very small sub-paragraphs on 3A1, 2A1, 2A2, 2A3, 2A4, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, 2A8, 2A9, 2A10, 2A11, 2A12, 2A13, 2A14, 2A15, 2A16, 2A17, 2A18, 2A19, 2A20, 2A21, 2A22, 2A23, 2A24, 2A25, 2A26, 2A27, 2A28, 2A29, 2A30, 2A31, 2A32, 2A33, 2A34, 2A35, 2A36, 2A37, 2A38, 2A39, 2A40, 2A41, 2A42, 2A43, 2A44, 2A45, 2A46, 2A47, 2A48, 2A49, 2A50, 2A51, 2A52, 2A53, 2A54, 2A55, 2A56.

2A57, 2A58, 2A59, 2A60.

2A61, 2A62, 2A63, 2A64, 2A65, 2A66, 2A67, 2A68, 2A69, 2A70, 2A71, 2A72, 2A73, 2A74, 2A75, 2A76, 2A77, 2A two and five and adding the new B piece, right? I think that's a good progress. I invite delegations for informal consultations to see if in the next session we can come with some solutions. Meanwhile, I give the word to Cook Islands, and then I will touch base with the Secretary on how to proceed. We already are half an hour after their allocated time to see how to proceed. So Cook Islands.

Thank you, Chair. The Cook Islands support EU in keeping the small Roman number two. And as I had said earlier, I'd like to add some text towards the end of the paragraph. after availability and to facilitate rapid access to appropriate emergency funding and technical resources to support timely response actions. Early detection without the ability to rapidly mobilize resources does not constitute effective rapid response. This is important to effectively address invasive alien species within our remote islands. Thank you, Chair.

Can you repeat your proposed language for the end of this?

After availability and to facilitate rapid access to appropriate emergency funding and technical resources to support timely response actions. Full stop. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Goukalen. So that will be added to the paragraph that still remain in brackets, this little Roman II. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. As a compromise, we're ready to go forward with bracketing only those three paragraphs. However, if that's the approach, then in paragraph C, we would need to take out for consideration, just those two words, and then we can unbracket the third paragraph with those corrections. Thank you.

Okay, so you suggest on C, the last paragraph, to take out for consideration is just to survey the outcomes or the word described by the above to substance at the meeting before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. I think this is acceptable just to delete for consideration. It's implicit, right? Russia.

I'm terribly sorry. And also in paragraph B, in line with all of the previous proposals, after invasive alien species, we add and alien species. We have already done that multiple times since we are trying to have a clean text here. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. So we already accept that inclusion before, just to have consistencies. But remember, perfection is enemy of the good. Let's be careful.

EU.

Thank you. Can I ask you, can I ask the colleague of the Russian Federation through you, what are the operational consequences of striking out for consideration? And I will explain, my fear would be that If we take out the words "for consideration," it would mean that the outcome of the work is simply sent to SAPSTa. And I take "for consideration" to mean that SAPSTa should consequently also talk about it or do something with the results. So that would be my fear, that if we take out "for consideration," that it's simply sent and it will subsequently gather dust.

I see your point and go back to Russian Federation. Can we keep for consideration? I mean, I don't see the strong reason to delete it. This suggestion is for this to be considered in a Substantive Meeting before the 18th Conference of the Parties. Russia.

That was the advice of our legal team. I understand your concerns in terms of operations. Maybe for those two particular words, we could keep it in brackets and that would be fine when we clean the rest of the paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you. Hoping that this can be, these brackets can be taken out. That's the usual formulation for every submission to any subsidiary body. We usually apply that term for consideration. But I think we have more important issues to deal with invasive species. Just give me a second to consult the secretariat. Thank you. I have a request from Switzerland. I'm going to propose a way forward. Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. I'm unsure about this last conversation about the request from Russia with the brackets on to consider. It seems that, to me, that's standard language whenever we want the Secretariat to produce something for the Saps that you consider. And if this is a budgetary concern, it makes even less sense to give Secretary a burden without even the assurance that we actually will consider it. So I seek clarification from delegation of Russia as to what exactly a concern there is, because if it's a budget concern, keeping the for consideration in brackets actually adds this concern instead of taking it off. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. Russia asked for some time. That was advice from their legal advisor. So I'm pretty sure that after some consultations, probably we can lift the brackets. As you said, and I said previously, this is the practice on the common language when we send something to any subsidiary body. Now, my suggestion on the way forward is that we stop deliberations on this document. Now we are going a little behind from the original program of work when we're supposed to do this morning forest, agriculture, and invasive species. So still only in the document, sub paragraphs 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, Roman I, Roman II, and Roman V pending to be solved. So we can revise this in the next, in a following session of the working group. So I invite to hold informal consultations between the Russian Federation, the EU the UK with this mad language that is in brackets and some other delegations that were engaged, participating also maybe Cook Islands who suggests language at the end of, I think, Roman two. So just to have clarity, there is no brackets around the whole paragraph three, just on these three sub-paragraphs. And the idea is that tomorrow we will reconvene in the morning, but we need to work with Cartagena Protocol documents. CRPs are already published. I hope we can do fast, uh, uh, in the morning and maybe we can reconvene to do pending issues on forest and invasive species, if not in the morning, during the afternoon session, if we are expedite in working with documents from, uh, Cartagena protocol, so. That's my guidance in how to proceed. And thank you very much for your collaboration. I'm wondering if the secretariat has some housekeeping announcements. No? So I thank you very much for your collaboration and see you tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.