Working Group I (7th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Sorry for the delay. I think we're ready to start. Please find your seats. Let's continue in the same spirit as we left before lunch. So now the plan is to take up, to continue on the monitoring framework CRPD 12. And there's a slight change because after monitoring framework will take up resource mobilization. But otherwise, it is as displayed on the screen. So we will start where we left on monitoring framework, CRP 12, and after we go to item 8A on resource mobilization. And the rest is as displayed on the screen, which is review of effectiveness of processes, CRP 15, review of effectiveness of processes, CRP 1, and then CRP 8, NP 14, and then program of work of article 8A. in-depth dialogue on Article 8j, a permanent forum on indigenous issues, followed by cooperation, financial mechanism, global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism, specialized ABS instruments, and multi-year program of work. So, that's not a small menu to get it pulled through, but I'm confident we will make it. Right, so let's take up where we left on monitoring. So before lunch, we cleaned paragraph 9. Let's now move to paragraph 10. So there are two issues with multiple sets of brackets in this para. So let's look at the first issue on a possible review and update to the procedures for the next global review and the national report templates. The first set of brackets has several alternative terms. Could we streamline this text by keeping and undertake a technical review and deleting the rest of the text in brackets, so that: “request the SBI, at a meeting held before the COP18, on the basis of the experience gained in the preparation of the seventh national reports and the first global review, and undertake a technical review, if needed, of the concrete procedures for the second global review and the template for the eighth national reports, and the text continues. Would that be acceptable to the room? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Just for clarification purposes, after the first global review, we have a “to review” without brackets. Will we be removing that piece that says “to review”? Thank you.

Sorry, Argentina, we didn’t get that question from the podium. Can you please repeat?

Yes, of course, Chair. I just read – I heard you read There's a second "to review" after the words "first global review." So there's a comma after that, and it says "to review," and then the brackets. But you did not mention "to review" when you read it out. So my question is, do you plan to delete the second mention of "to review"? Thank you. In the third line, sir.

So I give the Secretary the floor to clarify.

Thank you, Chair. So my understanding is correct, the text would read, starting from the third line, or I'll start from the beginning, I think it'll be easier. So requests the subsidiary body on implementation at a meeting held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. on the basis of the experiences gained in the preparation of the seventh national report for the first global review, to undertake a technical update, if needed, of the concrete procedures for the second global review and the template for the eighth national reports, and then the rest of the text would continue. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Kutscher. Yes, indeed, we will be happy to take it that way. The word "technical update" is a correct one because we have also been referring to that in the paragraph we touched on under the request to the Secretariat. So this is fully in line with the change. we did there. We see a merit of keeping the noting decision 16/32, but in the understanding the Secretariat pointed out during the contact group, we are fine with that. And if it's a technical review, then I think we are okay with what you just proposed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, European Union. So I see no more requests for the floor, so I take it that's the solution for the first set of brackets. Yes, so now it is approved as read out by the Secretariat. And now we... Sorry, Argentina.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I'm sorry to come back to this, but in my version, there are other brackets after national governments, in particular, indigenous peoples and local communities.

I'll take up that bracket now. Yes. So My suggestion there would be to lift the brackets and ask if that's acceptable to the room. And just before we go, I will Do you want to have the floor on this one, Argentina? No, you're okay. So, Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We support your proposal to lift the brackets, but at the same time, we'd also like to request to give the floor to the youth who would like to give an intervention on behalf of other major groups, which would be important in considering this bracket. Thank you, Chair.

Indeed, Philippines. Yes, I see they're requesting for the floor. Microphone to C261, youth, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, the CBD Women's Caucus, and the CBD Alliance. For paragraph 10, we call on parties to lift the brackets on this text. We also call on you to replace actors other than national governments with major groups and other relevant stakeholders or other alternative terms. So major groups and other relevant stakeholders is alternative language that has been agreed in the IPBES item. Delegates, as many are aware, the term actors other than national governments is being used to refer to our groups in many items. Naming relevant groups directly in the text is our preferred choice, as we made clear in Nairobi as well as here in COP17. Using a general term would impact Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, and youth the most, erasing visibility, specificity, and particular needs and rights. However, we also hear views that having an umbrella term would facilitate negotiations. In this regard, we reiterate our rejection of the umbrella term actors other than national governments. Our groups do not identify with the term because it erases identity, agency, distinctiveness, and differentiated roles. It does not resonate with us, speak to us, recognize us. We want and deserve a say in the words used to name us. We remind you that implementation of the framework relies on contributions from our groups. We hope parties can take our concerns seriously and that we can constructively discuss together to find a unified solution across agenda items. Nothing about us without us. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, youth. So, just for future reference, we don't want any statements. We were dealing with concrete language. But I get it that you were supportive of lifting the brackets regarding your other suggestions. on actors other than national governments. I believe that text is clean, as I see it. So we're only dealing with the concrete packets, unless it's also a problem. So, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We do respect the importance of involvement, ITOC, women and youth, indeed. But here we are speaking about the concrete procedures for the second global review and the template for the eight national reports with a view of enhancing their robustness, transparency, effectiveness, etc. So, and so the procedures to enhancing engagement. With a reference to the global report, we would say that it's clearly stated there that actors other than national governments were not adequately or enough involved in the preparation of the first report and therefore also in the review. And in this way, we think that particularly here, it's very important to stress all actors other than national governments. And then we would suggest deleting text in brackets and adding a word, all actors other than national governments, if it would solve the issue that all of them need to be involved for the transparent, inclusive process, and they can contribute to this process. While if we are stressing in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, then we would like to have other stakeholders, as we already discussed in the paragraphs above. So our preference is really to delete this text with the understanding that all will be involved. I know that engagement of actors than national governments is a clean text, but if it would help to add all actors than national governments, then maybe it solves. So it's our proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Let's see if there's any appetite on that. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Guatemala agrees in removing the brackets, but we wouldn't agree to deleting the express reference to IPLCs, women, and youth. So for that reason, we would request that other distinguished delegations show some flexibility to enable us to keep this express reference be retained in the texts so that they can be fully involved in the conservation of biodiversity? Thank you.

Okay, so I believe I've heard enough. So could I ask parties to take five minutes to consult in the corner of the room and come back to the solution, similar to what we did before lunch on paragraph 9? So the ILS and the parties that have a stake in para 10 to resolve this particular issue with the brackets around, in particular, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, and youth. And if it is necessary to finding a solution, you can also work on alternative language to solve the brackets. So we'll then break for five minutes while the huddle takes place to make it easy for small delegations to participate. So you can meet down there on my left. I won't appoint a leader because you did so well before lunch, so I guess you'll figure that out. Brazil, do you want the floor now?

Okay, good.

Okay, so we break for five minutes. The huddle will be there. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, so we were trying to look at you and figure out who was leading it. It wasn't too clear. But you can ask for the floor. So, please, who wants to report on behalf of the huddle? Please ask for the floor. I guess I know. For instance, Russian Federation. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. It was a quick one. We decided to go, or we propose from the group to go with the compromise. and to say all actors other than national governments, in particular IPLCs, women and youth. And that was the okay for all of us. Thank you.

Excellent question, Federation. Thank you very much. We will now ask you to lower your flags. We now go to para 11. So I understand that there was a lot of convergence on paragraph 11 in the contact group, but they were not able to arrive at an agreement on the language. I also understand that parties were consulting on this issue. Does any party have a consensus language that could be proposed? United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. It's not a consensus language, but as we have not had a chance to consult with all parties, but we have a proposal which simplifies the language and it keeps it broad enough not to prejudge the outcomes, which I could read and see if it would be acceptable to other parties.

Yes, UK, please read out the result of your self-consultation. Go ahead. In dictation speed, please.

So the subparagraph A would read: "to provide recommendations on an inclusive, comma, transparent, and party-driven way forward towards a possible follow-up to the framework. Then paragraph B, sub-paragraph B would read, to consider how the global review to be undertaken at the 19th meeting of the Conference of Parties will inform a possible follow-up to the framework.

Thank you, UK.

We have it. Okay, so do parties want the Secretariat to repeat it? I think everybody has it. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Chair. This is just to support the suggestion made by the UK. I think this is a great compromise proposal. Thank you.

Good, Brazil, Argentina.

Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to the UK for that proposal. We think that it's going in the right direction, but we still would need some adjustment. Instead of follow-up to the framework, we prefer the version that we had coming out of the work of the contact group, post-2030 strategic plan, instead of speaking about a follow-up to the current framework, we just say a post-2030 strategic plan, because this would be in line with everything that all the contact groups have been insisting on, plus our experience of the Convention. It's the coming Montreal GPF that is our strategic plan. So What we had before was strategic, and following that is also strategic. So we have to keep strategic instead of just saying follow up to the framework. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. So I take it you want to make it more general. So using the word a possible post-20 30s strategic plan. Right. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Our proposal.

The problem with the translation, I can hear Russian, and I hear you speaking English, which is a crash course in Russian, but that was not what I was asking for at the moment. So let's try again.

Okay, thank you. I'll try again. I'm speaking English. I don't speak in Russian. So I'll strong preference is post-2030 strategic plan, for the reasons already explained by Argentina, and drawing your attention, dear colleagues, to the fact that documents and the convention of this nature are strategic plans, and KIM GBF is the document that was adopted as strategic plan. So we're not prejudging whether there will be a follow-up of the framework or we will decide in different way, but in any case, if there will be something, something will be called strategic plans, plan in the terms of this convention. Therefore, we would strongly prefer strategic plan and not going for any follow-ups or other Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. And now we turn to the EU. EU, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are, and thanks to the UK for the proposal, which sounds for us a good landing zone, which would help us to land in between the two options which were in this CRP. The second option on a post-2030 treaty plan was proposed here, and there was a second proposal on the table which came during the contact group from us. And we would like to see that we land in between of the two, because this for us would constitute a real compromise. So we are not in the position to accept the wording "a post-2020 strategic plan". We have explained that, and I will not repeat for the sake of time what I have explained during the contact group. So we could very well go with the UK proposal in the understanding that this is really a bridge between the two options which are in the CRP. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, EU, and now you know what comes, I think. So, 11 A and B, five minutes, please huddle down here. You know the drill by now. Please be back in five minutes. And we break while the huddle takes place. Thank you. We also need Russia to take part of the group, please, because we're breaking while we... Yeah, I'm sorry, but you're needed. I call on you. Thank you. So, I have to call you back soon, but if it's difficult to find a solution, that's okay, because, yes, one minute, yes. All right. I'm not sure how to interpret this, but no one was running angrily from the huddle, at least. I think Argentina, you are to report from this huddle.

Thank you very much, Chair. This time we don't have such good news. We have one or two. We can't clean up the whole paragraph, but we did leave it somewhat cleaner so that we can continue working on it. So if it's okay with you, I will read out at dictation speed in English so that you can take note.

To provide recommendations on an inclusive, transparent, and party-driven way forward towards a open bracket.

Possible, close bracket, open bracket, post 2030 strategic plan, close bracket, open bracket, follow up to the framework, close bracket.

Comma, without prejudging the outcome.

That was the closest thing to a consensus that we could reach, but some parties not live without the strategic plan. Other parties need the follow-up to the framework. So this is the closest we could come to a consensus, sir. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Argentina. I think this helps because, you know, there will be further considerations of these issues as we go along. So, I just wanted to, we'll capture it as that, and then I wanted to just to make you aware that there is in para 22 J and K. There is language that is related to this para as well, which also has language on the strategic plan. So what I think we'll do is that we'll park 22 J&K pending the outcome of these further discussions. I see nodding. That's good. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we are fine, and we fully agree that parking the paragraph is necessary. And I wanted to add that also on the paragraph 11B, we need to wait for the outcome of that decision. But I'll be referring to what I call the 2030 baby. So we need to have it there as well. But I wanted to come back to paragraph K, not on the wording around the 2030 thing, but on the beginning of the paragraph, which reads "to compile submissions". And we would like, if you allow, Mr. Chair, we would like to allow a slightly different starting of that paragraph, which would read "to invite submissions from Parties", and then it goes on and goes on. and then on, and then comes what we agree in 11, and then after the comma to say, and to provide a compilation and summary thereof to inform the discussions, so that we are really precise in our request to the Secretariat what we exactly want to see. I understand that compiling is somehow probably summing parts of it up, but I really would like us to be precise and just formulate it in that way. So it would mean to replace the word "compile" in the first line, and then after the comma, after the 2030 thing, to put "and to provide a compilation and summary thereof to inform the discussions of the subsidiary body" and so on and so forth. I hope this is acceptable. It's rather technical refinement of the request. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. Yeah, indeed. I think we usually invite submissions from parties, but let's see what the floor says. So my sense is that it's not acceptable. We can probably put that language in brackets, awaiting further assessment, but I do think that's the correct language. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I think we would be okay with the proposed amendments, because that would really stress that first submissions are invited and then they are compiled, and it's a reasonable thing. I've raised my flag to say that as we are parking these paragraphs, We keep all of them in brackets, including the one that we were just discussed, because depending on the outcome and the choice between those sets of brackets or their combinations, we would be able or unable to accept the paragraph. So now there is a new language, so change language, so puts the whole I believe it was A in brackets, and then just please confirm that we are parking 22JK and the small letter that follows up discussed one in brackets as well. Until then, thank you.

Thank you, Roshan, for the question. Yes, indeed. So I'll give the floor to the Secretariat. But my understanding is that we'll put the new language in 11A, suggested by Argentina. as it was read out in brackets, pending further consideration. Yes, and then also B, because it depends on A. And then there are the related issues in 22 j and k. Those Paris will also be put in brackets, but we'll add the language suggested by the EU on k. I didn't hear any objections to that revised language, so it will be put in brackets with that revised language.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for detailing that to us. I think that's exactly what we understand. When we look at 22j, I think there's two parts in this paragraph 22j. The second part after above is the one we need to keep in brackets. And in the first part, which is not talking about the 2030, but it's talking about something different, it's talking about to prepare for the second global review. And I think what I have heard so far on that first part, first of all, we still have two brackets in there. We might be able to clean them here now, because if we resolve number K, My understanding is that the second part of J will be deleted in its entirety because this part of the 2030 we are capturing in K. So you might wish to help us clean the J in the beginning. So if we resolve the rest, you don't have to come back to the J. I hope that was clear.

Thank you.

That was very clear, EU. And while you have the floor, could you please help me clean? You know, thank you.

Yes, happy to do so. When we look to the 22J, so to the part which ends with in response to the request in the subparagraph 22H above, We had cleaned that paragraph, and we all agreed that there will be this analysis of the lessons learned and so on and so forth. So we could just simplify here and say to prepare draft procedures for the second global review, for the second global review, taking into, and then wherever we put on the basis of decision 1632, doesn't really matter. It would be probably wise to have them after procedures. So it would read: "to prepare draft procedures on the basis of Decision 16/32, because this is where we have the general provisions on both of the reviews.".

Could you speak a bit slower? Just because the interpreter is...

Okay, sorry. Sorry for that. Apologies. "To prepare draft procedures on the basis of decision 16/32, for the second global review, taking into account the analysis undertaken in response, and then it goes as it is on the screen, not on the screen, in the document, until 22H above, and then full stop. So it would be deleting the text in the first brackets and then lifting the brackets around one of the two on the basis of Decision 1632. It's maybe a language issue where best to put it. Thank you.

Thank you, Yu. So even if we were able to clean this these brackets or this text, I suggest that we keep it in brackets anyway, just for the sake of comfort. So I see no requests for the floor, so I think this is accepted. Very good. Thank you very much.

Brazil.

Mic to Brazil, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to make sure that I understand, accept it on the basis that that last bit will remain in brackets so that we can discuss it back after we come back to it? Perfect, understood.

Yes, exactly. So we'll make the changes the EU proposed, but we'll keep the entire para in brackets. Secretariat, could you please?

22 J would read, and.

It would be in brackets, would read, to prepare draft options to enhance the procedures on the basis of decision 1632 for the second global review taking into account the analysis undertaken in response to the request in subparagraph 22 above, for consideration by the subsidiary body on implementation at a meeting held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, and then close brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. So, Brazil, I'll give you the floor first, because you were in the conversation, and then I'll give the floor to the European Union. Brazil, please.

I'm not sure that it makes sense to remove that last, the second bit on preparing a draft process for whatever it is, which is dependent on 11, because K doesn't really replace J, because it's specifically talking about the compilation from parties, other governments, et cetera. So I don't think that the fact that we have that language at the end of J in K would mean that we could do without the final language in J. I think they are, it seems to me at this point that they are talking to different ideas, so we would really prefer, even if they are already in brackets, but to keep that in the text, because I feel that they talk about different things.

Thank you, Brazil, and for your comfort, we'll keep it in the text. Clean it up later.

A quick word from the interpreters, sir. We've lost French interpretation, but the tech team is working on it.

Mic to European Union, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And when I read out the version of the beginning of J, this was not correctly depicted by the Secretariat, as I didn't, it isn't that my proposal was to delete options to enhance, though. So just keep it to draft procedures for more clarity and simplicity. So, and then now the Secretariat read out the content of the brackets. So I just wanted to flag that my proposal, as read out twice, didn't include that part. Thank you.

Okay, European Union. It's still the sense that Brazil want to keep it in brackets, right? Just... Yeah, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, we're not particularly worried about the options to enhance. We're more worried about the prepared draft process for developing. Thank you.

Okay, so we'll make that language change. And I see no more requests for the floor. So, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Just a kind request to the Secretariat to read what we finally have in the brackets. Thank you.

Yes, it did. Secretariat, you are the floor. And it seems like we have lost French interpretation.

It's been restored, sir. It's been restored. You're the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So 22J would read, to prepare draft procedures on the basis of decision 1632 for the second global review, taking into account the analysis undertaken in response to the request in paragraph 22H above, and then open brackets, and prepare a draft process for developing, open brackets, any post-2030 strategic instrument, close bracket. open bracket, the post-2030 strategic plan, close bracket, open bracket, the post-2030 framework, close bracket, for consideration by the subsidiary body on implementation at a meeting held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Then, in paragraph 22K, with the changes introduced, it would read, and the whole paragraph is in brackets. to invite submissions from parties, other governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth organizations, and other relevant organizations and stakeholders on a potential process towards the development of a possible follow-up to the framework, and to provide a compilation and summary thereof to inform the discussions of the subsidiary body on implementation when preparing the recommendation referred to in paragraph 11 above. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. All happy? I think so. I see no more requests, so good. We'll keep it like that, and there will be a solution to this in the end. It doesn't feel like we're making progress, but we are, so that's a good thing. Next is paragraph 13. We now go to para 13, which has one set of brackets regarding the further methodological development of headline indicators that remain at a low level of development and methodological readiness. So this is a request to the Sub-Staff. to consider at a meeting held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, scientific and technical inputs relevant to the second global review. So I guess this is an issue of how specific we want to be. It's always the discussion we have. Some want to be really, want to keep it general, some want to be really, really, really specific. So We have to land on the compromise here, but maybe this is an easy resolve. Let me see first if I can lift the brackets. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, sir. I can support it, especially bear in mind that in 15 we're noting with concern the lack of progress with the headline indicators. So, of course, it would stand to reason that We are concerned about this issue, and so we want to give more work to SUBST to work on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Argentina, and also thank you for bringing my attention to paragraph 15, which indeed acknowledges the the concern. So with that, can we lift the brackets? Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would be happy to lift the brackets with the deletion of the word “development” and exactly referring to the 15, which stresses that the methodological status is not good or low. And we were discussing a lot whether methodologies or what kind of methodological development for headline indicators is needed, while when we have development of methodological indicators, there's a little bit strange if they are already there, that only methodologies should be developed. We should not develop the headline indicators because we agreed, I hope. that we are not changing them, and it was extensively discussed to readers. So headline indicators remain, methodology is needed. And then the text in brackets would read, further methodological development of headline indicators that remain at a low level of methodological readiness. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. I was just told I was all over the place with my headphones, so I need to keep them here, otherwise I create feedback and stuff. So I guess you want to remove, delete the word development end, as I understood it. So we're left with that remain at a low level of methodological readiness. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't disagree with the content of the brackets. We just feel that this paragraph is not the one where it needs to be, and that it is already captured in a different paragraph, because what we do in the rest of the text and what we all agree that substate is, that SASTA will be reviewing the outcomes of the work of the ad hoc technical expert group, and that technical expert group has exactly the task to look at these indicators of the lowest low meteorological readiness and to further operationalize the framework. So we are capturing already a request to substate in paragraph 19, which we all agreed. And this paragraph is the one which talks about the sources for the global review. And this is why I feel we don't have to put it here because it's already captured. But this is my technical view to that. I was the co-chair of that working group at that contact group at SUBSTA where we discussed all of that. I just would like to make that point. We are flexible in having the text there because the content is not controversial for us at all. It's just the placement and the reference in that paragraph. Thank you very much.

Okay, European Union. Yes. At the same time, I understand you're flexible. So let's check with Argentina. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just a brief comment on the intervention from the Russian Federation. From our perspective, it's important that we keep development and because there are some indicators that not only are lacking in methodological readiness, but they need to be further developed. And so we probably have to look at the study that we mentioned in 15. So this request from OFSOS that is to develop more development of these indicators so that they can then be implemented, otherwise we'll just be mentioning our concern at the lack of methodological readiness. But if we want to implement them, then they will need further development. So we need to keep the full content that is within brackets at this point. Thank you.

Yes, so that is noted, Argentina. So I know the EU mean we don't necessarily need this, but Argentina says we do need this. And so Russian Federation, could I come back to you and ask if we can keep developments, because in case I think we have an agreement, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. In this particular case, we would be ready to show our flexibility. Yoga helps. So we agree to keep that. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So then I think we can lift the brackets on that one, and Secretariat will read out how it would read. Secretary, please.

Thank you, Chair. The paragraph would essentially remain as it is in the CRP, just with the brackets removed around the words “further methodological development.” of headline indicators that remain at a low level of development and methodological readiness. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretary. So if the brackets, crickets, no, brackets, sorry, things are falling apart up here, are lifted and 13 is approved. Good. We now go to 17. where, and now I've learned from yesterday, because I see two Paris, and to me they comes across as alternatives. Secretary nodding, yes, good. So Right, so to alternate paragraph, so it is the sense that paragraph 17 alt had the most support. So would there be any objections to deleting paragraph 17 and keeping paragraph 17 alt with the brackets removed? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. My apologies. Before we delete this paragraph, I need to backtrack a bit and give some history to how we got here. I'm sorry. I'll try to be brief. We stressed the need to keep 17, but we committed to along with 17L, which was a cleaner version, or softer version, so to speak. We have strong, we're strongly in favor of 17, but this 17L takes us, took us to a small group, and we arrived at a compromise. Since there are brackets, it suggests that there is lack of agreement on the last part of the party of the paragraph that speaks to subject to national circumstances. So we think we should keep it until we sort out the last part, because we can't keep the last part, even though it's an alternative paragraph. So that's why we're not in a position to delete that paragraph yet. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Argentina. Let's see what Russian Federation says. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Actually, I was raising flag because you said going with 17 old and lifting the brackets. So we are not ready to lift the brackets around 17 old. We are ready to work on the basis of 17 old. I think there's similar concerns. If we take the 17 old, we need to discuss it a little bit here. And for us, the second part is difficult, which reads from the words, and that those indicators may be considered as a part of the future review. of the monitoring framework in line with paragraph 3 of Decision 15/5. So this part doesn't work for us, unfortunately. And we are thankful to the small group that was developing this text, a side of contact groups. So, there are several issues here if we work on 17 alt, but I would like to ask you whether we take this as a basis or we start with discussion of 17.

Thank you. So, yeah. Okay. So I want to ask you if we can work on 17.0 as a basis. And then if that's the case, we would have to agree on how 17 alt would look in the end. So with that said, we can keep 17, but let's for now, and then let's work on 17 alt as a basis. Is someone opposed to working on 17 alt as a basis? provided that we can add language to fit all concerns in 17 alt. European Union, do you object?

I'm not objecting to working on 17 alt, but I really want to recall and support what Argentina has said. We have worked an hour with 12 parties in a group to get to that 17 alt. And I would like to just inform you that this was a very sensitive compromise where we landed. So any further tweaking of that paragraph might blow all this compromise up. So I really would like to urge all of you and all of us here in the room that we can stay with this as close as possible, otherwise we are repeating the discussion we were having. Thank you.

Thank you. So my agenda here is not to force you to agree, but it's basically, I think, about putting all of the positions into one para and not having two alternative paras, basically. So that's why I'm asking, basically. So in that sense, so Russia, I get it. So you're not opposed to working on the basis of 17 alt. I get it. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For us, There are several things here. First of all, there is an annex one, which is now in brackets. And the annex one contains possible indicators, complimentary, et cetera. But we were not able to discuss it at SAPSTAN, and we were not able to discuss them here. And I recall the proposal from the small group, which formulated 17 old, that they proposed to have a footnote to this annex here and in the annex, I believe, stressing that something along the lines that these indicators have never been negotiated on substar or COP. With this footnote, we need just to clarify what exactly was the language. I know that it was agreeable, and for us as well. With this language, we would be able to keep, to leave the brackets around the annex and to keep the reference to the annex. Otherwise, there is no way to refer to something which was never discussed and then just appeared in the annex, which is in brackets since Sabsta. That's the first issue. And then with the language. But let's first solve this whole issue of the annex, and then we would be prepared to come with language proposals further.

Thank you, Roshan, for the question. So, Secretary, it will read out the footnote.

Thank you, Chair. So, the footnote in question is on page 5 of the document at the bottom. And the footnote reads, "The indicators were not negotiated by the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies." Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So, Russian Federation, so because we have this footnote, would you be willing to delete the text in the brackets in 17 alt, Russian Federation, please?

Thank you, Chair. First, thanks to the Secretariat. But I'm really struggling to find this footnote. However, the content as it was read now is okay, and we can go with that. We would like to have the footnote here on the Annex 1. I believe my document was a fresh one. So it has to be a footnote at Annex 1 here in this paragraph. Then further, as the paragraph reads, there is another set of brackets, wish to use. So we really need to have, to leave these brackets that the text reads, present decision recognizing that parties may wish to use them. And then for us, the difficult parts, which we cannot agree, starts from the words, after national circumstances, and that those indicators may be considered further. So this part doesn't work for us. And we had a lot of discussions with colleagues, both at the contact group and further in the corridors. So to speed up the whole thing, we would agree, we would, well, take a compromise. if, after "national circumstances", instead of bracketed text, the paragraph would read: "and those indicators may be discussed in future, noting decision 15/5, para. 3". With this way, we would be happy to leave the brackets in the paragraph, deleting the second part. Otherwise, It's as much flexibility as we can show now, and we really hope that it could be a compromise. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. I'll have the Secretariat to read the text out. Secretariat, please.

Thank you, Chair. So the text of 17 alt with the suggested changes would read Takes note of the additional component and complementary indicators proposed in Annex 1 to the present decision, recognizing that parties may wish to use them in national reporting, that their use is optional and subject to national circumstances, and that those indicators may be discussed in the future, noting paragraph three of Decision 15/5. And then in Annex 1, just to to mention again, on the title of the annex, there's an asterisk, and that asterisk refers to a footnote, which appears on page 5 of the printed version, and that footnote reads, "The indicators were not negotiated by the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies." Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat, and thank you, Russian Federation. I think we're getting close to something here. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Tara. This is precisely why I wanted to keep 17. 17 has a clear mandate, which was to agree to the inclusion of the additional component in the annexes. So we discussed that if we merely take note of the components, it just means that they will be considered again in the future review of the framework. So not only cannot we accept a future discussion only, but if we go on that path, then we will... We're not inventing anything new. These are indicators such as 18, which has to do with the WTO. We, our neighbors and others have to report on those indicators. So it is true what is said in the footnote, that they were not negotiated, but they are being reported and have been reported on for decades by very specialized entities. So this is not additional information. So regrettably, we cannot go along with the option that they be discussed in the future. If we go in this direction, then we will have to be discussing the outcomes in the future as well. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Argentina. So we'll have to work on the problem a bit more. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. For us, we concur with what Argentina said and also what the EU mentioned, that this was 17, was a lot of work to come to that compromise. And we consider that the proposal made by the Russian Federation is close enough to that compromise so that we could go along with 17 alt as amended by the Russian Federation. What we cannot accept is 17. And I don't repeat all the arguments that we have mentioned in the contact group. Thank you.

Thank you. Switzerland, Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to propose a compromise solution, having heard that from Argentina's point of view, the last proposal with only the mention to discussion is not acceptable, and also hearing Russia that the way that the phrase was there in the beginning wasn't acceptable. So what I would suggest is that we take this final language that we have, and that those indicators may be considered as part of a future review of the monitoring framework as component and complementary indicators, and that inclusion as component and complementary indicators would provide more legal certainty that even if this discussion happened and they were added, they would be added as component and complementary and therefore optional, which was already what 17 original had. So that might give comfort to Argentina to have it, the compromise to review, and also to the Russian Federation that it wouldn't necessarily end up as an obligatory indicators, so perhaps that could fly. Thank you.

Yes, Brazil, thank you for being very constructive. I think Argentina is consulting, so we'll give Argentina some time. Meanwhile, it's fine. Okay, so in that case, I think Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

As we explained already at the content group, the language to be considered as a part of future review of the monitoring framework is not working for us. So it was a huge compromise that we have in informal discussion with some colleagues proposed this text about maybe discussed in the future. Otherwise, we would suggest deleting everything after the words "circumstances," and that's the only way that we could go with this paragraph. If the compromise proposed to the text that they discussed in future, and here we can put also as complementary and component, it doesn't make much sense, because the annex already I believe that those are component and complementary. It's the second column of the annex. So either we park this for the plenary or delete the paragraph. That's also possible because annex was not discussed. It's the easy way, because one way or another, we would need to solve this. So for us, it doesn't work for the future review of the framework. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Russian Federation, but I don't think this is a discussion the plenary should have, because I think it's, this is, in my view, a bit too detailed to send to the plenary. So I would again ask you to huddle down there. I'm so sorry, but I need this sort of more finer, and here we are on the details, right? Because we're looking for formulations that could actually capture all delegations' views so we can have a finely tuned consensus on this one. So I would please ask you to huddle there for five minutes. I would need the Russian Federation, I would need Brazil, I would need Argentina, I would need Switzerland, I would need the EU. I would also need other interested parties that have a stake in this. I see UK moving already. It's greatly appreciated. And at least you get your steps in this way. So, thank you. Yes. Russian Federation.

Sorry, Chair. We very clearly explained that there is no way to further develop the language. We are a bit concerned in the way that we are solving everything in the huddle. This is the position that we really tried to find a way out. So for us, it works only until the words national circumstances. And then we actually found a way for flexibility, but I think we could withdraw our proposal and suggest deleting the paragraph. Thank you.

Yes, Russia, but, you know, we have to find a compromise that can fit fit everyone's view. That's, we're 196 parties, and that's how difficult it is. And so we had to find a compromise. So I ask you, please, to join the huddle and to try to find a compromise. Russian Federation.

I can join the huddle, but that doesn't help. Okay, we can try. Let's spend more time. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Deeply appreciate it. All right, delegates, I think we need to continue. So if you haven't solved it, we'll just, we'll just. Yeah, yeah. So I don't know if there's white smoke coming up, or it's a bit hard to interpret, but. Gray smoke? Okay, so the smoke is not white, but it's some kind of different color, but it's my impression that it can turn to white. But let's hear. So, who wants to volunteer? I see Russian Federation asking for the floor.

Thank you very much. First of all, thank you, colleagues, for trying to find a way forward. It's difficult for us all. It's equally unhappy. For the time being, our decision is, our proposal is that we make it clear in the first part of the paragraph. So we all agreed that the language from "takes note until national circumstances" can be anyway cleaned. But then the bracket opens and the text reads, "and that those indicators may be taken into account as appropriate in the future, noting decision 15/5, paragraph three." Bracket closes. And it would require our further consultations with our delegation, and we will do it as soon as possible. and inform colleagues before the next plenary, but so far, this part of the paragraph stays in brackets. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I understand those are not hard brackets, but they're soft brackets, which is a good thing. I like soft brackets. I don't like hard brackets. But Thank you very much for your hard work. I really think this helps, and I'm sorry for pushing you all to huddle down there, but I think this was definitely worth it. So I'll have the secretariat to read out the para as it stands now, pending consultations. Secretary.

Thank you, Chair. So 17 alt, which I assume the original 17 would be deleted and will be renumbered. So, paragraph 17 would read, "It takes note of the additional component and complementary indicators proposed in Annex 1 to the present decision, recognizing that parties may wish to use them in national reporting, that their use is optional and subject to national circumstances," and then open brackets, "and that those indicators may be taken into account as appropriate in the future, noting decision 15/5, paragraph 3." Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. This is good. There are brackets, but yes, Russian Federation, no. All right. Yes. Sorry.

Sorry.

For clarity, I'm asking now, Annex 1, are we putting footnotes only at the annex or here as well? We would be happy to have the same footnote in both places, and I think it won't damage the whole thing. And in this way, the brackets will stay only around the phrase that was proposed, and the first bracket before 17 could be lifted. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Secretariat. Did you, yes, you captured that. So Could you repeat then, Secretary, what your understanding is? What will happen to the document?

Thank you, Chair. So perhaps just for clarity, I'll reread the paragraph as it would be now. So takes note of the additional component and complementary indicators proposed in Annex 1, and then we would insert a footnote. which says, “The indicators were not negotiated by the Conference of the Parties or its subsidiary bodies.” And then the rest of the text of the paragraph would continue with, “to the present decision, recognizing that Parties may wish to use them in national reporting, that their use is optional and subject to national circumstances, and that those indicators may be taken into account as appropriate in the future, noting Decision 15/5, paragraph 3.” and the text, and that those indicators may be taken into account as appropriate in the future, noting decision 15/5, paragraph 3 is in brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. So good. We have a soft agreement pending consultations. So the next And the last for this session is H, which is about the relationship to the Jeff. So it's 22H. Yes. So this is a section of the documents which deals with the request to the Executive Secretary. In this sub-para, there are brackets around the text and in accessing financial resource from the GEF for the purpose of developing and producing NBSAPs and the seven national reports, seven national reports. including the timely allocation and disbursement of this funding to recipient countries. So, I ask you if we could lift the brackets around this text. It's counting. One, two, three, four, five. Yes, we lift the brackets and approve the text. Thank you very much. So what we'll do now is we'll turn the document into an L document and ask people to consult on the pending.

Issues.

Yes. Good. We're making progress. I like it. Oh, sorry. Now. We, although I'm doing the thing with the mic again, which I shouldn't do, we will go to a resource mobilization. So I'll give you some time to get ready, a couple of minutes at least. Argentina, I heard you were asking for the floor. Yes, mic to Argentina, please.

Yes, apologies, sir. This is on the previous document. Do we have hard brackets around all of Annex 1? Are you asking us also to lift those, which is the list of indicators?

So, thank you, Argentina. So this is then a question to the group. Are you happy to not have brackets around the annex? So, said differently, does anyone insist of having brackets around the annex, which makes it easy? No, I don't see anyone asking for the floor, so, and thank you for that question. Deeply appreciated that you spotted that. So we'll lift the brackets around the annex on the PMRR. Thank you, Argentina. Right, okay, so I won't spend more time. Time is a commodity that is really scarce at the moment, so I'll get my act together and put these where they belong, not to cause any further chaos. Okay, so let's turn our attention to CRP 16 on COP 17 agenda item 8A on resource mobilization. The CRP was prepared on the basis of the work of the contact group and a drafting group established by the co-chairs. I invite the co-chairs of the contact group to please report on their work. Ms. Imen Meliane, you have the floor. Microphone to Tunisia, please.

Thank you, Chair. My co-chair, Ms. Carolina Caceres of Canada, and I thank the party for their hard work and for their flexibility that they showed on several issues on this document. The contact group on resource mobilization met five times between the 20th and 27th of October. On the evening of 26 October, we also convened a small drafting group on additional criteria for the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism under Article 21 of the Convention. We made progress, but brackets remain. Two main issues require further work. The first one is broadening the contributor base, where eight options, A to H, remain in brackets in paragraph 13 to 15 of document CBD/CRP.16. And the second one being the additional criteria for the permanent arrangement of the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism. in the annex to the draft decision. Criteria A to D, drawn from decision 1634, carry no brackets within the annex. The additional criteria, E to K, remain in brackets, as does their status in relation to the first four. The results of the drafting group on criteria are not included in CRP 16. They are set out in a separate non-paper, namely an annex on criteria. The contact group did not take up these results, as some parties did not wish to discuss the criteria further in order to keep a balance in the time given to the two issues. In addition, several pairs of brackets remain in the body of the decision, and the draft decision as a whole and its annex remain in outer brackets. Chair, this reflects the complexity of the topic and its political sensitivity. Despite very divergent views, parties engaged with one another, both in the contact group and informally. We are encouraged by their willingness to find a way forward on this important matter, which several delegates expressed at our last session. The text as it stands is before the working group in document CBD/COP/17/WorkingGroup1/CRP16. I warmly thank my co-chair, Carolina, for the true team spirit we shared throughout. Together, we thank again Parties. The way they engaged with one another on such a difficult issue reflects their commitment to multilateralism, and we hope that in the same spirit of compromise, they can come together and clean this text before the close of the meeting. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Ms. Meliana. I applaud you and your co-chair for your efforts and the progress that the group has made. I know that this is indeed a complex agenda item to navigate, and you have both done a tremendous service to the agenda item at this COP. Congratulations and thank you. Recognizing the progress made thus far, I still see that several unresolved issues remain in the document, and these will require further work to achieve our goal of reaching consensus. As we are all aware, given the complexities and political sensitivities of the topic, the Presidency convened an informal ministerial consultation on resource mobilization yesterday morning. The consultation was co-facilitated by His Excellency Mr. Alyou Boury Diouf, Minister of Environment and Ecological Transition of Senegal, and His Excellency Mr. Daniel Westlén, State Secretary for Climate and Environment of Sweden. Supported by the Presidency, the two ministers held a series of further informal consultative bilateral meetings based On the views expressed at the ministerial consultation and the subsequent bilaterals, the two ministers have prepared proposed text to address outstanding issues in the CRP before us. So, sorry. And this text proposal has been made available to the Working Group 1 in the form of a non-paper on the meeting website. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Daniel Westén, State Secretary for Climate and Environment of Sweden. Microphone to Sweden, please.

Dear colleagues, dear Chair, I am honored to have been entrusted the role as facilitator for resource mobilization. I had this task together with my colleague and my friend, honorable Minister Diouf from Senegal. I'm proud to have been given this confidence by the Armenian Presidency. Minister Diouf and I have strived to identify commonalities, bridge differences, and establish a contractive process. I want to sincerely thank and acknowledge our two co-chairs who have tirelessly, with full effort and attention, guided this complex process. Yesterday, we hosted a high-level ministerial dialogue. I'm pleased to note that there was a good representation of views with substantial interest shown by many ministers from all the regions. We subsequently extended the ministerial dialogue to two hours to allow all parties to take the floor and raise their views and concerns. On the basis of the ministerial exchanges, in close coordination with the co-chairs and under the leadership of the Armenian presidency, a basis for reaching a conclusion was prepared. We thereafter offered all groups informal facilitations to meet and submit their views. I want to sincerely thank all the parties who took part in these deliberations. Minister Diouf and I were both encouraged about the positive and constructive exchanges we had, without exceptions, in all of those informal meetings. It is clear from our talks that there is a possibility to reach a consensus, however, it is narrow. I am hopeful that the constructive and open spirit of our informal deliberations can continue to guide the process. Now that you have had some time to reflect on the text, we gather here in Working Group 1 to take the process forward. Again, I want to thank you all. I will stay informed of the proceedings, but now I hand over to the working group chair and my fellow Scandinavian, Mr. Gaute.

Tusen takk, Daniel. Yes, and thank you for debriefing the working group on your important work and for your text proposal, which is now before the working group. I believe all appreciate your efforts to support parties in working towards a compromise on these difficult issues. At the same time, I believe the quantity and the quality of the brackets in the draft decision is not amenable to a resolution here in the working group. I also understood that many delegates at the contact group expressed interest to continue the work in a smaller setting, a sentiment which was echoed by many speakers at the ministerial consultation. I will not ask you to go into a huddle here, as we did in the previous agenda item, but I do wish to convene our group of friends of the Chair, which shall be co-facilitated by the two former Contact Group Chairs, Ms. Carolina Caceres from Canada and Ms. Imane Meliane from Tunisia. So the task of the group shall be to address the remaining brackets and deliver a clean text for, sorry, shall be to further deliberate on the brackets in the preamble text and para 2 to 5. paras 11 to 12, para 17G, para 19, para 22, and the annex. So the text by the ministers will not be discussed by the friends of the chair. So that's my suggestion on the way forward. So I therefore urge parties in the group to please use the remaining time to conduct negotiations efficiently and effectively. and to remember our common purpose here, namely to address and close the significant global biodiversity finance gaps. So I will repeat it, because I do sometimes have a tendency to speed up a bit. So the friends of the chair is to clean brackets in preambular text, para 2 to 5, para paras 11 to 12, paras 17 G, para 19, para 22, and the annex. And again, the text by the ministers will not be discussed by the Friends of the Chair. So I would like to call upon the following parties to join the group on the understanding that, given the high interest in the topic, the meeting will remain open to all parties. Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, European Union, Fiji, Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Mindful that the meeting of the Friends of the Chair will be open to all parties, but these are definitely the parties that we think should be present in the Friends of the Chair. If you wish to join the group, you do not need to indicate this here. Simply join the group. This group shall meet from 18:15 to 19:45 tonight. That is 6:15 PM to 7:45 PM tonight. I invite delegates wishing to participate to check the monitors or the online schedule for the place of this meeting. So, a small correction on the time. It will be not 18:15, but 18:30, so 6:30 PM. I see no more, I see no request for the floor. So we can move on to the next item. Thank you. And this was indeed very effective, that's why, and therefore we will take on the issue of effectiveness. So, the CRP on review of CRPs on the review of the effectiveness of processes under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its protocols. These are CRP15 on COP agenda item 19, CRP1 on COP-MOP 12, agenda item 12, and CRP8 on COP-MOP 6, agenda item 14. The CRPs were prepared on the basis of the work of the contact group. I invite the co-chair of the contact group to report on their work, Ms. Ida Hellmich from Norway. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Contact Group on the Review of Effectiveness of Processes under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocols met on Sunday, 25 October 2026, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, and on Tuesday, 27 October 2026, from 9:30 PM to 11:30 PM. During these sessions, Parties in the Contact Group shared views of the potential scope of the draft terms of reference for the party-driven process to further improve the effectiveness of the process and meetings under the Convention and its Protocols. Parties further considered all bracketed text in the non-paper under COP agenda item 19, including draft terms of reference for the informal advisory group contained in the annex of the revised non-paper. My co-chair and I are pleased to report that clean text was produced, except for one set of brackets in the preamble paragraph 4. With the help of the Secretariat, we have now prepared a conference room paper to be considered under COP Agenda Item 19, a CRP to be considered under the Cartagena Protocol, COP/MOP Agenda Item 12, and a CRP to be considered under the Nagoya Protocol, COP/MOP Agenda Item 14. My co-chair and I thank the parties that participated in the contact group for their fruitful cooperation, and I would say that the group really showed how effectiveness can be done. Well done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Ida Hellmark. From Norway, I want to send a great thank you to you and to your co-chair, Patrick Luna from Brazil, for being very effective in your work. It's a thing of joy. So good progress was made during the contact group, during which almost all outstanding issues were successfully addressed. So I suggest that we first consider CRP 15 on COP agenda item 19. We only have one set of unresolved brackets in the document that require further attention. Before we address the unresolved brackets, I would like to approve the clean paragraphs in the CRP. Yes, sorry for that. So this document is almost fully clean, so which makes it easy for us because we will only work on the preamble, reaffirming the importance of the full and effective participation of each developing country party to the Convention and its protocols, and so forth. So the only language there that are in brackets is securing funding to allow for. So that's the only language we will work on. So therefore, I suggest or propose, Paris, that we approve the all of the Paris and preambular also the the Paris and the preamble of the rest of the document. There we go. Yes. Including the annex, which contains terms of reference for the informal advisory group on the effectiveness of the processes and meetings under the Convention on Biological Diversity. and its protocols. I see no one asking for the floor. It is hereby approved. We will now work on the preamble reaffirming the importance of securing the funding to allow for. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Well, my delegation considers that Those brackets may be changed to the following text: "Reaffirming the importance of securing funding to allow for at least two delegates." So we suggest that it is necessary to have the mentioning of two delegates in those brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation, for that very concrete proposal. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just reflecting back in the last contact group, in the last 30 minutes into midnight, thank you to our co-chairs for driving everyone so effectively that night. And thank you to our delegates from Russia for the proposed new language. However, Chair, just to hopefully keep you in your good books, Fiji proposes the following language: Just noting the priorities and concerns that was raised effectively by UK, Cameroon with the words of securing to remain, as well as Fiji, but then we were flexible later on in the evening. And much thank you to EU for their flexibility around this. So Fiji proposes the new language to read as follows: Reaffirming the importance of mobilizing funding to allow for the full and effective participation of developing country parties to the Convention and its Protocols, in particular LDCs and SIDS. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Fiji. EU now, before I suggest an approach, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and indeed thank you to the co-chairs to lead us so effectively. And after conducting some mental yoga, as you have instructed, we are very happy to go along with the proposal made by Fiji. Thank you.

So, good. So, Russian Federation, can I turn back to you and see if you are flexible on the language from Fiji supported by the EU? Russian Federation, please.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. May we kindly request to repeat the proposal? Thank you.

Yes, Fiji, could you please repeat the proposal?

Sure, Chair.

So it reads: "Reaffirming the importance of mobilizing funding to allow for the full and effective participation of developing country Parties to the Convention and its Protocols.

Sorry, Fikile, so could you please read a bit slower in dictation speed for the benefit of the interpreters, please?

Sure, Chair. Sorry. Reaffirming the importance of mobilizing funding to allow for the full and effective participation of developing country parties to the Convention and its protocols, in particular LDCs and SIDS.

Thank you, Fiji. So noting that the Russian Federation proposal had numbers, I think it was two delegates, but I give the floor to the Russian Federation and see if there's possibility of a little bit of stretching on this very beautiful Thursday? You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, on behalf of our delegation in this particular case, as you have mentioned, we are ready to stretch and show flexibility and support the proposed text. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So we have clean text. And then it is the text we'll read as proposed by Fiji. I don't think we need to read it out once again because I think we all got it. It is hereby approved. Thank you very much. We have a fully clean decision. Thank you very much for your flexibility, all. So the next CRP is CRP 1 on COP-MOP. Yes, COPMOP 12. Thank you, COPMOP 12. The second preamble para and the sixth operative para contain bracketed text, which I hope can be resolved quickly. But first, I resume my modus on approving all the clean paragraphs in the document. I see there are no asks for the floor. The clean paragraphs of the CRP are approved. So, now turning to the bracketed paras, which is preamble para number two, recognizing the need to ensure the inclusiveness, transparency, and equity, or the integrity I believe those are possibly alternatives of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. So, could I hear some preferences on this one? Which language you would prefer, and then we'll take it from there. I see the European Union, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Chair. On this preamble paragraph, we are happy to go with the first option, which is the inclusiveness, transparency, and equity, but we do feel that there might be something missing there, since we are talking in this item about the effectiveness of the processes. So we would propose to add after "and equity" "of the processes", and then we would be happy to leave the brackets. Thank you.

Yes, so could you repeat, please, for the benefit of the room?

Yes, of course. So the sentence would read, recognizing the need to ensure the inclusiveness, transparency, and equity of the processes of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and then it would continue. Thank you.

Thank you, EU. I have the United Republic of Tanzania. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This is just to support the proposal brought by the EU.

Thank you, Tanzania. I have Nigeria. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We also support the proposal put forward by EU. Thank you.

Thank you. I see no more requests for the floor. It is approved as read and proposed by the EU, supported by several parties.

Good.

I will now turn to para 6. So, this is a fairly complicated piece of prose, I see. Let's see if we can do some magic. So, as I said, this is a difficult piece of prose, and we need the magic to happen. It's almost quarter past six. So we have a hard stop at 35, so we need the magic to happen quite quickly, as we have one other CRP to pull through. So our aim is basically then to finalize these two remaining CRP in the time we have left, which is about 20 minutes. So let's make the magic happen. So could I ask for someone to bring the magical solution forward. Who has the magic? United Republic of Tanzania, please.

Chair, let me try if I'm a good magician, but I would suggest to lift the brackets. in this para and just retain the language, reiterate its call upon developed country parties and other parties in the position to do so to increase their contribution to the relevant voluntary trust fund, and the rest remains as it is. Thank you.

Right. I mean, let's see. Thank you. Let's see if your magic works. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

We also support the United Republic of Tanzania.

We think we should.

Lift the brackets in this para and adopt it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. I actually think the magic from Tanzania did work, because I don't see any. Oh, it doesn't work on Switzerland, I think. So let's hear. Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. So in paragraph 6, our preference is to reiterate its call upon parties and other parties in a position to do so, to contribute to the relevant voluntary trust fund, et cetera.

Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. So you don't want the part with increasing their contributions, but you're fine with to contribute, as I understand. Sorry, Switzerland. I think I misunderstood. Could you read again, please? And sorry.

Yes, thank you, Chair, and I'm happy to read it again. Our preference would be to say reiterates, it's called upon parties and other parties, sorry, upon parties to contribute to the relevant voluntary trust fund to ensure, etc. Apologies. Thanks.

No, no, that's fine. Thank you. Right. So then I will turn back to the magicians. Tanzania, would you be willing to show flexibility and compromise on the solution put forward by Switzerland? Tanzania, please.

Chair, I am not flexible for now. Maybe if I can consult, but me and some of the other African parties still want to keep the language I proposed first.

Thank you, Tanzania. I have Nigeria. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We believe that the proposition from Tanzania, supported by Zimbabwe, suits well, and we would wish to kindly ask Switzerland to find flexibility in accepting this proposition from Tanzania. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, Najera. So, yeah, let's see. We have to solve it. So United Kingdom will now provide the solution, I hope. United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We're very happy to be flexible on this text, and we recognize that you've called on parties to use previously agreed language, and we would like to note that the language that Tanzania proposed is language that was agreed previously in the budget decision of the COP/MOP at COP/MOP. So it's decision 7/9. So hopefully that consideration will help our friends around the room to be flexible so that we can have a few more clean L papers for our plenary. Thank you.

Thank you, Yuki. So for the benefit of us all, could you just repeat the decision you're referring to?

Yes, so it was Cartagena Protocol COP/MOP 7 decision 9 on the budget, and in that decision, there was text that read, paragraph 2, "calls upon developed country parties to increase their contributions to the relevant voluntary trust funds to ensure the full and effective participation of representatives," and then continued on to that in the concurrent So you can see we've got some previously agreed text on this.

Thank you, UK. Yes, indeed. That's fully aligned with the guidance I have provided in the beginning of the meeting. So I would then ask Switzerland if they could be flexible. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And yes, at this stage, we could be flexible as long as we keep the bracket and lift the brackets around and invites other parties in a position to do so. And I'm happy to read our proposal, which would be reiterates its call upon developed country parties and invites other parties in position to increase their contributions to etc. And this continues as we have it in the text. Thank you.

Indeed, Switzerland, if that solves a problem, it is also in line with the guidance, so go ahead.

Chair, we can be flexible and accept that proposition now.

Thank you, Tanzania. That's very much appreciated. So I see no more requests for the floor, so I think it's okay for the room. It's hereby approved, which means that we have clean text. And we will now turn this CRP into an LDOC, and it is a clean LDOC. You're allowed to It's just when magic happens, it's a thing of joy and beautiful to watch. So when magic happens, yes. But we're busy, we are on a schedule, and we have one more CRP, and it's the last one in this set of three CRPs, CRP 8. options for further improving the effectiveness of meetings on the decomposition and its protocols. And here also we have, sorry, I'm just, I was told I need to have the mic here. which is basically, I think, a mirror of what we just did. So I suggest we just mirror the decision we took in the previous CRP. I hope that's okay for the room. I see no objections. It's hereby approved. You're also allowed to clap now.

You mean that even?

This one is approved because it was the same, right?

Yeah.

We just took the decision to mirror the text from the previous CRP because it's the same language. So it's approved. It will return into an LDOC. Really good. Yeah, so we think actually we'll adjourn now, as we only have 10 minutes left and we don't have enough time to start on a new agenda item. So in the break, we will freshen up the schedule. Because after every session now, we plan and then we revise the schedule. So please follow the schedule. Check the schedule. This session is adjourned. Thank you.