(7th Session) 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-27)

Good morning, delegates. Please take your seats. Please take your seats. I would like to repeat, please take your seat, please. We have to start with our business. We have a considerable amount of work to do today. We have eight CRPs to get through, and we only have this morning in which to do so. I count on your spirit of cooperation and compromise to get us through. Before we take up our first CRP of the day, Let me report back from the two contact groups that were held last night. Let us begin with a report from the contact group on item 5, which met last night. I am giving the floor now to Ms. Clarice. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. On behalf of my co-chair, Ms. Ikeda Egboalo of Nigeria, and myself, I'm pleased to report on the work of the Contact Group on item 5, biodiversity and climate change. The group met for a third and final marathon yesterday evening from 7:30 to 10:30 PM. I am pleased to report that the Group completed the consideration of all paragraphs in the non-paper, and that the recommendations from the SubSTA presented in the CRP are clean. That said, there was also agreement on many issues in a proposed decision for the COP, although a number of brackets remain, reflecting disagreement on substance and process. The Group reiterated its agreement that it would not review the annex here at SBSTa, since it would be subject to peer review before COP17. I wish to thank my co-chair and the Secretariat and all the Contact Group participants for their hard work, openness and flexibility.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Claris. Thank you, Ms. Ebualoh. and everyone who participated in the contact group for your hard work and dedication. Next, let us hear from a co-chair of the contact group on item 6C, which met last night. Ms. Senka, you have the floor. Bosnia, please give Bosnia the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The contact group on item 60 on areas of potential further work convened from 7:30 to 11:55 PM last night to discuss the non-paper prepared based on the statements received during the first reading. In accordance with COP decision 16/12, following the request to consider processes for potential new areas of work, the discussion was conducted in the following order: a) biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning; d) equity, gender equality, and human rights-based approach to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, c) sustainable biodiversity-based activities, products and services, d) different value systems, and b) pollution and biodiversity. I am pleased to say that we have been able to hear deliberations of all parties on all new potential areas of the work. The group was well attended and actively engaged in discussion. At the request of one party, One explanatory footnote was prepared, which could be used to process other substar items as needed. Hoping that entire contact group shares our views. My co-chair Scott Wilson of Canada and I are pleased with the progress made, for which we are grateful to all members of the contact group and to the Secretariat for the technical and expert assistance provided. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Sanka and Scott, and all the participants in the contact group for your hard work and determination. Now, I will move on to the next item. We will consider CRP 3 on agenda item 9, biodiversity and agriculture. Now, let us begin with the first of our CRPs for the day. We will begin with the CRP, as I said earlier, on agenda item 9, biodiversity and agriculture. I have prepared this CRP with the support of the Secretariat based on the statement submitted in advance. and the intervention you made during plenary. I would like to go through this document para by para, beginning with the operational para and ending with the preamble para. Let us start with the first operational para. Before I open the floor, just to remind you that As.

I was saying before opening the floor, I want to remind you that we are here in a scientific, technical, and technological body. And I know I say this a lot, and our mandate is to provide scientific and technical advice to COP. This presumes that COP is expecting scientific and technical views from us. And I would like to call upon you to not put brackets around elements regarding science and technology and technical issues. If we have brackets on scientific and technical issues, that then means that SUBS believes it was not able to deal with that, meaning not up to the task. COP would be very happy, would not be happy if we didn't deal with capacity building, if we didn't deal with financial resource mobilization, but COP knows that that is not our mandate. So please don't put brackets on science elements. Work on scientific elements, if possible, when you are asking for the floor, deal with those elements. If it's something that is beyond the realm of science, I would urge you to not put science understanding point of view.

Open the floor for the comment on paragraph 1. Parlour one, start with welcomes. I can recognize Denmark followed by France. Denmark, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and distinguished delegates. I just want to make a short statement saying that we fully support the remarks by the Chair. So, we surprise and regret to note the approach to dealing with requests to the Executive Secretary that are subject to the availability of resources. While we understand that availability of resources are concerned, we feel the way proposed to back at the whole group of paragraphs is not acceptable. bracketing all operational paragraphs on which there is no disagreement on substance, which to convey a wrong message from SUBST to the COP. This could set an undesirable precedent. So we fully support the call by the Chair. We should bear in mind, as mentioned by the Chair, that the mandate of SUBST is to provide scientific, technical and technological advice. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Denmark. Then I give the floor to France, followed by Norway.

Thank you, Chair, for the floor. France would like to support the statement by Denmark, moreover, and in the spirit of continuity, we would look at asking to put in brackets the provision of financial resources and the same remark for paragraph 2 and 6 of the document. Thank you.

Thank you, France. Now I give the floor to Norway and then Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We strongly support Sweden, Denmark's intervention, and the one from yourself.

Thank you.

Thank you, Norway.

The floor is for Canada. You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, we strongly support the statement made by Denmark.

Thank you.

Thank you, Australia, then Mexico, and then Switzerland.

Australia also supports strongly their statement made by Denmark.

Thank you, Mexico.

Thank you, Chairman. We also support these interventions. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland.

Mr. Chair, Switzerland strongly supports the intervention made by Denmark.

Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. The floor now to Iceland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Iceland also strongly supports the intervention made by Denmark and others.

Thank you, New Zealand. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. New Zealand also strongly supports Denmark’s statement.

Thank you. Chile, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Like many other countries, Chile also supports the declaration that was made by Denmark.

Thank you.

Thank you. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The UK also supports the statement by Denmark.

Thank you. Netherlands, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also like to support the statement of previous speakers.

Thank you. I see no more.

Requests for the floor. I will ask the Secretary to summarize the first paragraph.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there is no change in the first paragraph.

Thank you, Secretariat. On this first paragraph, can we approve it? France, you have the floor.

France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to reiterate our request for the first paragraph, to put the end of that paragraph in square brackets, and namely, strengthen the mobilization of sustainable financial resources.

France, could you please repeat exactly the part that you want us to put square brackets on once again?

Of course. Thank you for the floor. We would like to put in square brackets at the part at the end of paragraph one and strengthen the mobilization of sustainable financial resources.

Thank you, France. Secretariat, could you please reread the paragraph with those few changes?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the paragraph remains as it is, but the last part that I will read now is between square brackets: “In strength, the mobilization of sustainable financial resources is emphasized.”.

Thank you, Secretariat. With that reading and the square brackets in this paragraph, paragraph 1 is approved. Moving on to paragraph 2, "encourages." France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Again, in continuity with paragraph one, we would like to put square brackets around “through the provision of financial resources.” Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. France, Mexico.

Thank you, Chairman. We would like to add a number of amendments to this paragraph. supporting the FAO position, which we support. And we'd like to include at the beginning of the paragraph, and I'll read it in English.

Invites FAO, including through the framework of the Global Soil Partnership and the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory, comma, to continue facilitating the implementation of the plan of action, involving, then we can delete encourages, so we'll reach involving parties or the governments at all levels and relevant organizations. And then we can delete to continue to support the implementation of the plan of actions, because that's in the part we add at the beginning. And then to include at the end, after countries, and to report on progress to sub-stand before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. I hope that was clear, or do you want me to repeat how it should read?

Please, please.

So the DVD here invites FAO, including through the framework of the Global Soil Partnership, and the Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory, to continue facilitating the implementation of the Plan of Action, involving Parties, other governments at all levels, and relevant organizations in alignment with the Common Model Biodiversity Framework. So it goes. And at the end, to include and to report to COP26 before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mexico. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have a few edits that I would like to propose. First, when it says other governments at all levels, as we have previously mentioned, we understand that the use of other governments in this convention refers to non-parties. So if there is the wish to include subnational level of government, then it should be separated to read parties, other governments, comma, subnational governments. So we request for an amendment. Then Later on in the third line, after the KMGBF that says, comma, including, we would add inter alia through national reports and global assessments. This would be deleting the phrase that reads the explicit integration of soil biodiversity indicators in the national reports. And the rationale for this, for colleagues, is that the development of indicators at this stage for the production of the national reports is a difficult task that may not be possible for all. At this stage, we would prefer to limit the call to include the indicators that have been agreed to, but we consider that if a reference to national reports also provides the flexibility for parties who want to do so to include those indicators if they have the information. On Mexico's proposal, we are agreeable to it, but would like for a clarification whether the frameworks that our esteemed colleague mentioned refer to parties other parties or stakeholders, or what is the extent to who is the intended actors that those plans are referred to? And if it is the ones that we have already here, we're okay with just making the edit on governments and subnational governments. But if the scope of that is not the same, We kindly request that it is amended to match actually the proper target of those plans. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the UK had a couple of suggestions to include in here, particularly related to the last part where we are talking about the provision of financial resources, capacity building, etc. This feels like it's in addition to the sentence before, so we think we would need the word "and" to be included before "through the provision of financial resources". So that's an "and" there. And then, after, in particular for developing countries, we think that we would like to really particularly focus this on particular areas, and we would like to reflect language from COP16-3, which would read at the end: "in particular, least developed countries and small island developing states, and parties with economies in transition, as appropriate." Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, UK. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding the latter part of this paragraph 2, based on the COP16 decision on the monitoring framework of the KMGBF, the integration of soil biodiversity indicators in national reports and global assessments is ultimately subject to the discretion of each party. So explicitly calling for the integration of such indicators here goes beyond what was agreed under the COP16. For this reason, we suggest the text from including should be deleted. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. Cook Islands, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Cook Islands not comfortable with the text that explicit, it's been highlighted in the document. We feel this creates a strict requirement for countries with limited capacity. And we also support the UK with the inclusion towards the end of the document. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. I would like to ask France to give a clarification on putting the strengthening financial resources into brackets. This is a new subject that many developing countries, they have not been able yet to start working on soil biodiversity at the same time many initiatives and action, global action plan, whatever. This is number one. Number two, I would urge all participants, please, not to open discussion for anything at all. After all, we have the first reading and we agreed that this is going to be. So we would prefer minor editing, like UK, for example, to add a few, but not to open those for any ideas. or even to rephrase the whole thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Egypt, Russia Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Russian Federation is generally satisfied with the text, but And number two is one where we do have a comment. We would like to remove the word explicit where it speaks to soil biodiversity indicators in national reports and global assessments. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mexico. You have the floor.

Gracias.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like to say that we agree with the proposals of Argentina with regard to subnational governments and also adding inter alia, and we also agreed to delete the text referring to explicit integration of soil biodiversity indicators. I think this would facilitate matters. And as for referring to FAO at the beginning to continue support through the alliance, I think this would be a good way forward. And it would be through the submissions in due course, and those were supported. Thank you.

Thank you. Mexico? Colombia has the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. Colombia would prefer to keep all levels without referring to subnational governments, as Argentina was suggesting. Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia. France has the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. For the sake of compromise and to move this along, France supports the statement by Mexico and Argentina. taking into account Mexico’s proposed amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, France. I don’t see any further requests for the floor. I’d like to turn to the Secretariat and ask them to read out the proposed paragraph 2.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the second paragraph reads: invites the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, include through the framework of the Global Soil Partnership and Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory, to continue the implementation of the plan of action, involving parties, other governments, subnational governments, and relevant organizations in alignment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including, inter alia, through global assessments and, through the provision of financial resources, capacity building and technological transfer, in particular for developing countries, the least developed and small island developing states among them, in countries with economies in transition, and to report to Sub-Staff before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Apologies, Mr. Chair. I just would like to make a small amendment to inform that the square brackets was removed by France.

Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. I don't see anybody else asking for the floor. So paragraph 2 is approved with the amendments read. Let's move on to paragraph 3 and courteous parties.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

I would propose to change the end of the paragraph in order to allow for a more flexible implementation of this within each party's policy space. So, after restoration of sustainable use of soil biodiversity, I would delete their national biodiversity strategies and action plans and climate and land policy instruments through biodiversity inclusive spatial planning conducted in a participatory manner, and replace that by in national plans as appropriate, because this would allow for all of the range of national planning documents that parties have. that might be or not reflected in this paragraph as it stands. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I give the floor. I see no more comments. Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to support the paragraph as it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Bangladesh.

Secretariat, would you please read out the current draft of paragraph 3?

Thank you, Chair. The paragraph reads: "Encourages Parties to integrate the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of soil biodiversity in [their national biodiversity strategies and action plans] and in climate and land policy instruments through biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning conducted in a participatory manner, close square brackets, national plans as appropriate.

Thank you, Secretariat.

France has the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. And sorry for the delay, but we would like to add a reference after paragraph 3, because we think it's important to promote biodiversity integration at the end of the paragraph, we would like to add, while mainstreaming.

To relevant sectoral plans, such as ecosystem restoration and agricultural plans, policies, and strategies.

Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Please, can you repeat as dictated speed, please?

Bien sûr. At the end of.

Paragraph 3, we want to add:.

While mainstreaming soil biodiversity into relevant sectoral plans, such as ecosystem restoration and agricultural plans.

Policies and strategies.

Thank you, France.

Let me turn to Secretary once again to read out the latest version of paragraph 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the paragraph 3 reads: "Encourage Parties to integrate the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of soil biodiversity." open square brackets in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and in climate and land policy instruments through biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning, conducted in a participatory manner, close square brackets, national plans as appropriate, while mainstreaming soil biodiversity into relevant sectoral plans, such as ecosystem restoration and agriculture plans, common policies, and strategies. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Jordan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Maybe I prepare to put the last section in brackets, please?

Thank you, Jordan.

I give the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Egypt supports the statement already given by Jordan to put the last part into brackets. After all, any addition should be put into brackets unless it is approved by the plenary here. Thank you.

Thank you, we take note of those comments. I don't see anyone else asking for the floor. Argentina.

Thank you, chair. It was just to react to the proposal to include at the end of the paragraph, while mainstreaming into sectoral, we would prefer to not retain that section. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I’d like to ask the Secretariat to please read out the latest version. And the interpreters have a message for the Secretariat: Could you please read at dictation speed and move closer to the mic, because you sound faint. If you could speak closer to the mic, we’ll hear you better. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Encourage parties to integrate the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of soil biodiversity in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and in climate and land policy instruments through biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning conducted in a participatory manner close bracket, and now I will mention the alternative option to this part. National plans, comma, as appropriate, open square bracket, while mainstreaming soil biodiversity into relevant sectoral plans, such as ecosystem restoration in agriculture plans, policies and strategies. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat.

So, based on that version, France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. Well, in the spirit of compromise and to have a cleaner text, we would suggest deleting our previous suggestion and the text in brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, France, for your cooperation. Let me turn once again to Secretariat and ask them to read out the latest draft.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the paragraph three reads: Encouraged parties to integrate the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of soil biodiversity in their open square bracket national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and in climate and land policies instruments through biodiversity inclusive spatial planning conducted in a participatory manner, close square bracket, and alternative in our alternative text, national plans, as appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat.

So, with those amendments to paragraph 3, we can approve. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. Just a little amendment to insert the word "national" before "mechanism", because it's inviting parties to adopt a mechanism, and it sounds like it's global, and I think each country can do so individually, so I suggest inserting the word "national", "national mechanism". Thank you.

Thank you. Mexico? Argentina, you have the floor.

With regards to this paragraph, we think it is too policy prescriptive. We have already in previous paragraphs encouraged the use of the consideration of the matter and the integration in the way each party decides to and according to their institutional frameworks. So we would not be in a position to accept this, since we consider that this does not allow the adequate flexibility in the planning and implementation. Thank you.

Canada, then Spain.

Thank you. Maybe a compromise to accommodate Argentina's concern would be to mention, to say, parties to develop national mechanism plural instead of a mechanism that would, parties would therefore have the flexibility to implement the mechanism the way they want to.

Thank you. Spain has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairman. It's important to us to emphasize the need for coordination with other sectors to make progress in this area. We believe that's fundamental. And having heard the concerns of other delegations, about prescriptive text, perhaps mentioning national mechanism or mechanisms could and coordination could be done differently. proposal would be a compromise proposal as follows:.

"Invites parties to enhance coordination among" and then it goes on. So we would delete "develop a national mechanism for improved" and we would replace it with "enhance". Gracias.

Merci.

Thank you.

Japan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We support the proposed compromise proposal from Spain and Canada. Thank you.

Thank you.

Argentina.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Spain, for that very constructive proposal. And I think we can be flexible on that, understanding the importance for you. to include the invitation to enhance the coordination, while being mindful that we are not comfortable with the request to create a specific mechanism, but allow for our own institutional arrangements. Thank you.

Thank you, Sweden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We support the proposal by Spain and we are happy that there's a spirit of compromise to keep it. Thank you.

Thank you. I just remind you that we have eight CRPs validated, and we're just halfway through the CRP on biodiversity and agriculture. So I urge you, whenever there's a proposal, either you agree with it or you don't agree with it, and if you don't, then we can put that in brackets and just move on and just validate the paragraph. So make specific proposals, please, and let's not discuss them. And if there's disagreement, we'll put it in brackets, validate the paragraph, and move on. So if you can agree with me, I'd appreciate it. Let me give the floor to Mexico. And then I'll ask Secretariat to read the paragraph as it stands, with brackets or not, and then we'll move on. Mexico, thank you.

Just to say that we agree with Spain's proposal to the effect that Parties should enhance coordination and for us to have a clean text. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico. I give the floor to Secretary – oh, sorry, just before that, Russian Federation. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We are at paragraph 4, is that correct? If so, then the Russian Federation would like to put number 4 in brackets for it to be considered by the COP. We have to hold consultations with the competent bodies in the Russian Federation on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Now let me ask the Secretariat to read out paragraph 4.

Paragraph 4 reads: Square bracket invites parties to enhance coordination among agriculture, comma, environmental, and health sectors to mainstream soil, sustainable soil biodiversity initiatives across other sectoral plans, comma, policies, and strategies, comma, in line with the framework in ensuring the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in local communities, comma, women, and youth. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Then I propose that we approve this paragraph with those amendments. Having heard Secretariat's readout of paragraph 4 and with the amendments, paragraph 4 is approved. Moving on to paragraph 5, also invites Parties.

Russian Federation, followed by Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to clarify on paragraph 4. Did we put it in square brackets from the beginning to the end? Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. That will be taken on board. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. It's a very minor amendment. After the mention of all the bodies, where it says in order to implement coherent and integrated actions, we would like to delete and integrated. I think coherent would allow again for planning as appropriate at the national level. And those parties who wish to integrate that can do it, but the ones who want to do it in a different manner, Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina.

Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If this pattern is going to continue like this, we may have problems. In one hand, you have a whole paragraph put into brackets, but at the same time, it still adds things to it. like we did for paragraph 3, whatever. If it was agreed by participants here that this paragraph will be in two brackets, that's it. We should go to the second paragraph. Otherwise, things will continue on. I would like to ask for clarification. Why such a paragraph that deal with ministry need to be put into brackets by Russian Federation? Otherwise, they can be stated very clear in the report of the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you.

Egypt? I think in response to Egypt, the risk was that we would validate the entire document as is, and if there are any amendments to certain paragraphs, they can be proposed. And now the chair has to change methods on this document. I am going to propose that we approve the document as a whole, and then If you want to make changes to a given paragraph, we can do that. We can go one by one, put brackets in and move forward, because I call for the adoption of the document as a whole. So that's my proposal now.

France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like, in paragraph 6, to replace "urges" with invites. In paragraph 10, after “Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,” we would like to add “and encourages Parties and other governments” further in English. At the end of the same paragraph, paragraph 10, we would like to add in English: according to national legislation and national circumstances. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, France. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. In the last paragraph 14, we would like to delete the sentence that says “subject to availability of resources.” consider the establishment of an inter-agency liaison group to coordinate work on soil biodiversity and avoid duplication thereof.

And the rationale is because we already have other instruments doing that, we don't need to create a new one. I hope that can be acceptable and not necessarily to be in brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico.

Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Apart from the preceding comments, the Russian Federation would ask that in number 6, in the seventh line, to remove the mention of the coordination, because if the Indigenous peoples have agreed to cooperate, it means they have agreed. And then we would like to put square brackets, in order to put brackets and have it discussed by COP, we have to speak with the relevant agencies in Russia now, 11, 12, 13, and 14. In principle, we have no objection to the work of the Secretariat on these areas, but as with other documents where there are requirements to the Executive Secretary, we believe that we have to see what the overall volume is in all of the documents and then decide what to agree with and what to demand of the Secretariat, taking into account that we have limited resources. We have to look at the expenditure and the availability of personnel, and therefore at the subsidiary body in August prepare a document with all of the draft decisions addressed to the Executive Session, and then we will decide what to do with all of the documents in this section. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation.

Please, Russia Federation, could you repeat only for your first intervention? Paragraph 6.

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph 6, seventh line, remove mention of the coordination mechanism, because there is no need to speak to this if the indigenous peoples have agreed to do this. They have agreed to do this and no need to speak of coordination. So take out the words “with their free, prior and informed consent”.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Now I give the floor to DRC. Yes, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Our intervention is with respect to paragraph 8, where we speak about academic institutions. We would like to add right away after that, after academic institutions, and other agricultural research institutions. Because we're not speaking only of universities, there are other institutions that are involved in research that are not academic, but who do research in agriculture and who do soil biodiversity research. And so we would like to add other agricultural research institutions. Thank you.

Thank you, DRC, and now New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair.

New Zealand strongly supports the continued implementation of the Plan of Action for the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity. We thank the Secretariat for the draft recommendation. We would like to request one amendment to the text in paragraph 6.

In the third last line, we would like to add the words “as appropriate” after “with their.

Free, prior and informed consent.” So the phrase would read: “including community-based monitoring that engages in an effective manner Indigenous peoples and local communities with their free, prior and informed consent as appropriate.” Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, New Zealand. I give the floor to Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. First, I would like to support the intervention made by the DRC on including other agricultural research institutions. We think this is a very valuable addition, and we thank them for this proposal. On paragraph 12, on the fourth line, where it says “on the development of relevant tools and guidance”, we would request to add “voluntary” before “guidance”, so it would read “on the development of relevant tools and voluntary guidance”, and the rest would remain the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In paragraph 7, we would like to end the sentence after, let me see, "harmful to biodiversity." Full stop, and we would like to put the rest in brackets. Thank you.

Please, could you Explain which paragraph you want to add something, please, Sweden.

Yes, Mr. Chair. In paragraph 7, which is about identifying, eliminating, phasing out, or reform incentives, which would be aligned with the GBF, we would like to end the sentence after "harmful to biodiversity" and put everything after biodiversity starting with "and" to management and records. Thank you. Or delete it, if possible.

Thank you, Sweden. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had two comments, one on paragraph 6 and one on paragraph 7. On 6, we would support amending the first line to talk about "invites parties". We would also note that we would normally use the phrase "invites parties" other governments and organisations in a position to do so, and we would like to see the paragraph start with that. In paragraph 7, we had a very similar comment to Sweden, although our thinking was that we would like to delete the phrase and to redirect them towards, and instead to replace them with invites them to increase positive incentives for. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. UK, Denmark, you have the floor. It wants to bracket.

Everything that concerns financial.

Thank you, Chair. In the beginning of this session, I was mentioning that our strong preference is to adhere to the standard practice, which is not to bracket the operational elements where there's overwhelming consensus. We would, however, be willing to consider alternative ways to reflect these concerns through the standard procedure, which is to reflect them in the meeting report. So while we understand that availability of resources is a concern, we feel that the request by Russia to bracket these types of paragraphs is not acceptable. Bracketing all operational paragraphs on which there is no disagreement on substance risks to convey a wrong message from substat to the COP. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Denmark. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding paragraph 7, we support comment by the UK in the part around to redirect them, but Japan suggests there is redirect to them and instead use scale up positive incentives. This is a word inconsistent with the language of target 18. Thank.

You.

Thank you, Japan. Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Tian. I suggest on paragraph 6, we would like to support New Zealand, and on paragraph 8, we would like to support DRC.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

For paragraph 12, we want to support Argentina.

Thank you. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

KSA would like to add in paragraph 6, encourage the parties that can do so.

And at the end of paragraph 7, as applicable.

Please, when you make proposals, I would ask you to use dictation speed so that the Secretariat can note your point of view. If it's to support, no problem, you can support, but if there are new proposals of a textual nature, please do it at dictation speed. Thank you. Norway.

Thank you, Chair. We support Denmark's intervention regarding the Russian proposal to bracket all of para 11, 12, 13, and 14. We believe that this element was clarified earlier today, that we had parked those types of discussions and that we were now ready for an elbows up approach and to focus on the science.

Thank you.

Thank you. Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support New Zealand's intervention on paragraph 6, and in paragraph 7, we would like to add after "harmful to biodiversity" the following words: "in a proportionate, just, fair, effective, and equitable way." in line, and that's it, but in the rationale that this is the language from target 18 and suggest the deletion of the rest of the sentence in line with what the Sudan has suggested.

Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to Jordan.

Thank you, Chair.

We work in Jordanian commitment to work on keep scientific free, but I think paragraph 7 is talking about procedures things. So I appreciate if we put all of paragraph 7 between brackets and including the action things put from our colleagues.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jordan. Armenia, you have the floor.

Regarding to brackets around all the requests to the Secretariat, we would like to commend the efforts of all delegates to come up with compromises in agenda items 7 and 8. In this particular matter, it's a matter of concern for our delegation that with bracketing all requests to the Secretariat, we will unnecessarily over overboard the agenda of COP17. I would like to encourage interested delegations to find a good solution and to remove the brackets, allowing the Secretariat to make necessary planning itself. Thank you.

Thank you, Armenia. The floor is to Canada.

Thank you. We would like to support Norway's intervention and Denmark's on the scientific aspect of our discussion. We would like also to support the changes suggested by the UK in paragraph 6 and paragraph 7. We can also accept certain changes for paragraph 7, but we would like to confirm that the addition from New Zealand is in square brackets. It's a new addition. Canada does not support this addition.

Thank you, Canada. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry for taking floor again, but I would like to highlight that regarding paragraph 12, the problem action was mainly prepared by FAO in consultation with other partners and the relevant experts. So from the standpoint of ensuring coherence with ongoing work on CMGBF indicators, in which FAO is also involved, we believe that FAO should be explicitly mentioned rather than just referring to paragraph 5 in this paragraph 12. So we propose to insert the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in collaboration with other, after to cooperate with on this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan.

Togo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph 9: Invertebrate genetic resources. And this is for food and agriculture, this work being done at the FAO level. And so we would like to add where biodiversity for food and agriculture is, we would like to add that it is for food and agriculture led by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the FAO. I would like to simply have that clarification of the FAA. Would you like me to repeat?

I think it's clear, distinguished delegate of Togo. But for the Secretariat, you could repeat your suggestion.

Yes, thank you, Chair. So I'm just going to as well as for the biodiversity for food and agriculture, removing food, but then, so we remove under, and we add genetic resource for food and agriculture of the FAO. Thank you.

Thank you, Togo. I will give only five minutes more for interventions on this paper. If you can fit into five minutes, that is great. At the end of five minutes, I will close the discussion and we will adopt the paper. Columbia, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairman. I'll be very brief. We would like to express our support for Denmark's intervention and with regard to paragraph 7, this text is of key importance to my country, and so we want to keep the verb "urges" instead of "invites." Thank you.

Argentina. Thank you, Argentina.

Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to support Brazil's insertion of text, as well as I would like to seek for your clarification on how all of these amendments or suggestions made by parties will be reflected in the CRP, whether they are being included in brackets, or we might have the possibility that we would very much appreciate to clean brackets as much as possible in order to not overburden COP. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support the statement made by Armenia and on paragraphs 6 and 7, the intervention made by the UK. Thank you.

Thank you, India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would like to support Brazil on Paris 7, which is very much aligned with the target 18 of KMGVF.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Netherlands, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would also like to support Denmark as well as our Armenian colleagues as incoming chair of the COP. We don't want to overburden the COP and make the challenging task of hosting a COP even more complicated. I would also like to offer my support to address any concerns and to see if we can find another solution across the different agenda items, because I do understand that overburdening the Secretariat is not the way that we as a community want to go to. So I would be happy to have a small group discussion with parties that are interested. and with the Russian Federation to see if we can find other ways to address their concerns, and at the same time to ensure that we're not unnecessarily overburdening COP with brackets around language that we actually have a consensus on. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Netherlands. I welcome your proposal. I will ask the Netherlands then, the Russian Federation, and any parties that would like to join this group to find solutions for me, for the paragraphs in question, and you will bring back your proposals to me so that we can adopt this document. And so if you could please go to the back of the room, have your discussions, and bring me back your proposals as quickly as possible. And we will then move ahead on the basis of your amendments. Mexico, thank you. Netherlands, Mexico, and then Argentina.

Thank you.

Chairman. We also agree with Armenia that we should send documents that are as clean as possible to the COP. Also, taking account of the Netherlands proposal, we think this is a good strategy. And with these brackets that are not controversial, they could be deleted. For example, the last proposal that we made on paragraph 14, we don't see any objection to that proposal to create other groups. And if I may Having consulted unofficially with some delegates, I think you can suspend discussion of this document for the time being and we can work on other ones, and then when we're ready, we can come back to this. I think we can have two or three documents open at the same time so as to move forward as much as possible, and when we get stuck, we can go back to another one and adopt it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico.

Thank you for the proposal. Our difficulty once again is time related. We could have taken a break, perhaps, and taken more time, but always we will be short of time, and we have delegations that are not particularly many in number. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. With regards to the matter of the proliferation of brackets in documents, I would share a concern that it's not on a bracket that has a specific reason that this and the administration are on financial issues, but actually, i thought at the beginning of the session today we were making quite significant advances in being able to clean brackets and reach consensus with very constructive participation of parties to address the different points of view and being able to come to an agreement to include in the text what was important to different delegations. I thought that it was going well with significant agreements, flexibility, and that we were able to clean text. In our case, what we are concerned about is that part of the bracketing of text. What concerns actually the substance and the text of the COP decisions. We are putting your approach earlier today in order to try and solve those differences in as much as possible here now, so we do not have to address them again at COP. But at the same time, once again, regarding the second approach that we took later on in the discussion to take overall altogether comments, at least In our case, it was a bit difficult to follow all the changes made, so I would once again request the clarification of how that will be reflected in the CRP, because it is not clear to me if those proposals are included in brackets, if we might find a way to try and clean as much as possible those brackets, and just seeking for your guidance. Thank you.

I see on the screen that Mexico would like to take the floor. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. I'm sorry. I think we can make best use of time. with the next document, and while unofficial consultations go ahead with the small group kindly proposed by the Netherlands, and they get rid of brackets, in the meantime, we can work on another document, and when we're ready, we can come back to this one and clean it up, hopefully. But while that's going on, let's work on another document. Thank you.

Thank you for that proposal, Mexico. So, let's do that. I had requested the Russian Federation, the Netherlands, and any other countries that want to join to go huddle in the back of the room, talk it out, and come back to us with a proposal. And then we can approve this document. And on Mexico's proposal, I think we can put this paper to one side and move on to a different topic, if you can agree.

Okay, let's move on. Thank you. Argentina.

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman. We agree to move on to the next document, but we had a question to you regarding how we are incorporating into the text the additions and comments and requested deletions by the honourable delegates in the second part of the document, when we were looking at the document as a whole, what will happen to all those proposals? So could you please clarify how those amendments will be incorporated into the text and how we will go about settling these outstanding issues, or will everything be referred to COP? We believe that, insofar as possible, we should reach a consensus here and resolve the brackets as much as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I just remind you that the paragraphs were proposed to be placed in brackets as a whole, and the discussion will be on probably not having brackets in the whole paragraph, but just those elements that don't relate to science. Anything relating to science, I would urge you not to put in brackets unless there is good reason. So that is the instruction for the small group that's going to work at the back of the room. Please don't put brackets on anything relating to science unless there's justification for it, either factual evidence or a source of information, then you can put science-related material in brackets. But otherwise, I think you need to keep brackets off the science, and anything else could be in brackets.

So I hope that was clear.

Now? Let's move on to a different topic.

Thank you, colleagues. The colleagues, we will now take up CRP6 on agenda item 3, planning, monitoring, reporting, and review, global review of collective progress in the implementation of the key MGBF. Before we begin, I would like to give the floor to the Secretariat for a correction. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. In paragraph 6, the word "endorses" should be replaced with the word "approves". "Approves" is normally what the substitute do, not endorses. So again, in paragraph 6, the word "endorses" should be changed to the term "approves". Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Before we start consideration, considering the draft recommendation in this item, I would like to provide a few reflections. In the submissions on this item, some Parties requested that we make references to the need for resources to prepare national reports and NBSAPs, as the Global Report does use the national report, it is logical for SABSA to encourage the submission of these as a source of information. But concerns related to the financing or capacity or other implementation type issues are the mandate of SBI. Note of Substant. Substant also needs to be guided by the mandate set out by the COP, so we need to make sure that our recommendation is in line with the request COP has given us. Similarly, we should avoid repeated requests that are already in the COP decision. Colleagues, The CRP before you is the outcome of the work of the Contact Group. Therefore, I would like to present the whole document, as agreed by the members of the Contact Group, for your approval. But, please, I advise you, if I approve all the whole document, but just go through the para where we have the bracketeers. We have bracketeers on para 2C, para 3, para 6D, para 7C, and para 11B. Thank you.

Before opening the floor for parties, I would like to suggest that the draft recommendation before us is addressed to SUBSTA, not COP. And as such, the paragraphs I referred to that have brackets, I would ask that those paragraphs be deleted.

Thank you.

I'll give the floor to Secretariat to tell us what paragraphs are going to be discussed. Secretariat.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Just a reflection. There is a bracket in paragraph 2C, which is, it's my understanding the Chair wishes to start the consideration of this item with. I just would like to note that the text that is in brackets in paragraph 2C is largely already covered in Decision 1632, both in the preamble and in paragraph 8. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Are there any other paragraphs like that? that have that reference? If not, then I'll open the floor and we'll start the discussion. Secretary, please.

No, Chair.

Thank you for that clarification. Let's start the discussion on this CRP then. My hope is to validate this CRP. following a review, as is. By “as is,” I mean we would review it as a whole. That’s what I want to do, but I see that not everybody agrees. Let me suggest that we only discuss paragraphs with brackets, as I said earlier. And so I will open the floor for discussion on paragraph, part one, intro, and status and trends of biodiversity. Paragraph 2C, Charlie. 2C. So you heard Secretariat's explanation. So, in principle, if we agree to that explanation, we will not be discussing this paragraph, but I'm opening the floor. And I give the floor to Hungary, followed by Argentina, then China.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Am I understanding it correctly that you are proposing that in paragraph 2C, We are deleting the bracketed text?

Yes,

okay. Thank you very much. We are fine with deleting that text in brackets.

Thank you, Hungary. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would prefer to retain the text in brackets. I would like to hear about what other parties that have commented on this feel about that. But I would also seek your guidance, because I have two brief comments on the operative paragraphs of the recommendation, and I will make them whenever you allow me to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I am taking note of your concern. Once we have gone through the annex, we'll go back to the paragraphs proposed. Thank you for your understanding. China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. China think that this paragraph should retain because it provides important guidance, and it's also in in accordance with 1632 and did not change the meaning of 1632, so we support the retention of the bracket.

Text.

Thank you, China.

I'd like to make a proposal. Can we keep the text without the brackets?

Could.

You Give me your views on that. Can we keep the text without brackets here?

Mexico.

Thank you, Chairman. Our preference is to delete the text because it is a repeat of what's already in Decision 1632, which governs the way the Global Report is supposed to be managed. Otherwise, we can agree to keeping the text and deleting the brackets just to save time. Move on.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mexico, India, you have the floor, followed by France.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. India would like to support the information made by Argentina and China. We would like also to retain the bracketed text as it safeguards national sovereignty, respect policy space, and ensure that the global review remains facilitative and non-punitive in nature. So we would like to retain the text, and we would like also to have intervention on para 8 small.

B, if you allow.

No, because this text was discussed in the contact group, and everything that's clean, we shouldn't open the debate on. So let's not reopen the debate on any of the clean text. The debate is just on the bracketed text. need to work out the brackets in the plenary, but all the clean text should stay as is. We shouldn't reopen the debate on that. Thank you for your understanding. I give the floor to France.

Thank you, Chairman. I think my colleagues' proposal from Hungary to delete the text that's in brackets was aimed to shorten the paragraph, because the reference is already in paragraph 8 to decision 1632. But we do need to move forward, so to show flexibility, we can, of course, accept keeping the language in and taking out the brackets. And I would like to point out that my neighbor from Finland agrees to that proposal as well, so I'm speaking for both of us. But there you are. I think we can move on. Thank you.

Merci à la France.

Thank you, France.

Now I give the floor to Hungary, followed by Brazil, to have the common understanding on this para.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My colleague from France said exactly what I wanted to say, that for the sake of moving on, as a compromise, I could go along with unbracketing the text and hope we can deal with such efficiency with the rest of the paragraphs as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Hungary. Thank you. So, in the spirit.

Of compromise, we can accept paragraph 2 c without the brackets. The countries asking for the floor, do you agree to that? Can you accept my proposal? If you agree, can I ask you to let us move on to the next paragraph? I still see Egypt and DRC. Is it still on this paragraph?

Egypt, you have the floor.

Yes, indeed, Mr. Chair. We agree with your proposal. Just remove the brackets.

Thank you, Egypt.

DRC.

Thank you, Chairman. We can support that, but we also want to go back to one thing that you said. We had asked for your indulgence because You said that we shouldn't intervene on clean text because it went through the contract group, but there still might be some ideas, some proposals that weren't fully discussed. Could we come back to that later? With regard to the draft recommendations? Thank you.

Thank you, DRC. If we have time, maybe, but if we don't have time, then we should only discuss paragraphs with brackets. Thank you. New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. Just a small editorial correction.

If it could please say, after 2025, comma, recalling that the global report will be undertaken. We think that that would read better and make more sense.

Thank you.

Thank you for the spirit of compromise that you are showing. Paragraph 2C is thus approved. Now we will move on to paragraph 3. Paragraph 3, before I give the floor to China, my proposal is to remove the brackets and keep the text as is. If you agree with me on this, we will remove the brackets and keep the text as is.

Okay, je vais donner la parole à.

China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Regrettably, I cannot support your recommendation or suggestion because on this driver, drivers for loss of biodiversity, actually, this February, COP 16 has beyond that mandate because in 1632 decision, It does not include biodiversity loss drivers. There's that elements were not present, so we are not in the position at the COPS to change the mandate of COP decision 1632. So we want it deleted.

Thank you, China. Can we delete this paragraph? What I mean is the text in brackets. Can we delete the text in brackets?

I would like to know if the.

Requests for the floor are with respect to the proposal to delete what is in brackets, as proposed by China. All right, New Zealand and then Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair.

New Zealand notes that the KMGBF itself in section A states that the framework seeks to respond to the IPBES global assessment and that without direct action on the drivers of loss, there will be further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction. So we see this as action on the drivers as part of the KMGBF, and therefore it is covered by the review of collective progress. So we would see it within our mandate, and we'd like to retain the text in brackets.

Thank you.

Dear colleagues, I would just like to remind you that the text that is being reviewed is with respect to recommendations by SUBSTA. We cannot – it is not for COP, it is for SUBSTA. And once it is for SUBSTA, we cannot send a document in brackets with bracketed text. And so in this case, there are two solutions. Either we remove all brackets from the paragraphs of the text, or we remove all of the text that is proposed in brackets. I would like to have interventions on this choice. Thank you. I see requests for the floor. Sweden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is our position that we should keep the drivers of biodiversity loss here. And I would like to remind everyone that in Montreal, we have agreed on the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework, which we agreed on under the leadership of our dear colleagues from China. We included 23 action targets, and all of them aim to address the drivers of biodiversity loss. So the report that we are now preparing is supposed to show us how we address the drivers of biodiversity loss through national action plans and strategies, as well as national targets. So from our point of view, the drivers need to be addressed in this report, otherwise we don't know if we succeed or not. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you. For those who will be intervening, I would ask you to give me your answer to the question that I asked of you. I see that we have more requests for the floor. So I would just ask you once again, could we have a small rapid deployment group to discuss paragraph 3 so that I receive proposals? And then we will move on to another paragraph, and I will give you the number of that paragraph soon. So I would ask China, Hungary, and any other party that would like to join that group to find a compromise for the text in question, paragraph 3. Thank you for your understanding. We will now move on to paragraph 6D.

Dear colleagues, I will invite UK because UK can help me. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following consultations with other parties, we would like to propose the following compromise text. in paragraph 60 and propose using the same text for paragraph 11B: "A synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities identified in the Global Report with a view to making collective progress in implementation of the framework. We would like to express our thanks to everyone for their constructive engagement and flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, UK. Please, could you repeat the proposal at the dictated speed?

Sure.

A synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities identified in the global report with a view to making collective progress in implementation of the framework.

Thank you, UK. Then I'm giving the floor to China. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. We support the proposal proposed by the distinguished delegate of England.

Thank you, China.

We have a proposal from the UK and supported by China. Can we support this proposal? I see that we still have requests for the floor.

The floor to Hungary, followed by Russia Federation, then Brazil.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'm happy to support this compromise text and thank you very much for all who were working on it. Thank you.

Thank you, Hungary. Russia Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank those parties participated in finding this compromise wording. We are okay with that, although based on the alt, we still believe that it's useful to refer to information source, so we still like to limit it. So we will be happy to have this text and continue with based on the relevant information sources identified in sub-paragraph 18 of the decision, 1632. So I don't think it's make harm, but at least it's limit the choices to that information. And not all paragraphs, not all sub-paragraphs may be applicable to this particular task. That's why the suggestion is based on the relevant information sources. instead of, you know, listing sub-paragraphs letters. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia Federation. Brazil, you have the floor.

Brazil, you have the floor, please.

Brazil would like to support the UK proposal and also Russia's amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would also like to support the proposed text made by UK and also support that we also use the same text in 11B. And on the proposal to amend the text from Russia, We will also request that instead of limiting the proposed approaches to address the challenges to only the information sources mentioned in the decision, we rather say including in so that if there are any other proposed approaches that the HTEC will also find in sources that are outside that decision, we can also be privy to those kind of approaches that will be proposed by the advisory group. So our amendments to the Russian proposal will be, instead of saying “based”, it will be “including” so that we don’t only limit to those identified. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. Swaziland, you have the floor, followed by Sweden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Switzerland supports the proposal made by the UK and as amended by.

Russia, and we can also accept the proposal by South Africa.

With understanding that it applies for both paragraph 6 and 11. Thank you.

Thank you. Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can also support the proposal made by the UK, and we are flexible regarding the amendments by South Africa. Thank you.

Thank you. May I ask Russia Federation if you agree to the South Africans' proposal? Thank you very much. Then I give the floor to Secretariat to read the proposal.

Thank you, Chair. The text would read: A synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities identified in the Global Report with a view to making collective progress in implementation of the Framework. including the relevant information sources identified in subparagraph 18 of decision 1632, or, sorry, I apologize, it should be identified in paragraph 18 of decision 1632. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. With this proposal, could we agree with this para? I see none, this para is approved. Let's move to the para.

Are the parties assembled here in agreement that the proposal regarding 6D, the proposal by South Africa, that this also be applied to 11B? Do you agree with that approach? I just want to have reactions to that question.

Russia, you have the floor, followed by Germany.

Thank you, Chair. We definitely agree that same approach, but the language will be slightly different. because the meaning of the last paragraph is different, because it needs to refer to this paragraph as it will be kind of a synthesis of information from here. So it's not just, you know, copy-paste. But the approach, yes, we fully adopt and agree with the approach.

Thank you. Russian Federation.

Please, the Russian Federation, could you propose the rational text now on 11B?

Chair, you are challenging me. Okay, so I will try how we may see that may work. A synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities identified in this report, or you may say in section 6D, for making collective progress in implementation of goals and targets of the framework. Should I read again?

Please.

So a synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities identified in section 6D of the report, of the global report, for making collective progress in implementation of goals and targets of the framework.

Thank you, Russia Federation. Is any.

One opposed to the proposal just tabled? If there is no opposition, I would ask then that we approve this paragraph.

Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarification, I assume we have agreed on the language for 11 and the Russian proposal is only addressing as a paragraph in 6D, is that correct, as it was read out?

Thank you, Sweden. In fact, the approach currently proposed is the approach in 6D will apply to 11B. Therefore, on that basis, the Russian Federation proposed a text, and I asked if we agree with the Russian Federation’s proposal.

Norway, followed by Mexico.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I appreciate the Russian Federation's efforts to propose the text on the spot, but I think it would be better if we have the same language regarding after the global report, he proposed for making collective progress, but the text we just agreed on in 60 was with a view to making collective progress, so we prefer to see the same text reflected in 11B. Thanks, Chair.

Russian Federation, can you accept this? Thank you very much for the spirit of cooperation. Mexico, are you going to intervene on this issue?

We also agree with – we understand we already reached an agreement on 6D, and with the amendments from Russia, I think we can go along. So maybe just a suggestion, instead of look to avoid many delegations to take the floor, if you ask if raising hands if there's some opposition so we can have clarity and save more time for decision making. Thank you. At least here, we agree with these two paragraphs on 6D and also 11D as amended as part of the compromise. Thank you.

Merci.

Thank you. Thank you. I give the floor to the Secretariat to read 11B for us.

11B would read: A synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches for addressing the challenges, gaps, and opportunities identified in section 6B of the Global Report with a view to making collective progress in implementation of the Framework. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Taking into account the modifications, we can now accept this wording, and 11B is approved. Belgium, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It means that we are only referring to section D and not section C. Is that my understanding? Because I thought that at the end we want to have a synthesis of the whole, all the sections, and not just one section, but I would like to see clarification.

Russia Federation.

Maybe I will try to give my explanation to a question from Belgium. Our understanding, I hope shared by others, that 11B is not about synthesis of everything from the report. It's a very specific paragraph around synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches only. As this consideration is given in the section 6D, not C, not others, 6D of the report, that's reasonable to do the synthesis in conclusions, which supposed to be a succinct, short version, based on that sections and not on other sections, which are not dealing with a synthesis of non-prescriptive approaches. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So, on that basis, I see Sweden asking for the floor. You have the floor.

Yes, thank you. I'm sorry for this confusion. I think interpretation has mentioned references to certain paragraphs. We can agree with the text read out by the Secretariat for 11, which doesn't include any reference to any section. Thank you.

Thank you, Sweden.

I'd like to give the floor to the Russian Federation once again.

Chair, in this case, we are stuck. because we don't want to see the conclusion section, which will suddenly bring some additional information which was not mentioned in 6D. And that's the way how we see if 6D will not be mentioned there explicitly. That's a conclusion section built on the report, so I don't understand what is a problem to refer to 6D, which is a specified section of the report, to analyze those non-prescriptive approaches from different sources. But the only source for 11B is 6D and nothing else.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Following those explanations, can we adopt, approve 11B? Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Let's move on to 7C. 7C, Charlie, please. In the same spirit of compromise, I would invite you to take out the brackets around 7C.

Colombia.

Thank you, Chairman. Colombia welcomes the unofficial document on item 3. and regarding inclusion of 12d, we would like to keep 7c without brackets, because when the information that becomes available, it should include success and challenges for Indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth, and other stakeholders. This approach is consistent with Decision 1632, paragraph 8. on the flexible global report, which incorporates participants such as non-state actors in the framework. Thank you.

Gracias. Panama.

Thank you. Panama has the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. Panama supports Colombia's proposal, and we suggest taking out the brackets on paragraph 7c. Thank you.

Thank you. Sweden? The great many parties want to delete the brackets on this paragraph. That is the wish of many parties. So can everybody go along with that proposal to take out the brackets in this paragraph? I'd like to get the views of those who do not want to take the brackets out in this paragraph.

Well.

I see everybody is in a spirit of compromise and can agree to remove the brackets from this paragraph, 7(c). 7(c) is approved. Let's go back to the small group. The first one on 2 c, could I have the report on that? And paragraph 3. Let's start with 2 c, please. Thank you. I think I made a mistake. 2C is approved. It's three we need to look at, paragraph three.

Russian.

Federation has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I see that our Chinese colleagues and others, they are consulting right now. So they may come back to us with a vision. But before, I'd like to simply ask proponents who like to keep this language whether they like to see the status and trend for global demographic processes, economic systems, decision making systems, etc., because the wording is saying drivers of biodiversity loss, it means all of them, or they are specifically talking about certain groups of drivers, so it will be nice to have clarification. Maybe that also may help countries discussing now to find a solution.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russia. We can accept your request.

Thank you.

So I was saying to the Russian Federation that you can join that small group and come back to us with a clean proposal.

Russia, you have the floor.

Chair, I can do that, but first I'd like to hear the response from those who supported keeping this language, how they see it, what kind of drivers to be included there. Then we can make a decision whether we can go with it or not. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation.

The reason why this small group was set up was because we couldn't reach an agreement, so we set up a small group to talk about this. at the back of the room. Would you like to join that small group?

Thank you very much. Merci.

Thank you. Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. I hope and propose that while the small group deliberates, if all of the parties there are also represented in their seats, that we may move on to the, in the meantime, to the recommendation for SAFSTA so that we may move along a bit, of course, considering that all of the parties are represented in the discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina, for that proposal. That is what I want to do now. So thank you very much for that. Now, i would like to look at the recommendations for SEBSTA, the eight, sorry, seven paragraphs. This is clean text that was discussed.

Thank you.

So I was saying that we are going to consider the eight paragraphs that have recommendations for SUBSTEP, and I would like to ask for your cooperation on this. Can we approve them? I see a request for the floor. DRC, and then Argentina.

Thank you very much, Chairman, for giving me the floor. The DRC would like to propose on paragraph 8. From day one we had supported a proposal, but unfortunately it was not taken up. We don't see it reflected in the CRP, and so we'd like to come back to this. So it's on paragraph 8, 8B. We have a proposal for B-bis. Can I read it out?

Go ahead, DRC.

I'd like to propose the following: 8B bis, bring support, technical dialogue, informal technical dialogue between Parties, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, and other stakeholders, so as to gather contributions for the global review, in particular, by sharing best practices, challenges, gaps, and solutions. So, shall I read it again?

Support for a technical and formal dialogue among parties, indigenous people, and local communities, women, and youth and other stakeholders to collect input to the global review, including sharing of best practice, challenge, gaps, and solution.

So, we would be approving this is in line with decision 16/32 of the COP, unfortunately. Because of the lack of funding, this was not possible, according to the Secretariat. So that is why we are making our proposal. Thank you.

DRC.

Thank you, DRC. I give the floor to Argentina.

Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to take the floor. First, I would like to refer to what you mentioned at the beginning about the lack of the possibility to include here a reference to the need for financial resources to produce the national reports. I find that very unfortunate, but in the spirit of also not including cross-references unless strictly necessary, I will not at this time propose any additional text. But at the same time, and in line with Taking into account the difficulties and the efforts to produce reports, we are unfortunately not in a position to support paragraph 5 that encourages parties to complete all sections of the national report and to include specific information that is mentioned here. We find that this is policy prescriptive. And we need to respect the way in which the parties are developing their reports and the information they are willing and also capable, and this relates also to the resources to do so, to include in their reports. We would like to say that the decisions we do have on planning, monitoring, reporting, and review are already quite clear and have extensive guidance on what parties should include according to their circumstances, priorities, and capabilities in the reports. So we also not only do not agree with the content of this paragraph, but we think that it would be adding additional and unneeded prescriptions to how to do the work. So we request that to be deleted. Then with regards to paragraph 8a, in which We also request the Executive Secretary to provide support to Parties, in particular those with limited internet access, with the submission of their national reports. We want to celebrate the inclusion of this paragraph. We would like to see a lot more in terms of supporting the Parties in their actual needs to be able to adequately respond to COP decisions, and this is very much on that way, and also acknowledge what we consider that is consistent work by the Secretariat staff to provide for this assistance as needed, even when it is not included in the decisions. So our appreciation to them. And on regards to 8b, to issue notification to collect information, we would request a clarification from the Secretariat, because it is to our understanding that this notification has already been issued this week, that it would be notification 2025/1. 132 that was issued in October 20. And if that is the case, that this is the notification that we are referring to, to delete this paragraph because this action has already been completed by the Secretariat. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Before I give the floor to Colombia, may Secretariat can explain on 8B? Executive Secretary, maybe, because Argentina asked for you. Please take the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, the delegate from Argentina is correct that a notification was issued a few days ago inviting Parties to submit, I apologize, non-State actors or actors other than national governments to submit commitments through the tool that was recently operationalized. My understanding is that the intention of this request to the Executive Secretary would be to issue a notification to those groups to be able to provide any information that perhaps may not fit within the online reporting tool. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Now I give the floor to Colombia.

Thank you, Chairman. Just to note that Colombia supports the insertion proposed by the DRC. It is consistent with our last intervention. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Colombia. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Fiji also supports the inclusion made by DRC.

Thank you. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the Secretariat for that clear explanation. It is our view that the source of information regarding the contributions of actors other than national governments for the preparation of the report is the one that will be submitted by themselves through the online reporting tool, so we would prefer to delete this request as we would have that source of the information that is the one that we have agreed to. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I'm giving the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Chairman.

Egypt supports the text proposed by the DRC.

Thank you.

Thank you. I don’t see any further requests for the floor, so let me ask Secretariat to read out the DRC’s proposal.

Thank you, Chair. The proposal from the Democratic Republic of the Congo would read: Provide support for an informal technical dialogue among parties, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, and other stakeholders to collect inputs to the global review, including the sharing of best practices, gaps, and solutions. Thank you, Chair.

Merci.

Thank you. Before I give the floor to Japan and then Finland, I see that a number of parties have supported the DRC proposal. Do you want to take the floor on this proposal or something else? Japan.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. So Japan proposes to insert the phrase of the with availability of financial resources for this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you to the distinguished delegate of Japan. The problem we have again is that these recommendations are addressed to SUBSTA. And recommendations for SUBSTA shouldn't have brackets on them. So that's one thing. Second, we are discussing scientific issues. And if we introduce financial issues here, then we'll have brackets again. So, that is our problem.

Thank you, Chair. It's not kind of merely financial issues. We see the same phrases in general. So, we don't understand so far why such kind of phrases is not acceptable.

Thank you, Japan, for that proposal. I’d like to once again ask Secretariat to read out the final proposal.

Thank you, Chair. The paragraph as proposed with the amendment from Japan would read: “provide support for an informal technical dialogue among Parties, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women and youth, and other stakeholders to collect input to the global review, including the sharing of best practices, gaps, and solutions, subject to the availability of financial resources.” Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. So we just heard the reading of the proposal by DRC, supported by a number of Parties. Can you agree to this proposal with the amendments proposed by Japan? I see Finland is asking for the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, Finland can support the proposal made on B-bis, and we are happy to have it included. My point is on B. Can I go on with that?

Yes.

Thank you. We understand point made by Argentina, but we would definitely like to see this clean text on. But could we say to collect information through the ORT, I mean the online reporting tool, which we are very happy to see that it has been launched, on commitment by actors other than national governments? Because we think it's really important that we also include now private sector, IPLCs, in this endeavour. So we really would like to see B retained. But we understand the point made by Argentina that this notification has been launched, so we think the correction could be made in the beginning of that. And I hope this is clear. But we would like to retain B. Thank you.

Thank you, Finland. Now I'm giving the floor to Argentina.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you from our colleague from Finland. We are in agreement to include, if it were necessary, a reference to the request of information from actors other than governments, as was agreed, which the methodology would be through the online reporting tool in the terms that were described in decision 16/32. But my comment, if it does refer to that, is that given that the notification has been issued already, this is superfluous. If you want to include a new notification to a different set of actors, we do not have a problem with that, as long as it is clarified that it refers to the information to be provided via the only reporting tool. and to the actors and through the process that is clearly described in Decision 16/32, but we would not be in a position at this time to agree to include additional other sources of information, since we have had in COP16 very extensive discussions on this item, but if there is a reference that there needs to be made an additional notification with further information, then if it refers to that process, we do not have an issue with that, if Finland would find it necessary. But I would also like to kindly request Mr. Chair, to clarify the status on my request to delete paragraph 5. And that will be all. Thank you.

Dear delegates, we have a proposal from Argentina to delete paragraph 5. Is there anyone opposed to this proposal? Belgium, are you wishing to intervene on this issue? Belgium, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not really certain if we would be in favour of deleting it, because, for example, the first part of the paragraph mentions "encourages parties to complete all sections of the national report" and this is quite important. to get as much information as possible. And that is what we probably would like to have. And it also mentions to include to the extent possible, so that means every party can decide on its own, to add relevant information. And I think that's also what we meant when we were talking about the commitments, when we were also talking about the other sections. to have information from IPLCs, women, and youth, and things like that. So maybe it's a repetition of what's further in the annex, but we're here before the annex. I have no strong position to delete it or to keep it, but I would like to hear views from others. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Belgium.

Since you have doubts as to whether to retain it or delete it, and taking into account the time that we have left and that we cannot send a bracketed text to SUBSTA, would you agree with deleting paragraph 5? I see requests for the floor, so Africa and the Netherlands.

Thank you, Chair. We agree to delete paragraph 5, taking into consideration that the issue around the completeness of completing the global report is also iterated in paragraph three that reiterates that the timely submission of the seventh national reports consistent with decision 16/32 of 27 February is essential to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and policy reference and so on. So we think that it might also sound as a repetition and maybe the emphasis is already articulated in paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. Netherlands.

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And we are also pretty concerned about the time and the time constraints. So in that respect, we can agree with deleting paragraph 5. We would also like to suggest to move along with the changes made so far and adopt the whole text and move on to the next agenda item. Thank you very much.

Thank you for this constructive proposal from Netherlands. We will then delete the paragraph. Thank you for your understanding. Paragraph 5 is deleted. I will ask the Secretariat to read the proposals with respect to 8B, knowing that 8bis was already accepted.

So 8B would read, also request the Executive Secretary to issue a notification to collect information through the online reporting tool on commitments by actors other than national governments towards the implementation of the framework, including disaggregated information on contributions from indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, to facilitate the preparation of the global report in line with paragraph 18 of decision 1632. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Secretariat, for reading that out loud. We would be okay with this. To go with this with a minor amendment for the reference to the decision 16/32 at the end, we would prefer to leave it in line with decision 16/32 without signalling one specific paragraph, because that will include the section on the on the sources of information for the report, but as well comprise the annex that refers to the online reporting tool and how to submit for actors other than national governments. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I give the floor to the Russian Federation.

In principle, we are fine, but we still like to get clarity maybe from the Secretariat. I am reading the notification. It says, on behalf of our distinguished Executive Secretary, I am pleased to inform you that the functionality to submit information on commitments from actors other than national governments is now operational in the online reporting tool. As the link, the comments may be submitted via the selection section called stakeholders, et cetera. So I'm trying to understand what else we are asking. Secretariat issued notification for all non-state actors. The list of all non-state actors are clearly shown in 15/6, paragraph 26, with absolutely clear reference to this paragraph in the notification itself. Notification is saying that it needs to be submitted through the reporting tool. reporting tool is already available, so I just like to get the feeling what else needs to be done, because the paragraph as read by the Secretariat is asking to submit through the reporting tool. That's exactly what the notification is asking for and offering. So I didn't get anything what's new and different. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Thank you. Taking into account the explanation from the Russian Federation, would Finland be able to accept that paragraph 8 be deleted?

Fylan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I think probably my question was already that this notification has been delivered, but the issue is to collect this information. And we would like to see that this is done by the Secretariat now in a proper manner. So we also guide this now from here. So I really would like to see that this is included. We are very happy that this notification was launched, was it two days ago? But we also would like to see that this collecting of this information is then done properly and is part of this global report. So we think this is an important message. And my question was exactly, because this was, I don't know if Russia was in the room, that this notification has been given. Argentina and myself, we were asking, are there coming another notification after this? And I understood there will be. So now I need to get clarification from the Secretariat. Is this what has been launched, the notification? Then we could delete it because that's out already. Or are there any new? And I understood there will be to issue a notification on this, how to collect the information. But I think the message is important from this sub-staff. Thank you.

I will give the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. So the notification has been issued, as read out by the delegate from the Russian Federation. When the notification period closes, the Secretariat will collect the information, and the information will be collected and will be reviewed. It is, of course, the prerogative of the subsidiary body to ask the Secretariat to do things. However, we are already in the process of doing it. Perhaps the subsidiary body might prefer to request the Secretariat to collect the information instead of issue a notification, or to continue to collect the information, something along those lines.

Thank you, Secretariat. Just before I give the Russian Federation and Finland once again the floor, I want to remind you that we simply don't have enough time left with interpretation. If we lose interpretation, it will become more complicated. So I would ask you to display a spirit of compromise. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Secretariat, for obvious explanations. We've been through this process dozens, dozens of times. We know that Secretariat is processing and collecting information, coming through notification, all this, thanks to the Secretariat. And we are at the stages you, Chair, set. And you challenged me before, so you should challenge others as well. not a general statement what will be nice to do, but a very specific language, a very specific proposal, which may listen and bear in mind. And if there are no specific proposal on the ideas, then we better go and delete this paragraph, which is, from our perspective, completely redundant after issuing this particular notification.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Finland, after which we will have Mexico, which will be the last speaker. Finland, you have the floor.

Yes, my proposal was already earlier to say to collect information through the online reporting tool on commitments by other actors and so forth, and then in line with the decision 1632. And the Secretariat hopefully got this message. So I already said to collect. But if this is redundant and understood, but I think the message is really important to get out there. I'm fine if it's to be deleted, then we delete that. But I think for others, for the IPLCs, for you and others, that this has been done now, I think it's really important that we collected this as well. It took ages to get this notification to come out. And we are now in the middle of October, so I hope the Secretariat has time to collect even this information. And I hope my message is clear. We have been waiting for this template for the online reporting tool for three months now. And I hope you will have time to collect the information as well from them. Thank you.

Thank you, Finland. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand both Russian Federation and Finland concerns, but I believe that we have already in the outline in paragraph 5f, that the ASHTAC and Secretariat are entitled to work on the summary of the contributions from the global target from across other than national governments, report in the online reporting tool. If the notification was already issued, and we have the mandate to do this, I don't believe there is a need for this paragraph. So it's part of what the Secretariat has to do with the support of the ASHTAC. to speed up the process, maybe we can delete the paragraph. It is implicit. Notification is already issued, and we can move on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico. Russian Federation, you would like to take the floor again.

Go ahead.

The League's sometimes just insisting on what they want, but they need to provide compromise. So I like to offer compromise. So we can have this text and request Secretariat to collect, but then we say not within the paragraph 18, et cetera, but in line with the notification number something. because notification was out, so that the process is there. So if you like to reiterate and we don't trust secretariat anymore that they will collect information, we can definitely specify it and refer to a particular notification, which is out and available to everyone. So then we will keep the paragraph with that, so if it's important for others.

Thank you.

Thank you. Russian Federation, for the spirit of compromise that you are showing. On the basis of this compromise, as well as deleting only paragraph 5, I propose that all of the recommendations to SUBSTA be approved. The proposals addressed to SUBSTA are approved as is. Approved. Now, just in order to close this document, I need us to go back to paragraph 3 of the annex. We had a small group put in place. Is the small group back? Brazil, you would like to report? Please, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. After discussing the text, we have agreed on the language here. We thought about the legal issues of a decision by COP, and we could not change the text here, so we agreed in deleting the bracketed text and adding after 16/32 the following: "in line with the CUMIN Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework." Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil.

So, thank you for the spirit of compromise and the proposal from Brazil. Can we accept this solution? I do not see any requests for the floor. Approved. And then Based on these few changes to the CRP, then CRP is approved. Dear delegates, I would like to thank the interpreters who accepted to work until 13:45, an extra 30 minutes. So we We have another 20 minutes for discussion and debate. We, before CRP6, had suspended the work on biodiversity and agriculture, and we asked a small group to reflect on the differences in opinion. I would like to know if the group is prepared to report the compromise arrived at.

Okay, can I ask Russia or Netherlands to report back?

Thank you. I see that they haven't met yet, and so the CRP on biodiversity and agriculture is still pending. Therefore, we will go to CRP 9, currently which is the CRP on Biodiversity and Climate Change. In the same spirit of compromise that led us through the last adopted CRP, we will now go directly to correlated issues. I will give the floor then.

We will continue now with CRP 9 on agenda item 5, biodiversity and climate change. Colleagues, the CRP before you is outcome of the work of a contact group. Therefore, I would like to present the whole document. It is my desire. as agreed by the members of the contact group for your approval. As we have heard from one of the coaches, we have clean texts in the recommendations. I urge you not to reopen clean para that are the result of long hours of work. As explained by the co-chair, we will not look at the annex, since it will be subject to peer review before COP 17, as per the agreed process concerning the supplement to the voluntary guidelines. Can we approve this document as well? I now open the floor, and as I mentioned earlier, we will discuss only on the bracketed paragraph. Now, before I open the floor, may I ask Secretariat to have you Some announcement? No.

As I proposed in the discussion on this CRP, the document proposed on recommendations to SUBSTA, for this document, the text is clear, it's clean. There are no differences of view. The only differences are with regard to the COP, and as I proposed. On that basis, we can adopt this document as a whole. But I see requests from the floor from two Parties. And can I call on your spirit of compromise? for us to be able to adopt these documents. DRC, followed by Argentina, then South Africa.

Thank you very much, Chairman, for giving me the floor. I would like to have clarification as to why We should adopt this document as a whole, and then I would like to have clarification as to the time. It's 1:30, and I'd like to know if how long we are supposed to continue this session. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished delegate of DRC. To answer your first question, why should we adopt the document as a whole? First of all, the recommendations are addressed to SUBSTA and they're clean. Recommendations under discussion are those that are addressed to COP. In view of the time, this is our last day, we will not continue discussions on these documents, and the documents that are for discussion at the COP will be sent as is to the COP. So, on that basis, The distinguished delegate of DRC, I'm sure, will understand. And then, how long are we going to be discussing this? If you ask me now, I would say that in the next 20 minutes, so we can adopt all the documents before us, if you can agree. So Perhaps we can adopt all of these documents in the 20 minutes left to us. Thank you. Argentina has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your proposal for a way forward. Unfortunately, due to the establishment of parallel contact groups, my delegation was not able to participate in any of the discussions of this agenda item. As was expressed by a Grulac statement that referred to reaffirming the prerogative of parties to reopen the text in plenary under the current conditions, I will at this time exert that right to reopen the document since I have not been able to participate in any of the discussion. Several comments on the operative paragraphs of the SABSTA recommendation. I will refer first to the recommendation for the Conference of the Parties, because that is a very short comment. I think the annex, since it is going to be provided through review, through a peer review, I think for a standard practice would be to add a bracket at the beginning of the word annex and add a bracket at the end of the annex just to clarify that this is a word that is ongoing and that it is expected that the content will change. As for the, in general, for the recommendation for the Conference of the Parties, I would request that a note be included in the report that parties were not in a position to participate, some parties were not in a position to participate in the discussions of this agenda item in the contact group level, and they retain the prerogative to discuss this matter at COP. And then, if you allow me, I could proceed with my comments regarding the recommendation for SAFSTA. I will mention all of the comments. So first, it would be on paragraph 5. We, unfortunately, are not in a position to agree to this proposed request. We would prefer that the consideration on policy coherence be left for parties to decide, instead of risking the proposal of one-size-fits-all approaches, which might actually result detrimental in the efforts to enhance already existing coherence at a national level. We would, as opposed to this, be agreeable to considering including a call for the national focal points of the conventions that were mentioned to enhance coordination, but this would have to be included under SBI agenda item cooperation with other organizations. Then, on paragraph 6, on the reference to the Paris Agreement, we request that the footnote is included, and it would be the same footnote that was agreed at COP16 in the document, in the decision on biodiversity and climate change. The footnote is there. I could send the Secretariat the document again, but I am very sure they have the document themselves. Then on paragraph 8 and 9, both of those paragraphs, actually, there are several issues here. First of all, they both refer to the three Rio Conventions. So we consider this to be out of scope of this agenda item, which refers to biodiversity and climate change. It is not an agenda item on biodiversity and climate change and the certification. And further, we have heard a lot of comments by colleagues referring to that the discussions we have under this subsidiary body should be on the scientific and technical level, and the paragraphs proposed here referring to implementation, so these paragraphs would be relevant for the subsidiary body of implementation. So our suggestion, and we would be in a position to engage eventually in the discussion on these two paragraphs under the agenda item on cooperation with other organizations that will be discussed in SPI, but not under this agenda item. I think, agreeing with what other colleagues have mentioned, we should focus in this subsidiary body on the specific mandate regarding scientific and technical matters. And this, in our view, could be a discussion that could be had, and we are open to have, on the inclusion of these paragraphs in the subsidiary body of implementation. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Then South Africa, followed by Japan.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, during the contact group, there were a couple of points that were still under discussion. We see, and we hadn't agreed on those points. So we see now they've disappeared on the document. The first is on the COP recommendation, paragraph 6A, line, I think it's line eight. There was still a discussion on the two ways that were removed, that is customary rights, where it reads, including through the recognition of customary rights. So we were still having a discussion there to consider this further, because we raised the point there that in our case, most of our laws that have to do with indigenous people, et cetera, are basically contained in the customary law in South Africa. So this was important, and it was bracketed at the time. The second part is, as part of the discussion, we proposed a paragraph, S6B alt, and we hadn't concluded on that as well. If we remember, there was no discussion on whether we're going to delete this paragraph. And we even went further and mentioned that we were going to relook at how to sort of find the best text that all parties could agree on, and we do have that paragraph still here in our case. So we'd like clarity on why these two sections were omitted in the CRP. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. Now I'm giving the floor to Japan. Before I give the floor to Japan, just to remind you that we have one minute left for translation. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We plan to make an intervention for the sake of saving time in the next COP. So we express our concern on the paragraphs 3 of the draft COP decision, because this is apparently not a scientific and technical one. So Sub-STA has responsibility to distinguish the science findings and other opinions or something whatever. So we hope to make a discussion between next opportunity to discuss this. We don't want to bring this one to the next meeting as it is.

So, yeah, that's all.

Thank you, Japan. Brazil has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be brief. First, we We would like to reiterate the position of Argentina and request the annex be bracketed. And also regarding what a distinguished colleague from South Africa has just said, we don't recall the paragraph six, what was 6A bis out, which was a proposition made by South Africa being deleted. being agreed to be deleted. We don't understand why it isn't in this document. And during the contact group discussions, we had indicated at some point that we wanted to come back to this sub-paragraph and formulate an alternative proposition, which we have done in in cooperation with South Africa, and we have shown bilaterally to some other delegation, and we would like to include this proposition here because we think it would only be fair to share with other delegations so they can consider this new formulation in the discussions. Thank you.

Message from the interpreters: The interpretation services are suspended now. Thank you.

As I said earlier, we lose interpretation and we can't proceed. At this stage, we have to decide, and the decision, i think, that to stop here. If you agree, with me, we can't move on, we can't proceed. Just to remind that if you continue with this route, really, we will be in before the complicated situation, either we lose our interpretation, in that case, we will continue Maybe in English, maybe. It is not my desire, but we try to save time, to find some solution, and I think that we'll be able