Working Group I (4th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Estimados delegados, por favor, tomen sus asientos.

Could you take your seats, please, distinguished delegates?

I will not repeat that in Norwegian. So good morning, delegates. Welcome back. So yesterday we started our consideration of conference room papers and approved three CRPs on the COP. CRP 5 on the mid-term review of the implementation of the Gender Plan of Action, CRP 7 on the clearinghouse mechanism and knowledge management, and CRP 6 on communication, education and public awareness. We also approved COPMOP 6 CRP on compliance. L documents for these four CRPs have now been produced and will be available online shortly. This morning we will continue our consideration of CRPs under COPMOP 6, starting with CRP 3 on monitoring and reporting. As you recall, this item was taken up in this working group on Tuesday, and based on your statements, I prepared a CRP. In my view, this document is a fairly balanced representation of parties' combined views. I would suggest that we, and of course today is casual Friday, right? So, and casually so, everybody being flexible because it's Friday. Happy Friday. I suggest that we try to approve the document as is. However, if we cannot approve the document as is, I would implore you to be as brief and add as little text as possible and just to focus on the must-haves, to call them that, in the document. But that said, my preference would be to adopt it as is. not only because it's casual Friday, but because we have to speed up our work, which was also the message from the President in the Bureau this morning, that we have to... That's a casual mosquito. Sorry. That we have to speed up our work and get rid of as many brackets as possible so we can have items for adoption. So I would suggest that we approve this CRP as is. I see no requests from the floor. It is approved. Sorry, sorry, sorry, South Africa. I see. Sorry. Yeah, I see you. You have the floor. Sorry for going a bit fast.

I'll keep it short and sweet. We support the draft decision and we propose a small addition in paragraph 7C so that the next national reports also capture who receives benefits, including indigenous people and local communities, consistent with the decision on enhancing implementation. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. For the benefit of the room, could you please repeat so we can capture it and then secretaries can read it out loud? Thanks.

So that the next national report also captures who receives benefits, including indigenous people and local communities, consistent with the decision on enhancing implementation.

Thank you, South Africa. Next on my list is India. followed by Cook Islands and Brazil. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. It is really a good document. Only thing is my intervention is to slightly improvise it. So it is on para 7, and it is most of the parties will agree also. So I will read that. Request the Executive Secretary, after this, in consultation with parties. This is one small thing. Normally, it used to be there in the text. This will be a quality addition.

Thank you, India. I think we have it. Cook Islands, you have the floor. Microphone to Cook Islands, please. Microphone to Cook Islands, please. Cook Islands, I see your microphone is red. You may speak. Cook Islands, now you turned it off, I think. So just turn it on again until it shows red, and then you can speak. Okay, so I think Cook Islands was not asking for the floor. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't have a problem with India's suggestion. I would only ask that with regard to 7C, the inclusion by, I think, the delegation of South Africa, it was stated more clearly where exactly in the paragraph that insertion would go. Is it in the end? Is it in the beginning? It wasn't clear to me. And also, if it could be read in dictation speed, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. South Africa, could you point out where you wanted the insertion?

Thank you, Chair. I'll do so in paragraph 7C. It reads, "The need to collect information, including on monetary and non-monetary benefits received, comma, and my insertion is, "the recipients of those benefits, including indigenous peoples and local communities, comma, and the proportion of benefits directed towards the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and then it continues to assess the level of operationalization of access and benefit sharing systems and the effectiveness in achieving the objective of the Nagoya Protocol.

Thank you, South Africa. Brazil, we okay? Yep, thumbs up. All right. I see no more requests from the floor. I think those additions were small and agreeable. So I suggest we approve it. I see no requests. It is approved. Thank you. We will now take up CRP1 on assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol, agenda item 8 of the COP-MOP. As you recall, this CRP was prepared on the basis of SBIR recommendation 7/7, section A. The draft decision contains a number of outstanding issues in the bracketed text. So we will go through this document with the... So I'll take the approach I took yesterday, and that's to approve the paras which has clean text, which means we will approve paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 8 9 10 a 10 C 10 D 11 a 12 15 16 17 22 a to C and 23 and then So I suggest we approve those paras because they are clean. And then we will work on 10b, 11b, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22d, 22e, and 24. So the The paras I read out, which are clean, are hereby approved, and then we will start working on 10B. Right, 10B. Does anyone have a solution for 10B, India? You're on the floor.

Thank you, Chair. My solution is very fast and quick. That is to delete 10B. Because, and I will give my argument points, as the Nagoya Protocol does not specifically require parties to develop such measures. If you see article 15 and 16 that provide for appropriate measures in accordance with national legislation, while article 14 identifies information to be made available through the APS clearinghouse, including additional information that were available and as appropriate, any user guidance should therefore remain voluntary and, where developed, should not create new or additional obligations for the parties. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. Before we go to... No, let's go to Switzerland. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So, we would like to have some clarification on this paragraph. We see some merit, I think, but regarding the terms, so, "usual measures" in our understanding refers to measures that ensure compliance of users, and I think this is not the same as guidelines. So, maybe we could change this to, that it reads, "to develop guidelines for users as appropriate and in accordance," and so on. And then I think this would be very helpful to keep this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. India, if we go in that direction, would that help your problem, as Switzerland suggested, that kind of direction? India, you are the floor.

Can Switzerland read it out again?

Switzerland, please.

So the suggestion would be that it reads to develop guidelines for users as appropriate and in accordance with national measures and to publish them and so on.

Thank you very much, Switzerland, for your constructive approach. I now have the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see quite a lot of duplication with this paragraph and what we see in paragraph 10a, which encourages parties to develop and publish, through the ABS clearinghouse, streamlined step-by-step access and benefit-sharing procedures. That could also be considered in a similar light to providing guidelines. Therefore, our preference would be to delete b and provide a more streamlined approach.

Thank you very much, UK. You are in line with India's preference. We then have the alternative route from Switzerland. Let us hear the European Union and then South Africa. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. We had a very similar comment to the previous speaker. We also see a little bit of repetition here. We believe that actually what is trying to be captured in this para B is already captured in para A. I mean, the reference to access and benefit sharing procedures as approved and in accordance with national legislations and circumstances, we believe it covers quite well also what is trying to be captured here. Since it's already quite a dense and rich document, maybe a little bit of streamlining and harm, so we would also prefer deletion of this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. South Africa, you had the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would not like to remove that paragraph. As we see user measures as the counterpart of provider measures, they are essential for ensuring compliance with prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms when genetic resources are used outside the provider country. So we would prefer to keep it in brackets or to remove the brackets and keep that paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. So in that case, I think we should maybe work on the proposal from Switzerland. Would you be okay with the proposal from Switzerland, South Africa?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we will.

Thank you for your flexibility, South Africa. And now going the other way, I would ask then if India, EU, and UK could be flexible to to accept the formulation from from Switzerland please reflect on that while we hear Malawi Malawi you have the floor.

Thank you chair actually we were going to take the floor just to also support the return of that paragraph, simply because we are responding to the outcomes of the review and identifying solutions to some of the issues that the review identified. We think that this is one of those issues that would help us to respond to some of the gaps identified in that review. We could go along with the Swiss proposal as well. Thanks.

Thank you, Malawi, for your flexibility. Also, European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. So, first, I was going to ask if you could repeat what the proposal from Switzerland is. I think, in principle, we We do not have any problem with the substance; I just want to clarify what is in the draft. As we said and as the colleague from the UK said, there are a bit of repetitions in the document. First, we believe that that is already quite captured in paragraph A, but, if we go further down in the document, there is another paragraph that addresses guidance for users, which is paragraph 14, where there are still some brackets. In principle, we don't object to the substance. We are happy to consider the Swiss proposal. It's just that we would like to see a little bit of less repetitions in the document.

Thank you, EU. But I must return to my introduction, where I said that we have to focus on the must-haves. And if this is not really, really, really critical, I would ask for your indulgence, because we have a lot of stuff to go through. I see your point, but there will be some repetitions and duplications, and we just have to live with that. I think I will ask the Secretary to read it out loud before you take the UK. Secretary, please.

Thank you, Ted. The paragraph would be 10B, and it would read: develop guidelines for users, as appropriate, in accordance with national measures, and to publish them through the EBS clearinghouse. The rest will be as it was before.

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

Thank you. Mr. Co-Chair, I think at the start you perhaps said this was informal Friday, maybe it's also flexible Friday. We can be flexible on this. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. You're indeed showing it is flexible Friday. All right. I think then I see no more requests, so we'll accept, approve, sorry, the formulation from Switzerland. Thank you very much. You do well. So Next para is para 11B, it looks like. India, you have the floor.

Chair, we gave a proposal, but you did not come back to us. But no problem, we will also help to iron you out. we will help you. So we have no issue with the Switzerland proposal. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, India. I'm sorry for not getting back to you and my sister, thanks for helping me ironing. It's appreciated. So 11B, who wants to solve this issue? It's up for grabs. Mexico, you have the floor.

Chair, thank you very much. We support the idea of maintaining this paragraph, and we would propose to include after national records as follows.

In accordance with national circumstances and procedures with the free, prior and informed consent.

Of, and the rest follows.

So agree on, take out the bracket of the protection of confidential information.

We think that it is very important for this in the clearinghouse to have the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples and local communities involved, respecting their decisions about the dissemination of this information. But at the same time, we recognize the national circumstances, given that the legal nature of these instruments and their relationship with national registers may vary depending on the party. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico. So I'm a bit from the get-go. I'm a bit reluctant to introduce new text unless it solves a problem. So I would ask you to hold on to your proposal until I've heard some other delegations here. So then we can consider your proposal. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Honorable Chair. You gave us some ideas yesterday also, if by adding some text, if that is helpful in removing the bracket, you know, you welcome it. And in this case, I also support Mexico's view. We also would like -- I will just read out, if the Chair allows. This is to make such protocols and procedures available through the ABS CH as part of national records where applicable and subject to domestic legislation with prior and informed consent or approval of the indigenous people and local communities. Instead of we can remove that bracket, the idea is like this aligns with article 12 of the Noya protocol the proposed formulation recognizes the role of ipcs and the sharing Community protocols and procedures while ensuring the availability through absch subject to uh domestic legislation and protection of uh information thank you.

Thank you, India. So in that case, and I do see that the formulation in 11B, it says, so I agree, which is not the usual formulation we use. So it needs a little bit more work. So, and I think your suggestion, India, was a bit longer than Mexico's. So if Mexico agrees, I think we can put the Indian language in and then we can see if that covers Mexico's concerns. If that's agreeable, I see nodding from Mexico, so let's try that. So, India, I will have you read out that proposal once again so the Secretariat can capture it. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This is after national records. Now I will read out our formulation. Where applicable and subject to domestic legislation, or we can write national legislation also, with the prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples and local communities consent, then it will go, the bracket will be removed, and without prejudice to the protection of confidential information.

Thank you, India. Mexico, are you happy with this language? I see nodding. I see you here, so I can, that's easy. You can know. Good. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning to everyone. This is just to state that we support the statement that was made by Mexico and the adjustment of the text that was offered by India. We, in our text that we sent in to the Secretariat, had in fact reflected that concern, and Mexico picked it up very well in their text proposal that was sent by Mexico a moment ago. So this is just to fully support those positions and the suggestions by Mexico as improved by India. Thank you.

Thank you, Guatemala. So I think we have it. A great thanks to the triangle, Mexico, India, and Guatemala for ironing this out. All right. Next, we go to para 13. 30, para 13 is about urging parties to use existing tools developed in accordance with article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol and made available through the Access and Benefit Sharing Clearinghouse. So I see no requests here. Can we lift the brackets here? India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We are in favour of lifting the brackets, as the use of existing tools developed under Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol would provide readily available and accessible means for parties and users, rather than requiring the development of new tools. So, we are in favour of lifting the brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support India, because we know community protocols belong to the communities that developed them. The publication should depend on the agreement of those communities, so we are open to lifting those brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. So, I see no opposition against lifting those brackets, so we'll After Mexico, we will see if we can lift those brackets. Mexico, you're up for?

Chair, thank you very much. It's precisely to resolve the issue of these brackets. We also would like to suggest, as we did in the earlier paragraphs, add the words as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and measures. to use relevant tools, because not all of the tools are-- not all existing tools are relevant.

Thank you. So India and South Africa, is there any opposition against adding what Mexico wanted to add? I think was as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances. Morocco, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Morocco supports the statement by Mexico. Morocco also suggests to replace urges by encourages so that the twin because the article 19 and 20 already provide for voluntary tools. Thank you.

Morocco, thank you. But so can I ask you because I don't want to change text unless I really, really have to. Do you have a big problem with the with urges? No, for non.

No, it's simply a proposal.

Thank you, Morocco. So I understand you're flexible. So in that case, I think we will keep urges because I don't want to make tax changes because it might create some difficulties. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We were okay with lifting the brackets. in the state that the paragraph was in, but we heard there was a new proposal from Mexico. We were not able to capture it clearly exactly where in the paragraph the proposal is meant. So maybe if it could be repeated so that we can reflect on it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Malawi. So Mexico, could you please read out loud your proposal once again? Thank you.

See, after this, comma, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and measures to use of relevant existing tools developed in accordance with articles 19 and 20 of Nagoya Protocol and the rest of the text. Thank you.

Thank you. Mexico? So I ask that the room reflects on whether the text we have now, as read out by Mexico, is acceptable to all. In the meantime, Djibouti, you have the floor. Microphone to Djibouti, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. We support the statement by Mexico. except for the word "relevant", because some information can be relevant for a party and not for another. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Deputy. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's just a simple request for the Secretariat if they could read the new paragraph, since there were were several amendments, and we are not sure we have captured them well.

Indeed, European Union. Secretariat, can you please read the para as it reads now with Mexico's insertions?

So the paragraph would read, "Purchase parties, as appropriate, and in accordance with national circumstances and measures, to use relevant existing tools developed in accordance with article 19 and 20 and will continue as it was.

Thank you, secretariat. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. We could accept the proposal by Mexico, but we agree with GBD that we could delete relevant, because we already say it as appropriate in accordance with national circumstances. So I think we can't just complicate the text for the sake of complicating it. So perhaps we could just have that without relevant. Thank you.

Thank you, Mala. So what you're saying is very casual enough as it is. So I tend to agree with you, I think. So I think we're close. Let's hear Cote d'Ivoire. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. I also support the proposal by Mexico, as well as the proposal made by Djibouti regarding the word "relevant". Thank you.

Thank you. So, I lost the Secretariat to read out aloud the sentence as it would read. and without the word relevant. Thank you.

So it would read, "Orchestrate parties as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and measures to use existing tools developed in accordance with Articles 19 and 20 and would continue.".

So I think we're there. I see all are happy or unequally unhappy, depending. Okay, it's good. Nice work. Thank you. This para is approved. And for the sake of clarity, also the previous para we worked on. Good. So now we go to para 40, which has some brackets. This one is about inviting parties to continuing to engage indigenous peoples and local communities, user organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes. Yeah, so I see the first set of brackets are basically alternatives. So let me open the floor for people that want to do some ironing here. I see no one wants to, but you know, we need an icebreaker. European Union, thank you.

Good morning again. Well, I think we did good progress here, and maybe we have a chance now to further clean a little bit this paragraph, since we have just approved the previous one, who uses parties to use existing, or encourages parties to use existing tools. Maybe here we can try to delete the part that makes reference to making use of such tools. and just remove the brackets around developing such tools as those provided in articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol. And then maybe we could also delete the part that makes reference to making them available to access and benefit sharing clearing house and the part in brackets that says by continuing to develop the tools and make them so we can just streamline a little bit the text.

So, I'm told by the Secretariat that we needed you to read it for the benefit of us all, the European Union. Thank you.

I will read it.

Invites parties to continue to engage indigenous peoples and local communities, user organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes in accordance with national circumstances, and encourages users, organizations and networks to continue to facilitate user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements, including by developing such tools as those provided in Articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol, and by making the tools available through the ABS to give access to benefit sharing clearinghouse.

Thank you, European Union. And now for the sake of the translators and the secretariat, because I heard some intensive typing, I would ask you to read it out once again a little bit slower. Thank you.

With pleasure.

Invites parties to continue to engage indigenous peoples and local communities, users organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes in accordance with national circumstances and encourages user organizations and networks to continue to facilitate user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements, including by developing such tools as those provided in articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol and by making the tools available through the access and benefit sharing clearing house.

Thank you very much, European Union, for that excellent suggestion. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I hear the proposal from the European Union. By and large, we are in agreement, but we had a slightly different text proposal to lift the bracket. May I read?

Thank you. So which brackets did you want to lift?

That is all the brackets from making to in and again another bracket starting with the end to the clearing house. And the third one is all the three brackets.

All right, India, let us hear it.

Thank you. Shall I start reading from the start? From the start of the...

From including by. Thank you.

Okay. Okay, I will start after including. Through the use as appropriate of tools developed under Article 19 and 20 of Nagoya Protocol and where available, That amendment is accessible through the accessibility charity, Play Disability.

Thank you, India. That was short and sweet. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that this is a real example of where we have almost exact duplication between the paragraph above it as well. Our suggestion would be to streamline the provision even further. It would read, from the start, that it invites parties to continue to engage indigenous peoples and local communities, user organisations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit-sharing processes in accordance with national circumstances. and encourages user organisations and networks to continue to, and here we would have one change, it would be to support user compliance rather than facilitate. I don't think in all circumstances it could necessarily facilitate user compliance. So to support user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements, including through the approaches within paragraph 14 above.

Thank you, UK. I am hesitant to touch the clean language in this para. I understand that you come from a streamlining point of view, but as I told the EU, there is some duplication that I think we have to live with at this stage, unfortunately. But let's see if other suggestions are in the same direction, and then we can see what we can do. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We had wanted to comment on the EU proposal, but since then, there have been two additional proposals. And in our view, the EU one is the one closest to what we already had. And I think we do not have maybe enough time in here to reflect on the new ones. I think we could go along with the EU proposal. The only word missing was after developing to include and using, because we just, this, this, uh, paragraph was not just about development, but also making sure that those tools are used. And so the EU proposal is closest to what we already had. The only element that was missing is where we have developing the input and using such tools. And then I think we could live with the rest of the EU proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Malavi. So I would ask India if it would be flexible on accepting the EU proposal after hearing Malavi. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We can show some flexibility, no problem, as long as it is referring to the previous paragraphs. But I would like to hear once again, then it will be helpful for us to make our mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretary. If you could read out the EU proposal once again, thank you.

So, paragraph 14, the first part would remain the same without changes. So, I start from including by. Including by developing and using such tools as those provided in Articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol, and by making the tools available through the ABS Clearinghouse.

Thank you, Secretariat. India, is that acceptable to you? You have the floor.

In this paragraph, this is all about usage, so only the word "developing" I don't know whether it will go with this para.

So we'll come back to that. So let's hear Guatemala first, because they've been waiting for the floor for quite some time. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. This is just to support the proposal made by the EU. And we consider that the concern of India is already captured in the text in the fourth line. It says, "including by developing and using." So just to make that point for the distinguished delegate of India, we believe that their valid concern, we agree with it, is already covered in the paragraph. And I must say that we can support the text as was read out by the Secretary. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. I see some nodding from India, so I think that's fine. And okay, we are there. Thank you very much. This paragraph is approved. Next shirt to iron out is 18. request the ES to propose indicators of sufficient practical experience that would trigger reconsideration of compliance procedures and mechanisms at the future meeting of the COP, serving as the meeting of the parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Right. Can we lift the brackets around para 18? No, we cannot. Can we delete the para? We can delete the para. Is there, so there are Guatemala, you don't want to delete the para? No. So let's work on the problem. And Guatemala, you can, you may work on the problem now. You have the floor.

Thank you very much. No, we would prefer not to delete it. It's an important paragraph. We must make progress on indicators within the framework of the Nagoya Protocol. Plus, we have an addition that we'd like to offer in the first line after to propose.

Qualitative and quantitative indicators. After a proposed qualitative and quantitative. Thank you.

Thank you, Guatemala. So, thank you, Guatemala. So, I just ask the secretariat to provide some context to para 18 before we go to Argentina. Secretariat, please.

Thank you. I just wanted to provide some context. This is not about indicators to measure effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. This paragraph talks about indicators to understand when there is enough information to change the compliance procedures and mechanism. So that's decision 1/4 of the compliance procedures of the compliance committee. And just to bear in mind that the review of the compliance procedures and mechanism according to this decision 1.4 is to be done in the context of assessment and review. So the third assessment and review will consider again the review of the compliance procedures and mechanism, and there will be an opportunity to discuss if this needs to be modified or are still we can still work with decision 1/4. I hope that helps.

Thank you, Secretary. Let's see. Argentina, you have the floor. No, you're full. Okay, good. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Ted. In order to lift the bracket, we have a proposal. I will read it out. The alternate text. It will go like this. Request the executive secretary to propose. Here it is not indicator. It is the criteria for determining sufficient practical experience. Then to inform consideration of the possible reconsideration of the complaints procedures and mechanisms at a future meeting of the Conference of Parties, serving as the meeting of the parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Because the justification is any future consideration of the complaints procedures and mechanisms is informed by sufficient practical experience and party-driven assessment. rather than employing an automatic trigger for their consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, India. Thank you very much. So I'll take a couple of more interventions and then I'll propose how we proceed because here we might have a difficulty. I think South Africa, you had the floor.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa can support paragraph 18 and supports the removal of the brackets around paragraph 19. The rationale is, as paragraph 17 notes, the limited number of cases does not in itself constitute evidence of compliance. Understanding why the procedures are not used will help parties make better use of the facilitative role of the Compliance Committee. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. And also, to make you aware, there's a message from the interpreters to please remove your headsets while you are speaking, otherwise it affects the sound. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor.

Japan suggests the deletion of paragraph 18.

It is difficult to objectively define and assess what constitutes sufficient practical experience.

Developing indicators for such an abstract concept would not be a meaningful approach, and Japan questions the practical value of developing such indicators for this purpose.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. Precisely, and with the context from the Secretary in paragraph 17 and 18, actually are contradictory because 17 says that we do not have experience, practical experience with the compliance procedures. whereas in 18 we want to propose indicators. So I would, we would prefer to take out or delete paragraph 18.

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

Thank you very much. Chair, Morocco would like to suggest that we add a reference here after request the executive secretary add here in consultation with the committee responsible for obligations respecting obligations.

Thank you very much, Morocco. So my approach now, I will hear the two remaining parties that ask for the floor, and then I will suggest an approach to resolve this one, probably in a small group. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. It was a question back to the secretariat for further clarity, in fact. I really wondered whether the additional indicators were required for the third assessment and review, whether there was a gap there that was needed.

There's a problem with the UK mic.

We should also look at it within the context.

Sorry, UK, there's a problem with your mic, I am told by the interpreters. It's not a problem of the mic, it is that the headset is close to the mic.

The headset appears to be too close to the microphone.

Oh, so the problem is that the headset is too close to the mic, so that's what caused the... So, please try again, UK, sorry.

I hope that that is better for the interpreters. The question that I was proposing back to the secretariat was whether there was a gap and a need for those indicators in order to undertake the third assessment and review. and then, further, we should look at it in combination with paragraph 19 as well, because there are actions within that paragraph that work in co-ordination with the compliance committee looking at the reasons for which compliance with procedures and mechanisms under the protocol have not been triggered. Perhaps looking at them as a package might be helpful.

Thank you, Kay. I think that correlates with my thinking right now from the podium to look at them as a package. And then I think we need to solve it in a small group instead of spending time here in this big room. Let's take Norway and then Malawi, and then I think we'll settle for a small group. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. There have been a lot of interventions. So we would like to echo what Mexico said, that the two parts, 17 and 18, they kind of stand against each other. And also that what the Secretariat informed us provided a lot of clarity. So we'll see what happened with the with the PARAs, but that information from the Secretariat should be included somehow in the decision to make us sure what is actually proposed. So maybe a footnote or something, but we understand that we will come back to the PARAs. So yeah, that's Oh, thank you.

Thank you, Nore. Malabi, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Our reading of the two paragraphs is that this were responding to the findings with regards to the work of the compliance committee. And from the reports, we saw that one of the issues or the gaps that was identified was that the compliance procedures and mechanisms were not triggered through submissions. And there were other issues that came as findings of the work of the compliance committee. So these two paragraphs are actually trying to find solutions to address some of those findings. And I do get it in this room that for some parties, these solutions are not the right solutions. And so I think we would really want to hear from them what they feel would be the best solutions. Like we said earlier on, every time we conduct a review is so that we can make improvements to the processes that we have. It's not just to state facts that this is the situation. And these two paragraphs do try to give us a solution on how to improve. And if the solution is not the right one, then we would urge the parties that feel this solution is not the right one, at least to propose how we can address those gaps that were identified. Thank you.

Thank you. So, good. I don't think this is very, you know, very difficult, but it's a bit complicated, I think. And I think what I will do is to set down a small group of interested parties that will work on cleaning para 18 and 19, because they both deal with requests to the executive secretary. And I think it's a good idea that the secretariat also takes part in those, in the deliberational small group to inform about the technicalities, basically. Okay, so, and Malawi. Can I trust your... Will you be willing to take on the leadership in this small group? And the idea is then to report back to Working Group 1 here in about one hour. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would, but I think we would also want to see if there is time. Depending on the time, then I think we would be able to make a decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Malawi. I think there should be time because we have, it's 10 past 11, so we're one hour in and we still have two more, right? So there should be time. And we also have HJ items, so we can be flexible in how we, when we report back in and approve the document as a whole. So But thank you for your willingness to do that. I suggest that we continue working on the document, and then after we have seen if there are some other difficulties in the document, I might also ask the group to work on some other issues as well, for us to be effective. Does that sound okay to you, Malawi?

Yeah, we are happy to facilitate discussions on paragraph 18 and 19, maybe not additional ones. Thank you.

Thank you, Malawi, also for that clear message. Right, so I think we'll, instead of breaking and losing time, we'll just continue with para 20, and then we'll set the small group to work a bit later, which will be led by Malawi. Yeah, so, and regarding this small group. I will invite those parties that took the floor to join the small group, but it's open to other interested parties as well. Right, so now we go to para 20, which is in brackets. It's about establishing a party-driven intercessional process to advance the development of the modalities of the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism under Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. So here, and sorry about this, but so on this one, the multilateral mechanism So, sorry about that, but we have, and we're being dynamic, but we have processes going on, and I've also established a contact group on Article 10, or the Nagoya Protocol, and there's a non-paper out. So my preference, from a procedural point of view, would be that this text is discussed under that non-paper and not here in this paper. So that would be my preference because the non-paper is out and will be discussed in the contact group. So my suggestion would be that those, the proponents of this language, which was proposed in the past, right, is now brought into the discussion of the non-paper in the contact group of Article 10. As an effect, I ask that we delete this para and that we take note and that the group as well is informed, the contact group is informed about this particular para 20, which is in brackets. So I will make them or the secretariat will make them aware of this language to be discussed in the contact group. So that would be my approach. Is that agreeable to the room? So, I see hands, but, okay, so I want now reactions on my explanation and my proposal to delete the text. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we can go along with that proposal. As you said, we have a non-paper on article 10, and we have an entire agenda item on that. It makes a lot of sense to move our discussions on that topic into one place, so we can support your proposal.

Thank you, Yuka. Egypt is on the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with your proposal, but if other participants like to discuss it, we need to shorten it to a great extent. You don't need to make a reference to all of the decisions that go back to almost 14 years ago, 10 years ago, whatever. So we can stop, just add a new protocol and force line if there is a need for that. But we agree with you to delete it for the time being. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt, and I fully agree on your approach because you also took the decision and called it to our shorter, well, more succinct decisions. Okay, Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We do support your proposal and we feel it also affects even paragraph 21. Thank you.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. And also thank you for reminding me about 21, which actually is linked to the previous ones. So thank you. So then in case both those paras would then be considered by the contact group. We'll have to see if there are some elements that should remain, because I haven't thought that through, but I guess other delegations will help out with that. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I was also just going to support your approach, not duplicate these and delete these paragraphs. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For now, we prefer to keep the paragraphs while we wait for the discussions in the contact group. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. I'll hear South Africa, Malawi and EU before I come back to you, Brazil. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I was just going to support Brazil, that we keep the text, even if it's in brackets for now, until this matter is resolved in the contact group. Thank you.

Right, so I ask you please to lower your flags, because now we've heard that some ones are okay with deleting and referring it to the contact group on Article 10, others want to keep it until now, right? So I think we need to just keep it here until now, and then we move on. So I ask you please to lower your flags because that's what we'll do. Thank you. So the paras 20 and 21 will stay until further notice. Then we go to para 21D. which also deals with Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol, but from a different angle. I see Mexico, the icebreaker for 21D. Thank you. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. On this paragraph, we propose that we keep only the first part. up until, so the need to assess progress towards operationalization of Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol and take out the rest of the paragraph beginning with the experience of the multiannual mechanism all the way to the end. This is because we think that it's important to evaluate the progress for the implementation because it is a provision in the Nagoya Protocol. However, the World Mechanism on DSI and the Cali Fund were established within the framework of the Convention and they have their own follow-up and evaluation, monitoring and follow-up systems. This would help us to avoid duplication and it would help us to maintain the focus of the review on the review and efficiency or effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol.

That you want to have a full stop after information on genetic resources, is that true? So not to have a reference to the Calla you fund. Can you repeat, please?

Yes, well. There would be a period after the Nagoya Protocol. Full stop after Nagoya Protocol.

Right. Sorry. Yes, so it would read the need to assess progress towards operationalization of Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol, full stop. Good. It's short and sweet. Let's see what Argentina says. Argentina, you had the floor.

Gracias.

Chair, thank you very much. We think that we have to align the drafting or the wording of the subparagraph more with paragraph 10, and we'd like to delete the reference to "towards operationalization" and replace this by "in consideration of the modalities of the global mechanism of Article 10 so that it reads as follows:.

In the consideration of the need.

For and as appropriate the modalities of the global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism of Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I think we have it. Argentina, please repeat.

Yes, it would read as follows.

In the consideration of the need.

For, and as appropriate, the modalities of the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism of Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol.

Thank you, Argentina. I think we have it. South Africa, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to remove the brackets and keep the reference to the MLM and the Cali Fund, because the third assessment and review should take into account the wider access and benefit sharing landscape in which the Protocol now operates. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. European Union, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We were quite happy to support your approach proposed before to address paragraph 20 and 21, and we were going to suggest that this small d goes together with following that approach into the discussions that we are having now under the contact group on Article 10, because we believe that relates more to the discussion there. We hope that we cannot duplicate discussions and work, so we had found more appropriate to move this type of discussions into Article 10. Now, I understand that you have proposed to keep those two paragraphs in brackets, so we would suggest to keep this one in brackets as well. with all the inclusions like they are at the moment without additional changes. Thank you very much.

Thank you, European Union. I think that's a sensible approach because we have discussions on Article 10 ongoing. at this meeting. So I think I see that we will have a resolve in the end, but that depends on the development of the discussions on Article 10. So I think that's a sensible approach. And as it looks now, we will keep the brackets on those three paragraphs that are linked to Article 10. which will be discussed in the other contact group, but not in this room, for this item. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We do see that paragraphs above, 20 and 21, would depend on discussions on article 10, but this paragraph wouldn't. because this paragraph is talking about future review of the Nagoya Protocol, which includes assessing the operationalization of the Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. So that could be informed by the outcomes of the discussions that happen in the discussions under Article 10, but still you would still need to make it part of the review of the whole Nagoya Protocol. So for this paragraph, It's not dependent on the discussions of the Article 10, because it's really looking at each and every article of Nagoya Protocol that needs to undergo the review of assessment. So we feel that this is still something that needs to be discussed in the context of the review of the mechanism. Thank you. And we can keep it there, and we agree with South Africa to maintain the last part, because they relate to target 13, and also they do affect access and benefit sharing in general, for which we would need to review and assess the effectiveness. Thank you.

Thank you, Malawi. I think, but In the light of the comments of the EU, I think this also needs to stay in brackets, and then we'll look at it at a later stage. Because I can sense that there is some reluctance and sensitivities of dealing with language concerning Article 10 in this room right now. So I think we'll leave the brackets on D, and then I will then encourage the contact group on Article 10 in context of the non-paper also to discuss these aspects if relevant to those discussions. They are not always relevant, because sometimes, you know, that Sometimes text can be cleaned up after there is resolve in one issue, and then there will be resolve here as well. So that it, we leave with the brackets. Please lower your flags, and then we go to letter E, so 22E. I now open the floor for 22E. Who wants to iron out this para? Or clean even. You can use a brush. No appetite.

All right.

Right so um I suggest that we we uh uh lift the brackets to clean it in that way see if we uh that is acceptable to the room I see no one asking for the floor. So lifting the brackets would mean that the text in brackets would be accepted. Uganda, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Uganda suggests that we lift the brackets, but we add in the last sentence, before legislative, it's existence of national, legislative, administrative and policy measures.

Thank you.

Thank you, Uganda. Once again, please. Uganda, please repeat.

The proposal is to include in the last sentence in addition to the existence of the national legislative, administrative and policy measures. So we are introducing the national aspect.

Thank you, Uganda. We have it. Okay, good. So I see, I think this is agreeable to the room. Therefore, it is approved with the insertion by Uganda. Thank you very much. Last para is para 24. It requests the ES to compile on the basis of the second assessment information on provisions on Nagoya Protocol. for which limited and no limited or no implementation experience has been uh reported uh can we lift the brackets on para 24 European Union.

Apologies, Mr. Chair. I would like to go back for a moment to small e. We were having a little bit of reflection here on the last suggestions to have national, which is not problematic at all. It's just to flag that in the EU we also have regional legislative, administrative and policy measures. So we had thought that with no qualifiers, this would cover also the regional measures with the qualifier. I mean, we don't object, but just to flag that we would have preferred to have no qualifiers there. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. But you see, yeah, I can see that you can interpret it to accommodate your situation. Thank you very much. So 24, I see no one objecting to lifting the rackets. Oh, you are. Okay, sorry. Do you want to say something in that regard? No. Yes, no.

I mean, we struggled to see the added value of this paragraph. And I mean, I know we should only flag red lines, but the text is already quite dense. We really struggle to see the added value of this one. So we would prefer to delete it.

Good. With that, can we take the opposite approach by deleting this para? Norway, please lower your flags and I will give you the floor after. Is there any opposition? South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Transboundary situations are common in Africa, where genetic resources and traditional knowledge are often shared across borders. This paragraph is very important. Compilation would also inform the work under Article 10, so we would prefer to remove the brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. From, I know we see there are different regional views on this one as well, which is natural when it comes to the Nagoya Protocol on these border situations. Norway, I will give you the floor next because I cut you off, and then we'll take more interventions. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As this para considers transboundary situations, and that in our understanding is relevant for Article 10, Could maybe we have the same suggestion as to consider this para in the contact group for Article 10? Thank you.

Thank you, Nora, for that suggestion. I think we'll reflect a little bit on that. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just to support South Africa in retaining this paragraph. And also just to state that we are really surprised when we say that any discussion with regards to Article 10 should be taken under the discussions of Article 10. Yet, this agenda item is on the review of effectiveness of the whole Nagoya Protocol. And we have discussed issues of compliance and agenda items of compliance. And here we are looking at the review of the compliance and making recommendations. We've had agenda items on clearing house mechanisms, but when we look at the review, we look at the whole Nagoya Protocol in its totality. So here we are saying on the basis of the review, we would like to have further work done with regards to transboundary issues. in the context of the review. So we really don't understand when we move everything to the agenda item on Article 10 as if it's not part of the discussions of the Nagoya Protocol. So I think we still want to retain this paragraph in here. Thank you.

Thank you, Malawi. And I think I tend to agree with you that it's not all connected to Article 10. I see there's a lot of asks for the floor. So I'm wondering if we can actually just lift the brackets on this para. I think that might be the way forward. So let's hear Zimbabwe. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We do support the lifting of the brackets and maintaining of the paragraph because, yes, as you rightly also alluded to, it includes aspects of item 10, but you can see that even item 11, which is not in the context of to do with cooperation, might be also contributing to ineffectiveness of the protocol. So we need the power to be maintained and we support the removal of brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. So there's a quite long speakers list and we don't have much time, so I will have to shortcut this a bit. I'm sorry, but so is there any opposition on lifting the brackets? Please just raise your hand if there's opposition. I see opposition. Yes, thank you. So that my sometimes opposition makes my life easier. That's a good thing. But it only means that the brackets will stay until now. Some are of the view that it is connected to article 10, some are of the view that it is not necessarily connected to article 10 and the discussions on that. It's a sensitivity issue, so we will leave the brackets on this one. And then I want to come back to the article 18 and 19, led by Malawi. 42. There's still some time. yeah there's still at least one hour to go so I would ask you then to All right. Yeah, okay. Sorry about that. So the small group led by Malawi on para 20 and 21, no, sorry, 18 and 19, can meet. I suggest you meet in the back of the room. And I will give you like one hour, I think, from now to resolve it. I am generous and in a good mood. So, yeah. So one hour to clean paragraphs 18 and 19. So, and to repeat, any parties interested and presumably those parties that took the floor on 18 and 19. So I'll give you one hour to clean that para. If you are done before that, that's great. And you can keep just keep me abreast on how we are doing time-wise. All right, so which means now we'll change items, so we'll go to the next item. And that's this one. which is enhancing the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. So we'll now begin our discussion on CRP2 on enhancing the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol under agenda item 9 of the COP MOP. And this agenda item consists of three sub items, 9A, capacity building and development and awareness raising, 9B, the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse and information sharing, and 9C, the protocol in the context of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including goal C and target 30. See. Yeah. Okay. So here there's a lot of clean plain text. So I suggest we approve the clean, the whole of the document except para 1C and 4D. Sorry. Except para 2C and 4D. That was too Friday casual, I think. And as well, I have a bad hair day, just so you know. Okay, so. Then the whole of the document is approved except part 2C and 4D. So we'll now go to 2C first. India, you have the floor. Microphone to India, please.

Thank you, Chair. We are for removing the reference to Article 10 here. You know, we are we. Why we are suggesting is as it addresses a distinct issue from national capacity, capacity building, the proposed changes can better reflect national ABS procedures, information requirements and the monitoring of genetic resource utilization. So it is not fitting here.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would like to, Japan would like to delete the reference to Article 10 as well. This Article 10 is about the consideration of the global multilateral mechanism, and then it This does not fit in this paragraph talking about the strengthening of the capacity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. European Union.

Thank you, Chair. I want to agree with the distinguished delegates from India and Japan to delete the reference to Article 10 in this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. South Africa.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa would like to retain the reference to article 10 and remove the brackets consistent with the intercessional process proposed in paragraphs 20 and 21. And we'd also like to amend as follows, but just before I get there, Just to remind everyone that the second assessment and review identified gaps in the capacity to value, monitor and report on benefits which are needed both for national systems and for reporting under Goal C of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. So our addition or amendment is after negotiating mutually agreed terms, comma, valuing, monitoring and reporting on monetary and non-monetary benefits, supporting indigenous people and local communities in developing and implementing community protocols, and then it continues, and ensuring compliance in accordance with. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah. South Africa, so I hear your proposal, but this is coming from SBI and is agreed text. And I put in place guidance that says just a new text as long as it solves a problem. I think from my perspective, this might introduce an element that would need to be negotiated, which we strictly don't have time for. So I beg your indulgence to be flexible on this issue because we have to have the same practice across both working group one and working group two. And I think delegates have been quite, quite diligent in following the procedures and I have to follow them myself because I took part in, in actually developing that guidance myself. So if I, if I would allow that language in, I would make, violate my own procedures, which I'm not, do not want to do. even though it's casual Friday. So I beg your indulgence, South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. No, I will be flexible as long as my mentioning of retaining Article 10 in there and the request to remove the brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. Yes, indeed, I hear that. And because this deals with the Article 10 as well, I think the wisest thing we can do is to just let it stay as is. There is someone once referenced Article 10. others as India and European Union wants to delete it. I think this is pending the development on the discussions of article 10. So I think we'll move on. Therefore, please lower your flags and we will go to the next paragraph. Uganda, do you have a statement to make? I will give you the floor or a point of order.

No, just, Chair, I wanted to still say something about that paragraph, because when you look at the heading up there, it is about capacity building and development and awareness, and I think at this point, we need to be looking at this Article 10 in that context, because we are building capacity. So referring it to the discussion elsewhere, I think, would not be appropriate. And I would support the removal of square brackets under this, like South Africa and others have said. Thank you.

So, again, is there opposition against the proposal from Uganda to lift the brackets? I see opposition. Confirming opposition, that's what I'm doing. So, I'm just checking. Yes. So, So Uganda, I'm sorry, but there is still divergent of use, so it still needs to be in brackets. So good. Saudi Arabia, on that very thing, I think we have the article 10 will stay in brackets and we'll move on, but you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Saudi Arabia proposes a different formula to pinpoint and refer the articles in accordance with Nagoya's protocol of relevance.

Instead of pinpointing or referring to all the articles. Maybe this proposal would be acceptable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. But at this point in time, I don't think I want to introduce or allow new text proposals in, because I don't think that will resolve this very specific problem on Article 10, which we have. And the only problem we have in this para is the brackets around paragraph 10. Otherwise, it's clean text. So I don't think we might actually create a bigger problem if we start working on that text. So we'll move on to the next set of brackets in para 4D, which relates to the BBNJ Agreement. Can we lift the brackets in D? Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, indeed, we can lift the bracket. But normally, whenever we talk about collaboration and cooperation, we mean synergies. So we are repeating it. So it will be much better to promote synergy straight away. Anyway, This is not acceptable. Let us remove the bracket. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. I think the reason why it has cooperation and collaboration is that that's the objective of the BBNJ agreement. So I think that's why that language is in there in addition to synergies. But let me hear. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regards to this article, we support Egypt's position vis-a-vis this article, and we also support removal of brackets without.

Referring to the BBMG agreement.

Thank you.

Sorry, I just had to capture it, but I understand. You want to not single out the BBNJ agreement. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair. If the amendment was to be specific to BBNJ or if BBNJ was to be listed in it, we would prefer to see a slight change in the paragraph. Instead of referring to multilateral environmental agreements, it would be more accurate, from our point of view, to refer to relevant international agreements and organisations. I take the point, however, that looking at co-operation, collaboration and synergies across different agreements beyond just BBNJ could be beneficial, so we could go with that. However, we would prefer to see international agreements and organisations, instead of multilateral environmental agreements, to capture that. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. And please, all delegates, put your headsets quite far away from the mic while you are speaking because the sound travels and causes problems for the interpreters. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We could be flexible. about what was just mentioned about including international agreements, but we would leave here multilateral environment. We would like to keep the reference to BBNJ. We believe it's important to strengthen cooperation and collaboration with other multilateral instruments, and in particular, the BBNJ does consider just and equitable benefits derived from marine genetic resources. So it's an opportunity for an exchange of experience and lessons learned. Therefore, we'd like to keep this reference. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'll now give the floor to Argentina. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We think that certain agreements should be mentioned where it says such as, and then we direct action in a certain direction. So we prefer to take out the reference to BBNJ. We think that it's important in such a cooperation guide that we should respect the respective mandates of each of the agreements. And in this sense, we'd like to add the following phrase about benefit sharing in line three. So it would say.

Sharing while taking into consideration their respective mandates and scopes.

Thank you, Argentina. That's duly noted while taking into account our mandates and scopes. I think I can see where this is going now. We're building a list. I hope it will not develop into a Christmas tree. So Let us hear Uganda first, and then let's see how we will proceed. Uganda, you have the floor.

I thank you, co-chair. Just looking at the reference of listing, and I think I agree with those parties that are saying we may not have, actually, we don't have to do this because we could be leaving out other agreements also that are very important to other parties, but they're not here. And so if it is doesn't mention a specific one, but the text is clear, then interpretation will be at the national level to see which one you can actually bring on board when you're implementing this protocol. Thank you.

Thank you, Yugandha. So before hearing Zimbabwe. No, let's hear Zimbabwe first, and then because it's just Zimbabwe left, and then I'll tell you what my suggested approach will be. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We do support the lifting of the bracket, but we are realizing that maybe the challenge is on the listing. So why don't we free the rest of the text up to multilateral agreements, then if we are to mandate a bracket, let it start with the listing there from the such as. Thank you.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. And that was exactly my trust as well or idea. So I think for the sake of not building lists, because I think there is a point that there are other multilateral environment agreements that address access and benefit sharing as well. And there are a range of them. The BBNJ is just one of them. We have the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources. We do have the pandemic treaty, right? So we have also a range of other international instruments that actually do address access and benefit sharing. So I would suggest that we follow the suggestion from Saudi Arabia to make a full stop after addressing access and benefit sharing. So if the word to promote cooperation, collaboration and synergy among the secretariats, a relevant multilateral environmental agreement addressing access and benefit sharing, full stop. So I would ask your flexibility Uh, to, to, uh, to go along, uh, with that, um, uh, I see, uh, EU first, you, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. I also want to underline that we are flexible, but I just want to mention what would be our preference here. So, we would prefer to go with the proposal made by the UK, so to change the wording into relevant international agreements and organisations. And we would also prefer to keep BBNJ within this paragraph, but we also see that here are divergent views, so we could be flexible on this as well. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union, for your flexibility. UK, you have the floor.

Like the EU, we can be flexible and drop the second part of that paragraph, but we would like to see the reference that we inserted on international agreements and organisations, or international agreements and frameworks. We think that that is more encompassing and would allow us to take more into account than multilateral environmental agreements.

Can I have the Secretariat read out the para as it would read, which would be the Saudi Arabian proposal and the proposal from the UK? Secretariat, please.

Thank you. So for paragraph 4C, I have to promote cooperation, collaboration, and synergy among the secretariats of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, relevant international agreements and organizations addressing access and benefit sharing. Full stop.

Thank you, secretariats. And while you reflect on that language, I will hear Argentina. Argentina, you have the floor.

Gracias.

Chair, thank you very much. We made a proposal, a text proposal, five minutes ago. I don't see it reflected in what was just read out, while taking into consideration the respective mandates and scopes, you will recall. We would appreciate it if it could be added to the proposal that was just read out. Thank you.

Yeah, sorry, Argentino. That was an omission from my side. I'm very sorry. We'll read it out again, but with your addition. Thank you.

So 4D, to promote cooperation, collaboration, and synergy among the secretariats of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, relevant international agreements and organizations, addressing access and benefit sharing while taking into consideration their respective mandates and scopes. Full stop.

Thank you, Secretariat. Argentina, are you content with that flowering language? Yes, I see nothing. Good. Guatemala, you had the floor.

Chair, thank you very much. We'd like to support the amendments made by the UK. We also accept what was proposed by Argentina. And we would like to make a suggestion that I hope will be supported, but if there's opposition, then we withdraw it. This gives an activity that the Executive Secretary is supposed to develop, and that is to promote the synergy, collaboration with those multilateral agreements, relevant organizations. But we would like to have a reference here where the Secretariat would inform at an upcoming meeting of the Nagoya Protocol about the agreements and the synergy that has been achieved with these organizations. Therefore, at the end of the paragraph, as was written up by the secretariat, we would finish it in the following way.

Of those cooperation agreements in a future meeting to the COPMOP of the Nagoya Protocol.

The idea being that we could then become familiar with the progress that has been achieved in terms of these cooperation agreements and synergy with multilateral agreements associated with genetic resources and benefit sharing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Guatemala. So can I just check then, because Guatemala signaled flexibility, if there's any opposition against that proposal. Please raise your hand if there is opposition. I don't see any hands, but yes, I see a hand. I see two hands. Good. So you don't, if you wanted to flag opposition, you don't have to take the floor, but I think Egypt might be interested in taking the floor. Is that correct? Egypt, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Shreya. I think you are complicating the whole things. This paragraph deal with synergy. among blah, blah, blah. Having said that, and all of us we know in each COP, the issue of synergy come, whether it's from COP17 or from MOPs or whatever, and the same thing for other organization and the agreement as well. So make reference now to the synergy and that's it, that deal with benefit sharing. But if you start talking about the next one, which is going to be in January, so what? They haven't even until now decided where the headquarter of this agreement or convention will be. I mean, they still will start. They will need us. So Please don't complicate things. We agreed that the whole issue is about synergy or cooperation, whatever, that deal with the benefit sharing. This is the way how I see it. After all, the executive secretary have to do many, many, many things, which is too much. You are asking too much from executive secretary. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. I do have a tendency to complicate things on Friday. European Union, you are the.

Thank you, Chair. And it was not an opposition, but I think I need to improve my signs and hand signs here. I just wanted to indicate that our understanding is that the Secretariat is already doing this and reporting about cooperation. But could we please get a clarification on this, maybe from the Secretariat, so we can solve this issue and also the paragraph? Thank.

Thank you, European Union. So, but I think there was opposition from Egypt on that very last addition, if I interpret Egypt right, and I see nodding. So I don't think we need to entertain that idea because we are talking about a single flexibility. So I'll have the Secretariat read out the paragraph as it reads now. which I believe was the insertion from Argentina was the last one, right? So, a secretariat, please. So I think we're close.

Okay, so paragraph 4D, to promote cooperation, collaboration, and synergy among the secretariats of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, relevant international agreements and organizations, addressing access and benefit sharing while taking into consideration their respective mandates and scopes. Full stop.

Thank you, Secretariat. So I think this is as far as we come. I think it reads fairly fine. and I think this should be agreeable to all, but let's hear Tuvalu. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have a concern that we have moved away from the sentiment of this paragraph in its original form, that it was talking about multilateral agreements, secretariats of multilateral agreements. The additions of the words "relevant organizations" and "other agreements" takes away the sentiment of this paragraph, and we think it's not useful to do that. This is a very clear indication to the secretariats of multilateral environment agreements, and that's why we would have preferred inclusion of the reference to the BBNJ. So we think it's better to just have it as it originally formed. multilateral agreements addressing access and benefit sharing, and then we can accept the Argentinian language respecting so forth. But by adding organisations, relevant organisations and other institutions, do they have secretariats? that fulfil this role. I think the sentiment of this paragraph was to look at MEAs specifically and liaise with those. So we do not support the inclusion of language saying other relevant organisations. Thank you.

So thank you to Alou, but I think So my sense, and I heard some flexibility in your intervention as well, because basically I think this is as far as we get, but I get your point, which I think is also an important one, but at the same time we have a range of instruments that deal with access and benefit sharing, as I mentioned. And I do know as well that some of these organizations also have secretariats, others do not. I mean, but it's hard to hit the nail. But I think this is basically as close as we will come on a fairly suitable language. that reflects all parties' views. It's not to say that we're all happy about the text, but I think this is as close as we can get, bridging 196 parties' views. So with that, can we approve the text as the secretariat read out? I see no one asking for the floor. It is hereby approved. And also, I would like then to approve the whole document and turn it into the L, even though it will contain the brackets on article 10 in para 2. So it will be turned into an L-doc with that small bracket around article 10, pending the discussions on article 10 in the other item. Right, so that was that, and now we will turn to CRP5 on MOP item 10, financial mechanism and resources. We'll just have a small change of guards here. I see Brazil, you're asking for the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry. Could you read again the last wording of the subparagraph D? How was the last version? Thank you.

Certainly. Secretariat, could you please read out the final wording?

So 4D, to promote cooperation, collaboration, and synergy among the secretariats of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, international agreements, and organizations addressing access and benefit sharing while taking into consideration their respective mandates and scopes, full stop.

Good, thank you, secretariat. So now financial mechanism and resources. There are some brackets in this CRP, but there are a lot of clean Paris, so I suggest we approve the Preamble and paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, and paras 9 to 17. They are hereby approved. We will now work on para 6, 8E, and 18. So we'll start our casual Friday work on para 6, which urges developed country parties and other parties that voluntarily assume the obligations of developed country parties to provide new and additional resources to developing country parties. So, can I lift the brackets? I see happy people. Egypt, are you happy?

Yes, indeed. I'm very happy. Delete the bracket.

So when I say lift the brackets, you want to delete the brackets. Are we agreeing or disagreeing? No, no, I get you. Yeah, delete the brackets. Right. Okay, so I see interest here. That's interesting. European Union, you held before.

Thank you very much, Chair. And we want to delete this paragraph. This paragraph is referring to topics and issues that are discussed in another contact group under another agenda item as well, where we would first need to have an agreement there also on the language to then use this language. And I think we all are aware that this language is kind of sensitive in all the contact So we would prefer just to delete the paragraph before entering now here in long discussions on how to modify it so that all parties can agree at some point to this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. You're also saying that to work on the problem here and now maybe is not a good use of time. I think I agree with you on that one. So let's hear a couple of parties before we go along, just to air some views before we move along to the next part. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I think Norway can be a bit flexible on this, but we understand and support the suggestion from the EU. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would also consider this language as highly sensitive and do not think it is a useful use of our time to deliberate this in plenary. Thank you. Well, in the working group, sorry, right now.

Thank you, Sussland. So with that, I think I think we've heard enough on this para. I mean, it's basically the same situation as we had on Article 10. This one also relates to discussions in other items and contact groups in this case, and particularly, I think, is the resource mobilization negotiation stream. So with that, They will leave the brackets around para 6, and then we'll move on to para 8. So you can lower your flags, unless you want to be the first to speak on para 8. Uganda, you're on the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I am trying to understand your language there. Just say that the para remains. It is not deleted because there's a proposal to delete it. I want to confirm from you that the paragraph remains.

Thank you, Uganda. Yes, the para remains as is, with brackets. Thank you. Now, para 8. So I suggest lifting the brackets around para 8. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Very much. We support your proposal to withdraw these, delete the brackets, but we'd like to offer a change to take out within its biodiversity focal area, take that out, because we think that there should be a single specific window for the Nagoya Protocol that facilitates access to financial resources that are adequate and predictable. It's important to take into account the national priorities, but without reducing resources that are earmarked for other national biodiversity priorities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico. Switzerland, you had the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We would propose to delete paragraph 8E. Let me explain. So, within the GEF 9 programming, there is no dedicated window, neither for the Cartagena nor the Nagoya Protocol, but there is also, based on requests from recipient countries, full flexibility between the star allocation of the various Rio conventions. So that means your country can actually, because there is a strategic program on the Nagoya Protocol as well as the Cartagena Protocol, your country can choose to use the full star allocation you receive for climate, biodiversity, and desertification convention and use all of that for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol if you choose to do so based on your national priority. So the way the JAF is organized is fully country driven based on country priorities. If we would prescribe a fixed window here, we would overrule countries' priority setting. With the way it is designed right now, you have much more flexibility and you choose based on your own national priorities how much of the full star allocation of all three Rio conventions you want to use for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. And you're proposing to delete the para. So is there any opposition against Switzerland's proposal to delete the para? I see opposition, so then we should work on the problem. Let's see. Norway, you have the floor.

Sorry, I was just a bit slow. I support the suggestion from Switzerland. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. So, and now please help me solve the problem, South Africa.

Not sure if I can help the problem. I'm also of the view to retain this paragraph. Just to mention that many parties have difficulty integrating access and benefit sharing into the biodiversity projects under the style location. So dedicated window would provide predictable support But hearing from Switzerland, we would love to hear more about that. Also not convinced of the actual amounts in that type of model that you are proposing, but open to hearing, but keeping this paragraph, please.

Thank you, South Africa. India, please.

Thank you, Chair. We are in favor of retaining the text. We will give some text formulation, maybe that will help. With your permission, Chair, we would like to start to consider rather than establishing another thing. So what we are saying is to consider strengthening the support for access benefit sharing. including for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol within the biodiversity focal area of the existing financial mechanism, including through appropriate program priorities and the integration of ABS activities into relevant projects and programs. Then it continues with adequate and predictable resources, taking into account all those things. Our justification is, we need to strengthen the support for the ABS implementation within the, you know, biodiversity focal area and inconsistent with the decision of MP 3/8 and the 4/8, which encourages funding ABS projects through national allocation and integrating ABS activities into relevant projects. This approach would enhance support for the implementation also for the Nagoya Protocol while avoiding a separate funding window.

Thank you, India. So in the interest of time, I want to form a small group to resolve the issue here. because I do think it's resolvable. So I want to call upon Switzerland to lead a small group. Switzerland, can I ask you if that's agreeable to you? Switzerland.

Yes, that's fine. Do you want the small group to meet in parallel with the working group or that we find a slot outside? Just to know if it's a huddle right now or whether we should meet outside.

So, thank you, Switzerland. So, if you could try now to do a huddle or a small group, that would be appreciated. And if you can solve the problem now during this working group, it's good. If not, if you need more time, then we will definitely do so. So there will be then a huddle now to try to resolve 8e. And any interested parties can take part. So please try and resolve the issue. The huddle will be led by Switzerland. Thank you. We now go to 18. which is about inviting the Conference of Parties to the Convention to ensure that the core functions of the secretariat related to the Nagoya Protocol are provided for in the core programme budget. Can I lift the brackets on this one? Guillermo Tamayo, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. My statement is not about 18. My statement was, in fact, about Article 8. We understand that a small working group is going to be set up, and I see the delegate of Switzerland was looking for us to join the group, but my delegation is actually very small, and we have earlier work to develop in the earlier CRP under the leadership of Malawi, so we unfortunately cannot actually move at the speed that you are suggesting we do. And we consider that this Article 8 is extremely important, absolutely crucial for developing countries. We absolutely must have enough time to discuss it with our colleagues from Switzerland, the European Union, and others. We would therefore beg for some flexibility so that we can finalize 18 and recall also that we were invited to set up other groups within other CRPs. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Guatemala. So in this case, I suggest that we deal with 18 now. And then the huddle will start as soon as we have done 18. Now, on 18, I ask to lift the brackets. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would not be in a position to remove the brackets; we would rather delete the paragraph. That is for a couple of reasons. The issues that are dealt with in the paragraph should be discussed in the budget group. Therefore, we suggest that the proposals that parties are making be raised in the budget group through their budget representatives. The other challenge that we see with the paragraph is the timing. If the decision is taken at this COPMOP for COP17 to consider, that timing does not work, because, by the time the COPMOP has concluded, COP17 will also be coming to a conclusion and will therefore not be able to take the decision into account. There are a couple of reasons why we think that it is better to delete the paragraph.

Regarding the timing problem, would you have some language that could help us in getting the timing right.

I would prefer not to propose language, because our preference would be that the topic would be taken up within budget.

Thank you, UK. Do I see some opposition to deleting that paragraph? Raise your hands if there is opposition. I see opposition, so we have to work on the problem. So, UK, if you could just reflect on the timing issue you have, while I'll take the intervention from Egypt. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. Budget committee are doing the best they can to look at all of the issues related to COP17 and Mobs as well. It is true that timing is a little bit tricky, but at the same time, this article or this para 18 is very important to us. So we asked just only to remove the brackets and that's it. Maybe the last part can be removed, the last part that deals with the compliance mechanism and provided blah, blah, blah. We don't need that one. So we ask you to retain this 18 and remove the bracket. Thank you.

Thank you. Egypt, yes, so there was no appetite on deleting it, so we had to work on the language. So I take note of your suggestion to delete the compliance mechanism language, which also refers to the core programme budget. I ask delegations to reflect on that proposal to delete it. In the meantime, I have South Africa. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. On paragraph 18, the clearinghouse and the compliance mechanism are core functions of this protocol. They should be funded from the core budget, not left to voluntary contributions. So I support Egypt to remove the brackets, but we should retain the wording on the clear house and the compliance mechanism. Thank you. I forgot to take this.

Thank you, South Africa. So I see South Africa wants to keep the language on compliance mechanism. Barai, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We actually oppose to delete this paragraph. We understand that the core functions cannot survive without any voluntary funds. So we prefer to remove the brackets and to keep the paragraph as it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Bahrain. European Union.

Thank you, Chair. I want to agree with our distinguished colleague from the UK. We also think that this paragraph should not be part of this decision text, but the budget is discussed in another contact group. And we think that we should trust our colleagues in the budget contact group to take into account our concerns and so that we can close here the discussion. We propose to delete the paragraph and trust in our colleagues in the Budget Contact Group. Thank you so much.

Thank you, EU. So from my point of view, this will definitely be an issue that needs to be discussed in the Budget Group under the plenary. So this is a discussion under the plenary and not working group one. However, I do think we have a job to do to be precise on the language. So if there is a timing problem here, as UK said they had, I think at least we should try to work on that problem before it is discussed in the budget committee. I see a shake of some, what do you call it, disagreement, shaking of heads. That's fine. So in that case, I think we just leave it as is. And then, because this is a set... Yes, thank you. I got valuable advice from the secretariat. Highly appreciate it. So, I think, because we are a bit short of time and we also want to get the huddle going, I will also refer this issue, para 18, to the huddle led by Switzerland. And then you will also... Just give them 30 minutes. Yeah, but... 10, so this will be a bit hectic, but that's our life these days, even though it's Friday. So, what I would like to do is to have the small group led by Switzerland to discuss then 8E, as I tasked them to do, but also 18, because I think those issues are not necessarily related, but I think it could be good that the group discusses both those issues in the interest of time. So parties interested, please join the huddle. You have 20 minutes, so report back here at five minutes past one. And then now what we'll do, because I think the other group task on the other item is ready. So we'll resume our discussions on this item on the financial mechanism and resources awaiting the results of the huddle. And then we will go back to our discussion on the other paper which was no So which was Nagoya Protocol CRP1 and the group led by Malawi on para 18 and 19. So now we go back to our considerations of Nagoya Protocol CRP1 and I ask Malawi to report back to me on how the discussions and the cleaning of Paris 18 and 19. Floor to Malawi, please.

Thank you, Chair. As directed by you, we met at the back, and there were a number of parties. We had a constructive discussion, and we've come back with an agreement on the two paragraphs. Although you gave us one hour, we were able to address in 30 minutes because we all love our Fridays. So let me read the two paragraphs. So we agreed to maintain both paragraphs, but in this format. For paragraph 18, we agreed that it should read, "Request the executive secretary, in consultation with the compliance committee, to propose criteria for determining the sufficient practical experience to inform possible review of the compliance procedures and mechanisms at a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Nagoya Protocol. That's for paragraph 18. And for paragraph 19, We agreed to make a few changes, so it will now read: "Also requests the Executive Secretary to assess, in consultation with the Compliance Committee, the reasons for the limited practical experience with compliance procedures and mechanisms under the Nagoya Protocol, including whether parties and relevant stakeholders are sufficiently aware of and are able to access and use the procedures and to identify any procedural, institutional, or practical barriers and options to address them. So this is the agreement that we had, and this is what we are presenting back to you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Malawi, and thank you for your hard work, including your speedy efficiency in this matter on the Friday. I know I should have given you less time, but we were busy discussing financial issues as well. But deeply appreciated. And thank you for all parties that helped to resolve this issue. It's deeply appreciated. as we are making headway. So let me just see, check with the room. I get that 18 and 19 now are agreeable to all. I think it is hereby approved. Thank you. And just let me consult shortly with the secretariat. Thank you. So, I just had to recap the discussions we had. So, we have brackets around the Article 10 Paris, right? This is pending discussions on other items. And that's fine. So what we will do then is that I suggest we approve the whole of the documents with the existing brackets which we have. And I think we then know what brackets those are. But if this is a bit unclear, I think we can read it out. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'll ask you to read out the 18 and 19 and give us some more time to analyze it before we approve it. Thank you.

Sir, you want me to read 18 and 19, the results of the small group?

Yes, and then also give us some time to reflect on it before approving.

Thank you.

Indeed.

Yes. Secretary, please.

So the results of this small group for paragraph 18 and 19 would be the following. Paragraph 18, request the Executive Secretary, in consultations with the Compliance Committee, to propose criteria for determining the sufficient practical experience to inform possible review of the compliance procedures and mechanisms at a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Noumea Protocol. Paragraph 19 would read...

Sorry, Secretary. Brazil, please.

You need to read it slower. It's many changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil.

Request the Executive Secretary in consultations with the compliance committee to propose criteria for determining the sufficient practical experience to inform possible review, and the rest continues as it was. of the compliance procedures and mechanisms at a future meeting of the COPMO.

All right, good.

So back to the approach. So what I'll do is we'll approve the documents with the remaining brackets around the Article 10 language. So it will be turned into an L-docs with brackets around the powers containing the Article 10 language. Good. It is approved. It will be turned into an L-doc. Thank you. Sorry, I just had to consult for a minute. We'll now take on... So the huddle is working out there. So now we'll go to the HJ issues. So we'll leave the Nagoya Protocol for a while until they are done with their huddle. So, if you need a change of guards and to bring your aide people in the room, please do so. We'll take a break for just two minutes, and then we'll start with CRP 4. item 10, 10B.2, which is the process to review and update the voluntary glossary of key terms and concepts within the context of article 8A and related provisions of the Convention.

All right.

Brazil.

Thank you. Our representative that is responsible for this item can be here for now. And also, it's almost 1 o'clock. We would prefer not to start a new item right now and take a break, if possible, and come back. I don't see why we would start an item that's 5 minutes to 1.

Thank you, Brazil. Since it's Friday, I think we should accommodate that concern. And then, of course, I'm truly sorry about chasing the HJ people to be in this room. But it's just because, not because it's Friday, but I want to make good use of our time because that's a limited commodity. So if I have your understanding. On the bright side, the huddle will, well, they won't have more time basically because they're down there, but they will have more attention because now we're all looking at them. And I don't know if that helps, but let's see. So, okay, so we will not address CRP4 now. We will do that at a later session of the working group. So we'll now wait for the report from the HOD, which is just a couple of minutes away. Thank you. All right, we'll now resume our consideration of CRP5, financial mechanism and resources, as we only have five minutes left and we have a hard stop in five minutes. So please, I see you're still huddling back there and that's a good thing. So, two more minutes and then you really have to come and report. So we only have three minutes left of the working group one session. So either if we have a result or not, you would have to come back to me and report. Switzerland, please, could you please come back and report? Because we have a hard stop in two minutes. So if you couldn't finish, I mean, that's fine. One, okay. Two, okay. We'll see what we can do. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry for the delay. But the two additional minutes resolved two paragraphs for you instead of one, so there you go. So, paragraph 8E, the new 8E would read, "To consider, to provide, comma, within its biodiversity focal area, funding for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, with adequate, accessible, predictable resources, taking into account the national priorities and needs of eligible parties, in particular, the special needs and circumstances of LDCs and SIDS. That would be paragraph 8. I pass the floor to the United Kingdom, which has the compromise language on paragraph 18 on her laptop.

Thank you, Switzerland. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The compromise language on paragraph 18 would read: "Invites the Conference of the Parties to the Convention to take into consideration the core functions of the secretariat of the Nagoya Protocol." including the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse, as part of their discussions on the integrated programme of work and budget.

Thank you. Please repeat again, UK.

Invites the Conference of the Parties to the Convention to take into consideration the core functions of the secretariat of the Nagoya Protocol, including the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse, as part of their discussions on the integrated programme of work and budget.

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

Thank you, Chair. And we do know that you want to bring a close to this discussion. We just wanted to put on record that we did show maximum level of flexibility as well in terms of the qualifier on timely flow funds, because this is convention language, but we have dropped the text. We just wanted a correction on the the way in which the needs and circumstances of SIDS and LDCs are mentioned, the Convention text refers to it as conditions. So if the Secretariat could say in particular the special needs and conditions of least developed countries and SIDS. On the UK proposal, also, it's a big compromise for us. We are okay with it. We also thank the African Group for their flexibility. But I think it's this nature of conversation that we must continue having in this room, Chair, that if one group of parties and its membership is showing so much level of flexibility, that we ask the same of others so that we can move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Fiji. I think that's a good point. So we really have to stop now because we have to adjourn. DRC, you're the last speaker. You have the floor.

Chair, thank you very much. And my thanks to Switzerland as well for having come up with a new form of words. We have accepted it because we want to show flexibility, but practically on the ground, it is practically unfeasible because operational focal points at the national level often do not cooperate with the biodiversity focal points. So it becomes very difficult to be able to implement the Nagoya Protocol using the STAR system. This is why we thought that it was a solution to have a small window for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, which is critical for the Kunming-Montreal BDF, would be a much more effective way for us to be able to attain the biodiversity targets or objectives.

DRC. So I thank all delegations that took part in the huddle for your constructive approach. I know this is a delicate compromise. So In particular, I want to thank Switzerland and UK for leading the two huddles, and also Fiji for its flexibility, and DRC as well, and all of the other delegations that took part. But this is how we have to work. We have to show maximum flexibility in the days to come. So what we'll do now is we'll approve the document as is. including those two paras, and then we'll have brackets around, I think it was para 6, which is in brackets, and then I will turn it into an LL doc. Thank you very much. Your lunch is secured. Have a wonderful Friday. Thank you.