Working Group II (6th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity – COP 17

Good afternoon, colleagues. Buenas tardes, colegas.

Por favor, si son tan amables de dirigirse a sus lugares. Vamos a iniciar la segunda reunión del día de hoy.

Espero que hayan ustedes disfrutado su pausa del almuerzo. Se me informa que Los amigos de la mesa sobre el tema 17B se reunieron esta tarde entre la 1 y las 3 de la tarde y.

Tuvieron conversaciones productivas.

El grupo pudo retirar una cantidad de corchetes, todo con ánimo de llegar a algún tipo de acuerdo. No todos los puntos pudieron ser. Spirit of compromise and good momentum and the friends. my friends would like to meet again. So I'll ask the secretariat to find a room and a time for continue these consultations. The plan for this session is to continue with document CRP9, then to see the progress on CRP7, and then deal with CRP1 from Cartagena Protocol, and then come back to COP documents on alien species, agriculture, and then pending on progress to see on forest where we are, and to continue with our work program for tomorrow's plenary. So we will now continue consideration of CRPs. Item 16, CRP 9 on information on national legislation, regulations, and guidelines on new developments in modern technology, modern biotechnology. On Tuesday, we completed the first reading of this draft decision. We received eight early submissions from parties and one early submission from an observer, which was supported. We heard 13 interventions from parties on the floor. I heard a lot of support for this draft decision and encouragement for further information sharing. At the same time, I heard from several parties about the importance of taking into account countries' national circumstances. Let us begin with the preambular paragraphs, one at a time. So let's start with the first preambular paragraph. Is there any comment on it? I don't see any comment, thank you, on second preamble paragraph. Recognizing, no comments. Third one, recognizing also, no comments. Recognizing further, no comments. Let's go to operative para one. No comments. Para 2. No requests. Para 3. No comments. Para 4. No requests. Para 5, Panama.

Thank you, Chair. On para 4. We think it's quite good. We just want to delete the reference to relevant organizations and just keep parties and other governments. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama.

So it would be invites parties, other governments to submit through the Biosafety Clearing House and so on.

Any comments, New Zealand?

Thank you, Chair. Just pointing out that paragraph four calls for that with relevant organizations. So, now the two paragraphs don't match particularly well. Thank you.

New Zealand, I believe, and I need clarification from Panama, the amendment is not on para 5, it's on para 4, where Panama proposed. New Zealand.

Yes, I'm sorry, I just realized my mistake.

Thank you, no problem. So can we agree on deletion on relevant organizations and to maintain para 4 as amended by Panama, same by Spain and other governments to submit through and so on. I see no comments. Thank you. Now, comments from para 5.

Brazil.

Thank you, Chair.

We, I think we're fine with para five in principle, but I think it would be interesting to include the words voluntary template before form. So to ensure that, I mean, parties do not have an obligation to provide information using this form. Sometimes we don't know if this will be aligned with the way the information is collected domestically. So With this proposal, the paragraph will read, request the executive secretary to provide a voluntary template form for parties and so on. Thank you.

So, what it says is to provide a voluntary template for parties instead of form or including form, both templates. template form Brazil, maybe if we say that to provide a form for parties of the governments and relevant organizations to use voluntarily when submitting. So I think the essence is there and sounds better because we say a voluntary template and then a form sounds strange. So, but I think that the point is on voluntary. right? So we can say is to use voluntarily. Maybe sounds better. So just to keep the original language and after to use to add the word voluntarily. Is that acceptable? I see noting. I will give the floor to EU followed by New Zealand.

Thank you very much, Chair. In here, we would request to keep voluntarily bracketed. So if this information gathering will happen through the BCH or notification, this is anyway voluntary. So we don't think that this needs to be emphasized, made explicit here at this point.

We are almost done with this document, so I don't know if we really need to have a bracket here. I mean, I ask you for some flexibility. I don't see a harm, even can sound a little bit redundant, but it's not a substantial issue from my view. So maybe can you be flexible to not to include the brackets? Can we give the text?

Okay, we can agree to delete the brackets, but while I have the microphone, I would like to suggest another amendment based on our initial submission, and this would either be a paragraph 5 bis or direct could be added to the paragraph 5, invites the executive secretary to seek the view of the compliance committee on the quality of the information submitted if necessary.

Can you repeat, please?

Invites the executive secretary to seek the view of the compliance committee on the quality of the information submitted if necessary.

I'll ask the Secretary to read this paragraph 5B.

It would read, invites the Executive Secretary to seek the view of the Compliance Committee on the quality of the information submitted, if necessary.

I hope this is acceptable. I have a list of speakers. starting with New Zealand, followed by Burkina Faso, Peru, and Nigeria.

Thank you, Chair. Just on the point of voluntarily, it's a minor point of English, but I think if it is before "when" in paragraph 5, it would tend to suggest that the use of the form is voluntary, whereas if you put it after "when," it would mean that you are voluntarily submitting the information more effectively. Thank you. And as to EU's 5 bis, I am a little bit confused by that. What are we meaning by quality of information? What would the consultation involve? There's quite a lot of open questions in that line. And I would like to know a little bit more about why EU is suggesting that before we can agree to it. Thank you.

Thank you, New Zealand. Burkina Faso.

Thank you, Chair. We also have concerns regarding and echoing the concerns of New Zealand regarding the proposal by the European Union. We would like to have more clarity when it comes to the role to be played by the actors in 5-BIS. Another issue Regarding the initial paragraph 5, we agreed with your proposal and with the proposal of Brazil to add the word "voluntary" because this is in alignment with usual wording and every country can send information requested under paragraph 4. Lastly, under paragraph 4, we've decided to do away with relevant organizations. and when it comes to the communications within the clearinghouse, it was decided not to include relevant organizations. In the same vein, under paragraph 5, relevant organizations have to be done away with because this has to be in alignment with paragraph 4. The information requested are relevant to paragraph 4, therefore we need to be coherent in both paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yeah, so we make consistent part of five and four regarding taking out relevant organizations. You agree to use when voluntarily submitting as suggested by New Zealand to improve the English. So out of five is clean and there are some questions about five B's by a couple of countries so I will let the EU to respond after I listen to Peru, Nigeria, Panama and Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. So our statement was also related to relevant organizations but that's been deleted. That's all. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Panama. Nigeria.

We also have our sentiments and in line with what New Zealand has mentioned in terms of using the word voluntary, it's not really clear enough whether Brazil is suggesting voluntary submission or voluntary use of the.

Form.

So if it's being submitted by BCH.

I don't think there is any harm for the executive secretary to provide a form. So not necessarily there shouldn't be the word voluntarily.

And then we also align with New Zealand to get a very clarity from EU on the five B's, especially with the word quality of information.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nigeria. Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We support Brazil's proposal to keep the reference to voluntary, but perhaps we can find a consensus on the reference on the EU's proposal. It's not acceptable for us. There's already a process in place. And this will go to the Compliance Committee. I don't think we'll make strategic moves forward in this regard, then. Thank you. And then finally, Brazil.

Gracias, Senor Presidente. And we are flexible on-- the idea was to have a voluntary submission and voluntary use of the form, but we are flexible just to guarantee that this is something that the parties are invited to do. And with regards to that, I'll move to the second point, the proposition by the EU. And the objectives of the compliance committee are to promote compliance of the provisions of the protocol, so the obligatory ones. If we're discussing, as I think it's the consensus here, of voluntary invitations to parties, we're not yet seeing the role that the compliance committee would have then in this process. Thank you.

So, EU. After the explanation and concerns by some parties when asking the compliance committee to not to see compliance but to check quality, like review panel on the quality of information, maybe is out of the scope of the committee, as I understand. So Do you want to give an explanation or you can withdraw your proposal for 5B? You have the floor.

Okay, thank you very much. So we clearly very much appreciate this exercise and the usefulness of it. But in the first round, we saw as also information from other sources was considered that there in fact are contradicted, that there is contradictory information around and this weakens a little bit the usefulness, of course, of the entire exercise. So, one of our proposals was to use a structured form to submit information. This has been taken up and we are very thankful for that. And given that maybe the secretariat will also consider other sources of information and certain or still certain contradictions or inconsistencies might persist after information is submitted, the compliance committee could play a role to see, yeah, to check on the quality of the data and nothing else. So, and we clearly say if necessary, so there is no obligatory role or ever for the compliance committee and visit.

EU, in part of four and five, we took out relevant organizations. So there are no other sources of information more than parties and other governments. So to analyze the quality of what governments are submitting on the greenhouse, I think goes beyond. I think the purpose of our compliance committee is if a number of formalities are addressed and not to revise quality. So maybe a push for consideration to not to include this part of this since no other relevant organizations will include content. I see you're in consultations. Meanwhile, I give the floor to Panama, followed by Norway.

Thank you, Chair. Well, it would be the goal of our position to recall to the EU that with the elimination of relevant organizations, then there'll be no issue with strategic review because as you've said, this will be just limited to parties and other governments. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I actually have a suggestion for the five bits by the EU, actually not a textual change, but I was just wondering if this is maybe something that we are considering, the in the next COP-MOP, we, Norway is happy to support this decision as it was and the process that we share information. So, and I think we've had some good explanations here as to the role of the compliance committee. So.

Is that something that can be considered to look into it later on? Thank you.

Thank you. EU, are you ready to react? Still consultations. Panama? No. Paraguay.

Thank you, Chair. So we have the same concern. as expressed by delegation of Panama with regards to 5B. So we can't support it. Thank you.

It's Panama. EU.

No, we have, sorry, sorry. We have to insist to bracket to the text then in this case we need some time.

How long time? Because I want to approve this document.

It should be ready for -- I'm sorry. I have to insist to keep it in brackets for now.

So I hear a number of delegations not agreeing with this new language, because this is new. So we'll keep it in brackets. So it's -- I regret to put this issue for plenary to discuss this point. And even we have a rationale that this is not a duty for compliance committee. It's not a scientific issue to see the quality of information. To my understanding, compliance is to see formalities if are addressed or not. So I invite you to consider this, to not to include it or You will have to deal with this independently. I don't see the reason.

Yes, we have to keep it in brackets.

Okay, so para 5 is in brackets and para 6. Comments on para 6? Cameroon.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Your question is very relevant. It's not within the role of the Compliance Committee to judge the quality of information submitted by a state party. So that can be kept in brackets, but that argument will always prevail. So the Compliance Committee looks at compliance with obligations of the parties as set out in the Cartagena Protocol. It can also look at whether information provided by parties are in line with those, but not judge the quality of that information. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Guatemala.

Thank you, Chair. With regards to paragraph 6, we just wanted to ask for a bit of clarity from the Secretariat. In the first paragraph, we were welcoming the information submitted, but we don't know whether that information has been used in any way or whether it's going to be added here in Paris 6 as an update. This is unclear.

Give the floor to the Secretariat to explain the process where it's starting already.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in decision CP11/1C, the meeting of the Parties invited for an information collection exercise, and the result of that is presented in the working document for this agenda item as well as in the information document that was made available. And in the discussions at first reading, some parties noted that since the information showed that a number of parties are in the process of various legislative developments, there was value in continuing to look at what is happening and ask parties to continue to submit information and make that available to the next meeting. So it would be a continuation of the current exercise. Thank you.

Is explanation clear? Thank you, Chair. So we'd like to maybe add, because this is an update of what's been done in the past, so perhaps I could propose some language. So it would be.

Date, the existing compilation.

With the information received in response to paragraph 4 above, and submit the updated compilation for consideration.

Thank you, Panama. Maybe just in the second line, after "and submit," should be updated compilation for consideration by the conference of the parties. Maybe that would be sufficient. I don't think we need to put updated in two sections. So it would be that updated compilation, which would be submitted to the parties. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. But the wording in paragraph six only talks of to compile the information received in response to paragraph 4 above and submit it for consideration. So it's not taking into account the work that has already been conducted. Thank you.

I hope I captured this correctly. Also requests the Executive Secretary to update the existing compilation with the information received in response to paragraph 4 above and submitted for consideration by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol at its 13th meeting.

I see Guatemala noting, so can we accept as it amended, paragraph 6? Panama? Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We believe, like you, that this is already enough to capture the information on this. We already had some information successfully submitted to the secretariat. We don't think it's necessary to once again update studies which have been presented. If there is new information at the next COP, then an update can be conducted. I think it's very early on to ask for additional work that's already conducted, which was conducted successfully and for which we congratulate the secretariat. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. Could I call for your flexibility on this? Because if we put "updated" in the first section, it covers not just compilation, but everything else as well. So therefore, I think we want to only refer to paragraph four, so that it can compile anything new and submit it for consideration by the COP.

I don't think it's necessary, but I'll follow what you propose.

Could you accept leaving it as it originally is? Okay, I thank you very much. I thank everyone. So we have a clean paragraph 6 without amendment. And I therefore submit for consideration that we approve this document with just brackets in 5 bis. Otherwise clean.

So once again, colleagues, I'd like to put in consideration to approve document CRP9 as it is. It's practically clean with the exception of para 5B in brackets. I see no objections, so CRP9 is approved as amended. You can clap. Now we resume discussions on CRP7. Before the end of the morning session, we have the range of views on the reference to specific funding for the biosafety protocol in paragraphs 8E and 8D, as well as on the text contained in paragraph 8E. I heard from many parties that there was a need to establish informal discussions to resolve these three paragraphs. So now that we have some time to discuss, I would like to check and see if there has been a resolution. Could one party like to take the floor to explain the solution, please? With just one party of the one involved in consultations is, is enough? Okay, colleagues, I see that no one likes to report on these consultations I asked to be held by Panama, the EU, Norway, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Brazil, UK. I know that Armenia was also helping, trying with some intents to move issues forward, so I would like to see where we are, if you are, we should try again here all together to solve those paragraphs in order to have a document for plenary. I see Niger asking for the floor. Go ahead, please.

Thank you, Chair. we have come to an agreement with the European Union that we can remove the brackets for this point, given that Article 28 effectively includes Article 21 and Article 20, the issue related to Article 20. So, we came to an agreement. So, we agreed to Keep Article 21. Thank you.

Merci beaucoup.

Thank you.

Yeah, I was just verifying that there is no need to amend paragraph from the preamble section. We will keep it in touch and just make a reference to Article 28. So thank you for your flexibility. Now I have the EU.

Thank you, Chair. I think there was a misconception about this because I misspoke in French about Article 28. I think it's important that we only refer to Article 21 being a financial mechanism relevant article. I look at my colleague of Niger to confirm this because Article 28 doesn't -- is not on -- well, I understood that we were going to only refer to Article 21 because if not, we -- this goes to the CBD agenda item and will create some chaos.

But if I-- Now, my understanding is here is a reference to Article 28 of Cartagena Protocol. And the suggestion from Nigeria, if I remember well, is to include Article 20 and 21 of the convention. So they agreed not to include that because Article 28 of the Cartagena Protocol is also making reference to these two articles of the convention. Thank you, Chair.

I'm very appreciative of having a man of your intelligence having the gavel. Maybe also to return the favor and to not leave you in silence on the consultations on the other paragraphs, there's a virtual huddle created with the key players. We're trying to find a solution as soon as we can, and we will keep you informed via the secretariats.

I hope this virtual huddle is not artificial intelligence and not real delegates behind. Thank you. So I look forward to see progress. Just let me check with how to proceed. Okay, while the digital huddle makes progress, we can use our precious time to address document CRP1. So CRP1 is on item 8, fee for assessment and review of effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and midterm evaluation on the implementation plan and the capacity building action plan for the protocol. On Monday, we took this item and which was considered in depth as SBI 7. This draft decision still contains six pairs of brackets that are in paragraph 6, 14, 27, and 51. CRP also contains an additional paragraph 21B under goal A3 that has inadvertently been omitted from the draft decision in the compilation of draft decision. This paragraph was part of the draft decision in SBI recommendation 7/5 and was adopted without brackets. The paragraph numbering will be updated in the next iteration of this draft decision. So with that, let's start the consideration of this CRP. As I indicated previously, our focus is on resolving text of brackets. Remember the rule, not to include new language. As in the scenario note, this is coming from a subsidiary body. So the first set of brackets appears in paragraph 6. These brackets are around the words "with appreciation". When these brackets were inserted at SBI in Nairobi, the idea was that we will align the wording here with the wording to be agreed by the COP in this decision on the global reports. However, I don't want the CRP to be held up while we wait for the negotiations to conclude under the COP. Given that the Cartagena Protocol is not the focus of the global report, I will propose that we can simply welcome the global report. So do you agree? If we lead with appreciation and we move on, we are focusing on business of this protocol. I see Panama followed by you.

Thank you, Chair. just want to mention that prior session in reviewing this document, future proposal by Panama within the consensus, considering that references to articles 13 and 14, which have been proposed to be inserted into this document, were not accepted by the Chair for this document. But for us, it was important to maintain that version. In fact, in last night's assessment conversation, where there was a deep discussion on this, we just want to have recorded in the minutes that we were on the road to finding consensus on this. Our proposal was not accepted, so for us it's a red line to maintain the reference to Article 13 and 14 in risk assessments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. We have taken note of your statement for this to be featured in the report of this session. and we'll continue to go through the documents. Just trying to implement the rules which have been set out in the scenario notes and by the Bureau, but your request has been taken note of. Thank you.

European Union.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everybody. So regarding the paragraph six, We see it as a procedural issue because as you said, this is -- this formulation is currently being discussed in another agenda item, agenda item 9 in the CBD. We really would like to see a clean text to be submitted as an add document. So we're really keen on proceeding as you described. However, we would like to see the wording very coherent here. And as it is a pending issue, I would like to suggest, I don't know whether it can work, but to place a footnote or a placeholder or just having little brackets somewhere that it should be in line at the very end of the discussions and the agenda item. So something just an indication that we do agree with the wording that will be agreed under another agenda item. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You are putting me in a difficult situation. I don't believe it's fair. Because why are we putting as a host this document on discussions about in other place? The global report, I was co-chair of the ASHTA, who prepared that global report, so I love it. I believe it was a great effort, but it's talking about the implementation of all parties of the many goals and targets. And only a tiny piece is making reference to biosafety. So I don't believe we should stop our work on to make these type of connections. I really invite the floor to make progress on this document where Global report is one part of different sources of information. So we need to move forward on to assess the effectiveness of our protocol. So to have a note saying, because I hope that tomorrow, the plenary will adopt that decision, and then to modify pending on something else, I think we can set a strange precedent in the way we work. So we really love to have clean text with no brackets and to move forward. So my compromise suggestion is just to welcome the global report and the key messages, only those that are in relation to Cartagena Protocol. So I ask for your flexibility at this point. So, can we proceed just to welcome the Global Report and to move on? You.

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and you put me in a very complicated situation as well. And I would like to follow your guidance. So, what I wanted to propose is to adopt a clean add document. with a kind of footnote or with a kind of placeholder that this will be changed at the very end. I understand the situation. And because as we are here from the Cartagena community, we are Cartagena people here, and we do not wish to discuss those elements that are being discussed in other agenda items negotiated in the CBD. We do really want to avoid the situation prejudging something here in the Carta in a protocol agenda item, prejudge a kind of precedent, put a precedent here which can prejudge the further negotiations. So if it's really, if you think, you believe that it's really relates to the to the conclusions and key messages relating to the target 17, and I know it's in the paragraph, it's mentioned, then we can go along with your suggestion. Just keep in mind, and we would like to state here, that we do not want to prejudge the negotiations which are ongoing under another agenda item. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Yu, for your flexibility. If you like, you can provide me text that we can include in the report of this session where you indicate this concern. Right? Thank you very much. So let's move to next paragraph, which is 14, I guess. Yeah. Let's see my notes. Yes, I open the floor for comments on 14. Just give me a sec. Yeah, thank you for your patience. So it has three sets of brackets. On the first part, there's one around the expression as a matter of priority. Nigeria, followed by Panama.

Thank you, Chair.

Nigeria's wish to support your views, Mr. Chair, that as a matter of priority remains and the bracket be removed. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask the Secretariat to read out the new version. Thank you. Well, if it's okay, I'll read it myself. We have brackets around the expression "as a matter of priority".

The paragraph would say that have not yet fully done so. put in place as a matter of priority, legal, administrative and other measures to implement the obligations under the Cartagena Protocol, y continua.

And then it continues. So in brackets we have as a matter of priority. I see that you're nodding. So you support the deletion of the brackets and to keep as a matter of priority the text. In the final part of the same paragraph.

Brackets, one is that is adequate, predictable, sustainable needs and so on, or the option is a short one, just saying as appropriate is needed to support them in this regard. My suggestion is to use the second option, which is shorter and more general. So can we accept to take option two, which is the second set of brackets, to lift those brackets and to delete the text on the first one? Can we go along with this? I see no comments. Thank you very much.

Panama?

Thank you, Chair. We prefer the longer version. I think it's sufficiently clear for this point. Thank you.

Well, good. Then I'd propose the following option. If it would be acceptable for us to keep the first option, even though it's a bit longer, instead of the second, would anybody oppose keeping the first longer option? in brackets and to delete the second set of brackets and the text within it. That's very practical. I see New Zealand opposing. Senegal opposing. Senegal, you have the floor.

I believe In the first set of brackets, the sentence is indeed long, however, it is clearer and more inclusive. Perhaps we should lift the brackets around that sentence. You did say that it is a long sentence, but we believe that we should lift the last two brackets.

Thank you. EU, followed by Egypt and Japan. I hope we can do this fast.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Regarding this last two-second group of brackets, we would prefer to have the second version which you proposed earlier, the shorter one, and because We would like to emphasize and we see in the content of the set of brackets that the necessity of such support is very important for parties, not how this support could be realized. So the need and the necessity is more important. That's why we would like to lift the brackets from the last set of brackets and delete the first set of brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Yu. So I see two supporting the first, two supporting the second. We need to choose one. Or someone want to make a hybrid? Egypt, followed by Japan and Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Kocher. Just to try to make a hybrid, our proposal would be to retain "adequate, predictable, and sustainable" since they are essential for meaningful implementation, particularly in developing countries. We can soften the language a little bit with regard "needs to be made available" to replace with "is needed," which softens the language a little bit. And then having doing that, we can delete as appropriate as it is, it unnecessarily qualifies the need for support. And we can replace discharge the commitment with implement the obligation for consistency with the protocol.

Thank you for the proposal. Could you please repeat it so it would read in replacement of the two sets of brackets? Yes, that's that. Please read it.

So we will remove the bracket around "adequate, predictable and sustainable". This one should be retained. Replace "need to be made available" with "is needed" to soften the language. Delete "as appropriate" and replace "discharge their commitment" with "implement their obligation", just to be in consistency with the language of the Protocol. the the.

So I will ask the Secretary to read this hybrid text proposed by Egypt to see if it is adequate for all. Secretary.

So within paragraph 14, the last part would read, "and that institutional, technical, technological, and financial support that is adequate, predictable, and sustainable is needed to enable them to implement their obligations under the protocol.

Thank you very much. Sounds okay for me. And I have four requests for the floor. Is anyone opposing to this proposal? I see that is shortening the list. I have Japan and Panama only. Japan.

Thank you, Chair. Japan supports the Rata option, retaining the bracketed phrases as appropriate is needed to support them in this regard. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. But my question is if you can live with the hybrid proposal that is merging both extremes from Asia. Can you also set that?

Thank you, Chair. Let me come back later. Thank you.

Thank you. I hope because we already tried option one, option two, we have no agreement, but this exercise to mix it, I think it's a good way forward. And Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We view this proposal in a good light, but we don't want to change the reference to commitments to obligations. We would like to keep commitments there, not obligations. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. So we'll change obligations by its commitments. Japan.

Thank you, Chair.

We would have -- sorry.

We would have preferred the appropriate -- as appropriate to stay, but we can live with the suggestion by Egypt.

Thank you.

Let me check with the Secretary. I think we're almost there. I have EU, followed by Brazil.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So, with the suggestion by Egypt, we are flexible on this. However, we would like to keep the "as appropriate" inside as well, as Japan suggested. I think it could be a very good compromise. Thank you.

I have Brazil.

Thank you, Chair.

For support for the proposal made by Egypt with the amendment also proposed by Panama. Thank you.

So we'll ask the Secretariat to read with all the amendments, including Japan's support by EU, Panama. Go ahead, please.

So the second part of paragraph 14 would read, that and that institutional, technical, technological and financial support that is adequate, predictable and sustainable is needed to enable them to implement their commitments under the protocol as appropriate.

Thank you very much. I don't see any requests. So thank you very much. All Cote d'Ivoire, please. You said that you support.

Thank you very much, Chair. Cote d'Ivoire believes that if the last part is maintained, we will have to delete in priority. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, thank you. I've been advised by the Secretary that the issue of as a priority is regarding the first part of the paragraph. And when we have as appropriate is regarding the second part, which is a different issue on support. So here the priority is for to put in place legal, administrative, and other measures to implement their obligations under the Cartagena Protocol. That's one thing. That's a priority. And then we have also the support. Yeah, the second part. So I don't think both ideas are connected, so we can leave it. It's a priority to put in place these issues, so I hope. I hope you agree with the interpretation from the Secretary and myself, and we can adopt the paragraph. Miguel, Panama.

Thank you, Chair. In order to add to Kadiwa's comment, we think that they are connected because we can't implement these measures in a priority manner. if we don't have the resource and technical support needed to implement them. Therefore, we share the same concern as that shared by Cote d'Ivoire, and we prefer the elimination too of as a matter of priority, because we need the technical financial means in order to implement these measures in a priority manner. Thank you.

Okay, why not? I'm in your hands. If we agree to the lead as a priority, and then We can continue with the different elements and keeping as appropriate at the end. Can you live with that? I see no more requests, so we leave as a priority. And we have agreed text. Thank you so much. Now let's move to next paragraph. Is 27? Paragraph 27. So that recognize rapid developments in modern biotechnology. So in this regard, my suggestion is if we delete the text in brackets and keep it general, then also recognize that rapid developments in modern biotechnology require continuous updating of relevant scientific, technical, and institutional capacities. So we're starting a list of issues. Of course, when we start a list, we will leave something out that may appear. So we can have a short text, if you like. I see Egypt, followed by Panama and Japan.

Well, this was an original Egyptian submission in SPI, and we would like to keep it. Thank you.

Okay. Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We support your proposal to delete the reference, because if we include it, then we could have a list of 200 more, and that's unnecessary. Thank you.

Gracias, banda. UK, followed by Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. We also support your proposal. We don't think it's necessary to prescribe certain actions which are already implied in the preceding text. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. Brazil.

Gracias, Presidente. Also to express our support to your proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. You can add New Zealand to that list of support for your proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Egypt? Can we have some flexibility to leave the door open? I mean, those points you mentioned in your list are implicit, are included, so for not to leave others behind. Egypt, are you willing to accept?

We can go for a compromise to replace including and have such as, but this would be our bottom line. Thank you.

Meanwhile, I give the floor to Paraguay, followed by Fiji and Philippines.

Gracias.

Thank you, Chair. We also want to support your proposal. Thank you. Fiji.

Thank you, Chair.

Fiji strongly supports retaining the entire bracketed text in paragraph 27.

Thank you. Philippines, followed by Norway and Senegal, and we have to have a decision. So the list is still growing. We should move.

We support the proposal of the Chair.

Thank you, Norway.

Yes, we also just want to express our support for your proposal, Chair.

Thank you.

Some other alternative, Egypt, I see the list growing. Senegal, followed by Morocco and EU.

To make things simpler, we would like to support the Chair's proposal.

Morocco.

Thank you, Chair. We support the proposition made by Egypt.

Thank you.

EU, do you have a compromise text?

Thank you. We support your proposal, Chair.

State of Palestine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are supporting the suggestion for Egypt. Instead of "but including", we can use "such as".

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question for the floor. Can we go along by including "such as" as appropriate and move on? I do appreciate a lot of your support to my proposal, but we need to -- I would like to put clean text for tomorrow's plenary. So, New Zealand, followed by Panama.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, we cannot go along with "such as" either, because it still has the -- excuse me -- still gives us the same problem, that it is the beginning of a list that could be added to. So we would prefer to keep the text shorter. Thank you.

Thank you. Panama, followed by UK. Gracias.

Thank you, Chair. We share the same concern as New Zealand. We don't understand how this list came here. It's not a prioritized list. It's not from a recommendation from Substa or from any other place. So if there's no legal basis or scientific basis for these topics to be here, then they shouldn't be here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So I see the list is growing and growing and we are not moving. So this is my last call for some flexibility from Egypt. Otherwise, we'll keep it in brackets and move on. Egypt? Still want to keep your text?

Yes, please.

Okay. So text is in bracket and let's move to, I think it's paragraph 51 under the heading of goal B4. So, as you know, this set of paragraphs in the very last part, again, with a list. And the structure we have from last COP is to have short decisions. So, it's a similar situation, the previous paragraph, and I believe also was proposed by by Egypt, my suggestion is to have a short text and to delete text between brackets. So again, calling for flexibility and trying to have streamlined decisions. I think the first part is quite general, this encouraging parties to cooperate. with technical scientific cooperation, support centers, organizations in exchange of scientific technical institutional knowledge on biosafety, including the regional and international level. So it's very broad, encouraging. So we know the importance of risk assessment, of course, but this include about the general cooperation that this part of is referring to. So can we accept such deletion? Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can go with some flexibility just to include decision on risk assessment and risk management remain matter of national determination. Just because we don't want risk assessment to be conducted elsewhere to affect the national position. So, and this will be short and up to the point. I would read again, decision on risk assessment and risk management remain matters of national determination and replace what is in brackets. Thank you.

Thank you for this constructive suggestion, Egypt. So I will ask the Secretariat how the paragraph reads. with the new formulation, deleting a big part of text and highlighting these two topics.

The paragraph would read, the last part of this paragraph 51 would read, "While reaffirming that decisions on risk assessment and risk management remain a matter of national determination.".

Thank you very much, Secretariat and Egypt. Can we accept the paragraph with this amendment? I see no objections. So I believe we went through the document. I have the EU.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We are a little bit hesitant to accept this kind of compromise which was suggested by Egypt. But, uh, we would like to show flexibility as we have already shown to the whole group, uh, at the very beginning of the negotiations of this, uh, of this agenda item. So here, uh, what we would like to see instead of as a matter of national determination, uh, that, or the decision undertaken by parties are in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol and national legislation priority circumstances, then. So that would be our suggestion. Thank you.

So you suggest that it would say, while reaffirming the decision on risk assessment and risk management are a matter of national determination undertaken by parties in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol.

No, our suggestion would be that while reaffirming that risk assessment and risk management undertaken are the decisions of risk assessment and risk managements are undertaken by parties and are in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol. So delete the matter of national determination.

Yeah, but what about risk assessment and risk management, which I believe is the point also that you like to raise as relevant. Can we keep that? EU? So can you repeat your formulation and while considering that these points on risk assessment and risk management should be to my understanding part of what Egypt is asking for or you have formulation? My only -- So I'll ask the Secretary of -- another hybrid. That probably may work.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I captured that correctly, but what I have is while reaffirming that decisions on risk assessment and risk management are to be taken in accordance with the protocol and national determinations.

Meanwhile, I give the floor to India, followed by Malawi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And India supports deleting the entire text in the bracket.

Thank you.

Malawi. To avoid complexity. Thank you, Chair. Malawi was looking at this and then looking at the fact that it's under GOFO, which is about parties and his cooperation and coordination and not necessarily isolating the item like risk assessment. So we're of the view to delete the text in the brackets, just like India, but we need, first of all, maybe to understand, maybe there's something else that we are missing which we need to understand, because that was our initial thought, that this issues of risk assessment has already been dealt up, and the goal above. So, Chair, we need clarity on this one. Thank you.

Thank you. I have two more requests and I'll ask for an explanation from Egypt who was the proponent of this text and already made a significant reduction, trying to see if we can accommodate and have clarity on the intention of this second part. Morocco, followed by New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can I make a proposition which is a compromise between Egypt and the other proposition while reaffirming the decision on risk assessment and the risk management remain a matter of national determination?

In accordance with the Cartagena Protocol and national legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ingeborg, for this compromise proposal. So can you read, the Secretary?

While reaffirming that decisions on risk assessment and risk management remain a matter of national determination in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol and national legislation.

Is this formulation acceptable? Is there anybody opposing? New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. If we must go with a compromise text, we favor the EU compromise text. However, we do favor deletion altogether. I would remind parties, including Egypt, that this is a Cartagena Protocol decision, and the matters that are being discussed in this edition are baked into the protocol, for lack of a better term. This is the water we fish are swimming in. So I would call upon Egypt one more time to be flexible and accept that, you know, we are operating under the Cartagena Protocol. This is all understood and we don't really need this and a brief decision is what we have been asked to undertake. Thank you.

Thank you, New Zealand. Egypt, would you like to reply or help us in how-- I tried to accommodate your concerns as much as I can, and seems still some concerns from other parties. Microphone to Egypt, please.

We can agree to the text as has been proposed by Morocco. The issue here is that we believe it's more legally precise because scientific assessment may involve external expertise or cooperation, whereas regulatory decision-making remains with the relevant national authority. That needs to be clear. Thank you.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm wondering if this explanation helps to understand the reason behind this additional text at the end of the paragraph. I have requests from Panama, Indonesia, Norway, and Brazil, but I really want to know if we can go along with the proposal as Morocco, under the explanation by Brazil. If you are opposing, please press your button. I see opposition from all parties away. Since we're not going anywhere, then my suggestion is to keep the new compromised text in brackets in this paragraph. We were very close to sending text in this document. So I have more requests from the floor. I have from Panama, Indonesia, Norway, and Brazil. Do you really want to take the floor, or we can just move on with the text in brackets? Or you foresee a solution? OK, I have Panama, Norway, and Brazil. Panama.

Gracias. Thank you, Chair. Indeed, in line with that said by New Zealand and Malawi, until the section in brackets, there's no reference to risk assessment. So we don't think it's necessary to incorporate an additional component when scientific cooperation and the urging to or encouragement to cooperate does not mention anything with regards to risks. If not, we'd add detection of GMOs or anything else covered under the Hartono protocol. So we don't think it's necessary to add this reference and would ask for flexibility to eliminate everything within brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama, Brazil.

Gracias, Senor Presidente. We are very, very flexible on this paragraph and can possibly go with most of what was proposed, except I understand that you wish to take upon the last proposal by Morocco. And if that is so, we would prefer to include national legislation, priorities and circumstances, since normally those three come in a package. Thank you.

So we have these elements on legislation, priorities and circumstances. Senegal.

I think you've taken some words out of my mouth. So while reaffirming that the decisions of the evaluation and risk assessment are under countries in line with Cartagena Protocol and national legislation.

So, thank you, colleagues. So, I believe we already passed through the whole document, and we can submit for adoption of this document as amended, and with only one paragraph in bracket. Am I right? Hold on. Okay. Thank you for your time. I have EU, and then I have a proposal about this document.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So when we started the discussions on this agenda item, and we started the discussions with paragraph 6, and as the EU and its members says, we're really keen on having a clean text. to be forwarded as an addendum, then it's a really little tiny issue there, a procedural tiny issue there. So we would like to go back and keep the brackets there for welcoming bracket with appreciation, the global report, because it could be very easily solved when on the other agenda item, the discussions are finished. So I would like to plea for your kind agreement on this. Thank you.

So we agreed something and now you are going backwards. But looking with the secretariat, maybe, because this is holding Cartagena Protocol negotiations to a document that is going to be addressed. and conclude by the end of the COP. So it's holding our deliberations to finish business with Cartagena Protocol for a week. And I don't believe this is a good precedent. I thought we agreed on something on flexibility. But in consultation with the Secretary, maybe we can formulate a different way to to welcome with appreciation the content making reference to the Cartagena Protocol, the conclusions and key messages in relation to that, instead of saying welcoming the report as such, but just those elements making reference to the Cartagena Protocol. So I will ask my colleague Peter to with these proposals as a potential way forward and not having this document hostage of a document that will be solved in a week from now. Please, Mr. Gattalin.

So the alternative to paragraph 6 would be welcomed with appreciation. the conclusions and key messages relating to the goals and targets of the framework that are relevant to biosafety within the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the framework and stresses and it continues from there.

I see EU noting. I hope this is acceptable for all parties. I will ask again secretariat to repeat these new formulations. So the relationship with the whole global report, which I'm very proud to support as co-chair of the ASHTA, who give guidance to the secretariat to do, is not in consideration as such here, but just those elements that are in relation to our protocol. Please.

Alternative paragraph 6 would read, welcomes with appreciation the conclusions and key messages relating to the goals and targets of the framework that are relevant to biosafety within the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the framework, and stresses that adequate support for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol is essential for the achievement of target 17 of the framework.

Thank you very much. I hear no-- I see no objections to this formulation. Thank you very much. So we have clean paragraph 6. And we have only two paragraphs in brackets on the situation of the list at the end, paragraph 27 and paragraph 51. I forgot that we still have another session tomorrow. So what I'm proposing is not to close this document yet and to leave for some consultations and see if by tomorrow session in the afternoon we can have some agreement with Egypt and some other parties. And so I invite you to have consultations and come tomorrow with these documents. So there's a little chance to send this document clean to and ready for adoption at the evening session, if you agree. I see no ring.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, dear colleagues and friends. I wanted to try to propose something to also put an end to the brackets in paragraph 27. I hope we can come out of this and bring the two camps together. So I will propose a small phrase which will be added to the end. I'll read it in English. The

NCET should read, maybe read, also recognizes that rapid developments in modern biotechnology require the continuous updating of relevant scientific.

Technical and institutional capacities that influence national preparedness and decision making.

That's my proposal, trying to bring together everything in order to resolve the issue.

Thank you, Benin.

May I see the reaction from Egypt about this proposal? You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. We would like to keep the text as it is right now for the time being. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt and Benin for your intent. Seems it didn't fly. So we have these two brackets. I invite Egypt and other parties to have consultations in an intent so we can revisit this document tomorrow to see if we can provide a clean text. I hope you can find a solution. So with this, we finish with this. Let me wait. So let's go back to document CRP7 that was pending in our list of documents. If I recall well, we have three paragraphs, brackets, one on 8A around specific, on 8D around specific again, and the whole paragraph E. So I'd like to know if there is some news about the informal consultations. party want to take the floor It will be good to know where we are. Or do you need more time? We still have tomorrow's sessions if you like, if you see there is hope to have a solution. We still have an hour to make progress on the other documents as well. Armenia. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, colleagues. We are continuing intensively our consultations with all interested parties. And may I kindly suggest to have a small break? We have been working very hard, and you and the Secretariat from early morning, so maybe we can have a short break just to refresh ourselves and we can have also some conversation and let you know whether we can come back to this topic tonight or maybe we will have another opportunity.

Thank you. I understand we need more time to discuss this pending paragraph on CRP 7 and also on CRP 1, so we can see this later, but let me see, we should use of this precious time maybe addressing COP documents meanwhile, and to leave these two documents on Nagoya and Cartagena Protocol for tomorrow's session. So meanwhile, I invite delegations to work together to find solutions and hopefully to get clean text for CRP 7 and CRP one. So, I invite you to continue now to working on pending issues on documents from COP. I'll give you a couple of minutes to stretch your legs and change group and I'm going to take work on. So, we still have invasive species and also agriculture and forest that requests for more time. And yeah, give you a couple of minutes. Hello, colleagues. I invite you to take your seats to continue our afternoon session, Working Group 2, now with COP documents. Please. Before moving on, I wish to briefly provide a clarification with respect to the next steps for item 18C on marine and coastal biodiversity and island biodiversity. I wish to clarify that the work of the content group on item 18C has completed. Despite of the lack of progress, It is clear that further contact group discussions will not help us to resolve these issues. So, I will convert the non-paper as revised after the second session of the contact group into a conference room paper for consideration by the working group next week. So just for let you know, there will be no more sessions of the coastal and marine contact group, so we need to come with solutions because instead of doing the small group, we have to do it here in the primary working group too, so I count with your collaboration. So now we'll resume consideration of CRP 2 under agenda item 18E, invasive alien species. We still have four set of brackets left in this document. Yesterday, we heard different views and concerns related to paragraph 3 on the request of the Secretariat. Some parties were invited to hold informal consultations. in order to come up with compromised text on different sections. I would like to invite a representative of this small group to share the results of these consultations. So I open the floor, so who can speak? UK, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. come in on the mutually agreed terms bracket that the UK introduced yesterday.

We are continuing to talk with interested parties, but we require further time to.

Discuss with these parties and also with our own colleagues. So we would ask for now that this text remain within brackets and for the working group to come back to it at later time. Thank you.

So, UK, you are making reference to paragraph 3.a.4.

Yes.

Okay. Do we have more news about these consultations? Otherwise, I propose to go through the document all together to see how far we can go in understanding that paragraph 4 is still open. Now I'll give the floor to Vietnam.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding the paragraph 3.83, the number of deleting the term synthetic biology, we consider that the training materials will focus on practical tool directly relevant to the prediction, early detection, and monitoring of the invasive alien species, such as predictive modeling, environmental DNA, and artificial intelligence.

Let me remind you that the text on synthetic biology was removed yesterday. So, okay. So let's go in order with the documents. So we have the first operative paragraph 3A. roman of one on the compilation on information and lessons learned. My suggestion is try to keep the paragraph as it comes from sub-stem. So it means we can accept as it is. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Since this was our proposal to delete, I'm going to comment. Sadly, we have not been able to hold additional consultations on those points exactly due to the fact that we've been trying to work in the Friends of the Chair group. However, me and my team, we have additionally analyzed the information provided where we can see the requests to the Executive Secretary. Therefore, Although in those requests, as far as we understood, there is only the total sum of money for all of the activities under invasive alien species without the discretion of which activity costs what exactly. Due to our recent analysis, we would agree to keep this point if we could delete the point, the second one, which we have replaced, and the fifth one. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation, for this constructive proposal and flexibility. Uh, what you propose is that we can take out the brackets on a Roman I, if we go along with replacement of para a Roman II with the new, uh, paragraph, uh, proposed, uh, the BBs. that says to develop through a submission process among parties a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control. I believe this is a good compromise text. I hope this can be acceptable, and then we can solve in one's two bracket paragraphs. One by one. EU.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what's now proposed. We are I think the Russian colleague would like to lift the barricades, I wanted to say, the brackets around, sorry it's late and I'm tired and all that, wanted to lift the brackets around small, around Roman one, but in exchange for something else, and I don't get what is it in exchange for.

I will ask the Secretary to explain. It's -- okay, go ahead.

Thank you. If I understood correctly, the proposal from the Russian Federation is to leave the brackets on little roman one in exchange of deleting paragraph little roman two and deleting paragraph little roman five.

In the understanding that we're taking on BBs because it was a transformation from Roman II to what we have now as BBs containing part of the elements there, which I believe are presenting a reasonable way to develop transmission process guidance. I hope that's clear. EU.

So if that means that we would now lose Roman 2 and Roman 5, that would not be acceptable to this delegation. And can I also ask through you what is the argument or what is the main concern of the colleagues who are proposing to delete this, just to understand and to see if there is a way forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Miguel, I'll give the floor to Russian Federation. Maybe to clarify something, I have a question in my mind.

Uh, thank you, yes, to clarify, uh, and to recap the discussions from SAPSTA and that have taken place here earlier, uh, from the start of the negotiations here and on other, other items. It was the position of our delegation that all of the requests to executive secretary should be in brackets for the reason that the number of resources is not limitless, firstly. Secondly, the number of items on the future agenda should also not be limitless. Therefore, we as parties should together aim to prioritize the requests that we as parties find to be the most urgent. Ideally, for our delegation, that would entail a thorough analysis of all of the requests, not only on this document, but on all of the documents. And for that, we would have needed a list of those requests. Since the list has appeared, but again, it is not thorough in terms of disseminating which request is expected to cost which sum of money. We now have a basis for analysis. This delegation has understood that it is the desire of Therefore, as a way to compromise, we have agreed to try to prioritize specific requests in specific documents. Therefore, looking at this document without analyzing the entire spectrum of requests, we believe that the priority actions and activities are under Roman 3, under Roman 4, under B and what we have now proposed, it's been discussed as B bis, but we actually just a small correction, wanted it to be C, so that the request to the subs that would be D, but still in our view, those are the priority requests. If we can agree on that, then I think this is a way forward to a clean document. Otherwise, again, we would need to do a full analysis of all of the requests in all of the documents. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So you explained that you're willing to lift the brackets in Roman I, A1, and also you mentioned that You prefer that a Roman 2 be deleted, and because content of here is already in the new B bis, because that was a formulation from yesterday, uh, session. Um, so I'll leave it like that at this moment, and I have to request now from Australia, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair, and I'm hoping that I can help perhaps here because I'm feeling a little bit of deja vu. My understanding is we've gone through this conversation quite a number of times in the past and subject to availability of resources, actually, all of these items will be sent to the Budget Committee for prioritisation, and I think if some parties think that they're all priorities or different priorities are important to different parties, we should let that process happen. Australia no strong views on, you know, the prioritisation of these exercises, but we do hope that process can be followed. And we have certainly gone down this path before, and we believe that that prioritisation exercise and the funding and amounts is for the Budget Committee, and the Secretariat, I hope, can correct me if I am wrong. Thank you.

Thank you, New Zealand. I have no more requests from the floor.

So.

My understanding is that in principle, brackets on item 1, 3A1 can be removed, but pending as we go through the document on the remaining brackets. So in my mind, in our mind, brackets are lifted. And now let's move to Next paragraph, which is 3A Roman 2. So we have, and it was a concrete request by the Russian Federation to be deleted and be replaced by BPs, because we have BPs with same type of content. I have Cook Islands.

Thank you, Chair. The Cook Islands, on behalf of the Pacific States, would like to retain small roman two. We made an addition yesterday, and we'd like to retain the paragraph. This is with regards to the importance of of addressing invasive alien species within our remote islands. So we'd like to retain this paragraph. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Cook Islands. Yes, the current formulation of this paragraph says that the exploration and proposal of strategies to enable early detection and rapid response to support the collection, sharing, and mobilization of data. so as to reduce the time lag between the detection of an invasive alien species and information availability, and to facilitate rapid access to appropriate emergency funding and technical resources to support timely to response. So in one hand, I heard that you want to keep this paragraph. More comments? also like to know that from the perspective of Russian Federation that request deletion to consider the second part of this paragraph. So probably both can coexist. It is text from Fiji.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fiji supports the proposal made by the Cook Islands.

Thank you. Russian Federation, follow by Canada.

Yes, thank you. Regarding 2, the Roman 2, we've just had a consultation with South Africa. The way I understand it, there is a concern that in our proposal, the part that was missing was the collection, sharing and mobilization of data. So I would ask, like to ask the parties in favor of keeping the small Roman II, if we were to add that part. So it would be a guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species. And then, as well as on the collection, sharing and mobilization of data. If we could add that formulation, would that be acceptable?

Can you repeat how the paragraph should read, Russian, please?

Yes. So to develop through a submission process among parties, a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species, as well as on the collection, sharing, and mobilization of data with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control.

Russian Federation, I'm a little bit lost because first you asked deletion of Roman 2, and then you said that if we insert in BPS the text you mentioned because what you read is BBs, you can also accept Roman 2 as it is because it has an important insertion by the seats in regards to facilitate rapid access to appropriate emergency funding and technical resources to support timely response actions. So are we keeping then Roman 2, 3A, Roman 2, as well as BBs as amended? Just please clarify.

Yes, so the main idea behind our proposal was to have a submission process among the parties and to have a guidance, which we believe is a bit different from just having a compilation, that is something more concrete. And we understand that certain parties also on this topic of early detection mechanisms would like to have some language, therefore, we propose that the language that we've just agreed on with South Africa and the language of the SIDS, I'm sorry, I do not have the exact text, but that could also be included in BBIS. Our focus is on how the work would be done. I think we all agree that early detection of alien species is something that needs to be worked on. And if parties would like some additional areas of focus of this guidance to be included, we would be happy to accept that.

So meanwhile, Secretariat is working to adapt. BBs with the session you made and trying to accommodate the language from seats. So maybe that can be the solution. So meanwhile, I give the floor to Canada, followed by Indonesia and Palestine.

Thank you, Chair. We were going to make a suggestion along similar lines to move the elements of collection, sharing, and mobilization of data to be best. So we would be supportive of this approach as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see the progress by the Secretariat. Meanwhile, Indonesia.

Thank you, Chair. To be honest, it's really difficult to following the discussions in this paragraph because all of the changings. So if you could assist us on all the changes that was happening in this paragraph, paragraph three from the start. And, um, regarding the additions from the, that was proposed by the seats, we could be flexible and we can also put support it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. In Indonesia, let's see. Um, so far, We have not made any change on the chapeau of three or chapeau of A. So there is a possibility to lift the brackets on Roman I. We're working in an alternative for Roman II now, which is what we have on B, B's, where there is an insertion recent insertion by Russia, as well as on the collection, sharing, and mobilization of data. And now, it's an intent to include the language of seeds in this paragraph. So I will ask the Secretariat to read to replace Roman 2. Secretariat, please.

Thank you, Chair. So if we understand correctly, trying to merge the different proposals into a new BBS, the paragraph could read, to develop through a submission process among parties, a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species, as well as on the collection, sharing, and mobilization of data, including to facilitate rapid access to appropriate emergency funding and technical resources to support timely response actions with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control.

So this is the BPs considering the different submissions by SIDS and also Russian Federation. Looks very much complete to me and replacing Roman II. I hope this is acceptable. I have Palestine, followed by South Africa. I hope that you are supporting this language.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think for the point number three, it's an important thing.

Also, it's a new subject for most of party speaking about the invasive alien species, and we need more focusing my suggestion to leave the brackets and just to remove the.

Brackets and leave all of the point for this one thank you Mr. chair.

I'm sorry Palestine I'm a little bit lost you're referring to whole three or Roman three little Roman three because we're not there yet and I don't believe there is any amendment on Roman three and we are working on also paragraphs of Yeah, I think to leave it as it. Thank you. To leave what?

Leave the point number three as it without removing anything in this point.

Little Roman three or the whole three with all? The whole three with all of point of three, not only Roman three.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe there is a number of brackets and that's why we're trying to clear, but I take into account your view. South Africa? Thank you, Chair.

We just would like to support the new text because we believe it moves us along to further implement what's outstanding in terms of target six.

Thanks.

Thank you. Cook Islands.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the Secretariat for taking the SIDS suggestion into the 2B or 3B, sorry, and we accept the insertion in there and we can let go of small. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Panama.

Gracias, Senor Presidente. Thank you, Chair. We accept the recommendation in addition to. And for three, we comment once again that we'd like deletion of the reference to synthetic biology. Thank.

You.

Thank you, Panmah. The reference to synthetic biology was already deleted yesterday. So we can support the new wording. VP/Rocco, followed by Fiji.

Thank you, Chair.

Can you please read again what was said with the Secretariat for Roman II, small two?

No, it's Bbis. Bbis is replacing Roman II.

Yes.

Yeah, the composed compromise. Please, Secretary, read again.

BBs will read to develop through a submission process among parties, a scientific guidance on early detection mechanisms for alien and invasive alien species as well as on the collection, sharing, and mobilization of data, including to facilitate rapid access to appropriate emergency funding and technical resources to support timely response actions with a view to improve and further develop methods for species control.

Thank you very much.

It sounds very good, yes.

Good, thank you. Fiji, followed by Argentina. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Fiji supports Cook Islands on this.

Thank you. Argentina.

We also support B. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So we reach an agreement on this, and this is replacing then Roman 2. Good. So we have clean tech so far. Roman three is clean with the, with checking out synthetic biology. Next one is Roman four, paragraph Roman four. I open the floor for comments, for solutions on Roman four. On Roman 4, the only part that is in bracket is the reference on the mutual agreement terms. So I would like to know if we can delete the brackets.

Yeah.

UK.

Thank you, Chair. As I said earlier, we would appreciate if these brackets could be maintained while we continue to talk to other parties and also within our own delegation on these brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, UK.

Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Just as the UK has already said, we've parked this discussion until probably next week. Thank you.

Thank you. So we keep those brackets and then we move to Roman 5. Comments on Roman 5, please, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. To reiterate, as we have analyzed the activities here specifically in this document in order to have a consensus text, although now we understand that might not happen, but still. The way we understand it, a separate organization of an online forum might be excessive. If this particular part is crucial for parties, then I think that is something that could be added into B, because that talks about the already existing invasive alien species portal. Therefore, a forum for communication and for sharing experience could be part of that internet platform. Otherwise, we think that the resources that might to create a separate entity might be excessive. Therefore, that's our proposal. Thank you.

So you are proposing to add this into B.

Yes, again, we would rather just delete the fifth point. However, if that is crucial, then in B, after do I just read all of it? To continue to improve the invasive alien species portal, including by enhancing the availability of information on globally significant invasive alien species and the national list of invasive alien species and alien species maintained by the Parties. and by making its content available in the six official languages of the United Nations, as well as organize an online forum to facilitate the sharing of experiences and lessons learned in order to support the implementation of Target 6.

Thank you, Russian Federation. I think if we want to keep the organization of this online forum, we can include, as you're suggesting, almost at the end of paragraph B, so then that activity can be considered. And just a small amendment, we agree on significant alien and invasive species, that was an amendment we agreed yesterday here and in another paragraph. So we can delete Roman 5 and then to add this content here at the BP, so still the opportunity to to do this online forum. Is anybody opposing to this amendment to include Roman 5 on BPs? Can we accept this? Well, I'd like to see how many requests disappear from the screen. So we'll reach an agreement. Thank you very much. we still have pending sub paragraph C on some brackets at the very end when it says to submit the outcomes of the work described above to sub step for consideration at the meeting before of the conference of the party. So I remind that for consideration is the usual language we use in this case. So I want to see your guidance, Russian Federation.

Yes. So we've consulted with our legal team. We would be okay with lifting the brackets around for consideration. However, just a small clarification about BBIS. Could we make it C? not be this, but a separate paragraph C. And then here we have D with for consideration. Thank you.

That is the usual practice when we accept a B, so please, then is the numbering is updated because now it's a paragraph in its own. So I will try to make the collection where we are with this document.

Thank you very much, Chair. We are thinking this is making this whole process unduly complicated. We think it's very important to establish an online forum, and we think this fits better under paragraph 3 and not bring it into B. because it just makes B very complicated. And I think within, if you look at the chapeau of 3, I think that creates the process for establishing that online platform. So we would not like to see it move to B. Thank you.

It was very difficult to get to this balance agreement, so I look for your flexibility. So the actions to consider this online forum is there. So my invitation is to accept as it is. It's a compromise. So I'd like to recap where we are. My impression is that we have clean text in preamble, paragraphs 1, 2, and on 3. Sorry, on 3, we have 3A, Roman 1 clean. Roman 2 is replaced by the new in the With all these compilation of elements, we have what is Roman III, also clean, taking out symbio. Roman IV is the only one with brackets around on mutually agreed terms. And what is B, as such is clean. The new D It's also clean because we took out, we left the brackets around for consideration. So we have practically a clean text with the exception of currently Roman 4 on mutually agreed terms. This is the situation. I would like to ask if the group can accept the adoption of this document as amended. I have to value and please I count with your collaboration, Tuvalu.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I don't understand why we're doing moving small 5 into B. It doesn't make sense to us, and I seek the indulgence of others that it makes more sense to stay as it is in 5. It's not in brackets. And therefore, we would prefer to have it where it is. Thank you.

Tuvalu, so paragraph five was in brackets. Just to let you know, it was in brackets and as a solution, it was included as part of the piece. So I please ask you for your flexibility so we can approve this. Cook Islands.

Thank you, Chair. I think where 5 originally was sitting was fine, because it refers to the interagency liaison group to develop an online forum. And we prefer that it's there because it's a specialized group to work on invasive alien species. And I think when it's moved to be, it's referring to the secretariat to do that work where the liaison group has the experience and expertise to form that forum. Thank you, Chair. And would prefer to keep it where it was. Thank you.

I will ask the Secretariat to give an explanation in how is the way to hold this online forum.

Thank you, Chair. When we host an online forum, we use our own platform through the CHM and the website of the Secretariat. We have no means to implement the online forum through the liaison group because the liaison group operates ad hoc and it's different organizations, we as the CBD hold the secretariat of the liaison group, any online forum or activity that we do with the liaison group is coordinated by the secretariat with support from the different members, so if we were to have an online forum… The liaison group members can participate, they can be active in providing proposals to parties, information through the forum, but it will still need to be coordinated through the secretariat, through our portal. It will be very difficult to give a mandate to another organization to probably host it. Thank you.

Thank you, secretariat. I hope with this explanation, it's clear why this can fit under the section for the executive secretary to to do that. Australia, followed by UK. We have a few minutes and I was wondering if not only we can adopt this, but also make some initial progress with agriculture that is another document we have pending in our group.

So, Australia.

Thank you, Chair, and I absolutely do not mean to hold us up. However, I agree with Tuvalu. Just so there's two different things happening here. So the sharing of experiences was up on emergency detection tools and all sorts of things, but this doesn't make sense now in V because it's about improving the invasive alien species portal, as well as the organisation of an online forum that shares the lessons learned. So I think that there could potentially be a way to incorporate this, but it was doing something different. And I thank the secretariat for the explanation, and I think that that's right. We put it under the request to the executive secretary, which is subject to availability of resources, but it's not quite doing what I think it was supposed to do at this point. So I think we can add it there potentially, but we just need to make it make sense. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Let me consult with the secretary, I do hear that she has an idea. Okay, I will share the idea of the Secretariat. Since the Secretariat can do this by its own and not under the chapeau of A, which is in coordination with other relevant conventions, we can split the and to have a new D. just for the online forum. So that can be a way forward, and it's not tied to the submission process. I see Norway. I hope this is also acceptable by Russia, who proposed to include this, is just to split this part and to take a standalone part, the forum. So I have UK followed by Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We just wanted to quickly confirm that in adopting the text, this would include brackets maintained around on mutually agreed terms in 3A, Roman numeral 4.

It is.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. That's so far the only bracket in the document. Russian Federation, can you go along with the splitting of the paragraph as proposed by the Secretariat? Go ahead.

Be honest, this goes a bit against our general logic of prioritisation. However, we do understand that it is important for some parties to have a forum separately, although, in our view, that would need to be interconnected to the already existing portal. Therefore, just to have a final document that could go on, with one small bracket, "pending approval", would agree to your proposal. Thank you.

Russia, so we agree to split and to have the organization of the online forum and the new D, and now D become A, clean, with for consideration, and the only single paragraph with a bracket is Roman 4, around motor leg return. So with these amendments, can we we approve CRP2. I see no more requests, so it's approved. Okay, two more things, colleagues, before we finish our deliberations. We are waiting for the Executive Secretary that will give an announcement to Working Group 2, and also that the Friends of the Chair on Forest. The group will meet tomorrow at lunch time. So during our afternoon session, we can have the outcomes and hopefully to also approve the document on the forest. And we will address also the document on agriculture and depending issues on the two documents from Cartagena Protocol, hoping that we can send all documents for for adoption at the evening of the plenary with the presidency. So please wait a few seconds for the executive secretary, Astrid Schumacher, to get into this room. And I ask for a few more minutes to interpreters, please. Dear colleagues, please take your seats for this announcement from the Executive Secretary to Working Group 2. We are reconvening for a few minutes, so I have the pleasure to give the floor to Ms. Astrid Schumacher, the Executive Secretary of our Convention. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, colleagues, and apologies for for making you wait. We just came here to repeat some comments that we made across over there in working group one. So we wanted to, in general, dear distinguished delegates, recall that the United Nations system is committed to enabling events where everyone can participate in an inclusive, respectful, and safe environment. So just to repeat, everyone can participate in an inclusive, respectful, and safe environment. So we wanted to take the opportunity to remind you that the United Nations Code of Conduct to Prevent Harassment applies to all UN system events, including the current meetings. And participants are therefore encouraged to engage constructively and respectfully. And with your permission, Chair, I will hand over the floor to our Senior Legal Officer for a reminder on the guidance and principles available for the good conduct of meetings.

Thank you, Executive Secretary, and good evening, dear delegates. I would like to draw your attention to Annex 5 to the scenario notes, document CBD/ COP 171, Rev. 1, at 2, Rev. 1, on the principles of good conduct during meetings. The principles also refer to the code of conduct to prevent harassment at UN system events, as well as the guidelines on conduct expected of participants in CBD processes. These documents are available online and were also shared via e-mail with registered participants. Participants are welcome to approach the Secretariat if they have any questions relating to these documents and principles. Thank you.

Thank you very much to everybody. So please, I request for all participants to take into account this message and the application of the Code of Conduct. And with this, if there are no requests, The meeting of Working Group 2 on this session is adjourned. Thank you very much.