Press Conference: Who Has a Voice in Biodiversity Decisions? Indigenous Peoples and local communities call for full and effective participation in the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Hello, good afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity press conference. Thank you for joining us today. We are here to share the IIFB priorities and expectation for the modus operandi of the new subsidiary body on Article 8j, particularly on how to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities. So because we only have a very short time, we have five speakers with us today. Each will have three to five minutes to speak and share the experience and input and follow the question from media after all five speakers have finished. So I'll let our speaker introduce themselves as we go along. So now I'd like to hand over to Georgie Carino, who will start with the press conference. Over to you, Georgie.

Thanks very much, Alice. I'm Georgie Carino. I'm Ibaloi Igorot from the Cordillera region of the Philippines. I've followed the CBD for over 30 years, and I was also part of the advisory group on monitoring and also the advisory group overseeing the implementation of the KMGBF. So we know that a major agenda item of this COP17 is the review of collective progress on the implementation of KMGBF. And as part of that, there is also a review of the monitoring framework to know what progress is actually being accomplished in the implementation of the global framework. We need to understand that in the course, the very lengthy negotiation of the KMGBF, the consideration of the role of governments and the role of society was a major discussion. Therefore, there has been an adoption within this global framework of what is called Section C considerations, which really cover whole of society approach, human rights based approach, and really, for example, traditional knowledge. So all of those dimensions, which are not always easy to measure quantitatively, because these are important ways in which the implementation of the KMGBF is supposed to be carried out. Now, the global review has come out. It is already available. And one of the key findings is that there are certain portions or sections of the global review that are under implemented. And one of these is precisely the role of whole of society, because governments were just given a box to say how they have engaged with society in section C of the framework. And here, hardly any details were given about how governments have engaged with the actors of civil society. indigenous peoples, women, youth, civil society, the academe, et cetera, right? Therefore, that is one of the key main findings of the global report. And also in the indicators that have been adopted as headline indicators to monitor progress, these indicators are also to date not being used Therefore, in the report, we also have low reporting on traditional knowledge, on land territories and resources, on languages, and on participation, which are some of the indicators to monitor progress. Now, one of the main reasons put out why there has been low progress, and this is valid, is that the means of implementation, for example, funding, capacity building, capacity to monitor, is still not largely available to the parties and there's still poor capacity in these areas. So means of implementation has been highlighted as one of the reasons for the lack of progress. However, for us, the ways of implementation which are actually contained in section C of the framework, which gives the qualitative approaches that governments should use. This is precisely the part of the framework that is completely neglected and that is well acknowledged in the global review. And It is here where the rights of indigenous peoples, including the UN declaration, the importance of diverse knowledge systems, the importance of precautionary approaches in the Rio principle, all of these well-established principles that actually establish how we will be able to do a good implementation of the framework are precisely the ones that are under implemented in the KMGBF. So for example, let's go to the issue of monitoring. For indigenous peoples, in the course of the negotiations, the issue of land use change and secure land tenure was a core indicator. But of course, governments have not been monitoring this. They don't include it in their spatial planning. And in target three on conservation, indigenous territories, which is an element, is also under monitored. Full and effective participation equal equitable decision making is a core area of the kmgbf including the use of traditional knowledge to inform all decision making again these are the areas that are under um implemented so um uh earlier there was the press conference on local biodiversity outlooks. This is where the communities, indigenous peoples and local community authors have written about their direct collective actions to implement. So when they're talking about an implementation gap, why don't we talk about the progress in implementation? Because the progress in implementation is happening in the collective actions of indigenous peoples and local communities. And when they talk about lack of resources, what about the millennial contributions that have actually secured the good state of biodiversity, which is higher than in protected areas on the lands of indigenous peoples? So there is a invisibility and a continued mental state that this is something that the states are in control of. But in real life, it is the biodiversity and peoples on the ground who are actually the real actors and the dynamic actors for implementation. I'll just deal with one more area, which is from a whole of government, whole of society approach, there is now the introduction of the word actors other than national governments. This was originally used just for reporting purposes. However, in the implementation decisions, they are now using this term, actors other than national governments, as though the governments were always the central actor and we are just there on the side, a non-party. How can they now start designating us as non- as a non-central actor. This is a major regression from the way the KMGBF was negotiated and the way it has to be implemented. So a core achievable for this session of the COP17 is for the term "actors other than national governments" to be discontinued because we are not just, I'm not just a non-government, I'm an indigenous person, we are women, we are young people, we are actors. Therefore, we need to be rid of that term "actors other than national governments". There are well-established recognition of major groups and who are active in the implementation of these types of programs and that is how we want to be recognized. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. My name is Ramson Karmushu. I will continue, I think, in the same sequence. I am from Kenya, an indigenous Maasai. And I will talk a little bit about direct access to financial resources, which I have been following and negotiating on that topic in the IFB. I'll take you a little bit back, trying to start from COP 15 when the CBD was adopted, which was a strategic vision to protect biodiversity globally. and during that, of course, adoption of the KMDBF, there was quite a lot of enthusiasm on the direction that we are going. It was a long vision, a short vision of 2030, and of course, a long vision of 2050 of protecting biodiversity, which was a big strategic vision to protect biodiversity. In that line, of course, the adoption was not enough without funding to protect biodiversity. And target 19 was also very clear when it comes to that because target 19 F was putting central indigenous peoples and local communities in the center of all this work. And target 19 recognized the direct access of funding to indigenous peoples and local communities and other actors on the ground. But target 19F recognized the collective actions as contributions of Indigenous Peoples, as well as mother earth centric actions. And there was also a decision that, of course, creating a biodiversity fund, which was a temporary fund, the GEF-DBFF, to to continue this work as the implementation of the KMDPF, which also came with the recognition of indigenous peoples and put at least 20% of the funding to go to indigenous people, to support actions by indigenous peoples and local communities. There was also an adoption that they had a creation of an advisory committee on resource mobilization at the same time, which also discussed on the mechanism of how to mobilize resources for the implementation of the KMDPF. And in that report of the advisory committee on resource mobilization, there was also an exhaustive list of the contributions of actors and including indigenous peoples and local communities, which has come into the reports of decisions like 16/34 of COP16. And all that, it's towards the roadmap of where we are going to, towards the mobilization and the mobilization of resources for the implementation of the KMGPF. We continue to say that indigenous peoples and local communities have a higher stake when it comes to contributions of protecting biodiversity globally, because we still occupy big territories that have a lot of biodiversity and needs to be protected. So at this COP, of course, we continue to talk about this and try to negotiate at the to negotiate for the language that is important for us and continue to put Indigenous Peoples in the front lines of protecting biodiversity and of course to continue negotiating how we can directly access the resources to continue protecting biodiversity in our own lands. But of course, when we look at the language, there are quite a number of things that have improved, but there are also things that we are seeing coming back. And I also appreciate that mentioned by Georgie. For example, the language on stakeholders, I think that's something that in all the language of the discussions here, we really want to retain what has come forward from COP15 and COP16. that indigenous peoples and local communities are not part of the actors. We are right holders and not actors, and that I think should be respected across the whole of this discussion. And when it comes to direct access to financial resources, of course, we know that the JEP, for example, is improving, trying to improve in the modalities of delivering finance to indigenous peoples and local communities on the ground. And, you know, quite a number of other things that we are seeing, we would like to continue to work with parties that are here to improve, to support that improvement and of course, not to put some obligations in the space between the GEF and the indigenous peoples. For example, the introduction of a no objection letter, which I think the GEF is already working quite closely with indigenous peoples to see a better delivery mechanism for this funding to go down. And there's also the language on element eight that's now included in the in the financial mechanism document, I think that needs to continue to be protected because as we eye on having Article 8J as a subsidiary body, we also want to see how the finance will get to be delivered for the implementation of that to indigenous peoples and local communities on the ground as it's said by the text in that line. I will stop there and pass it to my colleagues. Thank you.

So my name is Katie Lee and I'll be speaking about the DSI multilateral mechanism and the associated Kali fund. I like to introduce myself in the native language of my lands in Aotearoa, New Zealand, because when we introduce ourselves, we don't just talk about our communities and the people that we're associated with and relate to, but also our lands and our environment. And to me, that's a beautiful example of the way that we as indigenous peoples and local communities are holistically connected to our lands. Our environment is not just where we're from, but it's part of who we are. Indigenous people and local communities have long contributed to the shaping of our environments around us, the genetic resources, and therefore also the digital sequence information that is gained from those genetic resources. We are not merely beneficiaries of the fund, we are rights holders, innovators, and we are also users of DSI. At COP15, they decided to put together the start of this multilateral mechanism, and we started to do the work. At COP16, we finalized the multilateral mechanism and put together the Cali Fund. And now at COP17, we're looking at the operationalization of the fund and making sure that it is going to be working as we want to see it. This moment in time is particularly important to us because the operationalization of the multilateral fund and the multilateral mechanism and the Cali Fund is incredibly important to us. We need to make sure that we're getting it right. We're seeking a mechanism that supports the rights and interests of indigenous people and local communities and one that upholds the 50% commitment that at least 50% of those funds will be flowing to indigenous peoples and local communities who are actively conserving biodiversity on the ground. We want to see pathways for direct access to those funds as much as possible so that those benefits are flowing directly to those people to help us to continue to do the work that we are already often doing. We support further work on an allocation methodology to make sure that that 50% is bespoke and reflects our unique socio-cultural realities on the ground. And we are advocating for the continuation of free, prior informed consent in association with the first digitization of genetic resources. We also emphasize the preservation of access and benefit sharing under the Nagoya Protocol, and we would like to see the promotion of relationship building between users and providers of DSI wherever possible. We are supportive of the incentivization of contributors to engage with the Fund, with safeguards against contribution avoidance. We also want to see improved data practices around the standardized and interoperable data provenance information, especially metadata practices that are in line with fair and care and the UNESCO open recommendation on science, recommendation on open science, including the recording of biocultural provenance metadata and traditional knowledge origins. Finally, we are looking forward to participating meaningfully in all review methodologies and decision making processes as we continue to see the operationalization of this fund And we want to see that there are real-world outcomes with institutional readiness and benefits received on the ground. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Viviana Figueroa. I'm a worker from Argentina. It's a great pleasure to be with all of you. So I will refer to the draft voluntary guidelines. which is related to a special planning, restoration, conservation, and environmental impact assessments, and the contribution of Indigenous Peoples and its ITTs, Indigenous and Traditional Territories, which is discussed by this COP. Indigenous Peoples were conserving biodiversity for millennia. We were conserving in our land and territories. So currently we are continue conserving biodiversity in our land and territories. These areas are not part of protected areas, are not part of OECMs. And for this, when there were the discussion of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, in target three, there was the inclusion of this reality, which is the pathways for the conservation of biodiversity for indigenous people, the first pathway is to continue conserving biodiversity in our land and water and territories. Indigenous peoples and local communities also, with respect to their rights, they could decide to be part of protected areas or OECMs or their IITs could be part of the OECMs, be part of protected areas, but what here we are trying that they are not forced to go inside protected areas or OECMs. They are conserving biodiversity in land and territories and we want that they continue doing so and they got the support, they got the financial support to continue conserving biodiversity in their land and territories. For this, for us, it's very important that in the guidelines, in the voluntary guidelines, it's the inclusions of the guiding principles. This guiding principle recognize the relationship, that the close relationship, as my sister Caitlin mentioned, to our land, waters, and territories, and also the recognition of our governance systems. Currently, these areas are under our governance system. There is a lot of countries in different regions of the world that already has recognized rights of indigenous peoples or local communities on land, waters and territories, and that recognize that these areas are under the governance, and we are currently conserving biodiversity. in our land and territories. So for this, what we consider that this is really important that this, because we have very short time, we have up to 2030 to achieve these guidelines, and we want to contribute to achieve target three, but at the same time, we cannot do it if there is not a recognition of our rights, roles, and contributions, And also if there is not direct finance access to continue doing so. For this is like, we really call for you support that the recognition and adoption of the guideline is done in this COP as a distinct system that contribute to conservation of biodiversity, distinct from protected areas, distinct from OECMs. Thank you.

Gawisa, mas dum pa kwam im. Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Jennifer Taulee Corpus. I'm from the Kankanaey Igorot indigenous peoples in the Philippines, and I've been tasked to talk about the modus operandi. But I wanted to start off by saying that the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity is celebrating its 30 years of existence this year. We will formally celebrate it on Saturday. But just to say that we have started actively participating in all aspects of the work of the CBD since 1996 in Viviana's home country. And shortly after, the working group on Article 8j was established. It was an important platform for supporting the work of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. And while it was envisioned as a temporary body because it was a working group, that was not the case. It continued to exist for more than 20 years, clearly sending the message that Indigenous peoples are continuing partners in this work. So there was a historic moment in COP16 in Cali, two years ago, where the subsidiary body on Article 8 was established. So that was quite historic. But it was half a victory because the methods of work, the rules of procedure, or what we call here the modus operandi, were not adopted. So they are supposed to be adopted here. So in short, we are here now in COP17 with the opportunity to fully operationalize the subsidiary body on Article 8. Now, this is very important because seven of the 23 targets of the KMGBF explicitly mention indigenous peoples, and many other targets are relevant for indigenous peoples, or are targets that indigenous peoples and local communities can contribute to. So, and this is the reason why we are calling for Yerevan COP17 to again be a historic moment so that we can fully operationalize this body and we can build on the established practices of the working group on Article 8. So, this is one of the principles that is guiding the advocacy of the IAFB this two weeks of COP17 is that We should have continuity. It's necessary to build on the practices and improve the practices of the working group. There has to be coherence. It's informed by best practice in other UN fora where Indigenous Peoples participate. There has to be clarity. What are the sources of the basis of our rights? And there has to be meaningful participation, and as was said earlier, should not go below the standards of the working group on Article 8j. These standards should not be undermined. So I know that we need more time so that we can have an interaction, so I'll end it there. So we hope that COP17 can be another historic moment for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Thank you.

So thank you to all of our speakers. It's 1010 now. We have some few minutes to take questions. If you can raise your hand, I would prioritize the journalist first. So yeah, if you can give the little here, yeah, then we follow with. The guy there. No. And then. And maybe you go first with the question. Yeah.

Okay. So thank you so much for all of your speeches. I am actually conveying a message from an indigenous local person that lives at Markovitz village in Armenia. Her name is Tatvikumashen. So the United States and Armenia have advanced the trip initiative, a strategic transport and infrastructure program alongside cooperation on critical minerals. As we speak about implementation, a proposed legislative change in Armenia raises serious concerns that mining projects could move forward without meaningful community consent. Strategic interests and mining investments must not override the rights of local communities. We therefore call for this issue to be urgently discussed during the COP17 plenary in the context of indigenous peoples and the protection of local communities. We ask that the implications of the trip initiative and related critical mineral cooperation for community land rights and consent be examined openly. The people who live on and depend on this land must have a meaningful voice and decisions about its future. Thank you.

Can we take another question? The lady in white, please. Yeah. Then we give the mic to the lady in black and then guy in jacket.

Hello, my name is Tatevik Lazarian. I am a reporter for RFE/RL Armenian service. So my question is, in 2023, Azerbaijan forcibly displaced the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, who were indigenous for thousands of years. They have lost access to their nature, to their biodiversity. While Azerbaijan is destroying also now their cultural and natural heritage, their language is also in danger right now. So have their rights have been discussed during this meeting and somehow will be maybe issued or addressed? Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Anna Scott, I'm a journalist from Carbon Pulse. I had a question for Jennifer, please, regarding Article 8j. I wondered what's your view on how Article 8j should be structured? How should Article 8j be structured in your view?

My name is Frederick Mujira. I'm a journalist from Uganda. What is the main obstacle standing in the way of progress right now?

Okay, we let the speakers answer the four questions first, yeah.

Yes, I can start and then others can add. One of the things that we heard during the Leaders Summit is the impact of war and displacement on biodiversity protection. This, the history that was shared to us about the displacement is a history that is shared also with Indigenous Peoples. Many of us have been displaced from our hometowns, usually due to armed conflict, wars, and so forth. And it is clearly something that disconnects us from our land, from our traditional knowledge, and from our ways of protecting the land and the biodiversity. So these are things that need to be addressed. Language has been accepted by the CBD as a proxy indicator of biodiversity richness. So the number of speakers of indigenous languages correspond quite closely to the richness, biodiversity richness of a place. That's why it's a matter of concern when languages are being lost. Regarding, and we're hoping that SPHA could provide this platform to address issues such as those. There is one element within the programme of work that is about the human rights-based approach, and it includes the notion of establishing a grievance and redress mechanism. But to get there, there has to be a strong subsidiary body on Article 8. On how 8 should be structured, of course it's an ongoing debate here, it's an ongoing negotiation, and I'm in a tricky position of being one of the contact group co-chairs, and we are in the hands of the parties. This is a party-led process. Of course, as I said earlier, when we think about the structure, it's something that should build on and improve. on the practices of the working group on article 8j and when we say that we mean there has to be a co-chair from indigenous peoples and local communities there has to be friends advisors to the bureau from indigenous peoples and from local communities so and of course beyond that there are many more more details that we can share but I don't think we have time for that but that's the basic principle we build on the working group thank you.

Thank you. I want to respond on journalists from Uganda. So in the case of indigenous and traditional territories as area that conserve biodiversity, we are hoping that we have some advance and progress because this is what we were doing. We are conserving biodiversity for millennia. However, of course, these areas are the most important areas of biodiversity, and there is a lot of interest that these areas become part of protected areas or OECMs. For these, our brother and sister from around the world are worrying. because many times these protected areas are established or OECMs are established without the free, prior and informed consent from these communities. Sometimes they are displaced, sometimes there is human rights violations, and sometimes there is not the respect of rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Of course, there is some cases, some countries who has national legislation, who has indigenous protected areas, as Australia and other countries, which has different approach. For this, what we are emphasizing that there is important, this fifth pathway for indigenous peoples and local communities, which is the recognitions. on what we are doing. Of course, the main obstacles, there are 196 parties with different realities in their work, and here at the CBD, the decisions are adopted by consensus. But of course, we are hoping that we get some important advance here because we want to contribute to achieve target 3, but we want with the respect of our roles and contributions. Thank you.

I'd like to add something on this matter. A running thread in all of the problems we're encountering is the insistence on the parties making all of the decisions, when in fact The reality is governance on the ground, governance of biodiversity is local. Biodiversity is local. We're talking about a global biodiversity framework, but in fact, decisions made in distant places, even here, have direct impacts on the actual state of biodiversity and the well-being of the entire natural world and the peoples in it. So at every point in the different agenda items, we are negotiating with governments for them to respect rights, self-determination, and actually accept that governance has to be in the hands of those who are living close to biodiversity and have maintained the continuing state of nature and biodiversity because of our close relationship. And when it's insisted on that this is a party led process, they are actually not meeting the requirements of the moment for transformation in economic, political and thinking structures that have to move away from these injustices and monopolies of power that are actually brought us to this bad state of biodiversity. But the mindset is still very set on You know, the times have changed, but everything remains the same in some of the minds of the parties present in this convention.

Thank you. I'd like to address our brother from Uganda's question. In terms of the DSI space, there are very large obstacles in terms of unanswered questions. So in terms of money into the fund, who goes to use more DSI, should they pay more? And those who use less or have indirect use of DSI, should they pay less? And then once money is in the fund, what kind of legal certainty does that give for industry? So when they receive a certificate that says, yes, we have contributed to the fund, does that mean that they have fulfilled their access and benefit sharing obligations? And what kind of legal certainty does that give them? So they want that kind of peace of mind to know that they are fulfilling their legal obligations. And then once the money is in the fund and then going out to the different places where it is going to, there's the allocation methodology. And in terms of the general 50%, that's not the 50% for indigenous people and local communities. There are multiple different criteria that are being weighed up around how we apportion benefits out. And the data sets underpinning those are very varied and they need more complete information. So for example, criterion A talks about biodiversity richness. And what kind of data sets are we using to actually indicate how biodiversity rich a country is? And does that further enforce this research that's already been done in countries that are already having research done? And does that leave behind countries that don't have the same richness within the research already done on their lands? And then the second one about geographical origin, there's discussion about portioning benefits based on where the DSI has come from. But the current reality is that a very small percentage of DSI actually has a listed country of origin. There is even less information about indigenous or local community origins of the data. And so we're needing to really overhaul the way that we're using our data practices so that we have a full, complete idea of where our data is actually being generated from. And then the 50% for indigenous people and local communities, we haven't fully gotten into yet. That is work that is yet to be done. So there's uncertainty there too. There are multiple other questions also happening about how we make sure we're reviewing the fund and making sure that it is operationalized in a way that is actually successful. So there are very big questions that have to be answered at COP17. And this is, I believe, what's standing in the way of progress for now, because people want the certainty that they're putting in the money correctly and that it is operationalized properly.

Thank you, Katie. So another round of questions. I'll take two questions. The two ladies in front. And because we don't have enough time, maybe the special will be brief.

Hi, Orla Dwyer from Carbon Brief. I have a question for Joji on the global review. You mentioned a couple of the things that you'll be looking out for, but I wondered, was there anything else specific that you think is necessary in the global review to make it a success by the end?

And hi, this is Aruna from Government Brief. A question from Katie. I know you gave us a great overview of DSI and the issues at stake. Is there anything in particular you might want to say to companies, given the fact that, you know, there's only $6,000 in the fund from two companies who decided to be icebreakers, and we're talking about billions in terms of potential. We've also had the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund with only, with less than 400 million in, they've been doing indigenous programming and hitting those targets. But at the same time, there seems to be a lack of resources there. So, yeah, those two for me.

Yes, in terms of the global review, what needs to be done. So the decisions here are actually going to guide the parties to raise their ambition and to raise their means of implementation, we're saying ways of implementation, because really it's the national biodiversity strategies and action plans have quite low ambitions in order to reach the target set by the KMGBF. And of course, parties really need to be strongly guided, but also strongly supported to do their job. However, In fact, in countries, unless civil society, indigenous peoples and others are truly recognized to be important partners, we are not going to move the political wheel in order for parties to raise their ambitions, because it is always up to the voluntary actions by the parties to carry out these global agreements. And with the guidance that is regressive, which is actors other than national governments, which is not actually giving the specific guidance, roles, and relationships and partnerships that should be undertaken. And this is under negotiation. Parties insist on national circumstances. And unless that is really changed in the mindsets of governments of how they do things, I think it would be very difficult for us to make real progress.

Well, thank you very much for your question. It's a very pertinent time to be asking this. And I would like to say that we have spoken to a lot of industry representatives that are really interested in the fund and want to contribute and really want to do the right thing. And there is this mindset that, why pay for something that we've already been getting for free, especially in a voluntary mechanism? And I would ask you to think about when Nagoya was developed and talking about fair and equitable benefit sharing for access to genetic resources. These are resources that are incredibly important to our people and that we have long relationships with. And in the spirit of fair and equitable benefit sharing, you should share benefits back to communities if you're using data from their lands, waters, and territories. And there are a huge amount of industry representatives out there that have historically had bilateral relationships with Indigenous communities and are actively sharing benefits back for the use of DSI. So those relationships are still preserved within this. but 50% of nothing is still nothing and it's really important to us to see that this fund starts to be operationalized for the sake of fairness and equity for the sake of our people on the ground for the sake of biodiversity conservation we strongly implore industry and all of those who are eligible to contribute to the fund to do so we know it's voluntary but there is a huge amount of value to be gained in doing the right thing.

Yeah thank you I would also like to respond a little bit of what Katie has responded and also in relation to the question asked by the journalist from Uganda. Two things. One, I think when we talk about what's preventing the implementation of the GMPF, everyone will have an answer according to all targets. So, but of course, the implementation requires funding. And I think when you talk about the DSI, and you look at the resource mobilization for the implementation of the KMDPF, I think there is a roadmap of putting systems in place before you create a fund for the implementation of the KMDPF. But I think, in my own view, and also following the resource mobilization and financial mechanism, and also in relation to the Cali Fund, I think I think the fund was created quickly in a way that there was no mechanism of mobilizing resources and channeling out. So I think that that could also be a challenge. So we have an empty bucket, but we did not say how do we channel resources into the bucket and how do we channel resources out of that bucket.

Okay, thank you. Thank you to all the speakers. Thank you for joining us. we can for any everyone anyone that interested to ask for the question we can have a ballet throw

yeah happy to yeah we'll be available yeah

thank you thank you