Working Group I (5th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Okay, good afternoon. Please take your seats. Welcome to the fifth session of Working Group 1. We haven't had a working group since last Friday. I know that everyone has been working very hard to advance the negotiations, clean up brackets and find consensus on difficult issues. And Yeah, I count on your cooperation to produce clean CRPs today. On a more humorous note, I have to acknowledge, sadly, that I have been relegated to a slightly smaller room, which means my brother has taken the bigger room. So just to say that. Today is Wednesday. Also, in Norse mythology, it's known as Woden's Day. It signifies wisdom, war, poetry, and magic. I want us to use our wisdom in this session to create poetry and magic. So that's our task today. So let's work together to clean some CRPs. So on Friday, we continued the consideration of conference room papers and approved four CRPs on the COP MOP 6. including CRP3 on monitoring and reporting, CRP1 on assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol, CRP2 on enhancing the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, and CRP5 on financial mechanism and resources. L documents for these four CRPs have now been produced and are available online. So before I continue, I also want to make you aware that there's a change in the schedule. And the change is that because of the ministerial deliberations going on, we will not be addressing HJ issues today. We will not be addressing HJ issues today. So, just to say that because the schedule has recently, actually just now been updated to reflect that. And the reason is that there are ministerial consultations ongoing on that very issue parallel to this working group. This afternoon, we will continue our consideration of CRPs under COP. So we have three CRPs to clean this afternoon. And those CRPs are engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities, mainstreaming of biodiversity, and capacity building and development. Right. Okay. So, but before we take up the CRPs, I would like to invite a report back from the contact group on agenda item 9A on the global review. I established a contact group on the global review on the first day of COP17. And as I mentioned at that time, I would invite the contact groups to report back when they have completed their work. I have been very impressed with all of the contact group co-chairs, the hard work and dedication that they have shown has contributed to the success we have seen in the negotiations. So for the items being considered during the session, I will invite the report back with the agenda item is when the, with the agenda item considered. So back to Global Review Contact Group, I would first like to invite the contact group under agenda item 9A on the Global Review to report back. I have actually no idea of the number of hours the parties have spent negotiating this item, including through the subsidiary bodies and during this COP. The dedication that Sanna Kryder and Sivendré Michael have shown is truly commendable. I would now like them to report back. floor or microphone to the Netherlands, please. Sanne, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I also don't know how many hours it has been, but I know they have been many. My co-chair, Sivender Michael from Fiji, and I are very pleased to report the progress on the contact group on agenda item 9A on the global review. The contact group met five times over the last one and a half week, on 19, 20, 22, 25, and the 26th of October. We also requested some small group consultations to take place, and those have come back with success during the contact groups. We have made very good progress during the sessions, and we were able to clean many brackets, and parties arrived ready to work with each other and to also make some tough compromises. We attribute part of the success also to our requests of periodic boots, of stretching that improved both blood flow as well as the flow of ideas and energy in the room. It has been a tremendous honor. to co-chair this important agenda item together with Serventor Michael, and I was also very truly impressed by the expertise, professionalism, and spirit of cooperation that was demonstrated by the party delegates in the room. And this really enabled us to almost clean the whole document, so there are only a few outstanding items left. But I would now like to hand over to my dear co-chair to provide some further remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sana from Netherlands. Floor to Fiji, please. Savendra, you have the floor.

Thank you to my dear co-chair. The Global Report and the Global Review encompasses all of the topics, the global biodiversity framework. And so it is no surprise that there is a divergence of views in several areas. But we feel that despite the differences, there is good space for a middle ground. And with the support of the Presidency, the parties may make use of the global report as they wish to do so or as they choose, and use this global review to really inform the final global review at COP19. It has indeed been a great honor to co-chair this contact group. I have been in many contact group settings, but in this particular group, I have been heartened by the good spirit, professionalism, and the willingness to compromise amongst many delegates. My co-chair and I are looking forward to seeing this decision on global review adopted. This showcases our joint efforts in implementing the KMGBF. and the GBF at the national level, as well as our collective progress towards the implementation of the KMGBF. I convey my sincere gratitude to the participating parties for their strong engagement on this item and the trust that they have shown both of us as co-chairs. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for their good support, and in the usual Pacific way, thank you for your love, for your care, and for all your loloma in the room, because without that trust and that collegial relationship we shared, we wouldn't have made it so far. Once again, we do hope that the balanced package that is in front of us is one that is acceptable to all parties, and that this decision be adopted early on so that we can signal to the world that the trust in the multilateral as well as the trust that we have placed in each other to show progress in CBD COP 17. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And the love goes to you as well, Sir Vendra, and to Sana. You've done amazing work, truly. I was a bit perplexed by this periodic bouts of stretching that Sander talked about, and I would say let us all be inspired and maybe do some yoga. That will make you also more flexible, because this is the time where we leave our positions, right? So we need to stretch. All right. And I would also like to congratulate all the delegates involved in this item for the progress you made during the negotiations. Yeah, so I have been working with all of you and under the guidance of the COP17 Presidency to resolve the remaining brackets on 9A, global review. This has now been taken up by the COP17 President to resolve as the remaining issues in the document are of a political nature. So, I don't want to ambush you now, but we will shortly, and don't panic, we will begin with agenda item 8b on financial mechanism. But we will not consider that paper now, because it's in production and will be ready in about one and a half hours or so. when it will be published, that is today. But, distinguished delegates, at our first meeting, I established a contact group on financial mechanism with the mandate to prepare a draft decision on financial mechanism. And I asked Inka Gnitke of Germany and Ye Wang of China to co-chair the contact group. Now I ask the co-chairs of the contact group on the financial mechanism to report on their work. Microphone to China, please. Yeah, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. On behalf of my co-chair, Inka Gennitka of Germany, we are pleased to report back on the work done by the Contact Group on item 8B, the financial mechanism. The Contact Group met five times over the course of COP17. The Group started from where we stopped, from SBI 7, and has completed its reading of all remaining text provided in the non-paper for agenda item 8b. On behalf of the Group, we are pleased to present the conference room paper for consideration with a few remaining brackets. But just as we heard from the Secretariat, the conference room paper is still under production, which means we had very good progress this morning because there's a lot of updates on that conference room paper. On behalf of my co-chair, we thank all delegates and the relevant organizations for their cooperation spirits and willingness to achieve consensus. Chair, distinguished delegates. Consultations on these items have not yet yielded consensus on all outstanding issues. To facilitate further discussions and explore possible areas of convergences, I propose to establish a Friends of the Chair group. The group will be facilitated by Inka Glentka of Germany and myself, Yewon of China, and it will report back on the outcome of these discussions tomorrow morning. I invite delegates wishing to participate to check the monitors of the online schedule for the time and the place of the meeting. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Yeh. So I note that there is a willingness to continue this work in a different format, which is a Friends of the Chair group. And as you said, the CRP for this agenda is currently in the final stages of editing and translation should be posted today. So it's only one and a half hours away as we here. So I invite, so first, financial mechanism is always a very complex issue at the COPs, and it takes a lot of time to finish that item. Most of the work is of technical nature, but they need time to finish their work. So are there any objections to this way forward? Just set down, friends of the chair group. I see none. Thank you. So I invite delegates wishing to participate to check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting. Yeah, so just to be clear, so the co-chairmanship will continue, so it will be the same as under the contact group Inka Gnitke and Yewang of China. Colleagues, We will now resume our consideration of CRP 1 of item 14B on engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities, which was initiated during the second session of the working group on 20 October. Before doing so, I would like to invite the Secretariat to provide a brief clarification that may assist Parties in their consideration of this document. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Secretariat would like to provide a brief clarification concerning operative paragraph one. The reference to the executive summary of the review of the role of subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities reflects the fact that only the executive summary was available to parties at the time of SBI 7. The full review has since been made available to parties as information document CBD/COP/17/INF/14 for your consideration. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Just give me a minute. Back again, sorry. Yeah, so I would suggest we use the similar method of working as in our previous four sessions, that is, we'll approve the clean text, and then we will start to work on the bracketed paragraphs. So, the clean paragraphs that can be approved is the first preamble on recalling its decisions 15/12 further, and then recognizing the importance of the role of subnational governments, and then paras 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12A. They are hereby approved, and we will work on paras 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12B, 12C, and 12D. Now, after having a look at the document, I suggest we skip para 2 at this stage of time, and then we'll come back to that because that's the most complex paragraph to solve. So I suggest we leave that for last. Some wise soul said always leave the best for last, so that's what we'll do. But otherwise, we'll follow the logic or the flow of the documents in a chronological order, so starting with paragraph one. Now, you remember from the, I can't even remember which session it was, if it was the first one or the second, but I introduced then this document and then we started briefly to work on paragraph one. So I would suggest that because the review is already done. So there's no need to welcome the executive summary of the report as such. So I would ask you if there is any opposition against just welcoming the review of the role of subnational governments. I see none, so that's what we will do. It is approved. Thank you. Now, we skip para 2 and we will come back to para 2 when the time is ripe. We will now go to paragraph 4. And here the idea is that to invite parties, other governments and relevant organizations to facilitate exchange of experiences, best practices, and lessons learned, including through North-North, South-South, and triangular cooperation, and to continue to support subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities. So in this para, the words "in improving the implementation of the framework, including is in brackets. I would suggest we lift the brackets. I repeat, I would suggest we lift the brackets. Is there any opposition against lifting the brackets? I see none. The brackets are lifted. Thank you. And paragraph 4 is approved. including paragraph one as well, which I think I forgot to mention. We will now go to paragraph six. In paragraph six, there's one set of brackets in the end. Here, the idea is to invite parties to engage with subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities, and other stakeholders as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation in support of the implementation of the plan of action and the framework. And then we come to the brackets in the end, which is to recognize, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation, indigenous peoples and local communities as local authorities. here as well, I would suggest that we lift the brackets. I see Canada. You have the floor, followed by New Zealand. Canada.

Thank you, Chair. We consider this should be deleted. In fact, it can be interpreted as going against the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples to ask parties to identify indigenous peoples as local authorities. We also find it somewhat circular and unnecessary as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation doesn't seem to be needed here. Thank you.

Thank you, Canada. We have New Zealand. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We support the proposal by Canada, though we could be flexible if we were to put the contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities deleting as local authorities for the reasons Canada stated.

Thank you, New Zealand. So we'll do the reverse or the inversion. Is there any opposition against deleting this language? I see none. The language is deleted within the brackets and the para is approved. Thank you. We now go to para 7. encourages parties as appropriate and in line. Okay, so here we have the first set of brackets, which are two alternatives. I think actually on paragraph 7, instead of just dealing with the brackets, bracket by bracket, I think we'll invite comments on the first two sets of brackets. So encourages parties as appropriate and in, and there we have two alternatives, which are in line with or in accordance with national circumstances, legislation and priorities to integrate And here we come with the suggestion to have local priorities, to integrate local priorities arising from. Yeah, I have to simplify more, sorry. So just the first set of brackets, I changed my approach because I think it will be too complicated. Here we have to be really granular, I see. So just the first alternatives. So in line with or in accordance with national circumstances, please. So let me hear some views of what alternative you prefer. And then we go from there. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Co-Chair.

We are actually quite flexible here with the in line and in accordance, while in majority of the documents, if not all, we have in accordance. which is consistent language, and we would prefer this. But if there are strong views about "in line," we can try to accommodate that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So you suggest "in accordance with" because of the sake of being consistent. Is there any opposition against using "in accordance with"? I see no opposition, so we use "in accordance with" and we delete "line". So it will read as appropriate: "and in accordance with national circumstances, legislation and priorities". Thank you. And the next The next expression in brackets is to integrate local priorities. I suggest we lift the brackets, so we will be left with the text to integrate local priorities arising from participatory processes. Is there any opposition against lifting the brackets? So we will have to integrate local priorities arising from participatory processes. I see none, the brackets are hereby lifted. And then we come to the end of the paragraph seven, which takes into consideration the contributions of actors other than national governments. And then we have sort of a list which contains indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, and relevant stakeholders, and gender responsive and human rights based approaches. Right. So, Doing bracket by bracket, regarding the first bracket, can we lift the brackets around actors other than national governments in particular? European Union, you have the floor.

We would prepare to retain the brackets on that section. In this case, we're aiming to directly address the particular individuals involved. We don't see that an umbrella term is the best way to do that. It's less transparent than including the actual list.

So you want to retain, but that means you want to delete the brackets, I assume?

No, we want to delete the text within the brackets.

Yes, exactly. Yeah. Thank you, European Union. So is there any opposition against deleting that text? Lower your flags then, and then only sign on if you are opposing. I see Russian Federation.

Thank you, Co-Chair.

Just asking for clarification. Are we now deleting the first brackets or the complete set of brackets?

Thank you.

Just the first set of brackets. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Co-Chair.

We understand that we are speaking about local priorities, and in this way, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth and other relevant stakeholders are really the focus, and we would be okay with that, but there could be other actors other than national governments that really could reflect or contribute on addressing local priorities. That depends on the circumstances. So in this way, we would suggest to retain the whole set. actors other than national governments, and then highlight in particular those that are listed here, and then other relevant stakeholders would also clarify that in some cases and some countries, there could be other contributors, like, for example, non-governmental organizations or even small businesses if we see some particular cases, and if not, it wouldn't be exclusive. So our preference would be to retain the text until relevant stakeholders.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. When you're saying preference, does it mean that you're flexible on this one?

We would ask other parties to consider our explanation, and perhaps it would go like this. We are not very strong on that, but we really would prefer to have an opportunity to integrate the use of some other relevant, very relevant stakeholders.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. EU, can I have you reflect on that? preference from Russia? EU, please.

Thank you. Yeah, we wonder whether there's a simple approach to this. Could we maybe say indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, and other relevant stakeholders?

Thank you. EU, please repeat for the benefit of the interpreters and the room.

Of course, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, and other relevant stakeholders. So it's the insertion of "other" before "stakeholders" that I'm suggesting.

Thank you, EU, for that suggestion. I think someone has done yoga today, which is great. Let's see if it works. Russian Federation, does this appeal to you? You have the floor.

Thank you.

Well, it's a logical thing, and in this way, we would also consider subnational governments, in some cases, that would not be stakeholders, but governments, and that's why we would like to have actors other than national governments. So there are different levels below the national government, and it's not just like trying to create a very difficult text, but to be very inclusive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. And as well, I noted that you said you were flexible, and I have this in mind before taking the intervention from the UK. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The UK supports the proposal of the European Union and would like to propose the inclusion as well of the term persons with disabilities before other relevant stakeholders. Thank you.

Thank you, UK, but I'm not accepting new texts at this moment because we have enough texts, so I won't do that. But I hear you have a preference for the language from the European Union. So, Russian Federation, because you signal flexibility, can I call on your flexibility on this one? Russian Federation, be on the floor.

Thank you, Gurchur.

Yes, we will be flexible on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So I will ask the Secretariat to read out the formulation as accepted.

Encourages Parties, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances, legislation and priorities, to integrate local priorities arising from participatory processes into the development, implementation, monitoring and review of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, taking into consideration the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, youth, and other relevant stakeholders.

Thank you, Secretariat. And now we come to the last set of brackets, which is an addition, which is and gender responsive and human rights based approaches. So can we lift the brackets on this addition? Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

We are not flexible on inclusion of this text, as we already presented many times, but we think that it's very well addressed through the section C of the framework, and our alternative proposal would be to change the text to delete the brackets, to delete the bracketed text, and we can go with changing it in accordance to section C of the framework. This would work for us, but the text as it stays now will not.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russia, for being clear. I want to thank you for when you're saying you're not flexible, of course, because this is a yoga session. But I note that you, and when you're referring to the framework, you're referring to the KMGBF, I assume. Yes. So, okay, so India, let's hear you.

Thank you, Chip. We support the intervention given by Russia Federation, as we also feel that this para is not in accordance with our stand, because human rights based approach can be dealt in a separate platform, not here. Thank you.

Thank you, India. Right. So I think, so after we've heard Iran, I will take up the alternative text suggestion from Russia and see if that can fly. Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just I wanted to support India.

Right, good. Thank you, Iran. So, and then I think the suggestion from the Russian Federation was to refer to the KMGBF section 3. No, C? C, thank you. Sorry about that, C. And Secretariat, did you capture that addition? I see nodding, so Secretariat to other front.

I'm going to start from taking into consideration. So, taking into consideration the contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, and other relevant stakeholders in accordance with section C of the framework.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So, I see no request for the floor. It is approved with the formulation added by the Russian Federation. Right, good. So next, we turn to paragraph 10. 10, yes. Encourages subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities to strengthen the collection and reporting of relevant PDWS data and information on the implementation of the framework. And then there are some inclusive language at the end, and the brackets, text in the brackets, is including where appropriate data and information on the contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities, women, and youth. So, can we lift the Paris around the brackets here? Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

In this particular case, we are speaking about subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities. We think that they will collect and provide this information in an inclusive way, as we already called them. So we suggest to delete the text in the brackets.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So do I see any opposition against deleting the text within the brackets and set a full stop after framework? I see, yes, there is opposition. So let's work on it. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you. We actually think that this inclusion is very important. The paragraph is very close to the implementation on the ground. The subnational governments are really important for implementation at a ground level. So these groups are also particularly important agents of implementation on the ground level. There's a direct connection there.

Thank you, European Union. So yes, I know, but we have to work on the problem. So I can come back to you, reflect a bit if you don't have a concrete suggestion. You do? Thank you.

We want to retain the text in brackets as it is.

Yes, I know, but there's opposition, so we have to work on the problem, right? So that's why we're here. We're here to do yoga, so you will have to stretch and be flexible and all of that. Okay, Australia, please help me.

Thank you, Chair. Australia also supports retaining this text, this importance that we consider the contributions of Indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth in biodiversity data, noting those contributions, knowledge and expertise that they can make. Thank you. Sorry, I will be flexible and think of something as well. Thanks.

Thank you, Australia. I like it. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We want to also.

Support the retention of this text, because we think that the subnational governments are the level of government that is.

Closest to these communities and therefore can be in a position to.

Strengthen the reporting when subnational governments are the ones that have to collect information from this level.

Thank you, South Africa. So, Russian Federation, I want to turn back to you because I noted some flexibility, I think, in your intervention. Would you be flexible on lifting the brackets? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for considering this.

In the spirit of cooperation, we would be prepared to leave the brackets with a small amendment and other relevant stakeholders. As I already explained today, depending on the country and the circumstances, there could be and there are other very important stakeholders that could help local governments to collect and report on relevant biodiversity data at local level. And those for example, on non-governmental organizations. And there are others as well. So we ask for the inclusion of other relevant stakeholders here, and we would be prepared to leave the brackets in the spirit of cooperation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation, for your flexibility. I ask that delegations reflect on that proposal so we can agree on the text and go forward. I have Brazil followed by Iran. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you. I would like to support the insertion proposed by the Russian delegation. I think this covers also one of the main topics for Brazil, that's people from African descent. We know that's late in the text to put this addition, but with the addition of Russia, we can make a comprehensive data collection, take into account other collectivities. That's important for our country. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. And as I've said that, you know, I don't like a new text, but as long as it solves a problem, I think it's fine. So, Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you again, Mr. Chain. Iran would like to support Russia and Brazil.

Thank you. And Cuba, is this formulation now, as it stands, is okay by you? Cuba, you have the floor.

Yes, I'm just taking the floor to support the addition by Russia.

Thank you.

Right, and I see no more requests, so it is hereby approved. Secretariat will read the approved formulation. I'm not allowed to say adopted, I'm only allowed to say approved. So, please, secretariat.

Encourages subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities to strengthen the collection and reporting of relevant biodiversity data and information on the implementation of the framework, including, where appropriate, data and information on the contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, and other relevant stakeholders.

Thank you, Secretariat. So that is approved, and we now go to para 11, which has brackets around the whole para. This is about also encouraging subnational governments, citizens, and other local authorities to engage in mechanisms and platforms supporting the implementation of the framework, and this is in 15/12. Right, okay. So can we lift the brackets around para 11? Does someone have major problems against lifting the brackets here? Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We support this paragraph in general, but we understand that membership of the Advisory Committee on Local Governments is in fact set out in its terms of reference and is not open to all cities and other local authorities. So we're concerned that including this wording creates an expectation that it's an open group. So just wanted to flag that. Otherwise, we're supportive of the paragraph.

Sorry about that. India, you had the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We are happy to lift the brackets for this 11th paragraph. However, at the end, we would like to add, in accordance with decision X/22 of 29 October 2020, and national legislations, because this mechanism is implemented at subnational levels and local level. So we feel that national legislation has to be incorporated in this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, India. So I'm a bit reluctant to introduce new text at this stage, and I'm not sure that it sort of resolves our problem that we have. So I would ask your flexibility at this stage not to include new text. And Canada, if you flag your view, right? And that's certainly could be something in that, but there is probably no big problem if the para is adopted. as it reads now. So I would ask for flexibility so we can lift the brackets around this and approve para 11 as is. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We feel that national legislative component has to be there in this paragraph. So we retain this paragraph in brackets.

Thank you, India. So there is the argument that's already covered by decision 10/22 of 29th of October 2010. So I'll ask the Secretariat to clarify. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Um, the, the, the reason why decision 1022 is referenced at the end of the paragraph is, I think, to provide, um, context on the inclusion of the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments and the Advisory Committee on, uh, and local governments. These and the Global Partnership, all of these three bodies were created by the decision 10/22, and that is why the reference is there. This is adopted decision by the parties, and it is in accordance with legislation. So, thank you, Chair.

It's in accordance. Yes, so India, are you content with this explanation? Because it seems like your concerns are actually covered by the decision itself, which is 10/22 or 29th of October 2010, which contains a reference to legislation. We're checking the decision now, so we can hear the actual reference. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We have referred to the document, and in the main text, it is not mentioned, only in the annex it is described. So since so we are requesting the Chair to keep elaborately in the document paragraph so that it can be clearly mentioned here. Thank you.

Thank you, India. Yeah, so we're checking now and you're absolutely right. So in that case, I will suggest that we add the language from India at the end of the para. so we can, so we can um uh approve the uh uh para 11 with that addition. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

We support the proposal of India. We think that if it helps to approve the paragraph, and it's also in line with the decision, we are flexible and supportive to include national legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So I see no more ask for the floor. It is then Approved, uh, with the, uh, addition by India, for the sake of clarity, I will ask the secretary to read the last part of the, uh, para with the addition from India, thank you.

Also encourages subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities to engage in mechanisms and platforms supporting the implementation of the framework and Decision 15/12, including the Advisory Committee on Subnational Governments and Biodiversity, the Advisory Committee on Local Governments and Biodiversity, and the Global Partnership on Subnational and Local Governments for Biodiversity, in accordance with Decision 10/22 of 29 October 2010, in accordance with national legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. So, para 11 is hereby approved. We now go to para 12, requests. So, these are requests to the Executive Secretary. Subject to the availability of resources, uh, so we now go to then to, to 12, uh, B, um, which, uh, has language in brackets, um… on barriers to access to funding and opportunities to strengthen direct and equitable financing mechanism. So we'll deal with the first set of brackets first, barriers to access to funding. So I suggest we lift the brackets on the first set of brackets. Tuvalu, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would just like to have a very minor amendment, sorry, a minor addition to the text, if you would allow me, Chair.

So Tuvalu, I'm only allowing additions if it solves a problem, and I'm not sure that it will, so I will only have voices that want to delete the text at this stage? European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we had requested deletion of this text because we felt it was very resource intensive in its original wording. But we did note that there was support among other parties, that it was important to some parties to get a sense of this. So we have an alternative that we'd like to propose, if you'd let me read.

Yeah, so I wanted to lift the brackets. I'm not sure that we have a problem, but there might be that we have. But please read out. Yeah, so to be consistent, because I didn't allow to allude to include, so I am a bit hesitant to include new language before I'm sure that we have a problem. So I would only like to see if there's any opposition against lifting the brackets, actually. So, i see the list consists of Iran, Brazil, and Argentina. Is that opposition against lifting the brackets? I see it is. So then we do have a problem. So let me take Brazil first, and then I'll return to you, European Union. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to be sure, we are talking about B, right? B as in Brazil.

B, yes, as in Brazil.

Yes, and I know that the intention is to cut brackets or not, but this paragraph, the way it reads, it's not clear for us. I think we need more text here in order to understand what kind of finance we're talking about. It's national finance, domestic finance, international finance that are going directly to these communities. And we know that maybe be a heavy burden with the secretariat, but to keep track of national finance in each country to see how they reach these communities, I don't think it's feasible. You know our country position that it's important that international finance goes direct to these communities. Maybe in this paragraph, we have to show some yoga pose to make it more comprehensive. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Brüssel. So as I said, I'm hesitant to include a lot of new text at this point. There is always some imprecision. I think we have to live it at this stage because we're already on Wednesday and the COP closes on Friday, so we don't have much time, to be honest. So, I would like to hear Argentina. Argentina, you had the floor.

Thank you, Co-Chair. We prefer removing this part of the paragraph. If there's no consensus on lifting the brackets, we would like to add "in accordance with national legislation" at the end, after "local implementation".

Thank you, Argentina. And to ask you, is this really important to you, or could you be flexible?

Thank you. It's important that in this case, we abide by the national procedures. in how financing comes in and gets to the local areas on the ground. So for that reason, it's important that we maintain this part of the paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. So I see that we can spend a lot of time in this para. So what I would like to do is to have a small group to look at this one, but also possibly the 12C. So I would ask you to lower your flags, because I will indicate a procedure to solve paragraph 12B. So we go to 12C, where we have a set of brackets at the end, which is indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, and actors other than national governments. So my suggestion for this one, 12C, would be to lift the brackets so we will have Indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, and actors other than national governments. So we would have actually both. Is there any opposition against lifting those both sets of brackets? So we will have all of the categories there. I see there is opposition. That's okay. So, which means that the small group that will be formed will look at 12B and C, but also actually D. So they will look at 12 B, C, and D. So, but before the small group is called to work, we will go to paragraph two. So we'll now go to paragraph two. We'll now go to paragraph two, which is a quite complicated piece of prose. So let's see. So starting with the first set of brackets in paragraph 2, which is including, where applicable, indigenous subnational governments in accordance with their own governance system, can I lift the brackets on the first set of brackets, including where applicable? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. No, in this case, in addition to the caveat where applicable, we would like to add, in accordance with national legislation, as a condition for accepting the lifting of the brackets. Thank you.

Argentina, just to clarify, can you indicate where you want your addition so we can capture it? Thanks.

It would be after, in accordance with their own governance systems and national legislation.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Now I'll hear New Zealand, and then I'll assign some work for the small group to take care of. New Zealand, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We're concerned that as worded implies that Indigenous subnational governments have parity with the functions and powers of central and local governments. And so we could work with language around subnational authorities and use as well as, as opposed to including, and that pair would work for us, but happy to work on it.

Thank you, New Zealand. Yes, definitely this is a quite complicated para with lots of different ideas, I think, that needs some ironing. Just hold on a second. Right. Sorry about that. Yeah. So the small group will be assigned to work on paragraph 2, paragraph 12, b, c, and d. And that's the only, otherwise we have a clean document. So I will ask you to report back to me in one hour, that is 5:20. So you have one hour to solve para 2, 12b, c, and d. So even though the Paris don't deal with the same issues, it is indeed in the same CRP. So it deals with the same themes. I would, and now this is the exciting part, who will be asked to lead the small group? I will ask to Valou. to lead the work of the informal small group, but I will have to ask politely first. Tuvalu, are you okay with that? Tuvalu, you have the floor. You were nodding, yes, and thumbs up. Thank you, tuvalu, for your flexibility. And then, of course, then the next question is this small group. So this small group will be then joined by all other parties that have an interest in paragraph 2 and 12. So, we didn't take interventions on the whole of paragraph 2, but the paragraph 2 deals with language in line with articles 10 and 21 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. It has proclaimers on in accordance with national legislations. Also, the issue of submissions from actors other than national governments that are validated by the respective national governments. And there's also language of the findings of the Kunming dialogue and collective progress in the implementation of the framework in support of the Global Review. So you would have to assess whether you would like to be a part of this, the work of the small group. Based on the interventions we have heard so far on paragraph 2, I ask you please to read the whole para and then get in touch with Tuvalu. So I ask that you meet in the back in a couple of minutes. But first, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair.

And we do understand that it's a good way forward. It may be a good way forward. However, we will now continue consideration of other CRPs. And it's not really feasible to leave the place, to leave the room and to start discussing things that may need some more discussions further in this working group. So, is it my correct understanding then when the small group will complete its work, we will still have a negotiation? Otherwise, there are many things to be adopted or not adopted, approved or not approved in those paragraphs, and we are not really in a position to agree that the small group will solve all the issues and we will just accept it.

Please clarify. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. No, of course, I do see your point. At the same time, it's Wednesday, and I have used this modality, this way of working before, so that will still be my preference. But of course, if you are not able to join the small group, you will have the opportunity to look at the language when we take it up in about one hour. Russian Federation, is that okay?

Thank you, Chair.

If this is okay with the other parties, we can accept this as well, but we really would be, we will really need to have a look and to discuss the language, especially given the fact that there was no first reading or contact group on this issue, and we are basing this on the outcomes of the subsidiary body, so there might be some specificities in the discussion of the proposed document, in particular on those paragraphs.

Thank you.

Yes, I do see that, Russian Federation, but still we have to make progress. So I think we'll do it in that way. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. We see merit of discussing it here, since we are dealing with indigenous people, collectivities, local communities, it's important for them to be included, a small group would be helpful, but we haven't had the time to at least dialogue among ourselves and delegations about the importance of things that we convey in this paragraph. So I think we, in our position, we are okay with dealing with small groups, but for the transference of the process when dealing with subnational governments, it's important to be here as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. But for me, this is just a time management issue, because it's now Wednesday and we have lots of work to go through. So for the sake of being effective, this is what we have to do. So I ask you to meet at the back of the room, and Tuvalu will lead the group, and the language will be brought back, and then we'll take a look at it. Okay. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair.

I know that usually we do not project language or texts in this group, but again, for the transparency, as my distinguished colleagues from Brazil mentioned, that would be important to see the text and to have the opportunity to reflect on that, also for those who are not in the group and perhaps for the observers as well. So we ask you to consider then projecting the text on the screen if we are not discussing it here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rasha, but I will not project any text on the screen. because in my experience, that usually leads to bigger problems. But we will read the text out and give you some time to reflect on it. Thank you. We will now take up the CRP 9 on COP agenda item 14A on mainstreaming biodiversity within and across sectors. The CRP was prepared on the basis of the work of the contact group. I invite the co-chair of the contact group to report on their work. Mr. Yahidul Kabir from Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Along with my fellow co-chair, Scott Wilson from Canada, I had the privilege to facilitate the contact group on agenda item 14A on mainstreaming biodiversity within and across the sectors. This contact group met on three times, concluding its work on Monday, October 26th. The group organized its deliberations around the thematic clusters to facilitate discussions and identify areas of convergence. Throughout the three sessions, parties engaged constructively and demonstrated flexibility and a spirit of compromise, allowing substantial progress to be made on the draft decisions. The Contact Group was able to resolve the majority of the brackets contained in the draft decision forwarded by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, with a limited number of issues remaining outstanding. As a result, the Contact Group has significantly narrowed the outstanding issues, and the remaining brackets are now before Working Group I for further consideration. On behalf of the co-chairs, I would like to thank all parties for their constructive engagement and cooperation throughout the process. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kabir, and thank you very much for your hard work. I think this document is in a good state. I will now give the floor to the Secretariat for some corrections. Thank you, my Secretary, to the other floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to turn to paragraph 7e of CRP 9, where there is an editorial error. That paragraph appears as clean on the CRP, but it should be bracketed. The entire paragraph 7e is therefore still in brackets. Furthermore, we would like to bring to your attention the reference to capacity building activities in the same paragraph. For consistency, it should read capacity building and development activities instead. There is also a slight editorial adjustment needed in the chapeau of paragraph 7. The paragraph now reads, "requests that the Executive Secretary." The "that" is incorrect and should be removed. The paragraph would thus read, "requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resources and building upon existing activities and mandates." Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretary. To be honest, I'm struggling a bit with these monstrous things. Yeah, well, anyway. So following the same procedure, we'll approve the clean Paris. So what is clean is the preamble on recalling. its decision 16/13, recalling also its decisions 14/3, and then the fourth preamble para noting that the present decision is complemented. We have clean paras one, two, three, four, 6A, 6D, 6E, 6F, and then 7A, 7B, and 7C. And then the 7E, as corrected by the Secretariat, does have the entire para 7E in brackets, which means we'll adopt all of the Clean paragraphs now, they are adopted, and then we'll work on the preamble, recognizing that progress on biodiversity mainstreaming remained insufficient. We'll work on paragraph 5, 6B, 6C, 7D, 7E, 7F, 7G. Right, that's the work at hand. So we'll go now to the first pre, sorry, not the first, the third preamble para. Sorry, I got new headphones. I think I'll Exchange them. Right, much better. Thank you very much. Okay, so the preamble para saying recognizing that progress on biodiversity mainstream remains insufficient to achieve the goals and targets of the framework, and that enhanced efforts are needed to close existing and then we have some alternative on ambition and, and then we have the choice then between ambition and or scope, comma coverage, and implementation gap. So I recognize this, this alternative considerations or choice of language from, from the global review discussion. So I would like to take, before suggesting an approach here, I would like to take some use from the floor. Do I see an icebreaker that has done yoga today? Russian Federation, yes, good. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I do recall discussions that we had in the contact group and understand that there are important issues here. But actually, for the sake of moving forward on Wednesday, as you prefer to recall, We would suggest to delete both sets of brackets, because the absolutely evident thing that we need to close the gaps in the implementation. And we can discuss whether this is ambition or not. I recall these discussions going under the Global Review and We also believe that scope, coverage and coverage can be mentioned here, but those both will lead to the gaps in the implementation. And if this would be appropriate and acceptable for colleagues, for the parties, That may solve the issue. So our proposal is simply delete both bracketed texts, and it wouldn't damage the further content of the document and the operative paragraphs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So which means that it would read "and that enhanced efforts are needed to close existing implementation gaps." European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to retain ambition, but we would like to see the brackets remain around scope and coverage. And thank you.

Thank you, European Union. But of course, as I said, we're here now on Wednesday, so We're here to solve the problem, and then I would have to ask you, why do you want to retain the brackets? Please, European Union.

Thank you, Chair. So we'd like to retain the brackets on scope and coverage because we think ambition is the stronger term, and it's needed to reflect the crisis in terms of biodiversity loss. And we need to raise ambition towards that in halting that loss. Thank you.

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

Thank you. I now understand there was a solution about that in the global review. It would be scoping coverage, but in order to not discuss what we prefer, we can go with the Russian delegation proposal and go to the next paragraph. Thank you.

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

Thank you, co-chair. Thank you, chair. Though we in favor of scope and coverage, but for in favor of the consensus, we accept Russia's suggestion.

Thank you, Iran. So I see no further requests for the floor. So EU, I really need to show flexibility on this one. And I think, from my point of view, it will say that enhanced efforts are needed to close existing implementation gaps. So I think that's fairly general, which means that when there are parties with opposing views, they can read into both ambition into it and scope and coverage. So to me, that's a fairly neutral and balanced approach to this one. EU.

Thank you. If at all possible, would it be, could we pick this up later and come back to this?

Well, yes, but the problem is that we're here to approve the CRPs, and I need the clean text to go to the plenary. So my instructions is to leave this place with a clean text. So otherwise there will be huge problems for the process later. So I would give you some time to reflect on it. if you need to consult, but not more than 15 minutes. All right. So now we go to para five. So we go to para five, which is in brackets in its entirety. I don't see any brackets in the text as such. It's all about encouraging parties, and why it's all the government sectors. And then it refers to in accordance with paragraph 26 of decision 15/6 and paragraph 3 of decision 16/32 to accelerate the exchange of relevant good practices, tool mechanisms, and guidance. and other relevant solutions related to biodiversity mainstreaming. Right, so can we lift the Paris on para 5? Also taken into consideration it's Wednesday. I see no request for the floor. We lift the brackets. Five is approved. Thank you. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Can we just clarify which of the two options, paragraph 5 and the alternative 5 alt, the footnote listing all was absent from the paragraph 5? We would have a preference for listing the full list of parties that this is targeted at or directed towards, and as this is the first citation of this long list, we would have a preference for seeing the text in the 5 alt version of this paragraph. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, but I just approved per lifted the brackets on five, right? Which is approved. So to me, it looks like five alt is an alternative, which I'm not, if I'm not, it might be that I'm mistaken, but So, EU, so the text from the footnote is now included in five. So, which I believe is in accordance with para 26. So this is decision 15/6 of 19 December 2022 and para 3 of decision 16/32 of 27 February 2025. The Secretariat is nodding. So that is the text that was in the footnote. It's now included in 5, and 5 alt is now deleted because we approved paragraph 5. Kate, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and apologies to take you back on this. It's a little bit tricky with our lead on this issue in the small group huddle, but we also would prefer to see OP5 alt. And I wasn't really sure what was happening with 5 alt when you asked to lift the brackets on 5. So apologies to take you back, but I think our preference would be to see 5 alt, not 5.

So, okay, so it's a bit complicated. The Secretariat will take the floor to explain it, but it seems like a lot of what is the actors listed in 5 alt is actually captured in the reference that was in the footnote, which is now in the text, but the Secretariat will clarify.

Thank you, Chair. Just for clarification, in the last contact group, parties proposed two alternatives. One of them would be to lift the reference in the footnote and make it integral to the paragraph, which is the reference to the two decisions where the complete list is included. The alternative was to then list everything and not have the reference, of course. In essence, they both refer to the same listing of the same actors. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretary. So I ask delegations to reflect on that and also to concentrate on the must-haves, right? Because, you know, this, to me, it looks like everything is captured in five, which I already approved, right? So I would have to hear really strong arguments why you would take me back to a conversation on this. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We took this as being considered as alternatives, but you cleared the first without considering the second. So we would appreciate just restating that as this is the first citation of the full list. that this is the 5 alt is used in this instance, and also just to point out the actors that are national governments isn't used elsewhere in the text, so as an abbreviation or a shorthand, it's irrelevant. So we would really have a strong preference for working with 5 alt in this situation. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, EU, but sort of from my perspective, we're not really here to work that much on the language. You had the time in the contact group to work on this language. Now, there were two alternatives here suggested, and the five seems to capture the language in five alt regarding the actors. So I really had to show, ask you to show flexibility on this one. Australia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We also agree with the point raised by the EU. It wasn't that clear regarding whether we were just dealing with paragraph 5 or paragraph 5 old. We also prefer 5 old, and I would also just like to add that For consistency with the global review decision, the first time that we refer to actors other than national governments, we have listed out the full group of partners and stakeholders and other non-government actors as well. So, yes, that would also be our preference. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll make it brief. We also support the European Union and Australia's points. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. And of course, because, so I admit I wasn't too clear. I love lifting brackets. That's my favorite sport. But of course, sometimes it's a bit too fast. So given that basically the difference between 5V and 5 is not huge, right? I would suggest we work on the basis of five alt, given the interventions I've heard. And if there are huge problems with that, I will probably ask for a small group to have a look at it. But let's hear Iran and then Russian Federation. Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We had intensive discussions in contact group for 5, paragraph 5 and 5 alt. And but we reached to this decision that all the stakeholders and relevant actors have been included in decisions 15-6 and also 16-32. So we prefer to keep paragraph 5 and delete paragraph 5 alt. Thank you.

Thank you, Aaron. You just made the argument for our group. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Indeed, as my distinguished colleague from Iran just explained, we had a very intensive and quite long discussion on this in the contact group. We also had an option that we have everything in footnote. I think now it's probably I'm not guess, I'm just guessing, probably it's an editorial way. But in any case, we are recalling, we are calling all actors other than national government. Would it be a solution that the whole list would be put in the footnote in accordance to the decisions already quoted? Usually it's another way around, but it might solve the problem here, because there are two options and the views were just divided. Our preference is strongly going to paragraph 5, as we are looking for a streamlined text. We understand that it's very important to mention all the actors. If all of them in the footnote would help, we can go with that. Otherwise, reading is getting quite complicated when you have the whole list in one paragraph, and when usually it's a practice to refer to existing decisions. So asking parties to think of this and probably have this solution of a footnote with the list. Otherwise, our preference is five.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Let's hear from the co-chair. Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As we understood in the contact group, we have detailed discussion. There are two options: one is reference with footnote, and another is quoting the all names. That actually make that text very difficult for non-native English-speaking countries. It is, we are in the CBD, we are making document that becomes very difficult for non-native English-speaking people. So I prefer keeping the 5 with footnote. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And hearing that suggestion from the Contact Group co-chair, could we go for the 5, but then with the footnote, with the listing from 5 alt? Yes, I see that's acceptable. It is approved. Thank you very much. This is indeed Yoga Day. Good, good, good. And now we'll go to 6B, 6B, which is in brackets. And the language is to accelerate identification, elimination, phasing out or reforming of incentives harmful to biodiversity and scaling up positive incentives. Basically the theme of KMGBF target 18. Can we lift the brackets on B? European Union. I see no requests for the floor. The brackets are not lifted because I see there's a Russian Federation asking for the floor, and Brazil. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. I think it's a technical thing here.

I saw that European Union was first, then Brazil, and then my turn came, our turn came. So please give the floor to those who raised this first.

Yeah, I think they lowered the flags, basically. But Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, by now we oppose lifting the bracket, our position in the Contact Group, and we didn't have enough time to discuss that, is that this targeted sanction all over the place. We have a tense discussion on these in other documents, and we haven't worked here this phrase at all. We just mentioned with that proposal of not having in the text, that would be our preference. Thank you.

So, Brazil, just to be clear, you want to delete the para? Yes. Yeah, you're nodding. Yes. So even though this is a working group, the last thing we should do is to work on language that has not been entertained in the contact group, because then we will spend endless hours here. which we don't have. I'm looking at Asad, he confirms we don't have endless hours. So, and I must say that, so this is, of course, the central theme of KMGBF. We have all signed on to the KMGBF. I would suggest we follow the suggestion from Brazil and we delete para B. Any opposition? And I only want to see opposition against that suggestion to delete para B. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We oppose the deletion of this paragraph, but we request the brackets are retained because this is a cross-cutting issue, and I don't think this is the correct forum for it to be dealt with. Thank you.

Thank you, EU. So can I ask you what forum you want this to be dealt with? EU, you have the floor.

It's important, it's still under discussion across other items, and we would appreciate just that this isn't resolved at this point. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, EU. Indeed. I won't push you on this one, so let's keep it in brackets for now. Georgia, do you want the floor on this one?

Thank you very much, Chair. Indeed, on this topic.

Just.

To highlight that we consider harmful subsidies as the most important element for mainstreaming, therefore, in some form, we would love to have this paragraph in this decision. Thank you.

Right. Thank you, Georgia. So pending other issues, This is a cross-cutting issue that we will keep in brackets until now. So we'll now go to C. So here we have, to enhance the alignment of action policies and plans with the regional goals and targets of the framework. And then we have one potential addition to enhance the development first and alignment. So could I then I propose a lift the brackets around the development and so it would read to enhance the development and alignment of. I see no request for the floor. Okay, Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, this paragraph I understand the idea of going brackets by brackets, but it depends on the whole paragraph of how we're going to portray the message. We unfortunately cannot agree with transition plans, for example. So if you approve develop, we won't approve transition plans, but we understand that's important for some other delegations. So unfortunately, we cannot leave the brackets in development by now. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. So could I have you please reflect on how you would like to solve the para while we take other interventions that would be useful, so we in the end have a clean para. So the reverse Does anyone have something against deleting the language in the brackets, so it would read “to enhance the alignment of”? India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. With reference to para B, to accelerate the identification.

So, India, so para B stays in brackets until further clarity on the outcome of other discussions and other agenda items.

Yeah, thank you for clarification. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. On this one, we wondered if a slightly simpler formulation would help to lift the all of the brackets, and that would be to say, instead of what's written, to develop and implement action plans for sectoral transformation in alignment with the relevant goals and targets of the framework. And if that seems like it's something that's agreeable, I'm happy to read it at dictation speed, but I'll read it one more time for parties. So it's to develop and implement action plans for sectoral transformation in alignment with the relevant goals and targets of the framework. And then hopefully that could replace everything and resolve all of the remaining brackets.

Thank you, UK. This is highly appreciated. So, can we approve this para, as suggested by the UK? Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you. Appreciate the intent of the UK, and we really appreciate it, but unfortunately, the proposal still raises concerns among some words for us. Thank you.

So, Brazil, could you please clarify what your concerns R.

Yes, sure. Thank you, Chair, for the time for me to explain. Whenever you say that some sectors need transition from the practices that they are doing now, you are saying that they don't comply with biodiversity targets or something like that. So the word transition or transformation, unfortunately, won't work for us because we understand that some of the practices and the sectors, they can have a sustainable way of producing. And that's why we oppose any word that says transformation and transition and to develop. We don't think that we should be prescriptive now. Thank you.

So, UK, can I go back to you on this one? Maybe you have a potential solution, UK?

Thank you, Chair. If the issue is that the concern is that not all sectors might need this transformation, could we just add "as appropriate" at the very end? And then it may be that some sectors require some transformation, but not all sectors, and this allows for that flexibility that Brazil seems to require.

Thank you, UK. I'm hesitant to declare as appropriate as music and poetry, but in this case, I think it might actually be that very thing. I'm looking at Brazil as appropriate. Let's see. But Brazil, you know, we have to come up with a solution here because it's Wednesday, and I asked delegations to be flexible, please. Brazil.

Yes, thank you. We are pretty happy to be flexible. It's Wednesday for us and for other delegations who asked for more time as well. This is a highly, highly important topic for Brazil, for our productive sector. We have engaged in the mainstreaming decision, but we cannot, and we made it clear that some words are very difficult for us. play around this word, but they have the same meaning. So we are going further than the discussion we had. We are proposing new text from the floor and ask to be flexible to accept that. So unfortunately, by now, we cannot accept, but we are eager to engage in more deep conversation about this paragraph.

Just an idea, how if we add "in accordance with national circumstances"? that would be then your national circumstances and others' national circumstances.

We have to consult to see how the text would read. We know that some sectors, like fossil fuel sectors, need some transition, and if we could and put on the text the sectors that we are talking about, we will be happy to consider. But the way it reads, unfortunately, it's not possible for us. Thank you.

So I will have the Secretariat to read out the UK language, but with the inclusion of inappropriate and in accordance with national circumstances for you to reflect on. The Secretariat.

To develop and implement action plans for sectoral transformation in alignment with the relevant goals and targets of the framework, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances.

Thank you, Secretariat. I hope you have captured the language, so I would ask you to reflect on that. Last two interventions is from Gabon and then from Russian Federation. Gabon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to support the UK's proposal as we heard it. read out by the Secretariat. Thank you.

Thank you. Gabon, Russian Federation.

Thank you, co-chair.

From the beginning, we were absolutely clear that including, for example, or in any other ways, national sectoral transition plans would not work for us. Now, on Wednesday, you Initially, we're hesitant to add new text. Now we change this text to the transformation as appropriate, sectoral transformation as appropriate. We actually need to consult on that, and we would ask you to put the whole paragraph in brackets then, because the meaning is almost the same, and the discussions in the contact group, we were clear that policies and plans That was as far as we were happy to go, maybe not happy. We all are working to be equally unhappy, as we used to say during the last days. So we would be okay to enhance development and sectoral actions, which is again, sectoral actions. And then policies and plans. In our view, that would cover also transformation and transition, while we are not in a position to agree with the language on transition and transformation now. So it's either the whole paragraph in brackets or bracketed text both from the UK proposal and the original brackets.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russia. I'm trying to put some language in there that will accommodate your concerns as well. And then I will have the Secretariat to read it out. And then after, we can all reflect on the language we have. And then we'll come back to it. It will stay in brackets. Thank you. Secretariat, to the floor.

To enhance the alignment of sectoral actions, policies, and plans with the relevant goals and targets of the framework.

Russia, can I just get your confirmation that this language still makes you unhappy, but happy enough, Russian Federation?

Yeah, but this language, we are okay.

I believe also it was a clean language at the end, in accordance with national circumstances and legislation, at least as I can see now in the CRP, and then it will be perfectly okay.

Thank you.

Yes, we'll read it again, the full text. And before we start, so when it comes to solving a problem, we have to look at it a bit holistically, I think, so that's what we're doing now. Secretary, to the other floor.

to enhance the alignment of sectoral actions, policies, and plans with the relevant goals and targets of the framework in accordance with national circumstances and legislation.

Thank you, Secretariat. So we put that in brackets for delegations to reflect, and then we'll come back. I mean, if you are happy now, we can also see Brazil shaking his head, so that's fine. We keep it in brackets for delegations to reflect. But first, European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. to retain transitional plans, and during the contact group, we were willing to allow sectoral plans dropped from the original text, provided the transitional plans were retained. But we will consider the new text, but we just want to highlight that we think the national sectoral transition plans, and I appreciate Brazil's point of view on this, but it's an important aspect of this. Thank you.

So in that case, I suggest we add that language, Secretariat nodding, so better to have it in now for delegations to reflect on. And then before I have the Secretariat read it out with the addition from the EU, we’ll have Iran.

Thank you, Chair. We are happy with the new text proposed by Russia. Thank you so much.

So, EU, can you clarify if transitions are to be before actions?

EU, please.

Sorry, just one second. Can I consult and I'll come back to you?

Yeah.

So we'll go come back to this one. So we now go to D, promote awareness and uptake of existing best practices, tools, guidance, and other relevant resources, including those arising from relevant assessments. And then we have the end of the D is in brackets, such as reports of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, also known as IPBES. Can we lift the brackets in D? As the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again.

We are not comfortable with this language, and I can explain why. There are various assessments that are relevant. And as we already say, relevant assessments, we would like to delete the text in the brackets. And That also would reflect the way that it's a comprehensive approach to promoting awareness of existing best practices, such as points out into particular assessments of one very respective organization as it best, but we would like to have this general.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Opposite, anyone against deleting this language? Just show your hands if you're against deleting. I see your hand. So we have to work on the problem. So anyone interested in helping working on the problem, please take the floor. Otherwise, lower your flags. Australia, you want to help out? Thank you.

Maybe I just wasn't quick enough to lower my hand, but I will try to be flexible. But obviously we know that IPBES provides very good science and assessments to deal with the environmental crises of biodiversity loss, including the first global assessment on biodiversity and now is working on the second global assessment on biodiversity. We do think it is relevant to include it here, and I wonder whether we could just maybe rather than "such as", we could include some other term. I'm just trying to think flexibly. Sorry, my brain has, I do like such as, I'm struggling to think of something else. I may leave it. That's fine. Oh, sorry, my colleague might have an idea. Sorry.

That's fine. Iran, you have the floor.

Sorry, including from, maybe? Thanks.

I heard including from. Ipas, Iran, did you want to take the floor? Yes, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Actually, IPBES reports are very important and have good contribution for CBD. And to be flexible for that, maybe we can say, for example, reports by IPBES.

Thank you, Iran. I think that's a helpful suggestion. For example, reports of the IPBES. Is that acceptable to the room? Russian Federation.

Thank you, co-chair.

Actually, we would propose for the sake of compromise, including but not limited to. We would leave it at that.

Sorry, forgive me, Russia. I was consulting and I didn't tell you. Could you please repeat? Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Yeah, yeah, I'm fine. I'm fine to repeat. We understand that it's very important for many parties to mention IPBES reports here, so we would probably, in the spirit of compromise, could go with "including but not limited to".

Right, yes, good. Including but not limited to IPES, which I think is fair and precise because it's not limited to IPES anyway. There's a range of other assessments, including the ocean assessments. So, right, I see that's okay. It is approved as such. Thank you very much. Yes, lower your flags, please. I think this is as close as we can get. So thank you very much. D is approved. We now go to F. No, sorry, E, where I didn't see my own brackets. My own blue brackets. Yes, the entirety is bracketed. It's about facilitating capacity building activities in collaboration with relevant organizations. Can we lift the brackets, which I don't see in my paper? I think that's acceptable. The brackets are lifted. European Union, are you, is this a must have for you? European Union.

Thank you, Chair. So we are in support of lifting the brackets, but we would like to see the reinsertion of text from the first non-paper that was removed through the process, and it would refer specifically to the subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centres. So it would go in after organisations, and this was in the earlier non-paper, and I can read it out. So after relevant organisations, including the regional and subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centres to support parties and so on. So this is a reinsertion of text that was taken out through the process and was not discussed in contact groups. Thank you.

Thank you, European. So what I'll do is, because I didn't see any opposition against lifting the brackets on E as it reads now, I will entertain the room whether there is appetite for the inclusion from the non-paper. If I see any opposition, the E is approved without the text from the non-paper. So with that, does anyone oppose to the inclusion suggested by the EU from the non-paper? Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

It was a request to read the text of the paragraph, of the sub-paragraph in its entirety, please.

Yeah. Secretariat, could you please read out the text in its entirety?

Facilitate capacity building and development activities in collaboration with relevant organizations, including the regional and sub-regional technical and scientific cooperation support centers, to support Parties, including developing country Parties, in their efforts to integrate biodiversity within and across sectors, including the business and financial sectors, in accordance with the goals and targets of the framework.

Thank you. Did everyone get that, or should we repeat? I think it's fine. I see no one asking for the floor. Brazil.

Thank you. The spirit of flexibility, we still need time to consult on the news addition. We were reflecting on the text we have on the screen. And my insertion was made after the text was approved, so we beg your patience for us to have more time to see the reflection on the text. Thank you.

Okay, Brazil. So that's good. How much time do you need? Microphone to Brazil.

Sorry, what was your question?

How much time you need to consult and reflect on the?

Yes.

The introduction from the non-paper.

The reading that we have from the new paragraph and comparing to the read that we have the paragraph on our screen is different. So we still have two paragraphs in brackets. I don't know if it's possible for us to reflect on them. But if you could read again how the paragraph would read, I think we could understand better. But we are flexible, we are okay, we love capacity building, but we thought that this text was approved. We're flexible to hear other opinions on this text, but we'd like to read it slowly, please. Thank you.

Facilitate capacity building and development activities in collaboration with relevant organizations, including the regional and subregional technical and scientific cooperation support centers, to support Parties, including developing country Parties, in their efforts to integrate biodiversity within and across sectors, including the business and financial sectors, in accordance with the goals and targets of the Framework.

Thank you, Secretariat. Brazil, you are the front.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, we can agree and we appreciate the effort of reading again. And we are showing flexibility for that's why we ask for more time in that paragraph. We are seeing that some parties can come back to decisions and add text. Some parties were not encouraged to add text. So but we are agree with this text. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. So there's agreement on the text. It is approved. Thank you. So now we go to F, develop an updated structured overview of available best practices, tools, mechanisms, guidance, and other relevant solutions. Sorry, wait a moment. So, I was advised by the Secretariat that F and G basically deals with the same thing. So if we can look at F and G in context, that is the brackets in F and G in context, ask you to reflect on this one, and of course, from the contact group, You have already, I hope, had a discussion on these, Paris. If not, please think quickly. So I would suggest, just for the sake of going forward, to lift the brackets on F. which regards develop an updated structured overview available, best practices, tools, mechanisms, guidance, and other relevant solutions. And of course, we have the same exact same text in G. I see, so we would then delete the text from G and we will lift the brackets in F. So it would remain as clean F and we would then delete the brackets, the text within the brackets in G. I see no request for the floor. Brazil.

Yes, thank you. I'm not sure we had the time to discuss this, how this exercise will be made by the Secretary based on what brackets and consultations. So we'd like to have a clarification on these regards before we adopt this kind of document and work of the Secretariat. And I'm saying that because in other groups, in climate change, for example, we agree on some documents, and then when the documents came, they came in a different way of the agreement. So we'd like to understand how this would be done. I think we need more time to discuss among ourselves about this structure overview.

Thank you, Brazil. So, Secretariat will provide a clarification.

As per decision 16/13, the Secretariat was requested to invite Parties to submit case studies, tools, mechanisms, and methodologies available to support Parties in mainstreaming biodiversity within and across sectors. The Secretariat issued a notification to call on parties and stakeholders and relevant organizations for that exercise. However, at the time, the Secretariat did not issue the notification with a deadline. And the reason was because we know that ahead of COP, normally these organizations are working on documents, and a number of them are actually released just before COP. So we thought it could be useful not to have a deadline and leave it open so parties and interested stakeholders could submit even after the deadline for the preparation of documentation for SBI. However, in the contact group, we understood from parties that this is not the ideal form because parties have so many priorities, so many things happening. When there isn't a deadline, they don't prioritize it. And that's probably why we only received eight submissions for this notification, even though we issued a new one. Only four parties actually contributed to the exercise. We prepared a structured overview based on those eight submissions. And I think that is why parties would like to see the exercise done again, another notification issued this time with time for parties to prepare with a deadline, and then we would work on the structured overview based on what we receive. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. And this is, of course, part of the tasks for the Secretariat, right? So with that explanation, Brazil, could you be flexible on this one?

Yes, as we heard, and I'm sorry, co-chair, the co-chair, and that's why we think we deserve more time for this. Having a document with four or eight contributions about best practice tools and mechanisms doesn't reflect the variety of sectors we have, the variety of challenges we have, and also the variety of opportunities for funding we have. So we are asking the Secretary again to hold the same exercise, but with the same means. We don't know if the results will be the same, the same outcome that we had. That's why we need to work on language that make this exercise more inclusive, with more participation from civil society, indigenous people, local communities, in order to understand their best practices. We are asking the same thing again, expecting the same results, different results. And unfortunately, we haven't had the time to discuss in depth how we how we can change this way of doing exercise with so low participation of parties. That's why we unfortunately cannot agree with F.

Right, okay. Sorry for just consulting a bit. So I would actually suggest that we then delete the F and the same language in G, which is in brackets, because there were only eight submissions and It doesn't seem like there's a lot of appetite for it. So I would propose that we then do the opposite, that we delete F and the same language, which is in brackets in G. I see no request for the floor. It is approved. The text is deleted. Thank you. Right. Just for the sake of summing up, Right, okay. So, sorry for that. So, what we'll now do procedurally is to do a revised CRP, and we'll now read out where we have Paris in brackets, just so you're up to speed on where we are. Secretariat, please.

Preambular paragraph 3. We still have a set of brackets around the word "ambition" and around the words "scope, coverage". Paragraph 6, letter B, is still completely bracketed. And paragraph 6, letter C, I believe parties are still reflecting on it. And that's it.

Thank you, secretariat. So we'll keep those Paris in brackets until now. So one, we're very close to solution on, and the other two regards processes on their other agenda items. Right. So We'll now go to, I see there is still consulting on the subnational governments group there. I think we'll give them some more time to consult. And then we'll take up the CRP on capacity building and development and technical and scientific cooperation. The CRP was prepared on the basis of the work of the contact group, and I invite Ms. Holly Kelly-Weil from the UK to report on the work of the contact group. Ms. Kelly-Weil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to present on behalf of my co-chair, Ms. Martha Mpatso Kalemba of Malawi, and myself, the report of the contact group. The contact group convened on two occasions, on the 21st of October and the 25th of October, with the mandate of resolving all remaining bracketed text in the draft decision contained in the non-paper. At its first meeting, the contact group considered five of the eight paragraphs with brackets, and brackets were lifted in two of the operative paragraphs, leaving both paragraphs clean. To advance discussions on one of the bracketed paragraphs, a small informal group was established. to work on finding a solution, coordinated by Colombia and New Zealand. During the second meeting, the contact group reviewed all six remaining bracketed paragraphs, and the informal group reported back on its work and proposed compromise text. While the contact group was able to resolve the internal brackets within the paragraph, the entire paragraph remains bracketed at the request of one party. The group also reviewed Annex 2. the revised work plan for the global coordination entity and made several improvements. However, as additional time was requested to consider some proposed amendments, the entire annex remains bracketed. In summary, the CRP still has three sets of substantive brackets in the operational paragraphs 28, 34E, and in Annex 2, which is the global coordination entity's work plan under activity 2.5. and also two procedural set of brackets around operational paragraph 21 and Annex 2. I would like to thank my co-chair, the presidency, and all the participants both within and beyond the contact group for their constructive engagement, patience, and the spirit of compromise throughout our deliberations. I would also like to express my deep appreciation to the Secretariat staff who supported our discussions, as well as all the technicians who facilitated the meeting. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Holly and UK. So, according to the way I've done things earlier, there's a lot of clean text in this draft decision, thanks to the really good work done in the Contour group. So I therefore suggest we adopt the clean text of the decisions. And clarifying what I'm saying now, we will work on para 21, 28, And para 21 also, there the annex is in brackets. So para 21 we'll work on, including the annex, and para 28 and 33E, but that's it. Then.

It's 34E.

Oh yeah, sorry, it's not 33E, it's 34E. Wednesdays are always difficult. Right. So, and now the understanding that there have been some consultations, ongoing consultations to resolve those brackets that are left. So I'll shortly give the Secretariat the floor, but first we'll have Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we are able to adopt the clean paragraphs, it's very important for us to add brackets in Annex 1, 10C, which is a cross-cutting issue that is being discussed in many contact groups. And I understand we are very close to an agreement on that. But for now, we would like to keep it between brackets, which is the part that mentions on 10C, on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. That's a very important issue for Brazil. Thank you.

Right, yes. I know the language you are referring to, Brazil. So we'll keep that in brackets until now, because that is indeed a cross-cutting issue where we are very close to a solution. So until now, that language is in brackets. Otherwise, it is approved and we'll work on the brackets. We will not work on this, the language in this. We will not work on the language on voluntary and mutually agreed terms, but that stays in brackets. I see nothing from Brazil. Good. Right. Russian Federation, but quickly, because we have to, we don't have much time.

Thank you.

Sorry. Could you please repeat the number of the paragraph and exactly what is bracketed?

Thank you very much.

Secretary, to you.

So this would be paragraph 10 in Annex 1, paragraph 10, subparagraph C, which reads, "Identification of effective strategies implemented to promote and facilitate technical and scientific operation, and the development, transfer, and use of technology on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. My understanding is that we're bracketing on voluntary and mutually agreed terms.

Right. Yes. And I heard some clapping down the hallway, so which means that's good news on a Wednesday, I hope. So let's see. It's a different CRP, but still, no, good news or good news. Yes, United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding the intervention that's just been made by Brazil, we would like to be clear that the language in Annex 2 that's being referred to is clean text. It came out of SBI as clean text. We understand that there are ongoing discussions about references to voluntary and voluntary and mutually agreed terms in other decisions where this is not clean text, but here in this decision, it was clean text, so we're not comfortable bracketing that at this stage. If there is some other agreement to how we approach references to technology transfer that is worked out at a later time where this is open text, and if there's agreement at that point to apply it across all decisions, we could consider that, but in this case, We can't accept adding brackets to what is clean text.

Thank you, UK. And I do have some sympathy for that because it's in line with the guidance I developed, which also regards me in the decisions I do and I have to be fair. So Brazil, yeah, they're consulting, but yes. I do agree it is clean text. It's not bracketed as such. So, but before we get there, because this is a bit complicated because the discussions are intertwined. So let's go. So I ask you to lower your flags. And then we'll hear from the Secretariat now first to read out the results from the consultations that have been ongoing. So, Brazil, I come back to you. Let's hear first the Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. No, this has to do with Annex 2, the work plan for the Global Coordination Entity. After the contact group finished its work, there were some additional consultations that led to the following proposals. So the following amendments were agreed. So please, if you can refer to Annex 2, under Activity 1.1.1, in the baseline and target column, it would read baseline 1, target 3. And then in activity 2.5, in the baseline and target column, it will read baseline one, target one, without brackets. Thank you, Chair.

So was that clear to all, or should I have the Secretariat repeat it? I think that's clear to all. Brazil, you have the floor.

Sorry, could you clarify? So the decision won't be, this part won't be in brackets, or will it be? And I find it confusing to say the least that the representative of the UK, which was the co-chair of the group, said at the group that we could mention this here at the working group, and now the same person comes to block this proposal, which is for sure a right of the parties to demand a text should be between brackets in the working group.

Right, so Brazil and UK, so in the annex, annex 1, 10C, I'm wondering if we can just delete on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. So that would be my suggestion. So, and the rationale would be that the evaluation questions are intended to be broad and not prejudge or limit the scope of the assessment. So therefore, the suggestion from the podium is to delete the phrase on voluntary and mutually agreed terms and keeping the text open-ended. So I see many have asked for the floor. So I only now want to entertain this discussion, but let's hear from Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. We certainly would accept that proposal, but I understand that the solution that we are very close to drive to in a cross-cutting manner is to use just mutually agreed terms. I think the most rational and efficient way of dealing with this would be just to put this in brackets, because we all know that this is being discussed by the presidency in many groups. So we should just wait for a solution, a cross-cutting solution, and I'll ask for the flexibility of the my colleagues from Switzerland, UK, etc., just to accept that we put in brackets, because this, we know that this has been discussed in many groups that we will get a common solution. So if we keep discussing this here, we won't move. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. So I see many asking for the floor, so I don't want to have a big, big discussion on this. But I do see some arguments pro and against. One of them is that this can be resolved here. The other one is that this is a cross-cutting issue. Switzerland, let's hear you. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. First of all, I want to join my voice to the one from the UK. We as Switzerland don't believe that reopening the text at this stage makes a lot of sense. On the substance on what you have asked for, Switzerland wouldn't be in a position to accept the deletion on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. However, we understand that this is an issue that has been addressed in many discussions. And if we don't want to have long discussions here, maybe we could just put the text "unvoluntary" in brackets. Thank you.

Okay, I think we've heard enough. In the interest of time, we'll put voluntary in brackets, and then we see how this proceeds in the next iteration. So please lower your flags. UK, you still want the floor?

Thank you, Chair. While we can accept that there is ongoing discussion, I think the brackets need to be placed slightly differently. So for the UK, they would need to start after scientific cooperation, and it would have to be for the whole of that end element. So, and the development, transfer, and use of technology on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. So if that whole end part were in brackets together, then we could accept that for now while further deliberation happens in other rooms.

Thank you, UK. We will do that. Sorry, UK, could you please repeat?

Yes, happy to. So our request is to start the brackets in subpoint C before the "and" that comes in the second line after scientific cooperation. So what is within brackets is, and the development, transfer, and use of technology on voluntary and mutually agreed terms, close brackets after terms.

Thank you, UK. We have it? Yes. So we'll put the brackets there. Just allow me to consult for a minute. So what we'll do now is we will continue with this, the capacity building CRP tomorrow in the interest of time, and then we'll go back to the CRP on engagement with subnational governments, which is CRP 1. And we will hear back from Tuvalu on paras 2, 12, b, c, and d. Sorry, just allow Bianca to come up. Yes. So now CRP 1, and we will hear back from Tuvalu on the results from the small group on 12. sorry, 2 and 12, B, C, and D. And then also because Russian Federation could not join the small group, we will have the hear the results first. We heard some clapping behind there, which I think is music in my ears. And then we will see if the – we’ll let the Russian Federation reflect on the results of the small group. Tubal, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Chair. So following discussions with the small group comprising of Brazil, Norway, UK, Iran, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Fiji, Mexico, and Tuvalu, new language was developed for paragraphs 2 and 12B, but consultations on paragraphs 12C and 12D are ongoing, and the group will report back during the next session once consensus has been reached on the proposed language for those paragraphs. So the proposed new paragraph for paragraph two reads as follows: Notes the contributions of Parties, other governments, financial institutions, and relevant organizations, and encourages Parties, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other governments, financial institutions, and relevant organizations to continue to strengthen coordination mechanisms, dialogue, cooperation, and engagement within and across all levels of government in accordance with national circumstances and legislations, and provide adequate and predictable financial resources and technical support to enable capacity building and development, peer learning and information and knowledge sharing activities with the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, youth, and relevant stakeholders for the further implementation of the Plan of Action, the Convention and its Protocols and the Framework, taking into consideration relevant information in national reports, submissions from subnational governments, cities and local authorities, indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth and other relevant stakeholders, and the Global Review, including the related Global Report, and the summary of the Kunming Dialogue on collective progress in the implementation of the framework in support of the Global Review, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and priorities.

So, Tuvalu, so I'm getting the message that you have to read slower for the benefit of the room, because all delegations has captured it, the translators needs to translate it, and the Secretariat needs to write it down. So, Please, I beg your indulgence, Tuvalu. Can you please read it in dictation speed? We still have about 10 minutes. Thank you.

Sure. It's a long, long paragraph, but I'll try.

It is indeed.

Yeah.

So the proposed new language for paragraph 2 reads as follows: Notes the contributions of parties. other governments, financial institutions, and relevant organizations, and encourages parties, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other governments, financial institutions, and relevant organizations to continue to strengthen coordination mechanisms Dialogue.

A bit slower, please.

You want me to read it from the start?

No, relevant organizations. Okay.

Where is it? Relevant organizations to continue to strengthen coordination mechanisms, dialogue, cooperation, and engagement within and across all levels of government, in accordance with national circumstances and legislations, and provide adequate and predictable financial resources and technical support to enable capacity building and development, peer learning and information.

Slow, slow though, Tolu, please enable, if you can continue from enable, please.

Technical support to enable capacity building and development, peer learning and information and knowledge sharing activities. with the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, and relevant stakeholders for the further implementation of the Plan of Action, the Convention, and its protocols and the framework, taking into consideration relevant information in national reports, submissions from subnational governments, cities, and local authorities, indigenous peoples, and local communities, women, youth, and other relevant stakeholders, and the global review, including the related global report, and the summary of the Kunming dialogue on collective progress.

A bit slower, please. From global review.

And the global review, including the related global report, and the summary of the Kunming dialogue on collective progress in the implementation of the framework in support of the global review, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and priorities.

Thank you very much, Tuvalu. And then there was 12B, I think, as well.

Yes, Chair. So for paragraph 12B, it would be read as follows. to compile information as appropriate on the extent to which biodiversity finance, as defined in headline indicators D1, D2, and D3 in Decision 15/5, reaches subnational governments, cities, and other local community levels, including information.

Sorry, please slow down again. From reaches.

Reaches subnational governments, cities, and other local community levels, including information on access to funding by local authorities, barriers to access to funding, and opportunities to strengthen direct and equitable financing mechanisms for local implementation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Tugulu, and thank you also for your hard work. I realize, so you said that for 12 (c) and (d), you are still consulting in case. I want to ask the delegations that did not take part of the small group, which I heard Russia was not part of the small group. I would ask then Russia to join the consultations on 12 (c) and (d). So we don't have much time left. I'll take now Argentina, followed by the Russian Federation. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Cochero. We didn't take part in the work of the Somalia Group either, so we reserve the right, therefore, to change our proposal. I'm not sure if this is something we should do now or later on, but for both paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I think at this point, we only have a couple of minutes left. So I think what we will do is to put it in brackets for delegations to reflect on it, and then we'll take it up in our next iteration. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

We really appreciate the work of this small group, and sorry that we were not able to take part in this work, but given the tight schedule, people are following various items in parallel. So now it's a quite significant change in the paragraph two. We would really need to read it carefully, and as anyway, we will come back to this CRP. at the next session. We would reserve our right to change things or amend things in paragraph 2. As for paragraph 12, we're almost there, but the same story. We also reserve the right to propose some changes, and we understand that will follow up with the follow-up of this consideration as planned for tomorrow. And if so, please clarify or explain when are we going to consider finally this CRP? And, well, that's really not so productive. It's a concern. We should have tried to complete one by one all the CRPs because now we are in a strange position of hanging of three papers, but we are in your hands. Just please explain also whether this text will be available in writing as a new version of CRP.

Thank you very much.

Yes, indeed, Russia. So what we'll do is to provide new revised CRPs for the next iteration. Regarding tomorrow, the Bureau will approve the time schedule, and then please follow on the screen. The reason why we couldn't approve the CRPs was partly due to delegation pointing out that there are cross-cutting issues. that follows other negotiation streams. So, but regarding, I want to thank to Valou for their hard work, but I will also ask, because the consultations are still ongoing, so I would ask Argentina and Russian Federations to join the discussions on 12C and D, and then we'll hear the reports from that small group in our next CRP iteration on this item, and we'll put 2 and 12B in brackets for the next CRP iteration. Yeah, so that's what we can do today. I thank you for your cooperation here on Yoga Day. and ask you to be even more flexible tomorrow. Thank you.