Working Group I (6th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Good morning, delegates, and welcome back to this lovely Thursday. It's our second last day. So given the substantial workload before us and limited time available, there are three working group sessions scheduled for today. I thank you in advance for your flexibility and cooperation as we move efficiently between agenda items while ensuring we can make meaningful progress in our work. So, yesterday, we considered CRPs on engagement with subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities. and mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors, and also capacity building and development and technical and scientific cooperation. This morning, we will continue consideration of these CRPs to clean outstanding brackets and to produce L documents. We will also start consideration of the outstanding CRPs on the Working Group 1. So now we turn to CRP 10 on the modus operandi of the subsidiary body on Article 8A and CRP 17. on proposed elements for the guidelines related to tasks 1.1 and 1.2 of the programme of work on Article 8A. I have consulted with the chairs of the contact group, and it is clear that they need more time to finalise a few outstanding issues in relation to item 10A and 10B, as there were a few paras that remain outstanding. and the friends of the chairs might help to solve these few outstanding issues. The group will be facilitated by Ms. Chikade Oluwakemi Egbuwalu of Nigeria and Ms. Jennifer Tauli-Corpuz, a representative of indigenous peoples and local communities, and will report back on the outcome of its discussions as soon as possible. Are there any objections on this way forward? I see none. Thank you. So I invite delegates wishing to participate to check the monitors on the online schedule for time and place of the meeting. So, on the schedule now, it says that DSI comes after HA, but we'll rather go to CRP8 on capacity building and development. Just give you some time to Change. Right. So let's move on to CRP8 on capacity building and development and technical and scientific cooperation. As you will recall, most of the text is now approved and clean. with three sets of brackets remaining. A fourth set of brackets was subsequently introduced in Annex 1, paragraph 10(c). I propose that we proceed in the following order: First, we will return to the amendments proposed in Annex 2 to see whether we can remove the brackets in those provisions. as well as the brackets surrounding the annex itself. We will then turn to OP 21, OP 28, and OP 34E in that order. I understand that some parties wanted to address certain issues in Annex 2 on the work plan of the Global Coordination Entity, which are in brackets within the annex, and requested that the entire annex be bracketed. As I mentioned earlier, since the contact group concluded its work, further consultations have taken place. which may help us lift those brackets in Annex 2, and then remove the brackets around the entire Annex 2. I now invite the Secretariat to read again the amendments that were agreed during the consultations. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The following amendments were agreed in the Annex 2. Under Activity 1.1.1, in the Baseline and Target column, it will read Baseline 1, Target 3. And then in Activity 2.2, in the Baseline and Target column, it will read Baseline 1, Target 1 without brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Distinguished delegates, the text now within the annex is clean. Are there any objections to lifting the brackets around Annex 2 and approving it? I see no objections. Annex 2 is approved. We can now go back to operative paragraph 21. Since the annex is clean, can we lift the brackets around "approves"? Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brazil was the country that asked the annex 2 to be between brackets. and our concerns were already addressed. But I think, if I remember correctly, other parties maybe asked for some modification in other parts of Annex 2, maybe in 2.4, 4.2? I'm not sure. On our side, everything is fine, but I'd just like to make sure that what was agreed was indeed just to modify the first two parts. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, and also thank you for signaling your flexibility. It's appreciated. I see no more requests for the floor, so I. Okay, Switzerland, you have the floor.

Apologies, Chair, I was caught in a head of delegation consultation of the regional group. I understand we're at the capacity building and technology transfer CRP.

Yes.

So I just wanted to flag in general that there is a concern around the terms of technology transfer, how technology transfer is issued across the board. I think parties in the room are well aware that for us, the on mutually agreed terms is a very sensitive element. And I'm just Right now, scrolling through the CRP, I understand from my expert who was negotiating that there were still remaining brackets in the text on that. Can you clarify where we stand with that, just so I know where we are in the conversation? I'm sorry, I don't mean to stall progress. It's just too many things are going on at the same time.

Thank you, Switzerland. Indeed, there are many elements moving, many pieces moving. So we have approved Annex 2. So that's where we are. So we lifted the brackets around Annex 2 and approved it. So that's where we are. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So we are okay with the proposed lifting of the brackets for para 21. But just to respond as well in terms of the comments that were in terms of mutually agreed, the PC also has reservations on this language. Where possible, it's okay that we just reference existing decisions or articles. I think it's more of an issue across many decisions, so we would have to find existing decisions that have this language and just reference the decision. That's our proposed way forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Fijie. And indeed, that's Annex 1. So we'll go there. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to request the Secretariat to correct the document, the last version of the CRP on the website, because there, this part which mentions voluntary mutually agreed terms on 10C is not between brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. I will ask the Secretary to address the issue of the footnote.

Thank you, Chair. That issue, I think, was raised during the session last evening, and we haven't issued a rev for this. That's why what is on the website is still the same CRP. So I think we are going to address Annex 1. The Chair just said that. So when we come to that, I think we'll address that issue. But we never issued a rev. So what is on the web is the same CRP. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. Now Australia. Before we proceed, Australia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to come in after Switzerland to say that we also have concerns with the technical transfer language and would like to see mutually agreed terms in that wording. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia. We get to that because that's Annex 1. We have approved Annex 2, so now we go to paragraph 21 and suggest to lift the brackets around that because the annex is already approved. So the only thing 21 does is to approve the work plan as contained in Annex 2 to the present decision. I see no one requesting the floor, so it is approved. Paragraph 21 is approved. So, colleagues, let's now move to our final set of brackets that are in paragraph 34. 28. Yes, in 28. We are almost there. So, I propose that we delete the text within the brackets, which basically would be getting rid of the whole para. I understand that this would be consistent with the operational modalities of the Global Coordination Entity as presented in decision. Sorry about that. All right. So paragraph 28. During the contact group, one party needed to carry out further consultations before these brackets could be lifted. I hope these consultations have been fruitful. Are there any objections to lifting the brackets? I see Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. We clearly stated at the working group that this text should not be here, and we call for deletion of it. We are sure that this is not the correct place or document to address to ask from one conference of the party to another conference of the party. So it goes beyond the mandate, in our view, and we call for deletion of this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Do I see opposition against deleting the paragraph? Just by raise of hands, please. Are anyone opposed to deleting the para? Yes, good. I see a good in the sense that we have to solve the problem. Yes, so Colombia, you have the floor?

Thank you, Chair. Colombia wishes to stress the importance of retaining this paragraph because it's particularly relevant because of the demand on the centers. We think that if we are urging states to meet the expectations that we place on these centers, we also need to give them the opportunity to ensure that they can connect to sources of financing. So this is an invitation that's not prescriptive, but rather, it's at the discretion and consideration of these funds. So we would like to see this paragraph retained for those reasons. Thank you.

Thank you very much. But, okay, so we're here to solve the problem, right? So that's what we need to do. So I need help to solve the problem. So I know there were consultations going on on this para. So maybe European Union, you can give us some insights on those consultations as well, if you were involved, European Union.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. We were involved in the small group, and it took us quite some time and the whole weekend to go back to capitals and other things, because there were also climate change experts involved in getting to this text. So according to us, this text was Based on consultation between parties that are here, the climate experts at home, and the text looks very good to us. We are therefore in favour to keep it clean and lift the brackets and not delete this text. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And European Union, if I may ask you, how many parties were involved in these consultations?

I believe that there were at least eight that are here, but we also have our 27 member states that were involved. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, European Union. So, which means that there is convergence around keeping this para. I have heard only one party that has asked for a deletion. I will now take Saudi Arabia before I suggest how we proceed. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would like to confirm that this paragraph is beyond our mandate, and we should respect the mandate of the other conventions, such as the climate change. Therefore, we support the opinion of the Russian Federation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia. So there are two parties that want to delete it and very many parties that want to keep it. And as there has been lengthy discussions on this para, I don't see how we can resolve this issue here and now. Therefore, I think we have to keep it in brackets because we can't spend time on discussing it further in this working group. So, sorry, now we go to 34E. Yes, 34E, which deals with to submit the progress report on the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism prepared by the Global Coordination Entity. It's a request to the Executive Secretary, isn't it? Yeah. Yes, it's a request to the Executive Secretary. Yeah, just to get the logic. So, can I lift the brackets around and for consideration at the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties? Russian Federation, your ambassador.

Thank you, Chair. We also have discussed this for quite some time in the contact group. And in our view, this phrase should not be here. We are calling for deletion of this last phrase in the paragraph for the reason that the progress report will be submitted to the SBI. as an information document, and that's SBI's decision what to do further with that. By adding consideration of the 18th meetings of the Conference of the Parties, we are actually already creating another agenda item or part of other agenda item. well-being here, we all understand, I hope, that the number of agenda items of the Convention, of the Conference of the Parties, really needs to be optimized. And therefore, we think that submission to SBI is enough to further see what will be done. with the progress report. Thank you for the understanding. We think that it's already the good text if it ends with the words "conference of the parties." Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Yes, indeed. I think as the progress report will be an information document at SBI. It will actually, parties can decide at SBI whether they want to put it for the consideration at the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties anyway. So this is, this question's, well, I would say this is a classic in terms of, you know, whether we need this language or not, and the SPI will be able to do that in any case. So that would be my proposal to delete this language. So is there any opposition against deleting this language? Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We prefer to retain the reference of the COP for several reasons. First, our view is that the reference of the COP is existential to Decision 16/3 Annex II and its implementation, where it clearly stipulates that global coordination will result in accountability and reporting to the Conference of Parties. But we're also more concerned because In the paragraph on the discussion, it talks about an information document that is not considered. So we could be flexible if we remove the word information from the document that will be presented. That would be where we could be flexible, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Columbia. So I get it, you are flexible as long as we remove information, so we just refer to a document. Which means that it could be, depending on the content, it could be an information document anyway, but it makes it more flexible. European Union, you have the floor. Do you like this idea?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. We can be flexible as well for us if we delete information that would be, we have no problem with that. And I just want to remind us about the text that is mentioned about the mandate of the global coordination entity, is that in paragraph of the COP decision 16, it says the entity will report to the Conference of the Parties through the SBI on the progress of its work and that of the regional and sub-regional support centers. We do understand that is the mandate that it has, and then, like Russia says, then SBI can decide where it sends it to. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, European Union. Good. I think we have an agreement. We will remove the phrase "information" in "e", and then we will delete the language in brackets, so we will have a full stop after "parties". Good. It is so approved. And now we go back to Annex 1. So now we go back to the issue we had yesterday regarding the language in B9C. No, sorry. Paragraph 10. 10c. Identification of effective strategies implemented to promote and facilitate technical and scientific cooperation. And here we have the language and the development, transfer, and use of technology or monitoring on mutually agreed terms in brackets.

Right.

Let's work on it, because here we have a problem, but I'm sure as we have slept on this issue and we are flexible, let me hear your flexibility unfolding in this room. Russian Federation, you'll be allowed to be flexible first.

Thank you, Chair. Actually, that was a request for the floor for the previous item. You were moving fast, and Secretariat has not read the text how it stays now. So we are flexible to consider now the item that is under consideration, but then we ask to come back to the previous one. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Yes, we will deal with this annex now and the brackets, and then we will have the Secretariat read out the previous approved paragraph. United Kingdom of Great Britain, flexible party number two, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. In the interest of trying to have as clean of a decision as possible, and recognizing that this list in paragraph 10 of Annex 1 is a non-exhaustive set of elements intended to guide the design of the valuation, we would propose that everything that was put in brackets yesterday is simply deleted. And this way, we don't have to have any further discussion about whether or not we have reference to voluntary and mutually terms in this place, and we can leave this discussion to other agenda items where this reference may be more pertinent. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. So you're suggesting to delete the language in the brackets. I see Brazil is pondering that suggestion. Brazil, what do you think?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are not in the position to support the UK's proposal. We believe that when talking about capacity building, transfer and use of technology is fundamental. So we support keeping this paragraph, that is, the sub-paragraph. And this is, as mentioned yesterday, This is something that is being discussed in many contact groups and by the presidency. It is a cross-cutting issue, and soon enough, I believe we will have a solution. So for now, the only position we can withhold is to delete on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. and we can also support keeping this sub-paragraph between brackets for now while we wait for a cross-cutting decision. Thank.

You.

Thank you, President. So just to repeat, so you're okay with just having "voluntary" in brackets? Can you repeat, please?

I think the proposal yesterday that we agreed on was not to have only voluntary. It could work for us to have only voluntary for now, but I'm not sure if that's what we agreed on yesterday. Yeah, we could keep just voluntary between brackets for now. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. So, and then the understanding and we have to see if these will be brackets within brackets or if we can actually clean up the text and just have voluntary in brackets. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can be flexible and we can live with just deleting voluntary and, because we do not see the reason why and shouldn't be deleted to make the text working. Because we should remember that in the text of the Convention 16.3, it mentions mutually agreed terms. It doesn't talk about voluntary. So, if we adhere to the text of the Convention, we can delete "voluntary" and in this case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, European Union. United Kingdom.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we were the ones who asked for more than just the voluntary to be bracketed, and we maintain that position until there is a cross-cutting decision taken. We would not accept just bracketing voluntary and/or deleting that text. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. That's a very clear message. I think, and since you are so clear, almost red line clear, I would say, And this is indeed a cross-cutting issue. What we will do, and please, Australia and Switzerland, lower your flags because we will not deal with this here, as we'll keep the brackets where they are. We will also, we'll keep the brackets around voluntary. So separate brackets around voluntary and. So that's how it will be. So there will be brackets in 10C around and the development, transfer, and use of technology on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. And there will be also separate brackets around voluntary and. And we will then leave it as is, depending further consultations on or pending issues in other agenda items.

Yes.

Okay, so we now Ask the secretary to read up 34E. Secretary.

Thank you, Chair. 34E will read: To submit the progress report on the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism prepared by the Global Coordination Entity, further to subparagraph 33D and above as a document, a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Full stop.

Thank you, Secretariat. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the Secretariat for reading it now, as it really changes the sense. The reference given to the paragraph 33D, if we go there, it's already said that this progress report will be submitted to the Secretariat, and it will be done before the SBI prior to the COP18. And there is nothing about consideration or further consideration at the COP. So this is a request to the GCE to submit this progress report. And I draw your attention, subject to the availability of resources. We don't know what the resources will be available. Further, the paragraph that we just discussing calls to submit the, this is a request to the Executive Secretary, again, subject to availability of resources. And here we request this progress report to be submitted originally as an information document, which was agreed at SBI. So, two requests, subject to availability of resources, no really preempting whether it will be considered at the COP or not. And I'm sorry to say, experiencing the agenda length and very packed timetable here, we would not be in the position to agree here to preempt submission to the COP18. We know how many agenda items are pending now to be approved and to be put on the agenda, and we don't know how we will manage during today and tomorrow to finalize the discussions here. So without any prejudice to the importance of this technical report, We would only go with the information document. Otherwise, we would ask for deletion of the whole paragraph.

Thank you, Rasha, but you heard me. The whole room heard me, us approving this para, right? So I can't allow you to take me back, but we removed the information. So it will be as a document at a meeting of the SPI. held before the 18th meeting of the COP, full stop. So the language and for the consideration at the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties is deleted. That's what was approved. Point of order, Russia.

You have approved the paragraph, Chair, before the Secretariat read it in its entirety. So there was no really clear how it reads. I really appreciate the deletion of the end of this paragraph, but ask to put as an information document in red so far and will raise it at the ELI. stage of the N. I'm sorry, it was a very clear position about raising the effectiveness of our meetings in the future, as well as preempting the agenda items to be already reserved in these papers. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia. So, but, i mean, we're all here to, we all have our positions, and we're here to come to an agreement, right? So the language in there which was bracketed is deleted. The only thing that is deleted otherwise is information. So it will be a document. So I honestly don't see any big issues here, but that's how it will stay. I hear you, you will raise it at the L, and that's your right, and that's fine with me. So, okay, so I ask that you lower your flags, please. Russia.

Yes, we agree that it's time for compromises. We probably could go with no text, whether it's information or not information document. And it's consistent to subparagraph 33. So it would work if we say, prepared by the global coordination entity further to subparagraph 33D, before a meeting of autumn, submitted before a meeting of subsidiary body. If it could solve the issue, we would have clean paragraph without specifying what kind of document we are referring here. It's a report. Thank you.

So it's already approved, but if we can clean this para, I think it's a good thing. So I will ask the room if, I will ask the Secretariat to read it out, how it would read. But if there are any objections, we go back to the language that was approved. Secretariat, please.

Thank you, Chair. So with the Russian Federation's suggestion, it could read: "to submit a progress report on the technical and sanitary cooperation mechanism prepared by the Global Coordination Entity, further to sub-paragraph 3 above, for consideration by a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties." Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. So I see no requests for the floor. Yes, Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We wanted to clarify whether the new wording takes the DSI into consideration as well. Could you just clarify that for us, please?

Sorry, Colombia, could you repeat

if it takes the DSI? into consideration?

Yes.

I will just to make.

Sure that the new paragraph reads as for consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body.

I would like to confirm that.

Possibly SBI, sir. Colombia.

Perfect. We can agree with that.

Thank you.

That was their translation.

Yeah.

So I think there was a translation issue. At SBI.

Yeah.

Great. Russian Federation.

Thank you, co-chair. I wouldn't like to delay further our discussions. This language is the same as the document without the word "information," so it's not a kind of compromise that could solve the issue. This is for consideration. That means it's an agenda item. If it's not so, then please ask the secretariat to clarify. If it's for consideration as an agenda item, we would ask to keep this in brackets so far and move forward, because we are losing our time and it's hard to find compromises then. We just wanted to leave it open. That report is submitted to the Secretariat. made available to SBI, and then depending on the agenda, could be considered within another agenda item together or as an information document informing something. But it's for consideration, that means it's document. Thank you.

So thank you, Russian Federation. Just so we have the facts right, I will give the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. I think the language proposed for consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation that is consistent with the language in the modalities of operation in decision 16/3, annex 2. Really, this is consistent and also is consistent with a previous paragraph we had in 33D. Thank you.

Thank you. Good. Your opinion, Union, last speaker.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to say the same thing as the Secretariat, as I read it before, that in the modalities, the entity will report to the Conference of the Parties, it says. but it will do it through the SBI. So that means that SBI has to look at the report that is clearly mentioned in the decision 15. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah, thank you, European Union. I think we are getting on the same page. Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair. Yes, we wanted to insist on there be clarity as to whether it will be considered in the SBI. It's extremely important for us, so we wanted to reiterate that paragraph 14 of decision 16/3 says that the subsidiary body on implementation with the support of the informal advisory group.

The global coordination entity and the regional and sub-regional support.

It's very important.

That we maintain the consideration of SBI if we are going to remove the.

Reference to the Conference of the Parties. Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia. I think we're on the same page now, so I'll have the Secretariat to read it out once again. Thank you.

For the paragraph read, will read: “To submit the progress report on the Technical and Scientific Cooperation Mechanism prepared by the Global Coordination Entity, further to paragraph 33D above, for consideration at a meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation held before the eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties.” Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So do I take it that we have an agreement? And please be flexible. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair, Secretariat, and colleagues. We think we will show the flexibility here and agree to leave the brackets around the text that was just read by the Secretariat. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. So there as well, we spent some time, time spent saved in the plenary. Thank you very much. Thank you. So now what we'll do, we'll approve the whole document with the existing brackets as read out and turn it into an L doc. Thank you very much. So, now we'll go to CRP1 on COP item 14b, engagement with subnational governments. Sorry, slight change in the schedule, but these are the times, right? So we have to sort of turn ourselves around. So we'll do DSI now. Yes, so, delegates, please have your DSI people in the room. All right, so we now take up item 11, digital sequence information on genetic resources. So as you remember, on October 20th, I established a Friends of the Chair group to consider the Memorandum of Understanding of the Caliph and other operational aspects as relevant to a solution. The group was facilitated by Mr. Daniel Mukubi Kikuni from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mr. Thomas Schreiber from Germany. I also established a contact group on this same item 11, co-chaired by Ms. Patience Gandeva from Zimbabwe and Mr. Helmut Gorbic from Austria, to work on different aspects of this item. I therefore invite Mr. Thomas Graebel to give us an update on the consultations from the Friends of the Chair, followed by Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch for the Contact Group. Microphone to Germany, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Together with my colleague, Mr. Daniel Mukubi of the Democratic Republic of Congo, I had the privilege of facilitating your Friends Group on item 11, on digital sequence information, more specifically on the issue regarding the Memorandum of Understanding. We would like to clarify that the group only discussed the MOU and paragraphs 29 and 30 of the second version of the non-paper. His friends group met twice, for 90 minutes each time, concluding its work on Tuesday, October 27th, after the consideration of its non-paper. The group heard views from the parties on areas of convergence. A major one was that the terminology in the Memorandum of Understanding could be adjusted from donor/donations to contributors/contributions to improve the alignment of its language with Decision 16/2 and to reflect the nature of the Cali Fund as a benefit-sharing instrument. Many Parties also agreed that the Steering Committee should be entrusted with the task of reviewing and, if necessary, revising the Agreement as an effective process. However, there was no consensus on this, as other parties believe that a legal expert group should be convened and present a new agreement to COP 18. The non-paper we produced was generally appreciated, but a few brackets remain in paragraphs 9, 10, and 15. We hope that delegates did some yoga during the last days and can be able to come up with good news, as we encouraged them to continue informal discussions. For now, we are sorry to inform you that we have not reached consensus on a process forward our common goal. That being said, we would like to thank all parties that participated for the engagement in this process. and report a strong spirit of collaboration and trust, and a collective effort to find a way forward. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Thomas, for this report and also for your and Daniel's hard work in the Friends of the Chair. It's highly appreciated. Now, Mr. Helmut Gaugitsch, you have the floor. Microphone to Austria, please. Microphone to Austria, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The contact group on item 11, on digital sequence information, which I had the pleasure to co-chair with Mrs. Patience Gandhiva from Zimbabwe, met five times. during this COP, concluding its work on Tuesday, 27 October. The Contact Group worked on the basis of versions one and then two of a non-paper, and split the issues in four major clusters to facilitate the discussions. There was high interest in the work of this group, and many Parties and observers were able to engage in some deep conversation. Due to the limited time and complexity of the issues, a Friends of the Co-Chair was created, as well as three informal groups to cover different sections of the document. Some progress was made, and we were able to identify areas of convergence. However, a few divergences remained. and we envisage will need to be resolved in this COP's decision, but for some also complemented by further and deeper discussions inter-sessionally. I would like to thank my excellent co-chair and all Parties and observers who participated in this contact group for their engagement, cooperation and commitment through our long hours of work to reach some important compromises. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Helmut, also for your dedication and your hard work, along with your co-chair patience. It's highly appreciated. So after listening to your report, consultations on this item have not yet yielded consensus on all outstanding issues. And I also understand that some paragraphs have not been discussed. So to facilitate the discussions on these paragraphs that have not been discussed, so the mandate for the Friends of the Chair will be to discuss issues and texts that have not been discussed, neither in the Friends of the Chair or in the Contact Group. I propose to establish a friends of the chair. And this group will be facilitated by Mr. Daniel Mukubi from DRC and Thomas Graiber from Germany. They will report back on the outcome of this discussion to the working group. Are there any objections to this way forward? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I hope you’re fresh this morning. This is not an objection, but a procedural question. The Friends of the Chair will examine paragraphs that were not discussed yet, but all the other paragraphs What about them? We did have discussions about them, but we didn't have an in-depth discussion about the text. We can use certain paragraphs as a base for debate and to modify the text depending on the positions of the parties, but there has been no agreement on the paragraph itself. I'd like to know what is the procedure to follow, what are the next steps? considering that indeed we've had discussions on parts of the document, but we did not have a specific discussion on the content, the text of the paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I understand why you're asking. Right. So what I would like to do is to have the friends of the chair group to primarily and to focus on issues that have not been discussed. And I also understand that there are issues that have been discussed, but not the text. So, but because we have a time management issue, I would like you to focus on the issues that haven't been discussed as the prime focus. But then, I also love clean text. So if you have the time and the energy, of course, you know, and you can find some result around texts that have not been discussed, you can do so, but that's the secondary focus. And under no circumstances are you allowed to go backwards. So once you start to feel that you're going backwards, you stop. Thank you. I see a thumbs up, so that's good. Yes, and the next issue is whether this. Yes, let's hear Panama first, because before I proceed, Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We just wanted to support Argentina in its concern and say that this is an invitation to ensure that we don't have the same problem we had in the previous COP on this issue. It's very complicated as far as we are concerned to follow up these issues on such a complex issue such as DSE. So we are deeply concerned that we need, that we are heading quickly towards a decision without the consensus of all parties. We think it's very important that we comply with the process to ensure that we actually have the consensus that we need to agree on this issue? Thank you.

Thank you, panama. So we're all here to agree, right? So, and that's why we are working, and I'm convinced we will get to consensus in the end. So please have a positive spirit when you deliberate. So to the issue of open or closed, I have My sense is that this will be a closed session due to the many sensitive and delicate issues that are in these documents. So this will be a closed session. And then please follow the screens on where and when, so it will be announced. Right, so that was DSI. So now we are back on CRP1, on engagement with subnational governments. I see people leaving and coming, so I'll give you one more minute, and then we'll proceed. Okay. So let us turn our attention to CRP1/Rev.1 on COP agenda item 14b on engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities. We began the consideration of this CRP yesterday. I established a small group to attempt to find solutions for the most contentious paras, which was paragraph 2, 12b, 12c and 12d. I would like to ask Tuvalu, who led this small group, to present the language proposed by the small group. And this language is reflected in the latest version of this conference room paper, CRP1, rev. 1. Tuvalu, you have the floor. And please also feel free to explain the proceedings you had, and if you have a suggestion for deletion of Paris, then also please let the room know. Thank you. Microphone to Tuvalu, please.

Thank you, Chair. So after consultations with small group and with our respective delegations, we are proposing on deleting paragraph 12C. which is the remaining bracketed text, as we consider that the roles of subnational governments and other local authorities are already sufficiently understood in our region. We also believe that paragraphs 12A and 12B already adequately address this issue. But for us as PICs, our priority is to identify the specific gaps and areas where support is needed, which we believe paragraph B already addresses. However, we are open to alternative suggestions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Tuuloo. So, Let us now move to the remaining bracketed text in the CRP, starting with paragraph 2. So, can we approve the para 2 alt as proposed by the small group? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Generally, we could agree. We see that there is a caveat to have subnational legislation in line 5, but then later on, there's a series of actions that are not included under the umbrella of this caveat. So, what we would suggest is that in the last sentence of paragraph 2, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and priorities, that there, we would first change the comma after “framework” and put a semicolon, and then Then, change as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and priorities, and add “and legislation.”

Argentina, so you want to add “legislation” in the end? I get it?

Yeah. Si. Exactly.

Yes. Two things.

Semicolon after “framework.” That will be one thing. And then “legislation.” So those two changes.

Thank you. Thank you, Argentina. A semicolon and then legislation at the end. Good. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We are supporting the proposal from Argentina. We thank the small group for the work, and we have one small amendment in the eighth line. where we speak about effective participation of IPLCs, women, youth, and relevant stakeholders, we think it would be appropriate to say other relevant stakeholders. Otherwise, the text is okay with us. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Russia, and I believe that will be consistent with an approach we took yesterday in other Paris. Good, we're moving forward. I like it. India, please don't ruin my day. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We are also in support of what Argentina has proposed, as well as the Russian proposal, which we have adopted everywhere. So we are in support of it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India, and thank you also for not ruining my day. It's still a happy Thursday. Good, I'm pleased. Right, so I see no more requests for the floor, so we can approve two out. And then as a consequence, I suggest we delete two. Oh, European Union, you're not ruining my day, are you? Go on for it.

Thank you. Request for clarification on which what location that insertion goes into, because there are two places that a sentence or a phrase ends with the framework. I didn't have quite such.

So, yes, I lost the secretariat for their understanding of where that language was put in. Secretariat to other four.

So paragraph 2 would read: "Notes with the contribution of Parties, other Governments, financial institutions, and relevant organizations, and encourages Parties, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, 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 legislation, 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 other 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, other relevant stakeholders, and the global review, including the related global report, and the co-chair's summary of the CoMing dialogue on collective progress in the implementation of the framework, semicolon, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and priorities and legislation.

Thank you, Secretary. European Union.

Thank you.

I thought that I understood that the proposal was to remove the first reference to "in accordance with national circumstances and legislation" and just have it at the end.

So, it was my understanding that Argentina added a semicolon and legislation at the end, so they didn't ask for any deletions. European Union?

I believe that having it at the end covers the entire paragraph, so we'd request that it's deleted from the middle and just included at the end.

Thank you, European Union. So to me, that's more of an editing exercise. I think it would be cleaned up anyway by the editors. But yes, I see thumbs up from the European Union. Thank you for your flexibility and making this still a happy day for me. Let's see, I think Yeah, thank you. So that was two, which is approved. That is good. And now I move to paragraph 12B, where we still have remaining issues. I would like to start with, as I said, 12B. So can we approve paragraph 12B alt as proposed by the small group? Yes, so, yeah, I'm a bit hesitant to approve language with brackets in them. So I see there's still brackets in 12B alt, which regards barriers to access to funding and opportunities to strengthen direct and equitable finance and mechanisms for local implementation. So do I take it that the language in 12B alt can be approved and then we can go go to the bracketed language and discuss that separately. So I'm now asking then for views on B alt, if you're fine with the outcomes of the small group, the clean text that the small group came up with in 12B alt. So there, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to support the proposal which aims to lift the brackets from this sentence by adding national legislation and by keeping the last paragraph in brackets. Thank you, Chair.

So, Saudi Arabia, could you clarify where in the OLT you wanted to add legislation?

At the end of paragraph B, according to national legislation and after the reference to funding.

So, Saudi Arabia, so we're now working on the basis of 12B alt, because that was created by the small group I tasked to work on the language yesterday. So please reflect a little bit, Saudi Arabia, and I'll come back to you. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We support the suggestion we just heard from Saudi Arabia. As far as we are concerned, as we previously mentioned, we weren't able to participate in the small group, but it's a sine qua non for us for the approval of this paragraph. That is to say, we have to add "in accordance with national legislation" because all of us as countries have specific legislation dealing with subnational governments, and whether we accept them having direct financing and such like. So it's important that we have this presence of national legislation.

And to compile information, as appropriate, and in accordance with national legislation. Is that where you want them? Argentina.

No.

No.

As Saudi Arabia suggested, after, I mean, I understand we're talking on B-Alt, so in that case, it will be after financing mechanism, direct and equitable financing mechanisms in accordance with national legislation for local implementation.

Thank you, Argentina. We have it now. And I assume that Saudi Arabia also is fine with that placement there, which is the language is still in brackets for now. Okay, so now I have a quite big list here building. but please make my day a happy one. Can I take her out before?

Thank you, Chair. I was in the small group, and I hope I'm not speaking out of turn. My understanding was that what we reached in the old, as well as the insertion of the indicators text there, was also deletion of the brackets. So I just want to check in with other members of the small group if that's a shared understanding, but perhaps that would help our discussions. Thank you.

Thank you, Canada. So, but what we have here is brackets around the barriers. But let's hear with other members of the group. Aron, you had the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Iran also supports Saudi Arabia and Argentina for adding in accordance with national legislation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Iran. As Julia noted, Brazil.

Thank you, sir. We can support the insertion suggested by Saudi Arabia and Argentina. We think it's important that we take into account participation in a small group, and we can agree to remove the brackets around barriers down to mechanisms. But we believe that we need further work, as we had requested the Secretariat. And each national reality, it's different. Whatever we have in place domestically is different in each country. A compilation of all States Parties in this Convention needs to be had so that we can see how internal budgets are being used. It's a huge undertaking, and we want to see the results of that. So we'd like to support Argentina and Saudi Arabia and the lifting of those brackets. Thank you.

As Julie noted, so my suggestion going forwards now is we will then, of course, reflect the language in accordance with national legislation. And then my suggestion would be to lift the brackets, so we would have a clean para. So Are there any objections to that? I just want to raise your hand if there are objections. I see one objection, and one is enough, because we need consensus going forward. India, I'll take your intervention now, followed by the EU. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This is all about compiling information, particularly with regard to subnational governments. So we would also like to support Saudi Arabia and Argentina after the funding. Barriers to access to funding in accordance with the national legislation should be there because it’s a sovereignty issue. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India, also for that explanation. And then European Union, please save my day.

We were initially wished to delete the paragraph, but we're happy to be flexible on that. The question over the last part in brackets, we prefer to keep it more open and broad rather than including that particular insertion. I feel like that limits us a bit.

Thank you, but I have several parties insisting on that language. Hearing you said to prefer to keep it more open, but I see you is consulting on that. Yes. Good. Okay, so while the EU is discussing that, we'll leave the alt for a while. And then I heard Tuva-Liisa saying that the outcome of the small group as well was to delete C. So 12C was suggested to be deleted. I take it that the room finds that is fully okay. I'm just now referring to the proposal from Tuvalu to delete 12c. I see a thumbs up. That makes me happy. Good. So 12C is deleted. And now I go back to the EU, who has deeply reflected on this issue. EU, you have the floor.

May I have more time, please?

Time is not abundant, but since I'm in a good mood today, as you can see, let's... Two minutes, EU? Two minutes, yes? So, as this is the only pending issue, we'll give the EU two more minutes. Mic to EU, please.

After some consultation, we are flexible to delete the brackets and approve.

Sorry for that, just taking some notes. South Africa, you have the floor. And please make me a happy man, South Africa.

We just wanted to, while we're taking the two minutes, we looked at the text and realized that in paragraph one, there might be an erroneous scripture in there.

Because I think we agreed to welcome the report, not the executive summary of the report.

That is yesterday. Yeah, thank you, South Africa. That's well spotted. It is indeed, as you say. So we'll make that correction and reflect the agreement we had on the report and not the executive summary. Yes, so now we have agreement. So 12B alt is hereby approved as amended, and we will then, as in effect, delete 12B. So now the whole document, I believe, is clean. Yeah, sorry. We still have 12d, but this is about providing a progress report on the activities referred to in sub-paragraphs 12a to c. So we have some small brackets there, but I think this is just basically an editing exercise. So it will refer to 12A and B, as C has been deleted. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to kindly ask the Secretariat to read out B, so we know what is approved. And that was also my understanding, maybe I'm wrong, I beg your pardon, that D was proposed to be deleted together with C. Correct me, please, if I'm wrong. Thank you.

Right, so before I turn to Brazil, I would ask Tuvalu to clarify if that was the case. Tuvalu, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We only propose to delete 12(c), paragraph 12(c). Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tuvalu. I'll give Brazil the floor, and then I'll have the Secretariat read out 12(b) old. So, Silvia, you have the floor.

No, it was the same request as Russia to make sure what we are agreeing on out. Thank you.

Yes, indeed. Secretariat, please.

Paragraph B would read: “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 of 19 December 2022, 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 in accordance with national legislation for local implementation.

Thank you, Secretariat. I see no more requests from the floor. The document is clean and is approved and will be turned into an L document. Thank you very much. Thank you for doing yoga with me. It's a pleasure on this fantastic Thursday. So now, are you ready to be mainstreamed? CRP9 on item 14A is our next consideration. CRP 9/1 on COP agenda item 14A, on mainstreaming biodiversity within and across sectors. We began consideration of this CRP yesterday. While good progress was made, five brackets remain. Specifically, we will still need to lift brackets in preamble paragraph three. and operative paragraph 6B and C. Let us now move to the remaining bracketed text in the CRP, starting with preamble paragraph three.

Russian Federation.

Russian Federation, you have this one.

Thank you, Chair. We actually raised the flag with the request, the kind request, if you could consider and give us the order of documents that you are planning to put for discussion, that would really easy because in some way we would need to switch representatives, and that would really facilitate and help us to work. That would be really fantastic. Thank you, if possible.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Duly noted. I'll give the floor to the Secretariat that will announce.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. And as we requested yesterday, the editing and translation team is under a lot of pressure. So we are We apologize for not following the order. So now we will be looking at mainstreaming of biodiversity, CBD 14A, CRP 9. After that, we will move to CBD agenda item 9B, CRP 12 on monitoring framework. And then we will move to CBD agenda item 19, review of effectiveness of processes, CRP 15. Please let us know if you would like to repeat us. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. Democratic Republic of the Congo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to say something that is very much in the same vein. Currently, we see that there is a lot of changes happening. We just heard that there is a session dedicated on the financing mechanism that is ongoing. On the list here, we see that there's all of these topics, and this is quite disturbing. That is why we would like to know what your Our plan is, we are a small delegation, we cannot be in the group of the friends of the chair and the working group at the same time. The issues that are being considered here are of interest to us too. That is why we would like to know specifically what items will be discussed during this session before its end so that we can organize ourselves properly. Thank you.

Thank you, DRC. Yes, indeed. I'm asking you to be very flexible, and this was, of course, discussed in the Bureau this morning. And we do understand that there are, there's a lot of work to be done on several agenda items, because now it's Thursday and tomorrow we close. So you will have to show a lot of flexibility, but it was approved so by the Bureau. But yes, I hear your concrete wish to announce what items that will be dealt with in this session. So I'll give the floor to the Secretariat, who will make that announcement. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. I can regret the inconvenience caused by this, but as Chair was saying, this is how Bureau also approved it. I think we are in a time stretch here. So now we will be looking at CBD item 14A, mainstreaming of biodiversity, document CRP9/Rev.1. After that, CBD agenda item 9B, Monitoring Framework, CRP 12, followed by review of effectiveness of processes, CBD agenda item 19, which is CRP 15, and that goes together with CP Cartagena Protocol agenda item 12 and Nagoya Protocol agenda item 14, which also look at effectiveness of processes. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair, for the floor. I would also like to add my voice to the concern raised by DRC and to also request for clarity. Our attention has just been drawn to the fact that there's a Friends of the Chair on item 8. on financial mechanism going on now, which is not on the schedule as per our understanding. And considering that we are a small delegation, our understanding is that resource mobilization will be discussed based on how it has been scheduled. But of course, we are flexible on how you want to conduct the discussions till lunchtime, but we just wanted to raise this alteration as far as how it has affected us, which means the discussion in the financial mechanism will not reflect our views, and we would not be able to consider the outcome from that Friends of the Chair, which we have been deprived from participating because of non-scheduling this on the screen and the lack of information being shared with parties, and this is not a good way to move forward considering a lot of issues that we have to resolve, and we only have less than two days to do this. Thank you.

Thank you, Najera. That is, your concerns are duly noted, and I do understand them. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brazil would also like to raise and support the concern of developing country parties about the schedule, especially for small delegations from developed countries. It's really important. I know it's a challenge for the Secretariat as well, but for developing country parties, the schedule is fundamental in these next days because so many important decisions we will be taking that impacts our our ability to implement the decisions here. So we would like to support our colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. That is recorded. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I also would like to support my previous parties. that this fence of chair on financial mechanism, which was not at all figuring in the schedule, how come, you know, parties can, you know, with the limited delegates, how come they can be, you know, allocated when it is not at all there in the schedule? So, even though we can understand your constraints, but without scheduling, you know, things should not be taken into consideration.

Thank you, India. So regarding the friends of the chair on the agenda item 8B, financial mechanism, it is appearing on the screen from quarter to one to quarter to three. But then again, just to reiterate that I understand the difficulty this causes, and the reason why we had to do it in this way, as was approved by the Bureau, is that we are very stretched for time. So I beg your indulgence. Thank you. I see DRC. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This morning, we learned that the Bureau approved the Friends of the Chair a meeting that was expected from 1:15 to 1:45. We are surprised to find out that this meeting is already ongoing without this being communicated in advance. We would like for this to be displayed, and we would like to reflect our comment in the record of the meeting. Thank you.

Thank you very much, dear C. So there might be that there has been some miscommunication. It appears on the screen from quarter to one to quarter to three. So if the meeting is ongoing, I think there must have been like a miscommunication or something. We'll look into it. And then I hear that you would like to have this recorded. in the meeting report. All right, we will look into it. In the meantime, let's address, go back to the mainstreaming CRP, CRP 9 Rev 1, and the preamble para. recognizing that progress on biodiversity mainstreaming remains insufficient. And as you recall from yesterday, the bracketed language is the choice basically between ambition and scope and coverage regarding the implementation gaps. So I wanted to ask if parties have had time to consult on this para, if there are any news. I see no one asking for the floor.

Mexico.

Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. have been working on this paragraph, since we still have many parts that are not aligned with what's in brackets. We believe that one option could be to delete "ambition" as well as "scope coverage" and just make it a general paragraph, because ultimately we're talking about existing needs to ensure that we address these implementation gaps. So we would suggest that we remove the language that's between brackets so that it will just be a generic paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mexico, for that proposal, which I think is very sensible and also helps us to proceed on this matter. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a paragraph that has always been very important for us to recognize both the ambition gap and the implementation gap. We know it's been very sensitive and difficult discussions, notably under item 9A. We would really wish to have the word "ambition" here, but if it's really not acceptable for other parties, we can be flexible and just have the scope and coverage. But we definitely need to have one of those two.

Thank you, EU. I hear you. You need one of the two, either ambition or scope and courage. So for you, the Mexican proposal will not fly because it's generic. Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that Mexican proposal gives us an elegant solution for a debate that we don't need in this text. So we'd like to support the Mexican proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. Peru.

Thank you, Chair. Peru also would agree with deleting both phrases and just keep it general when it comes to the implementation gaps. Thank you.

Thank you, Peru. Central African Republic. Central African Republic, you have the floor.

Thank you. I believe Canada is asking for the floor.

Yes, I see the Russian Federation before Canada. Russian Federation, please.

Thank you, Chair. We are happy to support Mexican proposal for the reasons we expressed yesterday, and that was our proposal yesterday as well. So we think it would solve the issue and help us to move forward. Thank you.

And then, Kano?

Apologies, Mr. Chair, and apologies to my neighbor from Central African Republic. In the contact groups, sometimes you push the button on the other side. Thank you. And on this paragraph, it's our recollection from our deliberations in the contact group that people seem to be generally okay using language which is in the global report, which talks about scope and coverage. And so that's something, I think, with the flexibility from the EU, we could go along with that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kannan, yeah, well, at least you didn't report on behalf of a totally different country, as I did in the plenary. So Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, also in case of the flexibility of EU for deleting ambitions, we also request to keep the scope.

And coverage, and then we can delete the brackets.

Thank you. And finally, Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. We wish to support Mexico's proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Cuba. Cameroon, before I make a suggestion, Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. Given the discussions that we've had since Kunming, and the messages that have been delivered, namely that we need to accelerate implementation. We believe that saying that we need to close existing implementation gaps is in alignment with what we concluded. We need to be consistent. with the parameters and the aspects that have been identified as gaps in the implementation. In the spirit of compromise, we could go along with scope and coverage.

Thank you, Kamran. Yes. So it's a bit, you know, all over the place, but I think My suggestion would be that we use to close existing scope coverage and implementation gaps, which would also align, I believe, with the message in the global report. And I remember discussion we had about this in Nairobi, and this was a major discussion. So that would be my sense. So I suggest we go with the language to close existing scope, coverage, and implementation gaps. I see no one asking for the floor. It is so approved. Thank you very much. So next, para where we have brackets are 6, b and c, which is where we got stuck yesterday on the subsidy language. So parties mentioned that they did not believe this is the correct forum to deal with this para. That being said, I do want to try to find a way to send this text fully clean to the plenary. I think that would be a good thing. So can we lift the brackets in paragraph 6b? Are there any comments on this proposal to lift the brackets? Does anyone have some news from informal consultants? I see European Union and then Brazil. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, I asked for the floor before you started the discussion on this paragraph, because I have a question for clarification on paragraph 5. May I?

Yes, you may.

Thank you very much. Paragraph 5. I think we were a bit confused when this was dealt with. It concerns in the first line, we have now the phrase "actors other than national governments" and in the discussion, there were actually alternative paragraphs, but also the Secretariat said that this would be aligned with more general approach towards the use of this term. However, we are a bit unclear what that general approach is, and we note that I think the decision on the global review under item 9A, at least there, the approach would be that the first time that the term actors other than national governments is mentioned, all those sectors are listed in the text, not just in a footnote. The footnote then clarifies that in the remainder of the text, when the term comes back, the interpretation of the term. So we would very much actually wish to have the alternative that we had on the table. If we would use the word actors on other non-national governments, I would actually also note it. I think this is the only place in the decision that we would then use it. If we put all the sectors that are covered by that note in it, perhaps you actually do not even need the term. actors other than national governments and just put all those list directly in the text. So, could you clarify what the approach would be in line with to be coherent across decisions? Thank you.

So, we had... Thank you, Ivo. We had this discussion yesterday, and what I see now is what we agreed upon yesterday. So I don't really understand. I don't see anything else than we agreed upon yesterday, at least. EU.

Thank you. I think the confusion arose on several aspects, but one of thing was that the Secretariat, if I understood correctly, or you, because I wasn't there, that this was said to be the coherent approach for the use of the term "actors other than national governments". And we question that, because I think that approach would be that the first mentioning of that term would be followed in the text by "namely" and all these sectors.

Thank you, Yu. So we did not say here that this is how we will deal with that language on a general basis. I know there are discussions going on in other rooms, but we have decided to deal with this language on a case-by-case basis. So here yesterday, the room dealt with this specific language in a specific way. And we have not, at least not from the podium. It means that it could be that certain delegations have ideas on how they want to either insert that language, cross-cutting more decisions. That might be, but the decision we took yesterday only concerned this particular para. EU.

Thank you. I understand this is a somewhat difficult situation. May I ask your indulgence, and would it be possible to propose to the room that we align with the approach taken under Decision on 9A and have after the term actors of the national governments, namely, and then all those actors that are mentioned in the footnote?

Thank you, EU. So we may ask the room, but because this para was approved yesterday, I am in no position to reopen it, but I will do this and just ask the room if they are fine with the alterations from the EU. But if I hear any objection, the language stays as is, as decided and approved yesterday. EU.

Thank you. Just to note, and perhaps it's a procedural thing, but our recollection is that the text was not read out as how it would be approved. So that I think it was not clearly spelled out what that approval entails. But we hope that we actually can have agreement here on just lifting the entities that are in the footnote into the text with the connection, namely.

Yes, thank you, EU. But procedurally, I don't see any issues with what we did yesterday. So it still depends on whether other delegations are fine with your proposed addition. That's where I am. So, Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. My understanding is that this was already agreed, so we would prefer to move forward with the paragraphs that are still in brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina, and sorry, EU, but I'm in no position to open it. I'm sorry, but we need to move on. So we'll move on to the next, where we were, which were 6B. So on 6B, so I don't want any more intervention on this issue. So now I only want interventions on 6B. Philippines, you have the floor.

I'm sorry, Chair.

Yeah, going back to five, because we had five out, but that wasn't thoroughly discussed yesterday.

And we had interventions from EU, UK, Australia, supporting the inclusion of all these sectors which deals with mainstreaming biodiversity.

So we support EU's intervention now, including naming those specific.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Philippines. But my approach was that I agreed to add the language from the EU as long as there were no objections. And Argentina objected, so I am in no position to do that. I'm sorry. United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. Are we okay to move on? Hard to hear myself with the echo. Are we okay to move on to paragraph 6B now?

Yes, we are.

Okay, great. Thank you. The UK wanted to support the retention of this paragraph. To us, it's quite important to reflect the role that subsidies will play in mainstreaming biodiversity across sectors. And if there are challenges with this inclusion as to why it really makes sense here, we have some language to propose that might help solve that challenge.

Thank you. UK, Brazil, before we hear the proposal from the UK.

Yes, thank you, Chair. In our view, we would like to reiterate we cannot agree with the orientation of this text. We understand that the approach to KMBGF should be comprehensive and analytical, not only cherry picking some of the targets. So mainstreaming biodiversity, it's important, but some of the targets are important in order to concrete what we are asking for. So not only this specific paragraph. Thank you.

So now, then back to the UK, and let me hear, it says within brackets, I'm not suggesting we open the brackets, but I want to hear the language proposal from the UK. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Our proposal is for the text to read as follows: "To accelerate the identification, elimination, phasing out, or reforming of incentives harmful to biodiversity and scaling up positive incentives through whole of government, whole of society initiatives. Thank you.

And UK, can I ask you, what problem do you think this new language will solve?

So the issue that I have been hearing and that I was hearing in the contact group was that there was some confusion as to why this paragraph belongs in the mainstreaming decision and why it is relevant to mainstreaming, as opposed to being just within the financial mechanism decision and other decisions across the convention. By adding this text, it makes clear that we're not only looking at subsidies that are relevant to biodiversity from biodiversity specific ministries and departments, but rather that this is something that subsidies are the responsibility and in the purview of many different sectors across government and across society that others should be taking on and considering as well.

Thank you.

Yes, I heard that yesterday as well. So I'll have you read it out once more, I think, for the benefit of the room and the interpreters and the Secretariat. UK, please, in dictation speed.

Thank you, Chair. So the paragraph remains as written, and after "positive incentives," we're adding the text "through whole of government, whole of society initiatives. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. We are again reiterating, even while during the discussion also, in deleting this paragraph, and in case if it is to be retained, it should go to plenary as it's a cross-cutting issue, and it is figuring in global review also, as well as in other agenda also. So, I request you to either delete it or keep it in bracket. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. And in the interest of time, I think the language from the UK is helpful in that it sort of frames it more in the context of mainstreaming. So I think that helps. But as India rightly points out, this will probably have to be sold elsewhere than in this very room. So I would ask you all to lower your flags. because we will keep it in brackets with the language as amended by the UK, and then we will move on. So I see three interventions, but please be very brief. So now I see five interventions, so this doesn't work. Six, no, this doesn't work. So This has to be dealt with elsewhere. So I'll take a couple, but we have to move on. Jordan.

Thank you, Chair.

I will just follow that.

But we believe that incentive harmful is one of targets in coming MTIFF framework. But we need to respect the national targets which sitting from parties through the national ambassadors. So here I need, if we're going to work on decision from UK to add it subject to national legislation.

Thank you.

Right, so I think all of these interventions are basically that you want to work on text within the brackets. I think that exercise will happen, but not in this room. So to be fair, I will remove the UK insertion, just to be fair, because this needs to be entertained elsewhere, and the text will either go, the bee will either go or stay, and there will be a tweak on it. So I think that's what we will be doing. So I won't entertain any more interventions. We'll keep it in brackets as it is phrased now in the revised CRP 9, Rev 1, and then we move on. So please lower your flags. We'll now go to C. Thank you. So on C, regarding the sectoral transformation in alignment with, I remember we worked on yesterday. Yes. So We have two options. Can we delete the text in the first set of brackets and lift the second set of brackets? So can we delete the text in the first set of brackets and lift the second set of brackets? So the review.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Saudi Arabia supports the lifting of the brackets in the first part after adding in accordance with national legislations and conditions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. India.

Thank you, Chair. India is in favor of lifting the first bracket, but we would like to remove the text in the second bracket. And there was a lot of support when it was discussed also, because the sectoral transformation that is given in the first bracket, that itself is enough. Whereas when we say to enhance the alignment of sectoral, we are going further deeper into it, sectoral actions, policies, and plans. This is again a sovereignty issue. So we prefer that the text in paragraph 2 can be deleted, and we are now happy with what my previous speaker spoke. we can add national circumstances and legislations in the first bracketed text. With that, we can lift that brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We would be happy to support your proposal and to delete the first text in brackets and to go with the second option. As I could give the rationale once again, I already explained that many times, that for us, transformation or transition is not the issues that we are dealing here and would be happy to do or supportive to have. And it was quite a flexibility to have sectoral actions, as in the beginning, sectoral was in brackets. But we would be prepared to go as far as general mentioning on actions, policies, and plans without any clarification on transition, transformation, and other issues. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Can I just get an idea now from the room? Who wants to keep sectoral transformation? Just by show of hands. Yes, I see several hands. Yes. So it's clear that this needs to be worked on. And probably the The solution would then probably be procedurally to build on what's in the second set of brackets and see if you can agree on some language regarding sectoral transformation or that goes in that direction. So to merge those two views, I think what I would like to do now is for the parties to discuss this in a small group. And I would like to call upon EU, Iran, South Africa, Brazil, Russian Federation, and other parties that have an interest in the language in C. And I would like to call upon the EU to lead the small group, if you are willing. Yes, I see nodding. Thank you, EU. And then you would have to report back in the next session of the working group one in the afternoon. where we will take up this CRP. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Kuchera. We are happy to join this small group, but we raise the flag to support your elegant solution for this paragraph. And we have the same understanding as Russia that beginning from Cali, sectorial was a huge flexibility from developing countries. And the way the first phrase reads, it's so prescriptive, and we are creating obligations beyond any other decision of CBD. But we are happy to join and deep the conversation with our colleagues in the small group. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, for your understanding and willingness to join the small group. It's valuable. Elegant doesn't always make it till the end when we deal with political issues. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair, for your proposal to have another small group. I apologize. We have raised the issue of the order of items, and then we have raised the issue of the shadow changing and jumping from one to another. There are now four Friends of the Chair groups meetings during the lunch, giving us just 15 minutes to breathe, and no really time for lunch. We are discussing here biodiversity and health. It's a great idea. Should we pay attention on the health of ourselves and other delegates? I'm sorry for raising this, but for the small group, that's really no reason to create the group, as we have discussed this in their contact group extensively and several times. We are now in the situation that we either have a position that is acceptable, or simply delete it in the decision, in the L paper. Simply delete, and then we can go further. Otherwise, if the brackets would remain until the L, then there will be no decision. The whole decision should be put in brackets then. And I would really call for that, if there is no way. to solve the issue. Sorry, we have a lot of time. We got stuck at several points where further small groups really don't help, and we have no time for that. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. But when I see that about 30 parties would like to keep the sectoral transformation language, that's an issue we have to resolve, right? So that's why we're here. And it's Thursday, and we have to have an agreement by tomorrow, right? So that's the situation we're in. And you rightly point out that this was discussed in the contact group, but the contact group didn't agree. So now we have to agree, right? So that's why we're discussing this now in the working group, because you didn't agree. So now we have to agree. EU, you have the floor.

Thank you, and thank you for your efforts to solve this issue. I was wondering whether it would help if we make this more like a huddle, because it might be, if we have 15 minutes, 20 minutes, just now directly after this discussion in the back of this room, we could at least give it a try and see whether we can find some compromise.

Yes, thank you, I think that's helpful. So the next item we'll take up is PMRR. I hope that doesn't draw on the same people. Yes, it does. It does. So, Russian Federation, you signal that you're doing PMRR as well, but you're a fairly big delegation, right? So my question to you would be if you could draw on other people in your delegation.

You're asking for the small group chair. Probably yes, but people are assigned to various items and following them in groups. So we have our clear position. We would reserve the right to comment on the proposal of the small group. And I would continue with the mainstreaming or with the monitoring if you are taking this now. And it's not possible to bring people from other places in a while as Again, it was already discussed what is happening with the schedule here. It's hard to jump from room to room on a call when different discussions are going on. My apologies. Thank you for your understanding.

Thank you, Russia. Thank you, Russia. We'll hear Brazil, but then my approach would be, so we'll stop, we'll suspend, I think it's called, suspend, thank you, Secretary, the session for 10 minutes and we'll have a huddle so all can participate, and then we report back to me, and then we start PMRR after. So that's what we'll do. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. And I think we have a really valid point about the resource of people here, as the Russian delegation mentioned. And like we had discussed again five twice, because it was twice decided yesterday. So it's hard because the people that decide five may be not in the room again. So with mainstreaming, decisions taken were re-debated here, and with the small group, we fear of not having the perfect people, the adequate people in the room, like the Russian delegation. What is preventing us from advancing in this decision? It's one word that some delegations still have on the text. The solution on other texts would be to delete the whole paragraph. That's what we are seeing in other groups and other decisions. And we've called it call our colleagues that we have already indeed a call for transition plans in the private and financial and business sector. So we are eager to debate and to stay here long debate, but we are not saying the same flexibility in this paragraph. So our solution, we should delete since we, but we can stay hours, hours, hours, hours spending with one word if they want, that we cannot agree. But Russian delegation has an important point, like for developing countries. Keeping the whole day negotiating with the resources we have, it's very difficult. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Pressel. So my point was regarding the bigger delegations, right? But we'll make an effort. European Union will lead a huddle. I give you 10 minutes, we'll suspend the session, and then you report back. to me in 10 minutes. Thank you. All right. I think there is white smoke coming out of the huddle. I'll now give Brazil the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. Sustainable white smoke from Yes, we, during the Huddle, we have an agreement on a proposed link that we would like to read from the floor. It's to enhance the alignment, development, and implementation, as appropriate, of sectorial actions, policies, and plans with the relevant goals and targets of the framework, in accordance with national circumstances and legislation.

Thank you, Brazil. We have it. And thank you very much for undertaking this task. It's highly appreciated. So I take it that that language in C is approved. I see no one asking for the floor. It is approved. Thank you. And with this, we will approve the document with the language in B in brackets, and the language in B is to accelerate the identification, elimination, phasing out, or reforming of incentives harmful to biodiversity and scaling up a positive incentive. language stays in brackets, the document will be turned into an LDOC. This document is approved. Thank you.

Thank you for everything.

Okay, thank you. So the last item we will start discussing and hopefully finalize before lunch is CRP 12. Further enhancing planning, monitoring, reporting, and review mechanisms, including the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. So, the CRP was prepared on the basis of the work of the contact group co-chaired by Ntaka Chisada of South Africa and Phil Raymond of the UK. I invite the co-chair to report on their work. Ntaka, you have the floor. So, floor to South Africa, please.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of myself and my co-chairs, Dr. Phil Raymond from the United Kingdom, I am pleased to report on the progress in the Quartet Group on agenda item 9B, on further enhancing planning, monitoring, reporting, and review mechanism, including the monitoring framework for the KMGBF. The contact group has met three times on 21, 26, and 27 October. The group has made some great progress in these sessions. Delegates engaged positively, constructively, and in good faith. We have found areas of compromise and consensus on several paragraphs, including on the identification of collaboration for the development of the headline indicators, strengthening the process for future global reviews and global reports, and the process for technical updates of the reporting template. Some divergence remains on issues, including a request to the GEF and the consideration of the proposed complementary and component indicators. On the first steps in the process to determine what from action under the Convention may take after 2030, there was broad agreement on the principles of the way forward. However, sensitivities on the appropriate language and framing to reflect those principles have prevented a final agreement. Chair, We feel that we have taken the work in the consult group as far as we can, and therefore we are presenting the results of this work with brackets on the remaining paragraph. We requested parties to consult informally on the outstanding issues, and so we hope that they may have found some further compromises. We thank all the participants, parties for their strong engagement on this item and the trust they have shown in us. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for their support. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ntaka. Thank you, South Africa and the United Kingdom for your work in co-chairing the Contact Group. I see that despite the good progress made during the contact group, a few unresolved issues remain. So before going, before we proceed further with the CRP, I would like to return to the intervention made by the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the scheduling issue. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. So we have double-checked, and there was no Friends of Chair meeting happening at the time. When it was mentioned, I think there was a confusion. The presidency has its own informal consultations on a wide range of issues happening, but it was not a Friends of the Chair meeting. So we would like to clarify that confusion. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretariats. So before we address the unresolved brackets, I would like to approve the clean paragraphs in the CRP. which include the three preamble paragraphs and paragraphs 1 to 8, 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 21, 22A to 22G, 22I, 22L, 22M, and Annex 2. So as these paragraphs came to us clean from the contact group, can we approve them as they are? I see no requests for the floor. They are approved. Now I would like to go through this document by looking at those paragraphs with brackets. So we will go para by para. And let us start with paragraph 9. I see there are three sets of brackets in this paragraph. The first two sets of brackets appear to have alternative phrasings on the same issue. Can we lift the brackets around the first set of brackets, so the text reading to put in place any procedures or organizational arrangements necessary, is retained, and delete the text in the second set of brackets. I see Russian Federation. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Before starting discussing the brackets, I just wanted to ask you, how long do you plan to continue working? As now it's 13:04, at 13:15, 1:15, we have Friends of the Chair meetings scheduled. So just to know. And also would like to ask you, what is your plan for the afternoon, the order of the papers? As for these brackets, we would prefer to have the second set of brackets. Thank you. To retain. Thank you. The text in the second brackets. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Regarding the agenda items to be taken up after lunch, please follow the screen because we will be updating the sequence during lunchtime as early as possible, I promise. But please, yes, please follow the screen. Regarding This session will go on for 10 minutes more, so we'll stop at, we have a hard stop at quarter past one. Argentina, you have.

The floor.

Thank you, Chair. We're going back to considering paragraphs here.

Indeed, yes. There was a mixed bag of interventions. Yes, no, please.

Thank you. In that case, we need, we want to maintain the second text in the brackets. In this paragraph, we're talking about the classifying And so we want declassification to happen at the right moment so that the parties who receive the fund from the facility do not receive it before the presentation of the report. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. So based on the interventions I've heard, do I take it that we can delete the first set of brackets, which is to put in place any procedures or organizational arrangements necessary, and keep the second set of brackets, which reads "and required organizational measures, including the receipt of funds by recipient countries well in advance of the reporting deadline." Do I see opposition? I see opposition. Okay. Ireland, you have the floor.

This is the UN, its 27 member states speaking. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a slight confusion here. I think the first thing you ask us is whether we would be happy to lift the brackets around the first the first element, which is in brackets, which starts with "to put in place". And we are happy to lift that set of brackets. And this includes the deletion of the three words, which is the three words later on, the required organizational procedures, because these are the two sets of brackets which speak to each other. So we are in favor of keeping the first text and as this is, and we had a really good discussion on that during the contact group, and this is meant to replace required organizational measures. And then further to that, we would be fine that to the text to continue to read and to ensure the timely and adequate accessible resources. including, and then for us to be able to accept what is then in brackets, we would replace the receipt of funds by with the disbursement of funds too. And why I am proposing that? Because we have the exact same wording at a later element paragraph in the same document, which you just approved a few minutes ago. Thank you.

Thank you, EU. So it seems that, you know, it's the same discussion in the contact group. So we only have some five minutes left. So what I will do is make an attempt to clean power nine. So we will have a huddle, which consists of Switzerland, EU, Argentina, and Russia and other interested parties that will meet, I think, down there. And then please solve para 9, and then you come back to me, report, and then we close the session and break for lunch. You have five minutes. Thank you. So, I see there's white smoke, sustainable white smoke. So, I guess you self-organize. So, can I ask the EU to report, maybe, if you have the language or someone that has the language? EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best and get corrected by our colleague from the UK who helped us to a great deal here. Thank you. And thanks to everyone for engaging. So the full paragraph would read: "requests the Global Environment Facility and invites its implementing agencies, before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to put in place any procedures all organizational arrangements necessary to ensure that timely, adequate, and accessible resources, including the disbursement of funds to recipient countries well in advance of the reporting deadline, And then the text goes on as it is, and the brackets around "and accelerated" will be lifted. And that is the proposal.

Thank you, EU. Highly appreciated. And big thanks to the huddle. You are very effective. Secretary, did you capture it? Yes, I see nodding. I take it we can approve it as is, and then we break for lunch. Yes, good. It is approved. Thank you. Have a nice lunch. So, just for the benefit of the room, we will continue with this item after lunch as a first item, but please follow the screen for other items. Thank you.