Working Group II (14th meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

So I would like to call the meeting to order. Thank you all for your well wishes yesterday. I'm back with more voice. Seems like the treatment at hospital was very good and I'm feeling better, no fever, and now in better conditions. I hope my voice can last next three hours. We only have three hours, a little bit less, to finish our business on four agenda items, and five, actually, because also we need to approve the report of the working group two. I'm very grateful to Mr. Michael Sibendra for the excellent job and stepping in for this outstanding work in very short notice. So today, i will pass this to approve CRP8 on IBES. CRP7 on climate change, CRP10 on synthetic biology, CRP11 on the programme of work of protected areas. So we need to move in an efficient way. I hope we can solve all issues in about 40 minutes per topic if we are efficient. So I count with your support. And let's start with CRP8 on IBES. So I would like to invite Mr. Dickson Chitupa to give us an update from the contact group on this matter. And Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Good morning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So on behalf of myself and my co-chair, Elf Skinner from the United Kingdom, I'm pleased to report on the progress in the contact group on agenda item number 17E. on IBIS. As chair, since our last session of the working group, the contact group has met two more times, making a total of five times. So that was a busy period for us. A lot of good progress was made, and we clapped enthusiastically as we cleared many paragraphs, including on how to refer to stakeholders across multiple paragraphs. However, some divergence remains on issues, including on how to recognize the transformative change assessment It's summary for policymakers and findings, as well as on disclosures by business. A reference to ABC instruments is also currently in brackets. We requested the interested parties to discuss these issues informally in the hope that they may find some compromise text, which I believe may be up to this point in time, they have come to somehow an agreement. We are very optimistic on that. Chair, we believe that we have taken the discussions as far as we could during the sessions of the Contact Group. We thank all the participating parties for their strong engagement on this issue. And I would also like, on behalf of myself and my co-chair, Elif Skinner, to thank the Secretariat for their very great support and their willingness to be engaged even during odd hours in the corridors, at lunch, at any given time they were available for us. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you very much for both co-chairs of this group and all the sessions and the hard work. So let's see if from this work we can go ahead and approve a clean document. So this CRP still have 37 sets of brackets. So as we heard, this being extensively discussed in the contact group, so I propose only to address the paragraphs with remaining brackets. So, I will suggest after seeing the situation to start first with paragraph 9b.ii, then to go to paragraphs 4 and 5, and then to go to 10, which are the main places where most brackets are nested. So let's go to paragraph 9b.ii. So I open the floor for comments, but what I would like to propose is if we can leave the brackets. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had a very long negotiation process on this. We had multiple contact groups, many informals. Concerning this specific paragraph, unfortunately, my delegation is not in a position to lift the brackets. We request to delete the text which is bracketed in this subparagraph and move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Russian Federation. UK.

Thank you, Chair. As also discussed in the contact group, the UK had been strongly opposed to deleting locations. We would like to propose an alternative that we hope would be a compromise, which would be to say, instead of "and locations of businesses, their operations and value chains" to say "and geographic information related to businesses, their operations and value chains". Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. UK? Can we go along with UK proposal, Russian Federation, followed by India?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Locations, geographical sphere, geo tags, unfortunately, will not be suitable for my delegation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to delete the bracketed text from para Roman 2 maybe?

Thank you. More options, colleagues? I don't want to send brackets to plenary. It's going to be very difficult for the presidents to deal with so many documents. Argentina, followed by UK.

Regarding the second bracket, We suggest adding voluntary before disclosure. Thanks.

UK, followed by Switzerland and Malawi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The UK would support Argentina's proposal on voluntary disclosure. And perhaps another alternative, instead of locations or geographic information, would be spatial data in relation to businesses, their operations, and value chains. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. So we would be flexible on locations. We could retain it, but also delete it. On the second brackets, voluntary is a very good suggestion. Switzerland also made that during the contact group because in our view, that is also in line with the assessment, the relevant from IPBES, and actually that's our basis for these messages should be, they should be in line with the assessment.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I heard support for voluntary. So I believe we can go along with that part. I'm still the first pending. Malawi, followed by New Zealand and Mexico.

Thank you, co-chair. Unfortunately, for Malawi, we wouldn't support the term voluntary because we feel that will make the per week, because we would love to have businesses disclosing as a mandatory thing, but we are comfortable with the deletion of the location. We have no problem with that, but we don't support the voluntary basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Malawi. New Zealand, followed by Mexico.

Thank you, Chair. New Zealand also supports disclosure. We suggest just adding a footnote that uses the same language elsewhere in the decision, which would be voluntary or mandatory as applicable, or just whatever language we use in the rest of the decision. On locations, we would like to suggest, as a compromise, provenance. So we'd say activities and provenance of businesses. Thank you.

Thank you for the suggestion, Oshilan. So, provenance maybe can be an option, acceptable. I hope so. Mexico, follow by you.

Thank you, Chair.

For Mexico, it's important to keep locations, but we can work with the spatial data.

And regarding disclosure, we can both work with voluntarily or the New Zealand proposal.

Mexico can also, provenance could be an option. as just proposed by New Zealand.

I see Nauru. Thank you. EU, follow by Russian Federation.

Thank you.

We would like to support the New Zealand suggestion of voluntary or mandatory as applicable, and we could be flexible on location, but the spatial data or provenance also would be good.

Thank you. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we're just prolongating our discussions and wasting our time. We had the same discussions during those four or six informals, and the position of my delegation, supported by other delegation, is strong on this. We are not ready to have locations, provenance, geographical data whatsoever in this paragraph, same as the disclosure, the mentioning of disclosure mechanisms. So our strong request is to delete the bracketed text. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Roshan. Benin.

Thank you, Chair. For my country, the paragraph should be retained. We're flexible about using the term "provenance." But voluntary is not appropriate. It cannot be voluntary.

Thank you, Anil. Dear colleagues, I was to ask you to have a huddle on this, but I heard that you already deal with this issue in previous meetings and we're going nowhere. So to be practical, I would like to know if we can delete the text on disclosure and on disclosure locations, and I didn't hear full support of voluntary. The proposal Argentina, some were supporting, some were against, so I don't want to include new words with brackets. So I'd like to see if there's flexibility and we delete disclosure locations and move on in order for not to send text with brackets to plenary. Can you accept my proposal? I see no requests from the floor. Thank you very much for flexibility of all, and I ask for more flexibility along the document. So disclosure location is deleted, so we have clean text on sub-paragraph B, double Roman. Thank you so much. Now let's move to paragraph 4. In paragraph 4, I understand there were some consultations, and I believe I would like to give the floor for someone with some views, but I see Benin. Benin.

Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, I was wondering if you could read out exactly what we now have on this paragraph before we continue. I was not able to take down the final suggestions after your suggestion. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Ola, Secretariat, to read the part that we already approved with the deletion of the text in brackets. Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. The text would read: "Enabling, as appropriate, the collection and sharing of information on the activities of businesses, their operations, and value chains, including through traceability mechanisms in line with target 15 of the framework, as applicable.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretaria. I assume it's okay, right? Good. I see you nodding. So, regarding paragraph four, I would like to hear some views on how to move on. with paragraph 4 regarding welcomes and takes note, so I would like to see if we can go along with welcomes. Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy to see you back on board. I hope you're feeling better. Mr. Chair, Brazil attaches great importance to IPBES and its essential role in strengthening the science policy interface for biodiversity. We recognize the platform's invaluable contribution to the evidence-based policy making and to the effective implementation of the CBD and the KMGBF. Brazil remains strongly committed to supporting IPBES and to ensuring that its work remains scientifically robust, policy relevant, inclusive, and responsive to the needs and priorities of developing countries. As a concrete demonstration of this commitment, Brazil is pleased to host the upcoming IPBES workshop on the future work of the Platform, which will take place in Campinas next month. It will contribute to an inclusive and forward-looking process that will help shape the Platform’s future programme of work. Mr. Chair, we wish we could be in a position to welcome this SPM. However, we find ourselves in a different situation. That is not because of the science, it's because of the process. The 11th IPBES plenary produced three major outcomes: the Nexus Assessment, the Transformative Change Assessment, the scoping of the second Global Assessment. Due to a lack of adequate resources, we could send only one delegate. This made meaningful participation humanly impossible. And in the plenary, many of our comments were not taken into consideration due to the lack of time or due to the lack of disposition of some delegations to hear delegates that were not able to participate in the discussions of the Transformative Change Assessment. We find it inconsistent that the same delegations insisting that we welcome documents whose negotiation were not prevented from participating in are now blocking in the budget discussions measures that could increase the participation of developing countries. Let me be clear. The discussion there concerns the use of 2.73% of an $18 million surplus. which sits above the reserve. What we are protecting through the reserve is the financial stability of the Convention. If, in addition to the reserves, we have an $18 million surplus and we cannot use 2.7% of it to support developing countries, we are left wondering what value is being protected. Certainly, not equity and inclusiveness, which are the foundation of any democratic process. If we find consensus in the budget discussions on measures to mitigate this kind of problem in the Convention, we would be in a position to join this and wishing to welcome the outcomes of the SPM, agreeing to clean this paragraph 4. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Brazil. So I count with your flexibility then. Do you want this statement to be recorded in the report, so we can include that? Brazil.

Yes, Mr. Chair, please.

Thank you. I think, as I understand, it's not a problem of CBD, it's a situation in IBEST. As you know, I'm part of the Bureau of IBEST. Under this situation, we already agree that no negotiation of two assessments in parallel will happen for future plenaries of IPBES in order to avoid these type of situations. And thank you very much for the flexibility. So we agree text on para 4. Hello? Mr. Plasil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you misunderstood my statement. We are not in a position to agree with the paragraph 4 as long as we have a decision in budget. So we would like to retain the brackets there until we have something decided in budget so we can analyze and see if we can be flexible here. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. Well, but at least we can include your statement in the report just to be clear. But I also ask for your flexibility because that was a situation outside rearm of CBD. That was a situation in as such, I remember it was only one delegate from Brazil because I was the chair of transformative change plenary working group, and Luis, which is an excellent negotiator, took most of the time in Nexus and only at the end on the plenary had little time to make some comments on transformative change. So, as I said, those provisions are already being taken into account in IPES for future plenaries. I'm wondering if this information also helps for your consideration. Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we recognize that many actions are being taken. We have been talking with Mr. Ziba. which we thank for his initiative. This problem, however, is something that is happening here also. We, as delegations from developing countries, we had so many uncertainty on whether we would have two or just one delegate funded, and this insecurity is detrimental to our preparation for the convention and for being here at COP with equitable approach. to other delegations from developed countries. So we see the connection here, not only in IPBS, but CBD and other conventions. This is something we need to be ready to address, and our concerns should be reflected and at least considered in the budget discussions. Thank you.

Thank you. So meanwhile, we keep it in brackets, hoping that when budget deliberations evolve a good outcome. Obrigado, Brazil. Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and likewise glad to see you back on the podium. So we noted the statement made by Brazil and would like to just mention our discussion in the contact group in that regard. For Switzerland, We mentioned it from the beginning that for us, it is critical to highlight in this decision the detailed messages from the assessments to contribute to its uptake. We understood that several delegations could not accept such detailed messages, but would like to compromise on a more consolidated paragraph to include the messages. For us, we could be ready or we could have agreed to engage in that consolidation. It was a big compromise, but we needed their reassurance to have the reference to the three assessments all in the same way. And that is why we had put the brackets around 2 alt, 5 and 5 alt so far to highlight that we can accept this consolidation of messages as long as we welcome the summary for policymakers and its key messages of all the three assessments. So with that regard, it is just to highlight to you that in that regard, we cannot make further progress because it depends on how we reference the summary for policymaker in paragraph four. At the same point, I think, to clean up within the overall brackets around paragraphs 5 and 5 alt, i think would not be a problem, but we cannot lift at this point the brackets around 2 alt, 5 and 5 alt, because it is dependent on paragraph 4. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. I understand that the other brackets on 2 alt and five old are also pending after budget deliberations to see if we can go along with Welcomes, then those will disappear, right? So I hope we can have a good outcome. And just let me verify, I believe it's still one pending Racket, hold on. If I move into other paragraphs, I had a number of requests from the floor. I guess will be comments on the way to proceed, but that's understanding. But first, I will give the floor to Fiji.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've been listening closely to the interventions on paragraph 4. And we want to state as well the intervention that was made by the delegation of Brazil regarding the constraint and the financial support for participation in the IPBES meeting. We share the same concern from Pacific Seeds. For us, our representation at the meeting was very limited, and only a single delegate from the Pacific was able to attend, making this a real challenge for us to engage meaningfully in the meeting. We want to register that as well. But in line with the paragraph, for us, we welcome the summary of the policy, the report, but we also want to register as well that Real participation for us was very limited in terms of capacity constraint, and that was highlighted as well by Brazil. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Fiji. I have UK followed by EU, Russian Federation, and Malawi. Just like to let you know also that financial situation of IPBES is very different from CBD. In CVD, we have contributions by parties on a regular way, annually. And in the case of IPBES, all functioning is pending on voluntary contribution. So that makes very limited to make miracles, to hold the sessions and to run different works in a very different situation, just to let you know. limitations are of a different nature than in our convention. I give the floor to UK, followed by EU and Russian Federation. UK.

Thank you very much, Chair. The distinguished delegate from Brazil in his intervention said that this is not about the product, but it's about the process. And the UK is very glad to hear that, because in our view, the product is a very robust, high-quality report containing the best available science, which should support the work of our Convention. And the paragraph that we are discussing here is about recognizing that report and its relevance to the Convention. It's not about the process. In the Contact Group, the UK made a statement yesterday expressing our deepest understanding and sympathy with the concerns of Brazil, and we would be more than willing to engage in discussions about how we improve participation within the IPBES process. And in fact, we already have and we already are. The IPBES Mid-Term Review contained recommendations about enhancing participation, and the IPBES Plenary has already agreed to work to implement those recommendations. I think it's really important to note that CBD does not have a mandate or influence over the IPBES process itself, and nor will the outcome of any budget negotiations within the CBD have any impact on participation within IPBES itself. In our view, Linking whether or not we accept science with whether parties get the money they want in a different process is completely unacceptable. Science should not be for sale. If we cannot resolve this here, we are not going to accept take note of the Transformative Change Assessment. We have to welcome it, and we will take that to plenary if we can't resolve it in this working group. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Union.

Européenne, suivie de la Fédération de Russie et du Malawi.

Merci.

Nous renouvelons notre engagement envers les travaux de l'IPBES.

Nous sommes très satisfaits de ces travaux et nous appuyons également ce que vient de dire la Suisse.

Merci.

Thank you. I think it was a switch on the channels on translation.

Excuse me?

Okay.

Russian Federation, followed by Malawi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two points. First, more of a procedural nature. We would just like to highlight that there unsolved brackets in paragraph 5 inside the text, it's not only the full paragraph, and we would like to reserve our position on that for further discussions once we have an understanding whether we will be working with para 5 or with para 5 out. That was point number one. Point number two: I, to some extent, agree with a part of a statement made by the previous one of the previous speakers, that science is not for sale. That is totally agreeable. But as you, Mr. Chair, have stated, all the work of IBES is formed on voluntary contributions. And to some extent, there might be a possibility that those two things are interconnected. So we request to be very attentive when we say that science is not for sale. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Malawi, followed by Norway and Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Malawi also shares some sentiments with the UK that the products of the EPBES particularly the transformative change assessment, was robust, is robust and excellent. And even when you look at the process, parties or governments are given opportunity to share their sentiments, their comments during the review process. Malawi also had only one delegation, but we were able to contribute through those processes. We therefore welcome the assessment and their summary for policymakers. Thank you.

Thank you, Malawi. Norway, followed by Brazil and Panama.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we are also supportive of the intervention from Switzerland, and maybe we will have to resolve these paragraphs later, but we are very supportive of IPES work and also would like to highlight what the chair specified that IPES has already also taken action to make it not to discuss two reports at the same time in the future and try to facilitate participation from their side as well.

Thank you, Norway. Brazil, followed by Panama and Japan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the colleagues for the interventions. I was thinking about it when my distinguished colleague from the UK said to us that we are backed by science here in the Convention, and indeed, backed by science, Brazil has reduced deforestation rates to record lows. It is backed by science that our national policies for the environment are put in place. I would ask you, as a senior member for IPBES, Mr. Chair, If the summary for policymakers are not negotiated, they could not exist, right? It's not just science, it's negotiation. It's the participation of countries and their delegates that produce the document that we are welcoming here. So this is not a blow on science. This is a blow and unfair and injustice. when we do not support the proper participation of delegations to the process. And with that, we think we should move to the other paragraphs and clean this document as much as we can and leave it to the L document and the discussions during plenary. Thank you.

Thank you, Luzil. Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We're very happy to see you well and with us here now. I'd like to associate myself with what was said by Brazil. I think it is important to take note of this because a science that moves forward without developing countries, and we're the ones who have the needs to make progress, is not good science. So Along those lines, we cannot continue to make progress if our countries do not participate in the discussion and if they do not participate in an active way in the discussion. So what science are we talking about if it's not a science that includes us? We can support the work, we can be flexible, but for goodness sakes, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that we simply don't have the resources to be present always.

Dear colleagues, we are taking quite a long time. I think we should move on. We still have three more documents, so I imagine to be very quick in our deliberations and to see a couple of paragraphs more and move. But I think it's been quite good to have these reflections so far. Japan, followed by Colombia, then India.

Thank you, Chair.

Japan would like to reflect on this. Japan UK's proposal and other supported members. And we will be favor of welcome for the summary of policymakers at least. And Japan respect the great importance to the work of IPBES and consider that it's important to welcome scientific findings on that. and to be fully, to be effectively taken up in policy making.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Japan. Colombia, followed by Benin.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colombia would like to strongly align itself with the intervention made by the United Kingdom. We believe that welcoming the summary for policymakers is an appropriate recognition of the important contribution of this assessment to our understanding of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss.

And importantly, to the implementation of the KMGBF.

So we therefore support retaining the welcomes in this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you. Benin, followed by Mexico and Iceland.

It’s a reality, this challenge of less developed States’ participation. So I would like to propose an addition, an addition which could perhaps resolve things at the end. So I'm going to do it in English, after framework. I propose that we should add:.

"Recognizing the need for a better representation from developing countries.".

This would be a positive thing. which could satisfy some of us. Thank you. This is my proposal.

Thank you, Benin, for your suggestion. Sounds interesting. I'd like to see if Brazil can think about it. I believe there are two different discussions, as I heard. One is the quality of the assessment and the policy relevance of the summary for policymakers. Of course, regarding the question, the summary for policymakers is a summary where members of the platform understand clearly and agree with the conclusions from the assessment. Assessments, we're talking about thousands of pages with a lot of good elements, strongly science-based, and the proposals on the key messages that are policy relevant. So parties of CBD may make use of these key messages and information contained in the chapters. This has been the case for all products of IPBES since it was born with pollinators, invasive species, sustainable use. And many of them, including the first global assessment, the upcoming second global assessment, the special planning and connectivity one in process monitoring. So there is a lot of good elements that parties of CBD may take into account for implementation at national level. So there's no doubt about the quality of these outcomes from IPBES. And also this one on transformative change has a number of issues where we can connect with different actors and stakeholders to support implementation of our global framework. So I have Mexico followed by Iceland and New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. We completely agree with what you already stated.

And for Mexico, it's really important to welcome the work that has been already done and tried. We understand and support the difference regarding participation in the process and guaranteeing that all parties being part of.

But we have to separate these summaries and the important information that they give for decision makers and try to.

Advance in the process.

Thank you.

Gracias, México. Iceland followed by New Zealand, and I close the list.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we are happy to see you back on the floor or on the podium. Well, Iceland wants to support what has been said here specifically by all the countries or parties who have supported the IPBES process and that the findings of IPBES, how they are underpinning the work that we do here under the Convention. There are many different ways of seeing this. Iceland was not part of IPBES when the Transformative Change Assessment was adopted. Still, we welcome the report because of the content. And I think we need to focus on that here. And I urge parties to separate the welcoming, the contribution of this important IPBES assessment from other important issue such as the purchase definitely is. And when saying this, I have full understanding of the situation for many countries that cannot send big delegations. Although I come from a developed country, we don't have big delegations. We are people of 400,000. So there are many different ways to look at this, so please, dear colleagues, let's try to separate these two things. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, New Zealand.

Thank you, chair. New Zealand also fully supports the statement by the UK and the importance of welcoming the high quality scientific and policy evidence base in these three assessments. We also support the statement of Switzerland and the suggested way forward that we retain the two alt and five alt in the text until such time as parties are ready to welcome all three SBMs and key messages. We would also be happy to proceed with cleaning up paragraph five. And if it would help speed our process, we could try and clean the contents of paragraph 5 and not spend too much time cleaning 5 alt now as a sign of good faith. Finally, if it would provide reassurance to parties, New Zealand would be happy to consider texts such as encouraging parties who are members of IPBES to consider increasing their voluntary funding contributions to IPBES. We certainly recognize that it's a challenge for the platform, and we fully support any such encouragement to parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much, New Zealand. Last speaker, South Africa.

Thank you, Chair.

We also support New Zealand's input.

And we acknowledge the concerns raised by Brazil, and we think they are important, and we believe there are processes in place to begin to address those within IPBES. But today, we are ready to welcome the assessments.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. I would like to ask Brazil if with the addendum from at the end that on recognizing the need of representation of developing countries is important, because I believe one thing is the content of the assessment and the quality, and the negotiation you are moving is on budget. which it's in a different document, and maybe we can separate the issues and deal with budget there and move on on this one. Considering the particular situation and that your concern will be also reflected in the report. Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we made our position clear, and I suggested you to move forward. We will stick to it.

Thank you. Okay. So this paragraph is still pending, and I believe this is connected with 2.alt B and 5.alt. And we also have 10 pending, and also been invited to address 5. I don't know how long it can take. I'm very worried about the time. Unless you have already a solution for five, I will open it. If you have a concrete language that can make us move. New Zealand, do you have a concrete solution? Because we will need many interactions and this can take very long time. And I don't know how work is it. New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. We would suggest including an additional paragraph that says encouraging parties who are members of IPBES.

No, no, no, no, New Zealand. No, my question is on paragraph five, because it has a number of elements about the use of the outcomes from transformative change. Your suggestion about funding for IPBES, I'm not sure this is the right place from CBD calling for parties to help another convention or body. I don't know how appropriate it is to take it here, but I fully share your concern as I explained. So I don't believe we should proceed. So I was one, you know, five, not to add any other ones if you have solutions to five. I can open for five minutes the floor for comments on paragraph 5. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, as we have already stated in the regional groups, we suggest that the paragraph reads as follows: "Encourages parties and other governments, in accordance with national circumstances, priorities, and capabilities, and major groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, to implement the Convention, taking into account, as relevant, the findings of the Transformative Change Assessment, as well as the principle and so on until the end of the text. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I believe this is a good proposal. Can you repeat it again? And I invite the floor to listen carefully, so maybe we can accept it. Please, Russia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll go a little bit slower. Encourages parties and other governments, in accordance with national circumstances, priorities, and capabilities, and major groups and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, to implement the Convention, taking into account, as relevant, the findings of the Transformative Change Assessment, as well as the principles, approaches, and the menu of complementary strategies and associated actions identified in the assessment in building awareness, supporting whole society engagement, and advancing knowledge and understanding. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for this constructive proposal. Russian Federation, can we go along with this language and to have paragraph 5 claim? I see no request. So we have clean text. EU.

The EU would have supported the second bracket being retained to promote approaches to implementing the convention that tackle the factors leading to the drivers of biodiversity loss.

So that can be in addition to Russian proposal and to promote approaches or something like that to combine. Would that be acceptable, Russia, to also include the part of promote approaches to implementing the convention that tackle factors? Russia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, no, it will not be acceptable, and we would not like to, for the 20th time, engage in the same discussion. We are not in a position to mention either causes of biodiversity loss or factors leading to the drivers of biodiversity loss. For those for whom it's necessary, they will find all of that information in the report itself or in the key messages or the summary for policymakers. So we do not see any added value in having that inside. Our proposal is on the table and we request the flexibility of the room. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Roshan. I'd like to call EU for flexibility. EU, this is a general call on the use of the findings and the recommendations. So why to reduce the scope or to make emphasis on biodiversity loss? I think this is broader and it's including that. So please, flexibility, can we just go with the language as proposed by Russia? We need to have flexibility and move on. I mean, for all of us, it's important to see drivers of biodiversity loss. And those recommendations from the transformative change even go beyond. EU.

We think that in this particular context, the reference to biodiversity loss drivers.

You're going to say no?

Could we open to the room? Could we seek views in the room?

UK.

Thank you, Chair. The UK would like to support the EU here. As some context, we had some discussion in the contact group on the third set of brackets that's in here that says to promote transformative approaches to implementing the Convention that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, and we heard from various delegations that Specifically, the words transformative would not be acceptable to some delegations, nor would the phrase underlying causes of biodiversity loss. So this other option that we have regarding tackling the factors leading to the drivers of biodiversity loss was an attempt from the UK to bridge these two proposals. If that is still not acceptable to some parties, it would be useful to understand exactly what about it is not, so that we could come up with another attempt at compromise text, but we would support the EU in keeping this option on the table. Thank you.

Okay. Even in paragraph 4, we are welcoming, hopefully, the full title of the assessment is also including underlying causes of biodiversity loss and determinants of transformative change and options. So I think it's implicit. I don't see really why are we going to this insistence, and that will not make a difference if we are considering all different recommendations and the menu of responses. Do you believe it's worth to waste all this time at this point? If there is no options, I'll give the floor to Canada, otherwise I will go with the formulation by Russia and to keep the mention of drivers of biodiversity loss in brackets and move on to the plenary. But please, we need to be flexible and to be practical. This is costing a lot of money, translation in six languages. We travel from very far. I believe we should be discussing more substantial matters. Canada.

Thank you, co-chair, and I will probably be brief.

Yes, I agree with you, those discussions are long. However, we are seeing more and more across many agenda item.

Those some word being removed bit by bit, and we start not only eroding.

The text to be flexible, but Canada sees a dangerous trend here that we are also eroding the value that we are trying to uphold in all those texts.

And for that, Canada would like to see maintain a strong text that talks about the underlying cause of biodiversity.

Thank you.

Loss.

Okay, let's keep it in brackets and move to paragraph 10D. Can we lift the brackets around existing national instruments as well as applicable international access and beneficiary? The last part, Switzerland.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. We could accept this paragraph with the deletion of the brackets around existing national instruments. And when I mean deletion, I mean delete the text. And with that, we could accept the paragraph. Thank you.

Brazil, followed by Panama.

Thank you, Chair. For Brazil, it was very important to retain this part of existing national instruments, and we could suggest alternative language here to come to a compromise with the other countries. I'll dictate, to fairly and equitably share benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and from digital sequence information on genetic resources where appropriate, as well as from traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. in accordance with applicable national and international access and benefit sharing instruments, as appropriate, and without prejudice to the scope and modalities of the multilateral mechanism established by decision 16/2, consistent with target 13 of the framework. Thank you, Chair.

Brazil, can you repeat again?

Yeah. To fairly and equitably share benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and from digital sequence information on genetic resources where appropriate, as well as from traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in accordance with applicable national and international access and benefit sharing instruments as appropriate, and without prejudice to the scope and modalities of the multilateral mechanism established by Decision 16/2, consistent with target 13 of the framework.

I have a number of requests from the floor, but I go straight to Switzerland, to reply if this formulation is acceptable. I see thumbs up. So this is good, I believe. So instead of deleting the text on the brackets to go along the formulation just present by Brazil. I have two requests. Fortunately, the list reduced. Only India, followed by EU. I hope you support and we can move on.

Yes, thank you, Chair. We support the proposal made by the Brazil. Thank you.

Thank you so much. EU.

Thank you. We could support this with one small edit to bring it in line with standard language. There are two where appropriate in this, and the first one comes after digital sequence information on genetic resources, comma. And we would suggest that that would be changed to “for applicable.” Thank you.

So, yeah. And to leave the other as appropriate as it is. Brazil, I think is acceptable.

Could you please repeat?

Thank you.

I understand that you include two as appropriate, but instead of the first one, as applicable. And to keep the second as appropriate, as you propose. I see thumbs up. Thank you so much. So we have clean text on 10D. Thank you very much to all. Argentina.

Thank you very much, Chair. I apologize, but I need to have a flexible reservation on this because I need to consult with colleagues who are dealing with this matter. When I get a reply, I'll get right back to you. So if you could bear with me for a few moments. And could we leave this in soft brackets, shall we say? These are not hard brackets, just to be able to discuss this matter with my colleagues and to make sure we agree with it. Thank you.

I was just about to adopt the document, so I hope it is not going to take too long for you to have these consultations, because I think we're all agreed I could begin with the next document and give you a few minutes to come back, perhaps hoping that you will accept it so that we can then close the discussion and accept the document. Argentina?

Precisely. It will literally be a few minutes and I'll be right back with you. Thank you very much.

Okay, colleagues. So I propose to move to next document. And as long as, as soon as Argentina comes to the room, take a decision, and hopefully we can approve the document with paragraph 10 clean, and then paragraph 5, pending paragraph 4 and 2 alt, I remember, and the consequences also with 5 alt. If I remember well. So now let's go to next agenda item, which is climate change. All right, this is CRP 7 on climate change on the agenda 18A. The contact group worked very hard to arrive the text we have in front of us, and therefore I will ask For your collaboration, let's try to find solutions so we can send a clean text to plenary. We only have few issues that remain in brackets. Before we start, I'll give the floor to the Secretariat to introduce a small editorial correction. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As per standard editorial practice, all paragraphs containing requests to the Executive Secretary should be grouped together at the end of the decision. This editorial change will be reflected in the L document. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, colleagues. And after the declaration by Secretariat on this editorial adjustment, let's start with third. Hold on. All right, sorry. Now we are clear. On PP3, we have there are about 13 brackets. Argentina, good news, right?

Thank you very much, Chair. I am delighted to be able to say that the Brazilian proposal is absolutely fine. We can support it. And so I think we're good with IPBES. Thank you very much.

So that means that we have agreed clean text in paragraph 10D.

So with these changes, I would like to submit the approval of CRP.8 as amended. I see no request, so it's approved. Now let's continue with our deliberations on climate change. And so we have brackets on the third preamble paragraph on the expression "crisis and challenges", and I understand this is part of a package that has connection with paragraph 21 on policy coherence. So I believe that we can keep that reference to and policy coherence on paragraph 21, and then we can delete the expression of "crisis and challenges". So can we delete "crisis and challenges" on the third preparatory paragraph, start recognizing? I don't see any request. So that is deleted. EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good to see you back again in this room. We would just like to clarify what the package deal exactly entails. I think you referred to PP3 and also OP21. So we are in your hands to explain what the package deal is. Thank you so much.

Please go ahead. Please, EU, you want to explain the package?

Thank you.

Microphone to EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, we seek just clarification what the package deal entails. Thank you.

Yes, as I said before, is to delete crisis and challenges, and to keep in para 21 the expression of policy coherence. And policy coherence remain in para 21. That's a package, as I understand from the deliberations. If we delete "crisis and challenges", we will keep "and policy coherence" in paragraph 21. So can we proceed with the deletion of "crisis and challenges" in Preamble, paragraph 3? I see no objections. Then it's deleted, so we have clean text in the Preamble section. And also, we keep and policy coherence, so we remove the brackets on paragraph 21. I see no objections, so these two paragraphs are clean. Next, yes, I see paragraph one. We have a number of brackets on text node and welcomes and so on. As this paragraph is linked to the work until the document of IPES as we just approved. We will use same wording that was agreed when we considered it. Is this agreeable to you? Russian Federation, followed by Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's very nice to have you back. If we may request, could the Secretariat please read the new wording? Thank you.

There is no new wording, Russian Federation, so it's still this full title of the transformative change. I understand you proposed a shorter one. or not naming in particular, but maybe since we don't have a solution yet, we should not entertain in this paragraph and to move on. I see you noting, and I guess Argentina will go for the same. So can we move to next paragraph, since we don't have a solution yet? Argentina, go ahead.

Thank you very much and good day, delighted to see you in the saddle. I was going to suggest something, but if you prefer us to go on, that's fine. The solution we use for IPES could be used here, which is. And then it gives the studies. Thank you.

Can we go along with the proposal by Argentina? Tuvalu.

Thank you, Chair. Good to see you back on the podium. The translation changed very quickly, so we didn't pick up the wording suggested by Argentina. Thank you.

Argentina proposed to say it welcomes the summary for policy makers of the thematic assessment, nexus, a few words, and transformative change assessment. That's a suggestion from Argentina. Mexico, followed by Russian Federation and Brazil.

Mexico supports the inclusion regarding support the summary for policy makers.

Gracias, Mexico. Russian Federation, followed by Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Although we would support the inclusion of the summary for policymakers, there is a separate set of brackets around the second thematic assessments. It was our view that the preferable formulation would be other relevant assessments. Therefore, if we could say, takes note of the summary for policymakers of the first assessment and notes other relevant assessments, we could do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Brazil, followed by Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Chair. We could go along with your proposal to have consistency between what we discuss in PBIs and this and in this document. Thank you.

Thank you. Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back, and thank you for being here after that scary yesterday. I align myself with the comment made by the Russian Federation. I think that proposal works for us as well. Thank you.

We'll try only once to see if we can go along with Russian proposal that would say, okay, no, it says takes note, but The proposal also was welcome the summary for policy makers of the thematic assessment of Nexus, and then Russian Federation suggests and other relevant assessments of IBES, and the relevance of the work on the taking by the Convention, and so on. Is that correct, Russia?

It's nearly correct. We welcome the summary for policymakers of the first assessment, and then we note other relevant assessments. Thank you.

So my question is, can we go along by welcomes the summary for policymakers of the Nexus assessment in short? and note the summary for policy makers of other relevant assessments until the end. Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. And since we are changing delegates very quickly in order to be in other rooms, could you kind of explain the consistence with this proposal with the one that we have in the IPB’s document, please?

On the E-BEST document that we approve, we are almost welcoming transformative change, but still waiting for outcomes on the budget negotiations. So still in brackets until plenary solve first budget. And now what we have on this paragraph is what you just heard from a new formulation proposed by Russia. Brazil.

No, thank you. I think it would be good to have consistency among those two documents. So we could go along with the first proposal to wait for a decision on here and discuss other parts of the document. Thank you.

Thank you. EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had a similar question like Brazil, because we understand in the CRP on IPBES there is the OP1 where we welcome the summary for the policymakers to the Nexus Assessment, but also take note with appreciation. So we believe this is a very, very important notion. So in our view, this would be an element that could be added to have consistency across the items. Thank you.

So you, we can go along with welcomes, the summary for policymakers of Nexus assessment and note with appreciation, the summary for policymakers of other relevant assessments. I was talking to you. Do you want me to repeat my question? So, your position is along that we welcome the summary for policy maker of the thematic assessment report on the nexus assessment, and note with appreciation the summary for policy makers of other related assessments, is the formulation by Russia. So you are including notes with appreciation, right? And you?

Apologies, Kutcher. I think our understanding was that we welcome the summaries for policymakers to the Nexus assessment. So we would like to add a full stop, but we can also agree to the proposed by Bristol to park it and come back to it. Thank you.

Okay, Argentina, followed by New Zealand, and then we'll move to another paragraph.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm a bit confused. Maybe it's because it's approaching lunch time. Could we note with appreciation other relevant studies? when we don't know which ones they are? Can we consider other studies, but can we appreciate other studies when we don't know which ones they are, and they could in fact be any studies? I think we have to reread this paragraph and examine this more closely.

Thank you very much, Argentina. I think that what the EU stated, noting with appreciation the summary of the and so on, the transformative change, although the proposal from Russia is others. But I don't think we're getting anywhere. I don't think we're getting anywhere unless you wish to accept it with the full title of the assessment on transformative change.

The summary for policy makers of the thematic assessment of transformative change.

That would be my last ditch attempt to see if we can come up with some sort of agreement before we put it into square brackets and send it to the plenary. Japan, please.

Microphone to New Zealand.

Correction, New Zealand and then Japan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Yes, New Zealand supports essentially parking this until we have confirmation of the exact text in the IPBES. decision. However, we note just to be consistent, we would support welcoming the summary for policy makers of both the Nexus and the Transformative Change Assessments, and then we would say including their key messages, because that's also the element we have in the IPBES decision. But we think these details could be perfected once we have the IPBES decision. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. To speed up, I would like to close the discussion on this and to part this paragraph and move to next one. So I invite Sabri El Aghel-Rocha to not to take the floor and to move on. Next paragraph is number three. This paragraph is in brackets. Take note, there's a number of elements of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea. My suggestion is to delete this paragraph. Can you go along? Is anyone opposing to my proposal to delete paragraph 3?

Thank you, Chair. We would oppose that suggestion. This is very important for Pacific small island states, and we'd like to welcome the advisory opinion. So we'd like to lift the brackets around the whole paragraph and have welcomes. Thank you.

Thank you. Tuvalu. India, followed by Russian Federation and Panama.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to support your proposal for deletion of this whole para. Thank you.

Thank you. Russian Federation, Panama, Sri Lanka.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We also support your proposal. The Russian Federation is not in a position to either welcome or take note. We do request the deletion of the paragraph, and I am afraid we will not be able to be flexible on that. Therefore, in this period of time, to not raise this issue at the plenary, we do urge parties to consider it again and to delete the paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Sri Lanka. Follow by Saudi Arabia.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

We would like to support your decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. Follow by Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is my first time taking the floor. Welcome back. And yes, we want to retain the paragraph. We will flexible on the verbs at the beginning, but we want to retain it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Tuvalu and last, EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can go ahead with your proposal, and we appreciate it. Similar to the Russian Federation and India, for us, this is a complete red line, and we cannot have it at all in any shape, form of verbs there. Thank you.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Tuvalu.

Thank you, Chair. Pacific Islands, small island states see this as a red line for us as well, to retain the reference to the advisory opinion. Thank you.

Thank you. EU.

Thank you, Chair. And we align also with Panama. We see merit in this one, so because the court further mentions that under CBD, states must manage processes that have negative impacts on biodiversity. Thank you.

Okay. I am still listening from both sides, so my suggestion is to keep it in brackets and move to next one. Next one is paragraph 7C, to consider as appropriate in accordance with national circumstances, and this, the whole paragraph is in brackets. Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. I will ask for regarding the last paragraph, but it's okay. We think that the Court gave us an important base for CBDR in the paragraphs 148, and CBDR is important concept for us in this decision, but I'm sorry to take the floor too late. Thank you.

Thank you. Comments on 7(c)? Here my suggestion is if we can leave the brackets, I mean, the discussion is mainly on transformative change, not on nexus assessment. So we have no doubts on nexus, so my suggestion is to leave the brackets. I saw that many requests were disappeared, so that makes me in favor of this. but they have Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. I do apologize. We also had to change negotiators between IBEST and now. If you could please illuminate us, the way I understand, in the IBEST decision, we have not yet unbracketed the paragraph which refers to the response options. If that is the case, then we would not be able to unbracket it here. We would still ask to delete that. Thank you.

Okay, Roshan. So my understanding was that main concerns in IPDS were around transformative change, not necessarily on nexus, but I'm in your hands if you want to retain the brackets and move forward. Last on this paragraph, Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For us, we would like this 7C to be deleted. So that's why we retain the brackets. We never even discussed it in the contact group, and the understanding was if this was resolved in IBBS, it would not be retained here. Thank you.

Thank you. Tuvalu.

Thank you, Chair. We were going to support your proposal. And I think if we look carefully at the wording, it says, "to consider as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances." So I think there are so many caveats within this paragraph that I think people should show a bit more flexibility in considering this subparagraph. Thank you.

Thank you. Australia and Antigua, that will be the last.

Thank you, Chair. Just coming in to support your proposal to remove the paragraphs and align myself with Tuvalu's points on this as well. Thank you.

Yeah, my proposal was to delete the brackets, okay? You said remove the paragraph. Okay. Antigua.

Thank you, Chair.

Our proposal would be to remove the brackets, as you have suggested, and we will amend ourselves accordingly.

Thank you.

Thank you. Colleagues, I see that we have opposite views. We are not moving forward. So I invite you to move to the next paragraph, which is operative paragraph 11. My proposal is to delete this paragraph. Russian Federation? No. Tuvalu.

Thank you, Chair. We believe this paragraph should be retained. We think it's important to refer to the Belem adaptation indicators, and if you see the last two lines, it says, "and invites parties to consider their relevance, where appropriate, when preparing their national reports." So it's only an invitation to consider these Belem indicators when considering national reports. I can't see why this is so controversial. Thank you.

Thank you. To Valu, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We do appreciate the comments explaining this severity or non-severity of the language. However, for us, a lot of places here and in other parts are not a matter of language. There are a matter of substance. For us, there is a very clear understanding that the mandates of the conventions, even the Rio conventions between each other, should not be confused and should be separated, and that synergies and cooperation do not imply that the mandates get confused. So as a compromise, although we would like to delete that paragraph, as a compromise, we would be able to offer just noting the adoption of those indicators, and that is it. Thank you.

So, Russia, to be clear, you can go along with no adoption until where in the paragraph?

Yes, so we could say in notes the adoption by the Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement of the Belem Adaptation Indicators. Full stop. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So even I suggest that we can delete it, and I hear a couple of interventions to keep it, and this is maybe a compromise without going to all these details. We can keep it short. Australia, Fiji, India, Peru, and Tuvalu.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I was coming in to support keeping this. After reflecting on Russia's intervention, I think we could go with that. Maybe at the end, if we could put as a compromise, end there. relevance to national progress or national work as appropriate. Thank you.

Maybe, can we say those adoptions by the COP serving of the BLM adaptation indicators and the by-partners to consider the relevance as appropriate when preparing the national reports? I don't know if that can be acceptable. I see Russia say no, so we can save time. So just the short version. if we want to keep the paragraph. India, followed by Peru and Tuvalu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have two options. The option one, we can go with you for deletion of the whole para. But if other party wants to retain the para, we have some intervention. In line four, we would like to add after nature, respecting national sovereignty and circumstances, as well as country-driven approaches. And in last line, after reports, we would like to add without creating additional reporting burdens or obligations.

Thank you, India. I don't know if this is really helping, because instead of cleaning, we're adding more elements. I know he's trying to leave the door open, but it seems a little bit complicated. At least a few more interventions on this side. Peru, followed by Tuvalu and Brazil.

Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. It's a pleasure of us to have you amongst us again. Now, we have a comment to make, but it's not on the paragraph that we're looking at right now. We wanted to say that as a small delegation, we were not in a position to participate in all of the contact groups in a standing way. And for this reason, we harbor some reservations regarding the decisions which were approved in terms of the wording, a cleaned up wording. Now, I hope that once we have finished the cleaning up of the remaining square brackets, you will give me the floor to allow me to speak to this. Thank you.

Tuvalu, followed by Brazil and Russia.

Thank you, Chair. I'm struggling to understand the logic of why we're just noting this Bellum adaptation indicators without giving some direction to parties. I recall in another decision where one party referred to another agreement, I think it was the Migratory Bird Agreement, as something that there were synergies between the two. So now we're seeing a different approach being applied. I see no problems why we cannot just invite parties to consider the relevance. It's not a huge burden, and it's not overlapping the mandates of those two agreements. They're only just, we have these adaptation indicators, and we're just inviting parties to consider them. I honestly don't see why there is such a problem with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Brazil, followed by Russia.

Thank you, Chair. We'd like to keep reference to the Bali Adaptation Indicators, not only because we like its name, but also because it gives us a very good point of understanding adaptation from both sector, from biodiversity and from climate change. We inserted in the light of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision because it gives the balance that we understand it's important when working with this indicator. We appreciate the flexibility of some parties. We can go with this flexibility in the spirit that we reflect in the text about the Bali adaptation indicators. So we could agree of shortening this text in order to keep it. Thank you.

Thank you, Roshan. Some flexibility to, I mean, any indicator from anywhere. can be taken into account when preparing national reports by parties, if useful. Remember, we have a monitoring framework with headline indicators, complementary, binary, and components. So if MLEND indicators on adaptation can be useful, it's up to the parties to use them. But go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. As I said, it is up to the parties to decide what they would like to reference or use in their national reports. Reporting processes are a very complicated thing, after all. Again, it already was a compromise, but as a more flexible compromise. we would be able to say that we note the adoption of the indicators and their potential relevance. So without an invitation, just that we note that the potential relevance is there. I'm afraid that is as far as we can go. Thank you.

And their potential relevance. appropriate when preparing national reports? Maybe? Yeah? Because relevance is quite open, but relevance for...

We would rather not reference the national reports, we could say, and their potential relevance, I don't know, for the implementation of the framework, something like that, or the specific targets of the framework, but not reporting specifically. But then again, we would really feel more comfortable with just noting the fact that they exist. Thank you.

Thank you. So maybe if we are there, notes adoption by the course of the parties, certainly as the meeting of the parties to the Paris Agreement, of the Belem adaptation indicators and the potential relevance for the global biodiversity framework. I see Noreen from Russia. Can we go along with this? We only have two hours. deliberating and still more documents. So please, I count with your support. Panama, followed by Brazil and UK.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a very similar suggestion to what the colleague from Russia delegation said. So I will just keep the first part still the same, stop at adaptation indicators, then noting their voluntary and non-prescriptive nature, the relevance where appropriate when preparing the national reports. Thank you.

We heard that there's no support mentioned in national reports.

We are on the same wavelength, in fact, but we can see that not everyone accepts it. Thank you, panama. Brazil, UK, Tuvalu.

Chair, and I think we are getting close. Our proposal is to retain the reference in the light of paragraphs 11 and 12 of decision 2/CMA/5, because these paragraphs is the paragraph that say it's a country driven process, voluntary in accordance with national circumstances, and recognize that developed country has some challenge, developing countries will face some challenge in report to this adaptation. So for us, it's important to keep this true reference. because it shows the voluntary base and the challenges that are going to face in providing these adaptation indicators. Thank you.

Thank you. I was wondering if you can have a conversation with Russia by adding this, by keeping these elements on these paragraphs 11 and 12, which are the ones making reference to these indicators, I believe. Meanwhile, I'll give the floor to UK and Tuvalu, last speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to reiterate our support in referencing these indicators. We supported the paragraph as it was drafted. May I ask simply you to repeat the the proposal that you made that would be considered and included in the LDOC.

Thank you.

Sure. Meanwhile, I'll give the floor to Tuvalu, and then I will read the text as we have it, with a potential insertion. Tuvalu.

Thank you, Chair. I think we're very close. I think noting the relevance of the KMG indicators could be a reasonable balance, and I thank the Russian Federation for their spirit of cooperation here.

Thank you. Okay, I will ask Secretariat to read how the paragraph can read, including the last insertion from Brazil. Go ahead, secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph 11 currently reads: "Notes the adoption by the Conference of the Parties, serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, of the Belem Adaptation Indicators and and in light of paragraphs 11 and 12 of Decision 2/CMA.5 of the Conference of the Parties, serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, their voluntary and non-prescriptive nature, and their potential relevance to the implementation of the framework. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can we go along with this? India? Say yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our intervention is not reflected as read by Secretary 8. So again, I'm reiterating, after descriptive nature, we would like to add respecting national sovereignty and circumstances, as well as country-driven approaches.

When I cough, it's because I see a problem in the language. No, I'm kidding. I'm trying to see a shorter solution, trying to express what you want to say, India, because it's quite a long text. So maybe we can have at the end, in accordance with national circumstances and priorities. Because if we go, yes, I see thumbs up. So can we include that part? Russian Federation.

Thank you. In that spirit, could you also add legislation there for consistency? Thank you.

Single rates at the end, in accordance with national circumstances, priorities, and legislation. Good. Thank you very much. I think we were there. There are two requests, please help me to move on. Tuvalu and Canada.

Yes, thank you. As in previous paragraphs, as soon as we mention legislation, we have to have at the end, as appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Tuvalu. Canada and Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Canada would just like clarification on whether the proposal from India is actually in the decision that is referenced in the text. Thank you, Chair.

No, we, in this exchange, we are at the last. Instead of including the insertion from India, What I offer is to put at the end in accordance with national circumstances, priorities, and legislation as appropriate. I hope that is clear. Is it okay, Canada? Consulting. I think it was shorter. I see you noting. Thank you. Russia.

Yes, thank you. Just to address the concern from Tuvalu, I understand that not in all cases, not all countries have legislation regarding some specific issues. However, when we add as appropriate after legislation, it also creates a weird formulation where it can be interpreted as not always the legislation should be applied. Can we maybe change it the other way around so we can have in accordance with national priorities legislation or as appropriate circumstances, something like that, so that when the legislation is not applied, circumstances are, because otherwise it does create a little bit of weird formulation. Thank you.

I'm wondering if Tuvalu can give us an idea where this, as appropriate, can fit better, if not at the end, as Russia is questioning. I will ask the Secretariat to read the last part of the paragraph. Yes.

Thank you, Chair. The paragraph currently reads, "Implementation of the framework, in accordance with national circumstances, priorities, and legislation, as appropriate.".

So this is what we have. So maybe we can go along with the language as it is, because we're trying to... I see you are lowering, Russia. So, since we reached an agreement on paragraph 11, I think that was the last one of this document, just to have a summary. So, colleagues, we have three pending paragraphs, which is paragraph one, pending on budgetary issues that are not related to this document, pending paragraph three, pending paragraph 7C, and we have clean text on 11. So we have no further brackets on the document, so I would like to move for consideration of the group, the approval of document CRP7. I have two requests: Japan and Peru.

Thank you, Chair. I'm very sorry for jumping in maybe the last of this agenda item. We'd like to make a minor modification, very minor modification, on para 19. to rightly reflect the contact group discussion. Could you forgive me the intervention? Because some editorial adjustments may have been made after the contact group, maybe?

Japan, just like to check. This is clean text. But I believe it's something editorial or it's something on substance, because this is clean text and we supposed not to.

Yeah, it's editorial adjustment. Thank you, Chair.

We'd like to request that the.

Phrase "subject to the availability of resources" be moved from sub-paragraph to the chapeau of this para 19. We believe this amendment aligns with the discussion in contact group. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So this is the usual practice when we make request to the Executive Secretary. This standard language. Thank you for that clarification. I don't see there's any problem there. Peru wants to make a clarification that you asked before.

Go ahead, Peru.

Thank you very much, Chair. Peru wanted to adopt voluntary means in this COP, in one, as other parties. We were not able to be in the working groups, contact groups, to explain our position and to defend our position. And now we have seen that the CRP contains a number of decisions that are being proposed and agreed by other countries. Our understanding is that many countries still require some time to improve and to understand these voluntary guides, and we understand this. We're not here to be an obstacle or to stop any decision. We can be extremely flexible and accepting decisions that have been taken by other parties without us being present. In that sense, the only thing that we are asking for, since we know that the voluntary guides in fact are going to support the conservation of biodiversity and synergies with the measures adopted for climate change, and On top of this, since these are voluntary guidelines, not obligatory, we would like to ask that in paragraph 15 at the end, where it says for consideration and adoption at its 18th meeting, to be absolutely certain that these voluntary guidelines are going to be adopted in two years, two years from now, and not allow that we continue to extend that adoption deadline. Thank you.

That means I have a problem.

Peru, we do understand the fact that it was not possible for you to be present in the deliberations, and hence the comment. However, to include text or wording as an adoption is tantamount to prejudging what the result of the next COP is going to be, and that's nothing that we can promise or be sure of. What we're saying here is that the report will be made to Sub-Sta and for the consideration of the Conference of the Parties. in other words, for both organizations, but we cannot ensure that anything that's sent to the COP will be adopted. That is to anticipate something. Now, I do understand the spirit with which you have made that comment, but it is not possible, unfortunately, to include that language here, and I hope that you will agree with me, or do you wish to state in the report of this session the wish from the part of Peru that we should have that here to adopt, but it’s always going to be up to the relevant bodies and the COP. Please go ahead, Peru.

Thank you very much, Chair, once again for allowing me to speak. In Cali, Decision 16/34, parties agreed that in 2030 we were going to set up the financial mechanism. We agreed six years before that what we were going to decide in the future. Could we not use this as an example? to say that we can also, in this COP, decide that we are going to adopt at the next COP the Voluntary Guidelines? It's just a question. Thank you.

I will ask the floor if we can go along with Peru's insertion and its adoption by the Conference of the Parties, right? Is there any opposition to the language? I see one hand from Russia to put this language. And Brazil, there are some others.

Again, I understand the spirit, but I'm afraid we can't really press for this because the last word will be up to COP. We did say that it should be ready by 2030, but I would like to request you to be flexible so that we don't add square brackets to a text that is clean. We would be very happy to include your statement in the report of the session. Peru, do you agree? Because otherwise, we're going to have text with square brackets, and that's the last thing I want to do, to send text with square brackets to the plenary, because it's a practically clean text. I hope you can agree with this, Peru.

Thank you very much, Chair. Well, if Peru states for the record or the report this situation in the plenary, could we insist on this proposal, if we coordinate this with other parties, if they are ready to do this.

If you can come to us with a solution, then perhaps the President will be able to accept it, if it has been agreed. But that is as far as Working Group 2 can do. We want to send text that is as clean as possible. But I want to add that say once again, we understand that you were not able to participate in the working groups, but what you are saying is not acceptable for all parties, what you are asking us to include. I wish not, I prefer not to have square brackets included in the text. Good luck.

Thank you very much, sir.

I hope that everybody else will be as flexible as Peru is being in this case.

Document, we still have 40 minutes for two very complex items. I have Brazil and Saudi Arabia.

Thank you.

We understand Peru's position as a developing country. We understand that it is not possible to be present in all of the meeting rooms simultaneously, but we are asking for a little more time so that we can consider the concerns and the policies of developing countries in the guidelines. 40 times the indigenous peoples are mentioned, but I think that the process of formulation did not include them in these guidelines. And countries can see these, can go into some depth in them and in the details, but for us, the actual participation is extremely important when these annexes are discussed. And we understand that this consultation process will strengthen the guidelines. At the next COP, we will have a document that is more robust and that we will be able to deal with. So I'm ready to go into more depth on this with Peru. Thank you very much.

I hope that in the intersessional period, we will be able to work on the guidelines that will be adopted at the next COP. Saudi Arabia, Panama, Russian Federation.

It's you.

Sorry, I thought it was Casey first. Yeah, I just want to support Peru's suggestion, but I don't want to make it also a big issue. So I have just a suggestion. If it's considered, it could be considered with a view to its finalization by the 18th meeting. If it's not considered, I'm also okay with going for your option of put it on the record, and I will want to attach Panama's name to it next to Peru, because we have been delaying this for so long that we need to find a way forward. Thank you so much.

So Panama is suggesting to add at the end with a view for its adoption when we said for consideration at this 29 29 meeting of the Conference of the Parties for consideration at its 18 meeting. Sorry, I was 10 COPS ahead. For its consideration at 18 meeting with a view for its adoption. That's no Panama.

No, because adoption, as you said.

No, because adoption is, there's no consensus on adoption. With a view to finalising. With a view to the finalisation of, or with a view to finalising.

Sorry, Panam, I think this is more confusing. If it's finalised, if it's adopted, if it's So maybe we can leave it as it is. Yes, thank you so much. So we don't alter it more this paragraph that is clean, and you have the prerogative to reopen it at the plenary if you like. So I want to keep it on touch. I hope we can go along. You concur with me, not touch paragraph 15. I see three requests for the floor. If you agree with me to keep the text on touch, please delete your request. We should move on. Saudi Arabia, followed by Russian Federation and Guatemala.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with you to keep this paragraph untouched. This was the result of a lot of discussions in the contact groups, multiple contact groups, a lot of hours spent, maximum flexibility from a number of delegations, not just ours. This was a – this is complete result of complete flexibility, and we will not go with any other proposal, as well as we have stayed with your guidance. We did not reopen previous paragraphs, and I concur with what the delegate from Brazil have mentioned. We, as developing countries, we get stretched thin. We were not there in SUBSTA. We did not participate in some of these discussions. There are paragraphs that are here that we have reservations about and we would want to fix. However, we did not touch upon them, so I caution against playing with an agreed text here, because if we do that, my delegation will go back to other paragraphs and start putting insertions. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your support. Russian Federation, and finally, Guatemala.

Thank you, Chair. We do agree with your way forward of not adding anything. However, like Saudi Arabia, I want to make two points. First one being, Russia also wants those guidelines, but Russia wants those guidelines to be a negotiated document, as it should be. Until those guidelines are agreed to by all of the parties, we will not be in a position to adopt them. And that is something that we should be working towards. Therefore, any additions of preconditioning and adoption would not work for us. The second point is something that Saudi Arabia just said. If this document, which took us a lot of hours, were to be opened at the plenary in any capacity, we would have a lot of things to delete. Because for us, this is a painstaking compromise. as far as we could go, then we would be able to reopen the things from Panama. Thank you.

Thank you. Guatemala.

Thank you very much, Chair. We agree with you. that we should keep the paragraph. We don't wish to reopen this discussion. The Secretariat has taken some time to explain the process that we need to adopt in the Contact Group, but we would like to express our support for Peru's position. And if it's possible to express this in the records, also, we'd like to say that, unfortunately, we were not able to adopt these guidelines. Could you include this statement by Guatemala. Thank you.

We will reflect this in the report. And we now have this CRP, this paragraph with the amendments. Are we ready to adopt it? Yes, we have adopted it.

A reminder from the Secretariat: also for those parties that want to have reflected this on the report, please submit your text. So that can be included.

Peru, Guatemala, who supported this and wish to have their statements, you should send them forward so that the Secretariat can include them in the report of the session.

So, colleagues, we are starting with item 16, synthetic biology, CRP 10. I propose to go this document paragraph by paragraph. We only have half an hour, so we should make as much progress as possible, and there's still another document on protected areas. So I please ask you to take your seats. and keep quiet, and leave the room, those who don't need to be here. So let's go paragraph by paragraph, starting with the preamble, preamble paragraph one. There's brackets around expression possible. I would like to ask you if we can delete the brackets. Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is not in direct response to your question on that particular bracket, but a general comment we would like to make on this document before we engage. We understand there has been a cross-cutting conversation and resolution, at least in the other working group and in the plenary that we attended this morning. around the use of the terminology technology transfer on mutually agreed terms. And the cross-cutting arrangement was that we would apply that terminology across the board. We recognize that this is also relevant for this document, and accordingly, we would just ask you to either bracket the term technology transfer and/or with the understanding just amend as agreed. across the board, and then this delegation is ready to lift the brackets around the terminology technology transfer, as well as the section in the Thematic Action Plan particularly pertinent to technology transfer. Just to clarify where we are, and we want to be as efficient as possible, so I'm making this overarching comment so we don't have to get to it every single time there's technology transfer mentioned in the document. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Switzerland. I hope this can help us to save time. So I know it will be in a number of paragraphs, so we will apply that as an agreed option. And let's move on. So, i ask if we can delete brackets in preambular paragraph one on the word "possible". Panama, followed by New Zealand.

Thank you very much. Along the lines of what Switzerland said, we could insist on having all of the reference to regulation and governance, but I don't think that's what we should be doing. It was discussed. We have a consensus. And about what you said, to delete as many square brackets as possible, we think that we can agree with you, and we should take out the reference to "possible" here.

You have the floor, New Zealand.

Pardon me, Mr. Chair. New Zealand is flexible on your question, and we will accept what the outcomes are from other parties. However, we do have a question around the very first part of the preamble. which says that it recalls Article 8J of the Convention. To my knowledge, this is about indigenous peoples, and I am wondering if this is not meant to be 8G, which is about risk assessment of LMOs. Thank you.

New Zealand, what I heard is that this reference to AJ is from SBI, so we need to track back, unless you want to add also AJ. All ADs are out in city conservation, but considering different elements. But that part is not in brackets. The only part in brackets is the work around the work possible. New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I understand. I am more seeking clarification than anything else at this stage, but A/J seemed a little out of place. But as you say, it was decided in SBI. I personally was not there, so I'm willing to go with your guidance. Thank you.

Thank you for your flexibility. More comments on – there’s one delegation that wants to keep the word “possible.” It was Panama. Colombia.

Thank you very much, Chair. Tom Colonna doesn’t see why we should include this reference to 8(j) here, but having listened to what has been said, if there is an agreement, we would like to keep the word “possible” in the text. Thank you very much.

We are agreeing to take out the word “possible” in this paragraph. We understand that, I mean, it's all articles of the CBDs.

Text as a whole, so we believe they should be interpreted as so, and the other.

Articles of the Convention are relevant to the application of synthetic biology. Thank you.

Please help me. I see two or three on favor to keep possible, and at least one to delete. Panama.

Thank you very much. We can be flexible and take the brackets away, delete the brackets.

So, there's support to lift the brackets and their possible relevance. I hope you agree with that. Kenya, you also support? Yeah, I don't see more requests. So now we have Preamble at paragraph one clean by removing the brackets. Thank you so much. Next one. Preamble 2 and 3 are clean. Now we go to paragraph 1 that starts with notes with appreciation, and we have at the end, after synthetic biology, all the rest in brackets. Can I suggest to delete the text in brackets? I see no request, so that's agreed. Thank you. So we have clean para 1. Paras 2 and 3 are clean. Next, para 4. Start with reminds, urges, and invites. There's a number of brackets there. I see there are many brackets. I would like to make a suggestion to align more closely to decision 1621. So can we say, remind parties to apply a precautionary approach for and invites parties to use the best available scientific information for the environmental release of synthetic biology applications, and repeat, reminds parties to apply a precautionary approach for and invites parties to use the best available scientific information for the environmental release of synthetic biology applications, EU.

Thank you, Chair. And I'm speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. Your proposal is largely acceptable to us, but we would ask to insert "urges" instead of "reminds". Thank you.

Okay, so "urge" part is to apply a precautionary approach for and invites parties to use the best available scientific information for environmental release of synthetic biology applications.

Panama.

We can accept the EU proposal so long as we keep the last part in accordance with circumstances and national legislation, as appropriate.

So we can now at the end, in accordance with national legislations and circumstances as appropriate. Panama, I see you noting. I hope we can go along with that formulation. Belarus followed by EU.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. We can go with your proposal, and we're also flexible on the first part with reminds, urge, or invites. But we are not flexible with insertion of the last part, because not all of these applications, they recognize borders. Sorry, therefore, we cannot accept this. However, we can be flexible with the best part. Thank you very much.

Belarus, even at the end, it says as appropriate, which is open. Belarus? Microphone to Belarus.

Thank you, yes. We can accept it.

Thank you. EU.

Thank you, Chair. For us, the insertion of "in line with national circumstances and legislation" is not acceptable. This is not language that we have previously used. All previous decisions on synthetic biology under the Convention use a different wording, and we would very much caution against starting with doing this now. Thank you.

Thank you very much, panama. Taking into.

Account what was just said, can we leave it as it was originally? Please go ahead, panama.

Thank you very much, Chair. Unfortunately, we do not agree with this, but this is a point. It's a red line for us, in fact. We would like to keep that reference in accordance with the national circumstances as appropriate.

New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. New Zealand is in agreement with Panama on this. Urges is our least preferred option here. We are willing to accept it as long as that last portion is retained, the bracketed portion. So just in support of that. Thank you.

Colombia, followed by India, and they close this paragraph.

Chair, we are in line with Panama and New Zealand on this paragraph. It's a red line for my delegation, taking out that last line here that says "in accordance with national circumstances and legislation as appropriate."

Panama, I did not understand you. Do you want to take it out or do you want to keep it in, the part that Panama wanted to keep in? Microphone for Colombia, please.

Chair, we would like to keep, retain the reference to "in accordance with national circumstances and as is appropriate." Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. India also would like to keep the national legislation in accordance with the circumstances, we want to retain the last line.

Thank you. I see many requests from the floor, so I would like to propose that we keep with my proposal, starting with “urges” and leaving at the end “the decision by Panama” with brackets, and move to next paragraph. So I ask delegations to clean the screen. I understand that Panama wants to keep this language, so I don't see a need for you requesting the floor, so we'll keep your part in brackets. Panama.

Thank you very much. This is extremely important for us. We cannot urge, so we'd like to keep both urges and the last part in square brackets. Thank you.

United Arab Emirates.

For us, we would like to keep reminds, considering that a few of the other parts of the that were in brackets been removed. So we'd like to keep it reminds and we are with Panama and keeping the in accordance with national legislations.

Thank you. I want to close this. I don't know how many brackets you want to add. Norway, follow by EU and Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe we could use the language that you referred to just a couple of minutes ago, the 16/21 decision in Cali, where we say re-emphasize instead of remind or urges. So agreed language two years ago was re-emphasize. So that's our suggestion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And Norway, so can we go along with the use of the word reemphasize? Just to see if we have consensus and not to have the multiple options between origins and reminds. Reemphasize instead of the options. Somebody opposing, raise your hand. So we can use the same language as in the previous decision, reemphasize. I don't see hands. Thank you, Norway, for the proposal. So we'll start with reemphasize parties to apply and so on, and at the end in brackets, what Panama proposed, supported by other parties. EU.

Thank you, Chair. I would just like to flag that all previous COP decisions on synthetic biology have referred to the precautionary approach in the context of the objectives of the convention. None of them refer to them in accord with national circumstances and legislation. So I do not fully understand why we should start doing so now. Thank you.

Yes, but you hear also some parties supporting this language. New Zealand, followed by Panama.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. New Zealand is happy to go with re-emphasizes, but we would like to hear the paragraph read out. I'm afraid we've gotten a bit lost as to what's being retained and what's being deleted. Thank you.

Secretary, please read it.

Thank you, Chair. The paragraph four would read, bracket, reemphasize, oh, sorry, bracket, reemphasize parties to apply a precautionary approach for and invites parties to use the best available scientific information for the environmental release of synthetic biology applications, bracket, in accordance with national legislation and circumstances as appropriate, bracket, bracket. Thank you.

And I'll follow up your way. Panama, you ask for the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For us, it's important to keep this in square brackets until the final version is accepted. If we don't have a final paragraph, we're not going to be able to strengthen this message. So let's keep this in square brackets.

Yes, the Secretary said that the entire paragraph is in square brackets.

Uruguay.

Si.

Yes, well, we support the idea of including your suggestion at the beginning of the paragraph, but afterwards, of course, we have to keep in accordance with national circumstances and legislation. We have to keep that in there. Thank you. Thank you.

Paragraph, which is paragraph 5, it starts with "recognize the importance of" and there are many brackets. The reference to horizon scanning is made several times in the draft decision, but I know this is sensitive to some delegation. Thus one way forward could be to retain it here and then remove it from the other paragraphs of the draft decision. So on this basis, and being that this text comes from the report of the ATTAC, Perhaps we can leave the reference here, as I am suggesting. So my proposal is recognizes the importance of anticipatory approaches, including horizon scanning and monitoring mechanisms, in supporting the timely identification and assessment of potential positive and potential negative impacts of future developments in synthetic biology. So can this formulation work?

Panama.

Thank you very much. We can be flexible, accepting this. But As we have recommended in paragraph 4, we would be most interested in saying here, in accordance with national circumstances and legislation as appropriate.

Thank you for the proposal and for the assessment of the text as a whole. I think we fully agree with what you have just mentioned.

This is agreed language on the importance of anticipatory approaches and horizon scanning.

We have no problem in keeping it here in the preamble.

But we do feel that in other OPs throughout the text, there are, let's say, various lists and references to to such methods and methodologies will be in accordance with going along with this para that you just mentioned, under the condition that.

We do not make reference to such detailed of such anticipatory approaches in other parts of the text. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, for the flexibility. That's exactly what I said, that maybe we can remove from further paragraphs, because maybe this is the best place to to make reference to this. Kenya, followed by United Arab Emirates, Peru, and the EU.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Kenya is ready to follow with your directions and your proposal.

Thank you. Thank you for the support. Please, I don't need more calls supporting my proposal, just to see if there is no agreement or any change so we can move faster. United Arab Emirates, followed by Peru and EU.

Thank you, Chair. We agree in principle, but would like to keep instead of including the alternative, which is "such as" and also keep "among others" at the end of the horizon scanning. This has been discussed in the last time, and I think this option is important.

Thank you very much. I will give the floor to Peru and EU, and then ask the Secretary to read the paragraph.

Peru.

Thank.

You very much. We also are in line with the earlier delegation, namely to include the "such as" and "among others" to have a greater range of options on this topic that is extremely relevant for us.

Thank you, Peru. EU.

Thank you, Chair. We believe that the Brazilian proposal may offer a useful way forward. At the same time, I would like to reiterate that we cannot include "in accordance with national circumstances" in this paragraph. This paragraph deals with the recognition of scientific methods. We do not use scientific methods in accordance with national legislation. That makes no sense. Other than that, we are fine with moving ahead. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Panama.

Thank you very much. We withdraw our proposal to include this reference.

Thank you very much, panama, for showing that flexibility. So we therefore have clean text. I'm going to ask the Secretary to read the text without the final phrase. And my thanks to the EU.

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph 5 will read: Recognizes the importance of anticipatory approaches, such as horizon scanning and monitoring mechanisms, among others, in supporting the timely identification and assessment of potential positive and potential negative impacts of future developments in synthetic biology.

Full stop.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I see no more comments, so we have para 5 clean. Thank you very much. Then, i would like to go to output 2.3 that starts with support fair and equitable benefit sharing. This is for GMS. Okay, so we are now in the thematic action plan, annex 1, output 2.3. Before we move to paragraph 6, we need to ensure that the thematic action plan is clean. So we need to address two set of brackets. So in 2.3, action B, that starts with support for fair and equitable sharing. I understand that this was a compromise in the contact group, but One delegation needs to consult before being able to leave the brackets, so I trust now that the consultations have been done. So I would like to leave the brackets here. Are there any objections? EU.

Thank you, Chair. And we would ask to add "non-monetary" after "monetary." So monetary and non-monetary benefit sharing.

Thank you very much. With this insertion, can we accept the paragraph? I see no request. United Arab Emirates, followed by Panama.

Apologies, Chair, but we would like you to point out where are we at, because the jumping confuses us a bit.

Yes, as I explained before, move to paragraph 6. We need to ensure that the thematic action plan is clean. So we went to the Annex 1 on output 2.3, action B. Once we clear that, we can come back to paragraph 6, but that's the only bracket in the annex, as I understand. And some delegation was waiting for consultations on this sub-paragraph B, and they have after monetary expression and non-monetary benefit sharing. That's where we are. Panama, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you very much. We have no problem with the suggestion by the EU. However, we'd like to take out the reference to the last part, as well as the evolution of synthetic biology.

Thank you, panama. What the Secretariat has explained to me is that this is a part of the agreement that was reached by the contact group. That's a part of the text of a decision. However, I would need some more input from parties. Switzerland, please.

Thank you, Chair. Just it is our understanding that the outcome area 2 is under brackets, pending solution of the technology transfer question, as our head of delegation maintained earlier. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. So according with the intervention at the very beginning of this document, that will be included on the date on the, this is the case of the chapeau of outcome area two. Now we are in particular on output 2.3. So the addition of improved access to and transfer of technology on mutually agreed terms will be added. But that's in the chapeau. So now we continue discussions in 2.3, and we heard the suggestion from Panama to delete at the end and the assessment of scientific biology, which I heard that this was part of the discussions and also language from a previous decision. That's a situation. Guatemala followed by Switzerland.

Thank you very much, Chair. in line with what the EU has suggested, which is to add non-monetary benefit sharing. We agree that we should keep the capacity of members to evaluate synthetic biology.

You prefer to keep the text, the entire text, in fact. Switzerland, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we would Our understanding was that not only the chapeau, but the entire outcome area 2 is under brackets because we cannot commit to technology transfer action plan as long as the language, the safeguard around the different mentions of technology transfer licensing, access to technology, and so on.

Yes, that language will be included across the document. Yeah, that's understood. Peru followed by Russia.

Thank you very much, Chair. We are also in agreement with the EU addition. That addition has a lot more meaning when we talk about the evaluation of synthetic biology, because the result of this is going to be information that can be considered to be non-monetary benefits.

You have the floor, Roger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We support proposal by EU, but we cannot agree with deleting word "the assessment" because we think.

Thank you, thank you. You want to keep the text. Thank you. Panama, flexibilidad otra vez.

Asking you for flexibility once again, Panama.

Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, we can accept this, but our patience is wearing thin.

Thank you very much for your patience. We'll do this on a case-by-case basis.

We have clean text now. So can we go ahead with the text as amended, just by including non-monetary and to keeping all the text? I see the screen now is clean, so we agree on this paragraph. Thank you so much. And I'd like to check something about the timing, because we run out of time and still another document. I don't know what to do. Okay, we need to resume soon. I ask for a few minutes more to interpretation. So with this amendment in the annex, so can we leave the bracket of the annex? And then I see noting, so we can go back to paragraph 6. Right. Okay, we have very few minutes. I hope we can go to paragraph 6, which is the one that is adopting or accepting the annex. So my suggestion is as follows: adopts the voluntary thematic action plan to support capacity building and development access to transfer of technology and knowledge sharing in the context of synthetic biology for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as contained in the Annex 1 to the present decision, as a non-duplicative and complementary tool aimed at supporting parties in accordance with their national priorities and circumstances. Can we accept this? Kenya.

Thank you, Chair. And we agree with you with lifting the brackets on adopt, but you have a problem with putting voluntary in front of the climate action plan. Our understanding is that That is not what we developed. Even when we look at from the decision 1621, we are developing a thematic action plan, and it is, and therefore, we propose that voluntary to be where it is, it was down there, as it says, where it's present decision as a voluntary non-duplicative. Our understanding is that if we put the voluntary thematic action plan, We are taking it to be, it's the thematic action plan that is voluntary, and that's not our understanding was, even as we are negotiating for the action plan. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I see what you mean, Kinyam. So I can offer another formulation, putting voluntary at the end, that can say, adopts the thematic action plan. to support capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge sharing in the context of synthetic biology for the implementation of the Convention and the framework as contained in Annex 1 to the present decision as a voluntary, non-duplicative, and complementary tool aimed at supporting Parties in accordance with their national priorities and circumstances. So I think this solves the concern of Kenya. With this formulation, can we approve Panama?

Thank you very much. We also would like to approve it. However, for others, there are other elements. that are in square brackets and that are below, and that extremely important, that need to be adopted first. So we could take out voluntary, but first we have to solve the brackets that are a little bit lower down before we deal with this one.

You are referring to square brackets in 7, and you're saying that we cannot go on with 6 until we've solved the square brackets in 7? Well, fine, okay, we'll leave it in square brackets then.

Time, still a number of brackets on this document, so I propose to adjourn now, and we will continue in a formal session. This is scheduled for 4:30. So I think we made good progress, but there's still an important amount of this document and also protected areas and the report. I wish you have a good lunch. and keep consultations if needed. I hope for protected areas, you can come with many solutions also, and also for the rest of this document. So, meanwhile, the meeting is adjourned.