Seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-7) - PM session

Good evening, colleagues. Please take your seats. Good evening. I hope that we had fruitful conversations during our contact group meetings. I would like now to continue our discussion on CRP 6 on subnational governments. As you know, we did not finish our discussion on paragraph 6, so we will continue with this paragraph. I would ask the Secretariat to read the version that we have right now for paragraph six. So Secretariat, if you could. Yes, and please note that we were planning on starting with our documents, but since L4 is not yet available in our language, I'll see. I'm sorry. L4 for agenda item seven. Yes, it's L4. L4 for agenda item seven is not yet available in all languages. We will continue our consideration of CRP6. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Is there more or less an indication whether or not it will still be available tonight in all the languages?

They are correcting me. Apparently, it is available on all languages. At any rate, I will give you colleagues some time to go through L4 and I will resume consideration of CRP6 and then afterwards we'll go to L4 if you bear with me. Thank you very much. So I will ask the Secretariat to please read out paragraph 6. Colleagues, please take your seats. Thank you. Apologies for the confusion here. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Paragraph six reads, also invites parties to engage with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities, as well as customary, traditional and community institutions in support of the implementation of the plan of action on subnational governments, cities and other local authorities for biodiversity. and to recognize, sorry, and to open brackets, recognize as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation and circumstances, close brackets, indigenous peoples and local communities as local authorities in support of the implementation of the framework as relevant and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation.

Thank you very much, Secretary. Now I would like to reopen the floor to comment on paragraph six. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Secretariat, for reading. Probably I still missed the last square brackets, what is closed before recognizing indigenous people, local communities as local authorities or after authorities. Because we like to keep this language definitely in brackets and when before the break we were talking about this paragraph, this entire section to be out of the text. But maybe I just missed.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I will ask the Secretary to please read it. Thank you.

Open bracket, recognize as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation and circumstances, close brackets. Was that it or was it a mistake on our side?

I understand that the Russian Federation wants a more broad bracket. So Russian Federation, could you please read your version for us? I understand that also recognize indigenous peoples and local communities and as local authorities would be between brackets. Yes. Thank you very much, Russian Federation. And with that, I will ask the Secretary to read the paragraph with all the brackets, please. Thank you.

Also invite parties to engage with subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities, as well as customary, traditional, and community institutions. in support of the implementation of the plan of action on subnational governments, cities and other local authorities for biodiversity and to open bracket recognize as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation and circumstances indigenous people and local communities as local authorities close brackets in support of the implementation of the framework as relevant and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation.

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

Thank you, Chair, and I understand that there are numerous reference to appropriate and in accordance already, but in our version of sentence when the last portion is gone. So for us important to have very appropriate and in accordance with national legislation after community institutions or if it reads better before it, so that depends on. the reading, but that's clear that where appropriate and in accordance with national legislation refers to customary, traditional and community institutions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Russian Federation, Secretariat, could you please? Thank you.

Also invites parties to engage with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities as well as customary, traditional and community institutions as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation in support of the implementation of the plan of action on subnational governments, cities and other local authorities for biodiversity and to open brackets, recognize as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation and circumstances, indigenous peoples and local communities as local authorities, close bracket, in support of the implementation of the framework as relevant and in accordance with national circumstances and legislation.

Russian Fed-- no, I see. Okay, thank you very much. And then with those amendments and the brackets, can we approve paragraph six, colleagues? I see no objections, so paragraph six is approved. Thank you very much. I would like now to invite comments or suggestions for paragraph seven. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As the KMGBF already provides that the implementation of the framework should be implemented in accordance with a human rights-based approach and a gender-responsive approach under target 23, we would suggest deleting the phrase gender-responsive and human rights-based approaches so that we're not being selective about the cross-cutting issues relevant under section C, as they are all considered core to the achievement of the framework. UK would also like to bracket the phrase territorial priorities and seek clarity on the meaning of that language as we don't seem to be able to find it in prior COP decisions and if there's no precedent for this language we would seek to delete it here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. UK, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you. Similar to UK, we like to delete and territorial on the first line, then At the end of the third line, it will be the contributions of actors other than national governments, in particular indigenous people, local communities, women and youth, because I like to remind everyone that when we are talking about this topic, so the subnational government cities, they are part of other actors. And then also in agreement with UK, so it will read local communities, women, youth, comma, as appropriate. So it means that the language starting with and and finishing with approaches to be deleted. And of course relevant stakeholders are deleted because the actors as the national governments included in our version. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I will take other interventions from the floor before reading it out loud. So Argentina, followed by India. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So since we have as appropriate, we think it's necessary to kind of limit it in a certain sense. If we don't, it's very subjective who do we consider to be appropriate to include these contributions. Therefore, we would suggest in this section instead of as appropriate, as considered appropriate by those parties, comma, and then the rest of the sentence. And then in the second line, with regards to participatory processes. Also, if we are asking parties to participatory processes, we also think it's necessary to be clear that needs to be conducted in line with the domestic legislation in each country. So after participatory processes, we suggest adding in accordance with national legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Argentina. I think we've registered your suggestions. Thank you. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So Argentina has already added the national legislation, so we'd like to support Argentina. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, India. United Republic of Tanzania, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I support the statement aired by the UK that we have to consider gender. Therefore, because we have already put gender responsive, I propose to remove the word women. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, Tanzania, are you suggesting that we remove women? one of our major stakeholders group, is that it?

Because we said that local community, youth and relevant stakeholders and gender responsive, including human rights based approach and so and so and so. So because when we talk about gender responsive, we cannot leave apart women. So there's no need of putting women or else we may remove gender responsive and then we remain with the women because it's like we are repeating the same meaning.

Okay, I will give the floor to Norway. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So it's regarding the term actors other than national governments and also the listing. And our understanding is that that will be discussed at COP17. So we just suggest brackets around both of them. Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much, Nore, for helping me, because I would suggest that. And then Canada, Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the intervention by Nora. We completely agree with that approach. With regards to the proposal to delete women and/or gender responsive, women is the who, gender responsive is the how. So we do believe that they address different concepts and would very much prefer to keep both. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Canada. And as I understand, Once we put actors other than national governments between brackets, we should also maintain the whole list of major stakeholders groups because it will depend on the definition that we will approve during COP. So I would suggest this and I will be bold and I will ask if we could not put all the as appropriate and according with national legislation, circumstances and priorities in the beginning of the paragraph. So encourages parties as appropriate and according to national legislation, circumstances and priorities, and then go smoothly through the the paragraph with the other brackets that we have added in language that we have added. Of course, with that, I would suggest that we can get rid of territorial. So that would be my proposal for this text. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Sorry, Chair, it's not on that. We also suggest to delete territorial. The only point if in this context and part is not interested to consider as a context right now. So then indigenous people, local communities, women, youth also in square brackets because that's related.

Yes, yes, Russian Federation. Sorry if I was not clear. It would be like that. Thank you. As alternatives, since we will decide that on COP. Colleagues, I will ask the secretariat to read the text out loud. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Encourages parties as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances, legislation priorities, to integrate local, priorities arising from participatory processes into the development, implementation, monitoring and review of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, taking into consideration the contributions of open brackets actors other than national governments, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, women also in brackets, youth close brackets and relevant stakeholders and open brackets, gender responsive, close brackets, as considered appropriate by those parties.

Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just to add, and relevant stakeholders in square brackets because of same reason we discussed. And our suggestion will be try to use only once as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation. It is easy whether it will be at the beginning or at the end, but let's maybe do once.

Yes, Russian Federation, thank you very much for that. Central African Republic.

Thank you, Chair. CR thinks that paragraph seven is well constructed. because it explicitly introduces taking into account local and territorial priorities in national biodiversity strategies, however, as few adjustments, such as those suggested by Russia and others, might be needed. These will enable us to make the paragraph more operational and balanced and favour the effective participation of infra and subnational local authorities. So in the last sentence, where we say as appropriate and according to, we think and according to national circumstances and priorities seems a bit limited. There is a risk of excessively reducing territorial priorities underneath national priorities. So rather than and according to, we suggest and in line with national circumstances and priorities. So in line with rather than according to.

Thank you very much, Central African Republic. I would ask the Secretariat to read the paragraph as amended. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Encourages Parties, as appropriate and in line with national circumstances, legislation and priorities to integrate local priorities arising from participatory processes into the development, implementation, monitoring and review of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, taking into account the contributions of open bracket actors other than national governments, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, close brackets, and relevant stakeholders.

I think that the bracket goes after relevant, all the relevant stakeholders, that was what, yeah, it's the whole expression, so we have two alternatives. And with that, yes, Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, so there's an open bracket before actors other than national governments in particular, and then there's a bracket again, or no?

We have two sets of brackets here one is for actors other than national governments and the other one is for indigenous peoples uh local communities women youth and other relevant stakeholders because you understand that this will be discussed during cop so we have two sets of brackets as alternative language.

Perfect just to clarify because it wasn't read out loud thank you.

Thank you very much Norway Russian Federation you have the floor yeah I apologize.

Chair actually three so as as was requested uh square brackets around actors as the national governments in particular that's one piece second one indigenous people and local communities women use square brackets and relevant stakeholders square brackets and then against square brackets and gender responsive and human right based approaches. So that's, yeah.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. And I would also like to ask if we, yes, can we agree with this paragraph as amended? Okay. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you. And now I would like to try to take as a block eight, nine and ten. And I would like to see on my screen how many parties have suggestions for these three paragraphs. Okay. I think it's manageable. So Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My comment is on paragraph nine. Is it okay now? Yes. In the paragraph nine, in the second line, biodiversity data, we are not quite sure that if biodiversity data may include information on contributions of women and other actors. So we would like to change the order of the part of sentences which would be after biodiversity data. We could insert and information on the implementation of the framework and delete the last part from to the implementation of the framework. Could I read? Yes, please, Japan, if you could read. So the whole paragraph would read encourages subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to strengthen the collection and reporting of subnational biodiversity data. and information on the implementation of the framework, including, where appropriate, data and information on the contributions of women, youth and indigenous peoples and local communities. Thank you very much.

I understand now, Japan. Thank you very much. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to add a paragraph between paragraph 8 and 9. and it reads as follows, further encourages parties, comma, subject to national circumstances and priorities, comma, to support subnational governments, comma, cities and other local authorities in developing local biodiversity strategy and action plans to localize biodiversity commitments, comma, strengthening coherence between global, national, and local priorities, and facilitating effective implementation of the KMGF targets at the local level, full stop. So this is in line with the statement we submitted. Thank you.

Thank you very much. South Africa, could you please repeat in dictation speed?

Further encourages parties, comma, subject to national circumstances and priorities, comma, to support subnational governments, comma, cities and other local authorities in developing local biodiversity strategy and action plans, to localize biodiversity commitments, comma, strengthening coherence between global, comma, national, comma, and local priorities, comma, and facilitating effective implementation of the KMG, BF targets at the local level. Full stop.

Thank you very much, South Africa. I would like to ask the secretariat to read the insertion suggested by South Africa.

Further encourages parties, subject to national circumstances and priorities, to support subnational governments, cities and other local authorities in developing local biodiversity strategy and action plans to localize biodiversity commitments, strengthening coherence between global, national and local priorities, and facilitating effective implementation of the framework targets at the local level.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. And I now see Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On paragraph eight, line number three, which starts off with governments, cities and other local authorities international, we are proposing an insertion of planning, international planning and monitoring, reporting and review. That's on eight or nine, Madam Chair. On the third line again, the contribution of women, youths and indigenous peoples in local communities. Our proposal is to maintain consistency, Madam Chair, so that it reads indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youths.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Zimbabwe, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So we will reflect also on suggestions. So we are fine with Zimbabwe proposal for paragraph 8 to add planning. In terms of suggestion by South Africa, in principle we are okay, but we suggest to put full stop after priorities. So I don't think we need to say the end and relate it to CAEM GBF because it's already done if we do coherence with the national level. So here is a focus is to localize national documents. For paragraph nine, on the second line, instead of subnational biodiversity data, we suggest relevant because for us, subregional, different from local. And we agree with the proposal by Japan, of course, with the remark made by Zimbabwe to make the right order. And the last one, we prefer to delete paragraph 10. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia would like to make an insertion in paragraph 9 after subnational biodiversity data. we would like to add through existing national systems and mechanism. The rationale is the reason is that the current KMGBF monitoring architecture is fundamentally nationally in court. National reports are the primary basis for the global review while the monitoring framework provides indicators for national, regional and global monitoring.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Indonesia. And I would like now to ask the secretariat, since there are no more requests for the floor, I would like now to ask secretariat to please read paragraph eight as amended, secretariat.

Also encourages parties To strengthen, as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and priorities, the integration of relevant contributions of subnational governments, cities and other local authorities into national planning, monitoring, reporting and review processes in order to improve the visibility of implementation efforts within and across levels of government.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Can we approve paragraph eight as it is? I see no objections. Thank you very much. Paragraph eight is approved. I would like now to ask the Secretariat to read paragraph eight bis as amended by the Russian Federation.

Eight bis reads, further encourages parties, subject to national circumstances and priorities, to support subnational governments, cities and other local authorities in developing local biodiversity strategy and action plans to localize biodiversity commitments, strengthening coherence between global, national and local priorities, open bracket and facilitating effective implementation of the framework targets at the local level, close brackets.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. I would ask, I would like to ask South Africa, can we accept the paragraph as amended without the text that's in brackets so that we don't have another bracket. South Africa.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we accept the proposal from Russia. Thank you.

Thank you very much, South Africa. So colleagues, can we approve 8 bis as suggested? I see no objection. Thank you very much, colleagues. And I would like now to ask the Secretariat to please read 9 as amended.

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

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Can we approve paragraph 9 as amended? Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regards to the proposal, I believe by Indonesia for the inclusion of through existing national systems and mechanisms, as we understand that there is a platform to collect and an invitation for non-state others actors other than national governments to submit their commitments and report against those commitments that is not that is not through existing national systems and mechanisms. So we would propose the deletion of that just because there's an existing invitation for actors of the national governments, in particular, subnational governments, cities and local authorities to submit this type of information through an existing platform. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Canada. Indonesia, with the explanation given by Canada, can we delete your insertion?

Okay, we'll be flexible on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much for flexibility, Indonesia and Russian Federation. You have the floor.

So, okay with us, and of course we are very happy to hear from other delegations that actors other than national governments include those. Nice to have this recognition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, Russian Federation. And with that, can we approve paragraph nine? I see no objections. Thank you very much, colleagues. And then we have a proposal to delete paragraph ten. Is there an objection to deleting paragraph ten? UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would object to deleting this paragraph as it is the one mention of the Edinburgh process, reference to the Edinburgh process within this document.

Thank you. Okay, so I would suggest to bracket it and move forward, colleagues. Yes, I see no objections. Thank you very much, colleagues. And with that, we are on paragraph 11. And I would like to take paragraph 11 as a whole, so with all the four subparagraphs. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to make an addition to item B. So just after by local authorities, we would like to add a comma and we are adding barriers to access to funding and opportunities to strengthen direct and equitable financing mechanisms for local implementation.

Could you please repeat South Africa?

Okay. So after local authorities, comma, barriers to access to funding and opportunities to strengthen direct and equitable financing mechanisms for local implementation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, South Africa. I would take interventions from the floor and then afterwards I will ask the Secretary to read all the new amended sub paragraphs. So Tuvulu, Tuvulu you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just a minor amendment on paragraph 11C on the third line.

So after local communities, we would like to add, so local communities, especially developing countries, in particular least developed countries and small island developing states. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Tuvalu. I think we got that. Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On paragraph 11a, the third line, we are proposing to include after national so that it reads national planning comma monitoring comma reporting and review mechanisms on 11c uh Madam chair the third line again uh where it's it's reading people's comma um it's indigenous peoples and local communities women and youth thank you.

Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So, small a, subparagraph a, especially after this lunchtime discussion on budgets, so we don't like actually secretariat to do this type of work alone. So and we like actually secretariat to change attitudes towards different partners and engage them more rather than doing some things themselves. So to continue to develop incorporation with partner organizations, we don't think we need some additional guidelines enough of existing. So delete voluntary guidelines and and continue with capacity building and we may consider after reading again the suggestion I think made by Zimbabwe. For B, the change is probably okay and for C, suggestion from Zimbabwe is okay and I think what Tuvalu was suggesting is also okay but that's the suggestion need to be before indigenous peoples so I think they referred to LDCs and seats so they will be just before the stakeholders and we like to delete the end because it's kind of like obvious so we don't need in support of so it's basically will be in the new version after peoples and local communities, women and youth, full stop.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I think we got that. And I will now give the floor to Norway. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In line with our previous comment on, can't remember the paragraph right now, seven, I think it was. We would like to bracket the listing of all the group indigenous people communities. Also, I forgot unfortunately in paragraph nine as well. Thank you.

So from what I understand, we should at least have the two formulas, actors other than national governments and the list, okay, so we will proceed like that. Thank you very much. Norway, Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And on paragraph 11b, we understand we request the Executive Secretary to compile information on how the local authorities can access funding. In our review, it's not necessary to put too much details on what that information should entail. So at this point, we would like to bracket the last part that specifies in detail barriers to access to funding and opportunities, strengths and direct and equitable access to financing mechanisms. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Switzerland, Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. With regards to B, we'd like to support the intervention made by our colleague from Switzerland, in particular with regards to bracketing kind of that last addition. But in addition to that, this paragraph pertains to, currently references the local and community levels only. But in this decision, we're talking about subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities. So we would suggest that the first part of this paragraph read, "To compile information as appropriate on the extent to which biodiversity finance reaches subnational governments, cities, and other local authorities. And in our perspective, this paragraph could end here after that addition. I understand that you're taking comments on other paragraphs. And so with regards to C, to ensure that future reviews-- to our understanding, there's no request for a future review. And so, um, the decision that adopted the plan of action and decided to undertake a review, uh, COP15 decision 12 requested the executive secretary to undertake a review at, I mean, ahead of COP16, but we're doing it at COP17. Um, but there's no future request. There's no, there's no ask for the executive secretary to actually do this work. And so I don't know if that's an omission. I think that would be an important request to issue here above. So it would be to undertake a review of the role of subnational governments and cities and other local authorities. Thank you. And with regards to especially developing countries and in particular SIDS, I think there was another comment that proposed that that addition be raised to earlier in the paragraph, are correct, but I'd be appreciative if that could be read out clearly. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Canada, European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have several proposals on this text, starting with paragraph A. In the now bracketed guidelines, we would like to change that to guidance in line with the current activities of the secretariat. Also, to maintain consistency with accepted language, we would like to insert facilitate before capacity building and development after capacity building. So could I read the line? To continue to develop voluntary guidance and facilitate capacity building and development activities, et cetera. And just an editorial, we suggest replacing "aimed at" with "for". Moving on to sub-paragraph B. We think this is interesting and we appreciate that there's interest in the room in this sub-paragraph. We think it could be further developed in future, but at the moment, in its current form, the scope is too broad and there are some imprecisions. We'd like to propose to delete or bracket it at this point. For paragraph c, again, we would echo that there is no, that decision 15/12 paragraph 7 for c is a single review prior to COP17. And given that no further reviews are currently requested, we would suggest that this paragraph is deleted, and then also that the reference to c in subparagraph d is also deleted. Thank you.

Thank you very much, European Union. I would like now to ask the Secretariat to please read subparagraph a.

To continue to develop in cooperation with partner organizations open bracket voluntary guidelines close brackets open brackets guidance close brackets and facilitate capacity building development activities aimed at facilitating the integration of contributions of subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to the implementation of the framework, international monitoring and reporting mechanisms.

Planning and review.

Planning and review, sorry.

Yes, thank you very much, Secretariat. So I would like to ask if there is any Party that could not accept the substitution of voluntary guidelines by guidance, because I understood that there is more than one Party that would like to not have voluntary guidelines right here. So I see no objections, so I think that we can delete the first bracket text around voluntary guidelines. And I understand also that we could accept the wording to facilitate capacity building and development as suggested by the European Union for So it will read to continue to develop guidance to facilitate capacity building and development activities for facilitating the integration of contributions in some national government cities and other local authorities to the implementation of the framework into national planning, monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Could we accept the paragraph as amended without brackets? Okay, I see no objections, so sub-paragraph A is approved. And then, yes, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

If I may just ask Secretariat to read again the final version.

Of course. Secretariat, please.

To compile information, oh sorry, sorry, A, to continue to develop guidance and facilitate capacity building and development activities aimed at facilitating the integration of contributions of subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to the implementation of the framework into national planning, monitoring and review and reporting mechanisms.

Russian Federation.

So our proposal disappeared because again we don't want Secretariat to do it alone. We like that Secretariat will be doing it actually through partner organizations. So still after developing cooperation with partner organizations.

Yes, you are right, I'm sorry, I skipped, it was right here in front of me, I'm sorry. So the whole paragraph would be to continue in cooperation with international partners. With partners and.

No, just with partner organizations, we use this language in several other documents, thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation, apologies for that. So colleagues, can we approve the paragraph as amended? Thank you, thank you. So I would like now to invite the Secretary to read the paragraph. And I understand there is a proposal from the EU to delete it. Is there any objection to deleting subparagraph b? Yes, I see South Africa. So I will ask the Secretariat to read the text as amended, and I would suggest that we keep it between brackets. Secretariat, could you please read the whole paragraph? Thank you.

To compile information, as appropriate, on the extent to which biodiversity finance reaches the local community levels including information on access to funding by local authorities, open bracket, barriers to access to funding and opportunities to strengthen direct and equitable financing mechanisms, close brackets, for local implementation.

Thank you very much. Secretary, I understand that we still miss the suggestion to include subnational governments before local, isn't it? Yes. Thank you. So I suggest that we approve this paragraph between brackets as requested by the EU. Canada, you have the floor.

It was the inclusion of subnational governments, cities, and other local and community levels.

Thank you, Canada. Thank you. So can we approve this paragraph as amended? Yes, I see no further requests. Oh, no, Canada? Yes, so paragraph b is approved between brackets. And then there was a suggestion by the EU to also delete subparagraph c. Is there an objection to delete this paragraph? to value. Okay, so we'll keep the paragraph, no problems, but I ask the secretariat to please read the version, and I understand that we have two versions to ensure that future reviews, it's the original text, and Canada suggests to undertake a review since we don't have a mandate for future reviews. I would ask if we could keep the suggestion by Canada. Is there any objection? No. So I will ask, thank you. I will ask the secretary to please read the text as amended.

To undertake a review of the role of subnational governments, cities and local authorities, including specific analysis of the case studies on the contributions of In particular, in particularly least developed countries and small island developing states, open brackets, indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth, close brackets, stop.

Yes, and the center we have actors other than national governments as an alternative also between brackets before, but then I would suggest that we approve this paragraph between brackets as it stands now. Is there an objection? No, thank you very much, colleagues. And then, little d. I don't think we had any suggestions besides putting to c between brackets to be consistent. Okay. So can we approve little D? Yes. As amended. Thank you very much, colleagues. So we have approved this CRP. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And then as we with talked before, I understand that we do have several L documents right now available in all languages. And I would suggest that we go, we begin our consideration of L documents with L4 as announced. So L4, the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. Colleagues, I now invite Parties to consider document SPI/7/L/4 on the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. As delegates, we recall, we considered the draft recommendation paragraph by paragraph, and as a result of those discussions, a limited number of paragraphs remain unresolved and now reflected in brackets. During those discussions, I invited parties concerned to have informal consultations with a view to finding solutions, in particular on paragraphs 11, 13, 18, 19, 22 and 24 of section A and paragraph 4 of section B. I would like to see if there has been any progress as a result of those consultations. With that understanding, let us turn to paragraph 11 of section A. I open the floor for any party that wishes to table a compromise solution for that paragraph. Please note that if there is still no consensus, I will propose that we leave the text as it is. in the L document as we do not have a lot of time. With that, is there any party that wishes to take the floor on paragraph 11? I see no parties, so we just leave the brackets around paragraph 11 as it is. I would like now to stand the same invitation to paragraph 13 of section A. Does any part wish to take the floor on this paragraph? I see no parties. And Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We actually attempted to see how best we can work on this text. At the time of our meeting we were all very exhausted and could not really agree to something however we have a suggestion for the consideration to the distinguished delegate of the EU. We have attempted to merge the text and I will read it at dictator speech if you allow. invites parties to continue to engage indigenous peoples and local communities, user organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes, in accordance with national circumstances, and encourages user organizations and networks to continue to facilitate user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements, including by making use of tools developed in accordance with Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol and made available through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse and by continuing to develop such tools and make them available through the clearinghouse. I so submit.

I'm sorry, Namibia, are you talking about paragraph 14? Microphone to Namibia, please.

So paragraph 13, Namibia bracketed paragraph 13 because we felt that most of it is already encompassed in para 14 and so the suggestion is that we instead of bracketing it, merge and ensure that we don't lose the intent of what the para suggests. Thank you.

Just a moment. Yes, Namibia, I will ask you to please read it again and clarify where are you making changes because it's not clear for us. Thank you very much, Namibia. Namibia, you have the floor.

Okay, so first, the paragraph does not track the articles it invokes. So article 19 and 20 obligate each party to encourage the development, update, and use of model contractual clauses and codes of conduct, right? So the duty is one of encouragement and it is directed at parties in relation to the stakeholders. So paragraph 13 in our view converts that into urging parties themselves to use those instruments, there is a different obligation from the one in the protocol and a decision of this body cannot create it. And so because of that, we then indicate that we rather merge and change the language so that paragraph 13, parts of the language in paragraph 13 is then encompassed in paragraph 14 because paragraph 14 refers to such tools and the incident for the for the phrase sits in brackets bracketed paragraph 13 that can then help us to make sure that we resolve this paragraph by not deleting it, but ensure that paragraph 14 and 13 by the merging of it reads better in terms of what we would like to achieve. So if you want, I can read it again.

Yes, if it is just a small insertion, as I understand it is, could you please just sign in which line it's going and then read from there please Namibia you have the floor.

Should I read the text?

Yes Namibia please read the text.

Invite parties to continue to engage and then the long list of stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes comma in accordance with national circumstances, and encourages user organizations and networks to continue to facilitate user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements, including, and this is where para 13 comes in, including by making use of tools developed in accordance with article 19 and 20 in the Nagoya protocol and made available through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse comma and by continuing to develop such tools and make them available through the clearinghouse thank you.

Thank you very much Namibia I will now give the floor to India India you have the floor.

Thank you Madam chair So we would like to support removing the brackets from the paragraph and the reason behind this is as the use of existing tools developed under Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol would provide readily available and accessible means for parties and users rather than requiring the development of new tools. So we would like to request to remove the brackets. Thank you.

Thank you very much, India. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me first start by thanking the colleague from Namibia for the effort done. Indeed, she is right. We tried to meet at several times today, but we all have very busy agenda and our brains were not so productive. So thank you very much for the efforts. And I think it's really valuable one, but I'm not sure it really captures what we were trying to say with in paragraph 13. But I also heard the argument that made by Namibia and I think we can be flexible on the verb. So instead of huge, in paragraph 13 we could have invite parties to use existing and then I wonder if that would be the right compromise. Thank you.

So European Union, you are proposing that we just shift urges by invites. Okay, Namibia, could you accept the suggestion made by the European Union?

In relation to our text.

In relation to paragraph 13.

Madam Chairperson, the intent is different. The substance of paragraph 13 speaks to or addresses the parties and expects the parties to do something else. So in the para that we introduce in MERGE, the tools are developed by user organisations and it is the user organisation that should be called upon to use them. A technical correction in terms of paragraph 14 currently reads: such tools as those provided in article 19 and 20. And in our opinion, article 19 and 20 do not provide tools. They call upon parties to encourage their development. So the phrase should read tools developed in accordance with article 19 and 20. We have carried that correction into the proposal and we think it could help us so with, you know, the formulation because it is not a language issue, it is really a legal issue in that regard. So if there is no compromise on that, then I think we may move on in order to save time. Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much, Namibia. I will just ask the Secretariat to read your suggestion for paragraph 14. begin with including by making use, please secretariat.

Yes, the new edition will read starting from including, including by making use of the, of making, of such tools, okay. making use of such tools developed in accordance with Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol and made available through the ABS Clearing House and continue to develop those tools and make them available through the ABS Clearing House.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So, I understand that we cannot lift the paragraphs of 13, but since we spent so much time on the language, I would like to ask if we can leave with the new language without brackets. Is there any objection to the changes made by Namibia for paragraph 14? European Union, you have the floor.

Madam co-chairs, I think we are not far away from finding a solution, but it is probably at this late time of the day, maybe put everything in brackets also with the proposals of Namibia, we will try to solve it at COP. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, European Union. So we have another bracket on our CRP. That was really not my intention during this session, but I would like now to invite colleagues to please reflect on paragraph 18, do you have any concrete solution that has been negotiated among the interested parties? Okay, South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we moved a little bit too fast in the beginning and I want to come back to paragraph 7, if that's okay.

I'm not opening for general paragraphs right now. I'm just taking in two suggestions for paragraphs that were bracketed. That's why you didn't hear me asking for suggestions for seven. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So colleagues, do we have any suggestions for paragraph 18? I see no request for the floor. I would like now to move to paragraph 19. Do we have any suggestions, colleagues? Okay, thank you very much. So 22e of section A, do we have any suggestions? No, thank you. Paragraph 24 of section A, I see no request for the floor as well. And finally, paragraph 4D of section B. Namibia, is that an agreed suggestion with other parties?

Madam Chairperson, actually on paragraph 22, we would like to delete something and then the text can be agreed upon. We had a discussion also with the Secretariat, this is work that they already do. So if we delete the wording at its seventh meeting, then that falls into work that is already that is already been done and available. Paragraph 21 delete the words at its seven meeting and then the para can stand as it is. Thank you.

Okay, Namibia, I'm not asking for suggestions for paragraph 21 right now, but we took note of your suggestion. So is there any suggestion to lift the brackets on paragraph 4D on section B? Okay, I see none. Thank you very much, colleagues. And with that, are there any further interventions to be made regarding other remaining bracketed texts? I don't see. Thank you very much. And yes, Norway? No. Okay, so I understand that-- just a moment. So colleagues, I would rather not really modify clean text. If there is any other suggestions for bracketed text, I would allow. I see there are no further suggestions, so thank you very much. So can I yes. Oh, Namibia, Namibia, you have the floor.

Madam Chairperson, I'm a little bit confused. Are you indicating that we are dealing with bracketed text and that the suggestion that I made cannot be taken on board, or did I miss it? Please advise.

Are you making a suggestion for bracketed text? Namibia, you have the floor. And then please make your suggestion, Namibia.

On para 21, as indicated, I wanted to delete the last part because that is work already done. And so it does not need to be requested to the Conference of Parties at the next MOP. So we just wanted to delete the last part and remove the brackets. Thank you.

Namibia, could you please clarify if your suggestion is for paragraph 24 or 21? We are a little bit confused here. Thank you.

21, the last part of the sentence.

Okay, thank you very much, Namibia.

Sorry, Madam Chairperson. At the sixth meeting, yes, 24, you are correct. 24, the last part. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. So I ask the Secretariat to please clarify. Secretariat, we are lifting the back text and please read.

As I understand this is a proposal to lift the brackets on paragraph 24 after deleting the last words of paragraph 24 where it specifies that this is to be done at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. So basically we will be deleting at each sixth meeting.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. And so can we, I understand that this bracket was put by Namibia and then we will be getting rid of this bracket. Can we agree with the proposed language? I see no objections. Thank you very much, Namibia, for your flexibility. And then I would like now to see if there are no further comments or objections. I know that South Africa also wanted to make some suggestions on paragraph 7 and if it's not something that would really get us into a mess, I will ask South Africa to please yes, South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Yes, as paragraph 7 reads now, it doesn't really serve a purpose. So the original text referred to specific articles, articles 15 and 17, and I included 10 as well. This is as a result of the second assessment and that's why we want this text. So I would like to propose that we either keep those articles, those specific articles referenced here, because all parties fulfilling the obligations is not the same as all parties fulfilling the obligations of all articles because parties can fulfill their obligations under Nagoya but we can also leave out article 10 as we have been doing for the past few years. So I would like to emphasize those specific articles and I do have text to propose.

South Africa, I will ask for indulgence because when I opened the floor, I said that I would be taking suggestions of text that was proposed but was not reflected. And I understand on this paragraph, as it reads, it reflects the general conversation that we have during the CRP discussion. Of course, you can bring this up or during COP, but I would rather not to take this right now. If you can be bear with me because we did discuss this and this is how it was approved during the CRP phase. I'm only opening during the L documents discussion, I'm opening the floor for something that you feel that is left out from our general discussion, it's not reflected or some mistake that perhaps we have made or of course if we can get rid of bracket text. Could you please reflect on that South Africa? I'll give you the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair. I'm struggling to be flexible on that one. But I'll leave it at that.

Thank you so much, South Africa. I now see Norway, and Norway, I will repeat what I've just said. I would take your intervention if it's for something that it's not reflected or for us to get rid of some practices. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, no, I don't want to add any brackets. I think we have enough brackets already, but this is a reflection because at, in this regard, just para 4A and B, where we find some language on JEF and standard practice at the COP is that we have an omnibus decision.

Which is basically we collect.

All language across the several decisions on, on JEF and then we have a, like a small group that looks at that language and ensures consistency in, in the guidance to the JEF. So, so that's, that, that, that's sort of my question so, or my assumption that when we come to CARP we will look at all the language on JEF across decisions and then we operate under a standard practice and under that assumption I will not put brackets on there for in for A and B. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, Norway, as I have said, I'm not putting any more brackets and of course, this was discussed during the CRP review and in general throughout our discussions here, the JAF paragraphs will go to the pertinent decision during COP. Yes, India, you have the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair. We have a minor amendment in para, sub para, small E in para 22. So should I read? In second night.

India, as I have stated, I'm not taking any new language right now. We have.

It is a bracketed para.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, you can. Thank you. Thank you.

So after, in second line, after NP-3/1A comma, please write taking into account the outcomes of the second assessment and review and submission from parties. It is clear or should I read again?

Please read again.

Right. So after NP-3/1a comma, please write taking into account the outcomes of the second assessment and review and submission from parties.

Yes, thank you very much. No, no, that's fine. I will ask the secretary to please read the suggestions made by India.

The submissions are made in paragraph 22 of the section A, sub-paragraph E. So we'll start as it was, the need to review and as appropriate revise the framework of indicators contained in Annex II to Decision MP3. slash one a and the new text will come now taking into account the outcomes of the assessment and review of the second assessment and review and submissions from parties comma and we continue.

As it was thank you very much secretaries so I understand that those brackets were put by India and now this is a compromise text. Can we all agree with the amendments made by India? I see no objections, so we are lifting the brackets from 22E. Thank you very much. And if that, if there are, yes, European Union, you have the floor.

I'm really, really sorry, Madam Chair, to come back on paragraph 24. We were a bit slow, but as you know, we are 27. We were consulting on the new changes. Actually, it's not about the changes, but about the explanations also that we have been given that in all cases this work will be done. So we have quite a heavy text with a lot of new paragraphs. So we would prefer to keep it in brackets for now for further streamlining maybe at COP. So it's not necessarily objection on substance. But since we have also other paragraphs that are not so controversial in terms of substance, but we're not sure about the right word, maybe we also put this one in, we leave it in square brackets and we'll see at COP24. Thank you.

Thank you very much. May I ask if we could just bracket the last part of it because I understand this is the the last part that's been a little bit, nope, okay, so the whole paragraph. Okay, so paragraph 24 remains bracketed by the European Union. And then I see no further requests for the floor. And can I take it that the recommendation is adopted with the changes we've just made? Yes, thank you very much. And now I can gavel. Thank you very much. Colleagues, let me ask you something. Is there any objection to moving forward with L6 or would you prefer to remain reviewing CRPs and review this mainstreaming CRP? Is there any objection so that we can have another L document approved? Do you understand me? Is there any objection on trying to adopt L6? I see no objections, so I would ask for your flexibility. Very dynamic meeting. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and apologies for, uh, being a bit late, but my understanding is that we have not been able to review and look at the L document. There's been too little time for this, and there are many issues that really need to be solidly checked, so we would really wish to continue first with mainstreaming. Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much, European Union. Yes, it is a very dynamic meeting. So we, of course, I understand. I was trying to, but of course, I understand. So we now consider as it was foreseen CRP7 on mainstreaming. And please, let's move teams. This is all to keep you all awake. Thank you very much, colleagues. So now let us turn our attention to CRP 7 on agenda item 12, mainstreaming biodiversity within and across sectors. Following the first reading of this agenda item in plenary, a contact group was established. co-chaired by Mr. Ezequiel Benitez Diaz of Mexico and Mr. Scott Wilson from Canada. The contact group met twice and made good progress in advancing the text. Nevertheless, several brackets remain. This will -- I -- just a moment. I would like now to invite Mr. Ezequiel Benitez Diaz to please report back to us on the, you have already reported. Yes, okay, thank you very much. So, I would like to propose that we take this document as a whole. Yes, I see the Russian Federation. So, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. not opposing to maybe to agree on most of it but contact group didn't touch preamble so that's why the preamble need to be open thank you.

Of course Russian Federation understand that and I also acknowledge Brazil Brazil you have the floor.

Thank you Madam chair I'd like to make reference to one of the sub paragraphs of this decision, six G. In the CRP, we have four alternatives. And in light of that, four of us reunited in a small group to come up with an alternative language. that even though remains bracketed in some points, at least it keeps, it maintains just one option instead of four. This small group was comprised of Brazil, New Zealand, the EU and the United Kingdom. And I was wondering at some point at your discretion if I could read it out so that we might see if everybody agrees with having just one option for that paragraph, even if it's bracketed. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. You anticipated what I would like to say. So I was proposing to take this as a whole, but of course, if there were any common understanding that could help us get rid of some brackets for in order to provide more fruitful discussions during COP, I would allow that. And I understand also the point made by the Russian Federation since the preamble paragraphs were not considered. Of course, we would allow some changes to the preamble paragraphs. So I would rather begin with Brazil and then we'll go back to the preamble paragraphs so that we can first get rid of some brackets and perhaps Afterwards, who knows? Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the following language that I'm going to read is going to replace all the G's, G, G alt one, alt two, and alt three. It would be to encourage, promote, bracket enable the sustainable use of biodiversity bracket where appropriate as a means of supporting its conservation bracket and bracket enable its bracket the bracket integration bracket of its multiple values close bracket into economic and productive activities close brackets and then open brackets and decision making close brackets comma open brackets ensuring any impacts on and use of biodiversity is open bracket ecologically close bracket sustainable close bracket and then open bracket again comma in full alignment with the framework close bracket A lot of black brackets.

Thank you very much. Brazil, I'm not sure if the final sum is really, we do have less brackets, but thank you very much for your willingness to negotiate and compromise. I asked the secretary to read it out loud again with all the brackets. Thank you.

Two open brackets, encourage, close brackets, open brackets, promote, between brackets enable the sustainable use of biodiversity between brackets where appropriate as a means as a means of supporting its conservation in brackets and in brackets enable its in brackets the in brackets integration open brackets of its multiple values close brackets into economic and economic and productive activities close the bracket. Open bracket again. And decision making. close bracket. Open bracket again. Ensuring any impacts on use of biodiversity is in brackets, ecologically sustainable. close brackets. Open bracket again. Comma in full alignment with the framework. close brackets.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. And of course, this text will be substituting all the G's. Yes, thank you. So Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Chair, we are potentially supportive and thanks a lot for small group, but also we envy the fantastic ability of the Secretariat to capture all those brackets, congratulations. So we have just a technical proposal so please uh insert the Brazilian uh option. Uh keep other options. We will look at that L with a view that we simply delete but it's hard really to capture it from reading uh when we don't have it on the screen so then at least we will have it in L but again with all our intention to just keep this paragraph and delete the others. Thank you.

Okay, I see nodding. Thank you very much, Russian Federation. And I would like now then to consider the preamble paragraphs. As you know, I have instructed the contact group not to deal with preamble paragraphs, only operative paragraphs. And I would like now to open the floor. We have only three preamble paragraphs. I would like to open the floor for them. Thank you. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

So very simple one for the first on the second line. We prefer to delete after across. So biodiversity mainstreaming biodiversity across, importance of mainstreaming biodiversity, yeah, and recognize it. So we usually use mainstreaming in the terms among and across sectors. So we don't see the point to refer here the whole of the government, et cetera. So it will read importance of mainstreaming biodiversity and recognized that. So if there is a wish to use the usual language, importance of mainstreaming biodiversity in across sectors, that will be okay, but delete reference to whole of government, whole of society. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Russian Federation. I understand that this is consistent with the language that's what's in the decision 1613, so it's fine. I would like to ask if there is any objection to deleting across the whole government and the whole society. as proposed by Russia. And I do note that I have consulted secretariat and they assured me that it is consistent with the decision 1613. Is there an objection? I see none. So thank you very much. I think that we have also approved the preamble paragraphs, the three, yes. Thank you very much, colleagues. So, yes, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

We have comments for other two.

I opened the floor for the three, so please, Russian Federation. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

So for the second one, the last line, delete ambition and implementation, the different gaps. So I needed to close existing gaps. And the third paragraph on the second line when you say monitoring, reporting and review and builds on NB-SAPs and we delete the findings of so we'll read and builds on NB-SAPs, the seventh national report and full stop after framework.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. So I would like to know if we can delete in the second preamble paragraph ambition and implementation. So we will read Recognizing that progress on biodiversity mainstreaming remains insufficient to achieve the goals and targets of the framework and that enhanced efforts are needed to close existing gaps. Can we leave with this? Yes. Thank you very much. So the second European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No, unfortunately, we would really wish to keep this wording. This links, of course, to the global review and we'll have many more discussions on this, uh, at this stage and yeah, we really hope that we'll be able to convince everybody that this is important wording to keep. And that also applies for the second one, for both proposals. Thank you.

Uh, so, uh, for both proposals on paragraphs two and three, Okay, so we will only put brackets. So we will bracket ambition and implementation, and we will have two brackets on the third paragraph around NPPS and around on the findings. Is that okay? Okay, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Yeah, just a question, how we can question that it's built on NPPS? because the whole uh uh global report and review are built on NBSUPs so it's it's just fact so it's very strange to deny that it's built on NBSUPs thank you.

Um I understand your reasoning uh Russian Federation I'll give the floor to Vanuatu and then I'll come back to that Vanuatu you have the floor.

Thank you chair just Just going back to the preamble, just want to include another preamble paragraph here to recall further its decision on 14/3, 16/17 and 16/19.

Thank you very much Vanuatu. So Could you please repeat?

Just to insert a preamble para on the recalling further decisions for 14/3, 16/17 and 16/19 to be included in the the preamble.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I will ask the secretariat.

Recalling further its decisions 14/3, 16/17 and 16/19.

Vanoatu, are you still asking for the floor?

Yes.

If the Secretariat could also include the specific dates where the decision was made. For 14/3 is for the 30th of November 2018. For decision 16/17 is on the 1st of November 2024. and for the 16/19 is 1st of November 2024 thank you.

Thank you very much Evan also uh helping us with editorial changes so um I don't see any objections for including the reference to other mainstreaming biodiversity um uh decisions so and I would like now oh yes the UK UK you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would just like to maintain that text in brackets until we have time to review the relevance of those decisions to this text.

Okay, United Kingdom, so it is the text suggests this bracket. China, you have the floor.

We also want to bracket the additional decision because we realize actually if we see all the decisions there's a lot of them can be related with mainstreaming but we don't need to identify each of them so we would rather only refer to decision 16/13 thank you.

Okay, of course, yes, apologies. So, okay, so the suggestions are bracketed and I would like now to come back to the ENPCEP issues. Should it be bracketed? I would like to see if it could leave with unbracketed text here. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And by the way, I'm speaking on behalf of the EU and the 27 member states. But I would like to ask if you could repeat the proposal that was made for the third preamble because perhaps we misunderstood what was the proposal.

Yes. Now the proposal is noting that the present decision is complemented by decision 17 slash something on mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review and builds on the NBSAPs and then would be brackets and the findings of the seven national reports. The findings of, so it would be NBSAPs and the seven national reports. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. We propose then to add after NBSAPs also the national targets.

Thank you very much, European Union. And with that, we would just maintain the brackets around and the findings. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe at this stage I have a simplified proposal because in our understanding, you know, we will have two decisions. We will have decision 17 slash on PMRR that is currently part B of our deliberations here. And we will have a decision on the global review that are two separate decisions at COP. So we would just say, noting that the present decision is complemented by decision 17 on the PMRR and decision 17 on the global review, full stop. And then all the NBSAPs, the national targets, all of that should be covered if you reference the global review decision.

Yes, so I will ask the Secretariat to read the new amended 13th preamble paragraph as amended by Switzerland and others.

Noting that the present decision is complemented by decision 17 slash on mechanisms for planning, monitoring, reporting and review and decision 17 slash on the global review.

Russian Federation, you have the floor.

We support this proposal.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. Colleagues, do I see an objection? I see none. Thank you very much. So the three preamble paragraphs are approved as amended and with the brackets. Thank you. And I would like now to see if there are any further interventions regarding all the remaining bracketed text. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Not on bracketed, we have only, we are happy to accept it as it is with all brackets and discuss it in the area one. One technical, from our point of view, technical point, that's 6E, In 6E, we usually talking about integration of biodiversity, not of nature, in the first line. So just replace nature with biodiversity. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I would like to ask the co-chair of the contact group to see if this suggestion is in line with the discussions on the contact group. Mr. Benitez from Mexico. Oh, yes, he's nodding. So can we agree on the proposal made by the Russian Federation? Thank you very much, colleagues. Oh, New Zealand, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to this latest proposal, rather than say integrate biodiversity, we would prefer it to say, either to say mainstream biodiversity, which is more standard language. Alternatively, we could accept integrate biodiversity and its multiple values. So we'd be open to that as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, New Zealand. I see nodding. Yes, thank you very much. So paragraph 6e is amended. Vanuatu, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I think Vanuatu would also like to add another preamble paragraph here. And if you would allow me to read, it would state, noting that many developing country parties in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states have limited administrative capacity to respond to requests for submissions and information.

Renato could you please repeat?

Noting that many developing country parties, in particular the least developed countries, and small island developing states, COMA have limited administrative capacity to respond to requests for submissions and information.

Thank you very much, Renato. I see also Peru asking for the floor. Peru, is this on this proposed language?

Peru.

No.

Thank you, Chair.

If I may.

Yes.

Okay. I will speak in Spanish.

Para six, sub para A four. So I think the second part repeats the first part to a large extent. So I would propose changing the text, said and encouraging the uptake, and then from there, would put nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches as features in the framework.

Pipo, could you please be very clear where you're making your suggestions?

Okay, paragraph six, subparagraph A, Roman.

Four, second sentence, it says, and encouraging the uptake of nature-related opportunities to increase positive impacts. So we propose to change the text saying and encouraging the uptake of nature-based solutions and or ecosystem-based approaches.

Peru, I will ask you to bear with me. I understand that your suggestion is okay. we are talking about attacks that's not practiced so I will ask if there is any objection here in the floor and I would like to the screen to be uh clear right now and if you only if you have any uh problem with the suggestion made by Peru and I will also like to ask yes I see no objections so I asked the secretariat to please read it.

Strengthening the engagement of the business and public and finance and private financial sectors at all levels, highlighting the nature related opportunities and the responsibility of businesses to assess, disclose and reduce their risks, dependencies and impacts on nature and encouraging the uptake of nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem-based approaches to increase positive impacts.

Thank you very much. Secretariat, is there any objection to that? Okay, I'll give the floor to New Zealand, followed by China. New Zealand, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We would like to retain nature related opportunities. We see this as a very positive aspect to include. Thank you. And very different to nature based solutions, but we could also include those as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. New Zealand, Peru, I will ask for your flexibility here. Of course, you can add new text, but I would rather not to touch upon already agreed text because this was discussed during the contact group. I was trying to be flexible, but if we open this Pandora's box, I fear that we will not be able to leave this room tonight. So China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to comment on the new insertion on preamble, if you allow me. We heard from parties that the new insertion contains the word requests of submission, but we are not very clear what kind of requests it is referring to. So we may need some clarification on that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. China, Costa Rica, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening. Just to support Peru's proposal. This text was in the second version. Sorry, I'm very tired. I've also forgotten a second version of the non-paper which was presented. But we weren't able to assist in studying it. Therefore, we ask for flexibility of everyone to maintain what has been proposed, and also flexibility of New Zealand. So we ask for flexibility in terms of nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches. Thank you.

Costa Rica, and given the explanation given by Costa Rica, and of course the fact that we are all concerned about the fact that some small delegations could not participate on all the contact groups, I would keep the revised version with all the nature integrated and also the and I asked the secretariat to read everything and I ask you to see if we can leave that language. Thank you very much. Peru, would you like to ask for the floor right now?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair. So comments, we also couldn't be in the mainstream contact group. Thank you.

Okay, no, I understand now. I will ask the Secretariat to read it. Ms. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Strengthening the engagement of the business, public and private financial sectors at all levels, highlighting the nature related opportunities and the responsibility of businesses to assess, disclose and reduce their risks, dependencies and impacts on nature, and encouraging the uptake of nature related opportunities between brackets, open brackets again, nature based solutions and or ecosystem based approaches, close brackets, to increase positive impacts.

Yes, I would like to propose to lift all the brackets on the inserted text and of course we keep the text that was already approved from the contact group. Can we leave to that, colleagues? Yes, I see no opposition. So I'd like now to ask the Secretariat to please read the new insertion made by Vanuatu, and I would propose that we bracket this text if there is no opposition. I already had China asking for brackets or at least for a more complete explanation about this insertion. Secretariat.

Noting that many developing country parties, in particularly the least developed countries and small island developing states, have limited administrative capacity to respond to requests for submissions and information.

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

Thank you, Chair. We fully share concerns expressed by Vanuatu. That's definitely an issue. However, we believe that this concern relates to entire operation of convention for all topics, not specific to mainstreaming at all. So our understanding also from last three weeks that it's actually across topics. So we will just ask our colleagues from Vanuatu maybe that's better to bring to the report of the meeting and make the record in the report of the meeting stating that it's impediment actually for many areas in the convention. Again, we simply don't think that it's specific for mainstreaming, but otherwise we of course support this concern and we'll be happy to see it clearly reflected in the report of the meeting thank you.

Thank you very much Russian Federation I give the floor to China China you have the floor.

Thank you Madam chair just some to make some clarification we not go against the intention to add these contents we just think it's not quite clear about the submission of information and the requests itself so maybe we need better language thank you.

Thank you very much, China. I see Cameroon. Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with the two previous speakers. Thank you.

I would like to ask Vanuatu if we could substitute your insertion for a clear mention of your concern in the report. Vanuatu, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you. I take your recommendation and agree with the suggestion made by our colleagues from Russia. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vanuatu. Thank you. Thank you very much for your flexibility. So I understand that we are lifting this last addition made by Vanuatu. And with that, I understand that we have approved CRP 7. And of course, I will produce an L document of it. Thank you very much, colleagues. Congrats. Colleagues, I would like now to turn our attention to CRP 8 on agenda item 10 on capacity building and development and technical and scientific cooperation. As you know, following the first reading on this agenda item in plenary, a contact group was established, co-chaired by Ms. Martha Maphatsa Kalemba of Malawi, and Ms. Holly Kelly-Vial from the United Kingdom. Before we begin, I invite the co-chairs of the contact group to report back on their work. Ms. Holly Kelly-Vial from the UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the honor to report back on the work of the contact group on agenda item 10, capacity building and technical and scientific cooperation. The contact group convened three times on the 5th of August from 7:30 to 10:30 p.m., on the 7th of August from 3 to 6 p.m., and on the 9th of August from 3 to 5 p.m. Over the course of these three meetings, the contact group considered all operative paragraphs of the draft recommendation. Parties engaged constructively across a broad range of issues and made significant progress, reaching agreement on several paragraphs. Through a spirit of collaboration and flexibility, the group advanced its discussions and narrowed differences on a number of outstanding issues. A total of 17 brackets remain, of which 10 are procedural. A few outstanding issues will require further consideration by the Conference of the Parties. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my fellow co-chair, Ms. Martha Mpazokilumba, for her dedication and her leadership through our work. And I would also like to extend my gratitude to the Secretariat for its invaluable support to the Contact Group and for facilitating our work across all three sessions. Finally, I wish to thank all Parties for their dedication, flexibility and constructive engagement. The Contact Group's work was characterized by a positive, collaborative and solution-oriented spirit, and I am confident that the progress achieved provides a strong foundation for the Conference of the Parties to continue its consideration of the remaining issues. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Ms. Kelly Vial and your co-chair, Ms. Martha Kalimba of Malawi, for this work. Distinguished delegates, before we consider the CRP, I have been informed by the co-chairs that since the adoption of the non-paper by the contact group, A group of parties met informally to find a compromise regarding the phrases organizations of indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth and other relevant stakeholders in paragraphs three, six and nine C. The newly agreed compromise text is Indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as organizations of women, youth and other relevant stakeholders. I read it again. It's indigenous peoples, local communities, as well as organizations of women and youth and other relevant stakeholders. I hope this compromise text is agreeable to all parties and I would like now to open the floor to see if there are any objections on changing the language as agreed by the small group. I see no objections. Thank you very much. I therefore request the Secretariat to reflect this change in the respective paragraphs when producing the L document. I would like to propose that we consider this CRP as a whole and not paragraph by paragraph since it's been, it's the product of deliberations from the contact group. So colleagues, I would like now to see if we can approve this CRP as a whole. The Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We would be happy to approve this as a whole with small technical amendment. We had a long discussion on paragraph 20, on the context of paragraph 27, and that remains in brackets now understanding until.

Some financial matters would be further discussed.

So we would like to it was our understanding that we agreed on putting brackets on the whole paragraph 27 and we ask to reflect it in the CRP. Otherwise for the rest we are happy to adopt it.

Thank you.

Yes, Russian Federation. I do see some some brackets only on the only on the end, but I ask the co-chairs Ms. Holly Weill, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It was my understanding that because the reference to subject to additional resources was within brackets still, we did not need to bracket the whole paragraph as we would come back to this issue of funding when we considered that element. But recognizing that there are still issues to discuss with regards to the funding for this element of text.

Thank you very much, Ms. Holly. So we will bracket the whole paragraph 27 as per the explanations given here. And with that, colleagues, can we approve the CRP as a whole? So I see no objections, so CRP 8 is approved as a whole. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you very much, colleagues. I would like now to take CRP 9 on agenda item 4b, for a resource mobilization. I would like first to invite the co-chairs of the contact group to report on their work. Mr. Francis Agwau of Uganda and Mrs. Lucretia Landman from Switzerland. Are you here? Yes, could you please press the button? Lucretia? Yes, Ms. Lucretia, you have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With your indulgence, I will read the report that we have prepared. However, it does take about three minutes, so I hope that is within the choreography. Okay, thank you very much. So thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, colleagues. Our contact group was given three tasks in line with COP decision 16/34. First, To achieve progress on the two tracks on the associated roadmap, that is, first, to further develop the criteria for the permanent arrangement of the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism. second, to identify impediments for the effectiveness of global biodiversity finance, and thirdly, to further discuss opportunities to broaden the contributor base, including by considering how to best revise and amend the list of parties established in accordance with Article 22 of the Convention. The contact group met four times over the past days. In addition, a friend of the chair group met over lunch on the 10th of August. On the further development of the criteria, we had first a useful general exchange on finding the most practical way ahead for parties to tackle this issue. We reflected the solution found by the group in a revised paper issued on the evening of 6 August, based on which we managed to make further progress. While the work has not been finalised, we narrowed the list of potential new criteria. On the impediments, The constructive spirit of delegates found a pragmatic solution. The group agreed to avoid in-depth negotiations of an intermediate output by simply references for seeing the relevant pre-session document prepared by the secretariat plus the submissions by parties thereof at CFCPI7 and agreed on the relevant operational paragraphs in the draft decisions with one small brackets. On the issue of broadening the contributor base, parties had an initial discussion on the issue. They showed generally willingness to engage in this discussion and agreement on some underlying principles, such as the need for discussion and the way forward to be based on relevant convention articles. However, views among parties differed significantly. Thus, we established a friend of the chair group to continue this discussion in a smaller setting with two tasks, identifying areas of conversions and divergence and coming up with possible ways for further negotiations and the way ahead. The friends of the co-chairs under the able leadership of the co-facilitators, Ms. Carolina Casares from Canada and Ms. Imen Melliane from Tunisia, continued their exchange and they actually overperformed and came up with both the compilation of convergent and divergent and the basis for further discussion and the possible way forward. There was broad agreement in the contact group that this exchange was useful and needed to be continued. However, it was then also recognized that to include the output might be premature given time constraints. And as a consequence, the proposed possible way forward was added as a bracketed alternative option. This is why on this issue you still find a number of bracketed options in the present CRP. Overall, despite the significant number of brackets in the CRP, we as co-chairs believe that we were able to achieve progress on very difficult issues at hand thanks to the constructive and collaborative spirit of delegates. We are thankful to the amicable mood in the room. We would like to note that the number of brackets were introduced not necessarily because of profound differences in views, but simply because delegates needed more time to reflect on the proposals introduced and the co-chairs reassure parties that missions here could be introduced in Iran in our efforts to conclude negotiations there. With this in mind, we trust that the present CRP is providing a good basis for further work at COP17 in a few weeks. In closing, we wish to thank again delegates for their collaborative spirit and a special thanks goes to our co-facilitators and friends of the co-chairs and of course to the Secretariat. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Landman, and of course your co-chair, Mr. Wogwall. Colleagues, I would like to propose that we consider this CRP as a whole, as we have done with the product of other contact groups. I know that still several issues remain, but we think that would better take those into consideration during the COP discussions. So colleagues, can we approve the CRP as a whole? Okay, I see Saudi Arabia and Fiji. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We believe that this document is very sensitive for us. So we would like to go over it paragraph by paragraph. Thank you.

I would take the intervention by Fiji followed by the Russian Federation. Fiji, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, sorry, good evening colleagues. Madam Chair, I believe there may be some omissions in the producing process of the preparation process of the CRP. We, on behalf of PCCs, did not agree to uplift the footnote on the criteria discussions. but we do not see this footnote in this text so we did note that there was a bracket within a bracket and there was a request for the brackets to be placed on the footnote that we would like replaced uh to be put back on this CRP we are okay with the brackets being uh being placed but we are not okay or with the decision that it is uplifted without our knowledge or without any consensus on this regard thank you.

Thank you, Fiji. I think that the Secretariat knows what you are referring to. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We do believe that we don't have enough time to go paragraph by paragraph, but we do realize it's a very sensitive document for many parties, so we can't accept your approach to retain as it is, but we would like to suggest we can incorporate in the report that we do not have enough time to negotiate it, and there it is big divergence into many issues in the document. Thank you.

Thank you very much, China, for helping us to arrive at the way forward. Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. For us too, this is a very, very sensitive topic, something which goes back to the negotiation of the global framework. It's always been controversial since then. If we reopen the discussion paragraph by paragraph, we really won't make any progress. And for this reason, we back your proposal to consider the CRP as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Cameroon, Maldives. Maldives, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Sorry, Madam Chair. We would like to reflect on the annex one of the CRP because we did make some suggestions during our early submission and during the contact group, but we don't see it in the CRP that has been developed. If you allow me, I could read our concerns.

I would ask you to bear with me a minute, Maldives. I will now give the floor to Qatar. Qatar, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did participate in the discussions with good faith with a view to reaching a consensus on paragraph 12 of the informal of the CRP. During discussions, more than 80 states asked frankly to delete option B. Despite those efforts, we did not reach a consensus, which led us to present an alternative concern.

So we want a better mainstreamed, streamlined SBI document.

So we would like to respectfully ask for the deletion of option B. and by that the SBI will focus its efforts more effectively. We do however support Saudi Arabia's proposal to discuss the discussion paragraph by paragraph so that we can at least try to reach a consensus and delete the brackets as much as we can.

Thank you.

Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would just like to express our support for your suggestion to consider the whole, the document as a whole. We also have some concerns with some elements in the draft, but we don't think we have the time to do it now and we think it's better addressed at the COP, so we support your suggestion. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Norway. So I have consulted with the Secretariat, and I would like to ask Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Maldives to please be flexible on that. We don't have the time to go forward paragraph by paragraph on the CRP and the whole idea of convening a contact group. was to try to reach some consensus. Unfortunately, of course, we were pressured by time and we could not arrive at a consensus. And of course, all your concerns could be brought to COP. So I would like to really ask for your flexibility on that. So your concerns would be reflected in the report. And I understand that Maldives also has some concerns about annex, some suggestions that you made for the annex. But of course, this whole document is open. I would like to make this very clear. I think that we have some texts that it's not really bracketed, but as a whole, so that we could reach a compromise during COP, this document could be discussed. So I see Central African Republic followed by the Maldives and the Russian Federation. Central African Republic, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The Central African Republic wishes to back Cameroon, and I believe that Madam Chair, I would like to start by paying tribute to your courage and we remain optimistic that we will approve this CRP because in the contact groups we were not able to reach a compromise and for this reason it would be very difficult for us to achieve a compromise here in the plenary going paragraph by paragraph. So I back Cameroon, let us just adopt it as a whole.

Thank you very much for your collaboration, Central African Republic. I would like now to give the floor to the Maldives. Maldives, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Maldives also agree that we should take the CRP as a whole. However, we would like to note that we took up this issue before and in the first non-paper, the paragraph in annex 1D, it was there. However, we note that it was removed later on and we raised the issue with the Chair as well as with the Secretariat and we were given confirmation that no text will be lost. However, the text does not appear in the current CRP. That's why we would like to retain it, not to solve it at this point, to retain the annex D, annex 1 D, in the CRP. We do not want to try and resolve anything at this point. Thank you.

While the Secretariat is looking for the relevant insertion, please, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We support your proposal. We support Chinese proposal. We go in line with what was said by Cameroon and Central African Republic, nothing is agreed before it is agreed at COP. So we all know that and we all go to Yerevan to negotiate there in a good face. So I what request, urge, encourage, invite as appropriate and where applicable to adopt this document as it is and move. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I will now lodge Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we are not opposing to your proposal and as Russian Federation and many other parties have said, we are happy to adopt it as a whole. However, there is a editorial error in the paper and I think that must be fixed because the reason why Fiji had inserted those that footnote is purely based on what Russia has just mentioned as appropriate however you want to put it as applicable this is for us our our indication that we will go to Ervan and have an opportunity to discuss the criteria at large and also be in a position to discuss additional language because we have not had much time. So we support Russia and China in the intervention. You can reflect it in the report. We would like that the L document at least would have the footnote. That's all we are asking for. It's nothing. It's a footnote. And the footnote is not an extensive arts. So we hope that PC's request is respected in this room, given that we came into this space asking a very simple thing. which is that it's non-prescriptive in brackets, give us the time to go to Iran and negotiate in good faith. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Fiji. I will give the floor to Qatar, followed by Botswana. Qatar, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

The whole document.

Of course, we can put it all between brackets. I understand as it was stated here, it's all subject to negotiations during COP. I will give the floor to Brazil and then I would like to make a proposal. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair for giving us the floor.

We would like to support you on your proposal to consider the CRP as a whole. However, we do acknowledge the concerns raised by Fiji and by the Maldives. We do understand there are some pieces of text missing but we believe Madam Chair with the Secretariat could find a way to arrange that and still consider the CRP as a whole so we make the best use of our time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. It's really good to see that we Brazilians think alike because that would be my proposal that you could please trust me and the Secretariat. We will incorporate the footnote asked by Fiji and of course the insertion or the text of Maldives, we do understand that this were lost during negotiations and it's a procedural error. And then I would like to propose that we adopt this CRP as a whole under the understanding that our document will recuperate those two features. So, and of course, the text will be bracketed as requested by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Could you please get along with those suggestions? Thank you. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As I said before, this is very sensitive document for us. And if you are not willing to open it by then we may suggest that bracket the whole text, but each paragraph in this document should be bracketed separately. Thank you, Chair.

Saudi Arabia, are you sure that we have to bracket each paragraph separately? Could I ask for a flexibility on that? Of course, the whole document is bracketed. And we did have some advancement on discussing this text. And as I've said, this document will be fully discussed during COP. So could we be flexible on that, Saudi Arabia? I'll give the floor to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will have the floor.

Madam Chair, we don't see any harm in bracketing each barrel here. So as long as it's gonna be discussed in the cup, so please accept our proposal. It's for the spirit of compromising here. Thank you.

Of course, no, I will accept it. I was trying. Of course, I'm always in your hands. So Russian Federation followed by European Union, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And we, of course, also like to kindly ask our colleagues from Saudi Arabia to maybe reconsider this approach. So many, many parties, we're working many, many hours during this meeting to go through this document and by collective effort achieved at least some clean paragraphs. the whole document is already put in square brackets. That actually means that in Yerevan the entire document can be opened. Unfortunately maybe for some paragraphs but it can be opened. So with this understanding and again with understanding that nothing is agreed until agreed at the last point moment with L document in Yerevan. So I think that we should also value and respect the hard work of all colleagues in this room during those hours here in Nairobi. And at least those paragraphs which have no square brackets can go this way to Yerevan being still bracketed in total as a document. So once again, I just like to ask Saudi Arabia, please, if you can reconsider and we can adopt the document as it is and the entire document in square brackets. And I will reiterate with a full understanding that we will come to this document again in what, in two months or one and a half months. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I would like also to underscore that, of course, with a bracketed every text, we are lost. We don't know, we are not in a position to know what we have discussed here. And that's my main concern because it's also a procedural aspect. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. My understanding of the exercise of tonight or dealing with CRPs is that we are looking to verify whether the CRP is an accurate reflection of what has been discussed in the contact group. And there our conclusion was yes, it is an accurate reflection, okay, a few, maybe a bracket here and a word there, but otherwise, or a footnote for that matter. But otherwise, I think from our side, we can easily say this is a correct reflection of what has been discussed. And I agree with the Russian colleague. There has been a lot of work put into this document. Some things have been agreed, and I'm very grateful for the fact that those things at least have been agreed, because then we don't need to go through them in great detail again in Yerevan. We have enough, I think, on this file to go through. So I would very much support the approach that you have suggested, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. European Union, Peru. Peru, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I align myself with what Russia and European Union said to us. those opposing to reconsider their proposal. We've worked a lot on this and there is a lot of consensus text here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Peru, Qatar. Qatar, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, first of all, thank you very much for the hard work. And I do understand the views of the delegates from Russia and all the other parties. and based on what they've said I do understand why they wouldn't want to bracket the whole thing just to show that the work that has been done however we would like possibly to have a statement to be included in the report of the meeting to state that, you know, when we had three options, A, B, and C, which was presented by several parties, we did submit a statement with over 80 delegations requesting that option B be removed. Then we went to the chair meetings. with the intention of actually coming to a resolution. And that is how we came up with option D. However, at the end of the meeting, we just want to state that we did go in with the intention of coming to a conclusion and coming of a collective agreement so that when we go to COP, we have something that isn't too difficult for them to deal with over there. And which would show as a delegate of Rashid said, that we did do a lot of work. here and it would it would be reflected at cop what we want to put in a statement is that we did work we did do you know we did we did try our best to come to a conclusion however at the end of the meeting they still reverted back to a b and c even though our understanding from the beginning was to come to a conclusion and come to a compromise which we did put, and if you read option D, it does show that first of all, we need to start off with understanding the articles, and then, so it gives it a process and gives it due diligence to get to that point. However, after we tried, all the delegates, they did try really hard, we still, we went back to the point that, no, no, A, B, and C. which from the beginning our understanding was we were working towards getting rid of B and finding a compromise. So possibly, if it is possible, that we put a small statement in there stating that, you know, 80 plus delegates worked, since this is supposed to showcase everything COP, so just a small statement stating that our understanding was A, B, and C. were being looked at, D was looked at the possible option to replace A, B and C, however, we came back with A, B, C and an extra D. So if that could be reflected in the statement, then that's fine, we can, you know, we don't mind that we just bracket the whole document, as everyone said, and not each paragraph. And thank you.

Thank you very much, Qatar, for flexibility. Of course, you can prepare a statement to be inserted in the report reflecting your concerns. Every delegation can do that. Thank you. And thank you very much for your flexibility. I think it will help us in Yerevan. Argentina, Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We support what others have said. Just for clarification, this draft CLP has two sections, the decision from the SBI and the recommendation to COP. We just want to ensure that we're not going to put the entire document in brackets because the first section can't be in brackets because that's a decision from this body. Thank you.

Thank you very much Argentina for bringing this up. I understand that this is our understanding as well. If the SBI is part is in brackets, there is no decision from SBI. Yes. And so, colleagues, given all the explanation and the discussions that we had here, Can we approve the CRP as a whole under the understanding that two procedural items that have been lost during the negotiations will be reinserted into the L document and of course that the whole recommendations to the COP will be in brackets Okay, I see no objections. Thank you so much, colleagues. So CRP8 is approved. Oh, Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Well, Chair, we are in your hands.

We think that we could live with CRP8.

with bracketing the whole text but taken into consideration our colleagues from Qatar the points that raised it's very important

for us too thank you chair

thank you very much Saudi Arabia thank you indeed for your flexibility and consideration and we would be more than happy than that you, Qatar, and any other parties could come with a text that reflects your concerns to the report of the meeting. And then now, yes, CRP8 is approved. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you. Yes. Okay, let me ask if we are in a position to take L6 now or not. No, we are not. So thank you very much, colleagues. I'm always trying, I'm always trying. Yes, thank you very much colleagues. I will pass the floor for the secretariat for some announcements. We did make some progress today and I thank you really. Thank you. Have a good rest.

So no major announcement from the secretariat side.

I think we we did fly very fast towards the end. We are catching up and hopefully we will be landing in Yerevan safely very soon. So see you tomorrow for the plenary. Thank you very much. Wish you a nice evening.