(8th Session) 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-27)

Dear delegates, please take your seats. Please take your seats, dear delegates. Thank you, delegates. This is our last plenary session, and we have seven CRPs to approve. I would therefore like to proceed in the following way: We will begin with the 3L document and then take up each of the remaining CRPs. We will begin with L4 on the global review. L4 on agenda item global review. We work very hard on this document through contact groups, and we consider it in detail this morning. Given this, can we approve this L document in its entirety? The L4 is adopted. Now, let me move to the L2 on agenda item 8, invasive alien species. Yesterday, we approved the CRP for item 8, invasive alien species, which is now L2, ready for our adoption or approbation. As you may recall, we spent quite a bit of time discussing this item yesterday and did our best to achieve a compromise and move forward. You may also recall my several pleas for keeping the discussion only on the purely technical and scientific issue. Therefore, the delegates I hope that this evening, you will hold my hand and follow my lead to allow me to serve you in my function as chair of this meeting. My sincere hope is that we can start this evening on a positive note. showing that we are all here with the same objective, to do our best to ensure that the work under the Convention is technically solid and moves forward. With this, colleagues, I will now propose document SUBSTA/27/L.2, invasive alien species, for adoption. Can we adopt this document as it is? Denmark, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The EU and its Member States note that under agenda item 9 on biodiversity and agriculture, and also under our current agenda item on invasive alien species, Operational paragraphs that make requests to the Executive Secretary remain bracketed, despite the overwhelming consensus on substance. We should bear in mind that the mandate of SABSTA is to provide scientific, technical and technological advice. We disagree with this approach, as this is not standard practice. Decision 16/28 already provides a process to ensure that the administrative and financial implications of each draft decision can be considered by parties to link up. This statement applies to all agenda items that contain requests to the Executive Secretary, although for the sake of time, we will not repeat it under each of the agenda items. We ask the Secretariat to clearly reflect this statement in the report of the meeting under each of the relevant agenda items. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Please, I want to remind you that intervention should focus only on ensuring that the L documents are faithful to our approval. Delegation should avoid reopening agreed text or on introducing new issues at this stage. I count on your support in this regard. And in this regard, I call upon again to be constructive, avoid to reopen the floor. Please, can we adopt this document as? Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Norway, we need to support the statement by EU and its member states. Thank you.

Thank you. UK, you have the floor.

We would also like to support the statement by the EU and its member states.

The last one, please, will be Swaziland, then I conclude the discussion. Mexico, you have the floor, followed by Switzerland, and it will be the last one, please.

Thank you, Chairman. We agree with the statements made, and we would like to once again ask the Russian delegation if we can delete those brackets. The brackets are not in accordance with the substantive procedures. This is for the COP, and there's just one party that's keeping us away from consensus and preventing us from doing our job. There are very specific suggestions on activities that need to be carried out in these paragraphs, and it's up to the COP to take these decisions. I think it would be a bad precedent to start doing things like this. Perhaps an alternative would be to mark these paragraphs not with brackets, but state that this would have financial implications that the COP would have to consider. Perhaps that would be a way out to dispel the concern of Russia, but I don't think we should have brackets. It's just one party that's holding up consensus. Thank you.

Thank you. Mexico? I will take the last two interventions. Switzerland and then Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Switzerland strongly supports the statements by Denmark, Norway, and Mexico. Thank.

You.

Before I give the floor to Egypt, I would like to request the distinguished delegate of Russia, if you can accept Mexico's proposal.

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor. So I will not take long, as I 25 times explained before the position. I also like to say that that's not a unilateral position. This point was initially brought by a different country, and there are a number of countries who like to proceed with this approach. I also like to stress that yesterday the contact group, in a good faith, we actually trying to offer a certain compromise solution. We stay long with the co-chairs of the group after the meeting and with the secretariat and developed potential way forward. We spent time today with a small group. I am thankful to members of that small group. after the meeting, and all those efforts were not taken on board, so we don't have any choice as just to proceed with our request, as any of our attempts to find some kind of solutions were not taken on board. So thanks a lot for the distinguished delegate of Mexico for their suggestion. We tried, so it didn't work, so we stay as it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Egypt, do you still want the floor? You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Egypt strongly supports the statement given by Mexico because we feel it is not fair. After all, this request, you are requesting the Secretary. Secretary to do this kind of work, which is part of their usual work. Alternatively, if it is possible, to delete the brackets, and then we have maybe a statement from Russia on the report. That could be a compromise. But it's not fair that an issue like invasive alien species with all problems related to it, and like climate change, like world trade, and a lot of work have been done over almost 30 years. And it's simple for us. Just remove the brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. I see no more request the floor. Document SUB/27/L.2 is adopted. Thank you. Now, let’s move to L.3 on agenda item 10, biodiversity and health. We will now proceed with document SUBSTAH/27/L13 and their agenda item, biodiversity and health. As you know, we have on this document in the recommendation for SUBSTAH and those for COP. And I have news that there have been some development concerning the brackets in paragraph 1 of the recommendation to SASTA. I will give the floor to Germany to share the news with us all. Germany, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am happy that we can help you to move forward in this item by just stating that the informal consultations have brought a result, which means we delete what is in the brackets, so the five words in the brackets and to consider relevant processes can be deleted, so this bracket is gone and the substantive recommendation will be clean with this, and States Parties involved with this are all behind this proposal and solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Germany. Thank you very much to the facilitators who assisted me in having clean text. I'm very appreciative of your efforts, and I hope that this signal that we there is good spirit in the room. I could have not done this alone. So, thank you again to those who have assisted me on this process. With this good, I will present to you document SUB/27/L.3 for adoption. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to refer to paragraph 7A, which, although it's all in brackets, 7E, so we ask that the brackets of 7E be deleted so that we can keep the text. It's important for the activities of the Interagency Liaison Group on Biodiversity and Health that continue their work. We believe that there were delays during COVID, and so it's important to keep up the collaboration between our Convention with the WHO. We understand that everything is in brackets and 7, but if we take the brackets out in subparagraph (e), we would be very grateful. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico. I just would like to remind you that this is a recommendation addressed to the COP, and all of the decisions addressed to COP, if we did not achieve consensus here, are recommendations that go directly to COP, where we will be able to negotiate and we'll have sufficient time to do so. Therefore, I would like to beg your indulgence. And so L3 is adopted.

Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you. The colleagues, we will now take up CRP 3. When we opened this item this morning, I did not see opposition to many of the suggestions made. After informal consultation among some parties, I'm happy to inform you that we have a resolution for some of the paragraphs that were bracketed. Now I'm asking Netherlands to inform us of these results. Netherlands, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. You caught me by surprise here, to be honest. I believe you are referring to the small group regarding the bracketing of the paragraphs, and we have just already had a discussion on that. So perhaps you should call on another colleague. Thank you.

Thank you, Nederland. Then I will ask the Secretariat to read the recommendation as it now stands. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For paragraph 1, after informal consultation, we removed the brackets. So now the paragraph 1 is clean. It was before. Paragraph two, it reads, paragraph two reads, invites the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, comma, including through the framework of the Global Soil Partnership and Global Soil Biodiversity Observatory, comma, to continue facilitating the implementation of the Plan of Action, involving parties, other governments, subnational governments at all levels, and relevant organizations, in alignment with the CUMI Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including, inter alia, through national reports and global assessments, and through the provision of open square brackets, financial resources, close square brackets, capacity building and technological transfer for developing countries, in particular the least developed and small island developing states, among them, comma, other countries with economies in transition, comma, and to report on progress to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at the meeting held before the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Paragraph 3 reads: Encourage Parties to integrate the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of soil biodiversity in their Open Square Bracket National biodiversity strategies and action plans, and in climate and land policy instruments through biodiversity inclusive spatial planning conducted in a participatory manner. In the alternative text, national plans, close square bracket, comma, as appropriate. So paragraph 4 is entirely between square brackets. Paragraph 5, the only change is after Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in order to implement coherent, and this word was deleted and integrated. The rest continues the same. Paragraph 6, it reads: invites parties and encourages other parties in the position to do so, multilateral funds and relevant organizations, to provide open square bracket financial resources, close square bracket. And it continues, as it was after consultation with the parties that raised this issue, they agreed to delete "after indigenous people in local communities." So this part is deleted, "with their free, prior, informed consent as appropriate." So this sentence reads, "Indigenous peoples and local communities, farmers, pastoralists," and it continues until the end. Paragraph 7 reads, it starts with a square bracket, and actually it's the whole paragraph. Paragraph 8 invites relevant global and regional organizations, as well as academic institutions and other agricultural research institutions, and it continues as it was. Paragraph 9, it reads now, "Note the ongoing work on microorganism and invertebrate genetic resources, as well as on biodiversity for food and agriculture, conduct by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture." And it continues. Paragraph 10, it reads, "Welcomes the 25th anniversary of the International Initiative for the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators, it invites the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and encourages Parties and other Governments to strengthen the implementation of the initiative by enhanced actions, notably with regard to wild pollinators, according to their national legislation and circumstances. From paragraph 11 to the end, it's bracket. And just to read, it's all bracket, yes.

Thank you, Secretariat. Just to remind that.

We have spent a lot of time discussing this text. I believe that we have found a good compromise. Regarding documents addressed to COP, we will be able to negotiate during the COP meeting, and it is not necessary to continue negotiating the documents here in SUBSTA. In that event.

And I ask you, can we approve this CRP with some changes?

I see one request for the floor from Saudi Arabia. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. In the early morning, we had asked to have encouraged the parties that are capable to do so between two brackets. Could you please add it between two brackets? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Your proposal will be taken into account. Mexico, you have the floor. This will be the last party to take the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. In paragraph 2, I seem to recall that there was no proposal to delete through the provision of financial resources. I think it's very important because we can't ask an organization outside of the Convention for funds, and I don't remember that there was any position to this effect, so perhaps that can be deleted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mexico. Can we approve the CRP? France, you have the floor.

France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to have some clarification on that last statement. reference to financial resources, is it in square brackets or not in this paragraph?

Thank you, France. All the proposals, the whole proposal is in brackets here, and I will ask the Secretary to reread the text.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So now I will read just this sentence from paragraph 2. it reads, "through the provision of capacity building and technological transfer" and it continues.

So as I had already mentioned, the text that was proposed is in brackets. The documents will be sent to COP to be able to continue the negotiation there.

The CRP3 is approved. Colleagues, I wish to proceed in the following way. Immediately following the approval of each CRP, I will resubmit for adoption the CRP as an L document, with any amendments. This means that there will be no L document before you, but the approved CRP will immediately be adopted as an L document. I trust this approach will be acceptable. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would request kindly for some clarification on the matter. Usually, when we have the opportunity to look at L documents, we have the chance to see whether the document reflects our understanding of the approved CRP, and it is the time to address any perceived discrepancy and be able to address it. So if we're not going to have L documents, I ask for your guidance as to what would be the instance in which we would have that opportunity to make sure that our agreements are adequately reflected to each of our understandings. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. As I had just mentioned, at this stage of the discussions, All of the documents that are bracketed are to be sent directly to COP. And what we approved as a CRP in the space of a second will not be changed. So it will become an L document at the COP. This is what I am proposing. There is no possibility to make changes in the CRP 3 that we just adopted before it becomes a document, an L document, because CRP 3 contains brackets. I see Japan. I hope that Japan wishes to support me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to ask the Secretariat to clarify how would the Secretariat accommodate our opinion, our discussion in the morning session. You know, understanding some paragraphs like paragraph 6 and so on have many various opinions, so it is very difficult to conclude to make a conclusion for the single or single conclusion. So I think that it is very difficult to make a decision to this item can be a document or adopted as a CRP as a whole. So I just want to ask the Secretary to clarify this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan.

Before giving the floor to the Secretariat, I would like to remind us once again that at this level, at this point in time, we have parts of the document that is bracketed, and those documents with brackets will be going directly to the COP. We cannot reopen the debate to see if we can find agreement, because we are no longer in negotiation. The negotiations will happen during the COP meeting. So I just want to make sure that the bracketed texts, once we have the bracketed documents, we can move ahead.

Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Where there were more than one alternative and where there were objections, all the text is in square brackets. So it is adopted, it is approved with the square brackets going forward.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for your clear explanation of the procedure. I would only beg for your indulgence in proceeding through the documents a little bit more slower, allowing a little bit more time for us to identify each document and be able to open it, so we might follow your guidance more clearly. And if possible, if you may announce now at the beginning the order in which we consider the documents, then we might be prepared already with our documents to follow the discussions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. We have discussed and spent quite a bit of time discussing. In the contact groups and in the plenary, we have reviewed these documents. We have proposed square brackets. It is no longer possible to reopen discussions on the brackets regarding documents that have brackets in them. All the documents with brackets integrated into them will be sent to COP. The only thing is that what I ask the Secretariat to read, make sure there are, we will check if there are brackets in those documents. If so, those documents will go directly to COP. Before giving additional explanations, oh, in fact, after giving, I will give the floor to Egypt and then the Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to remind all of our colleagues that this is not the first time that you are proposing the same thing. If our colleagues during the Substate 25 and 26, most of the documents were rejected and they went straight to that cup. So we should get on and finish the job we are supposed to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Egypt, Germany, then I give the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one more point for clarification. I assume when you said that everything what is bracketed and is not agreed will remain in brackets and will be sent to COP, that is fully clear. But what if in the substantive recommendation there is still something bracketed? I assume that this will be brought to the floor here and we'll try to resolve this, right?

Thank you, Germany. Yes. The answer is yes for recommendations addressed to SUBSTA, but for recommendations going to COP, these documents will go as is. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The order of the documents or the items is going to be item 5, CRP9; item 7, CRP8; item 6B, CRP5; item 4, CRP1; Item 6A, CRP 7. Item 6C, CRP 10.

Thank you.

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

Just a quick question, Secretariat, can you list them again? Sorry.

Thank you, Chair.

The delegates might also wish to go to the conference webpage under the schedule. The documents are listed in order, the items and the documents are listed in order on that webpage. But just in case you might not have access to the webpage, I can read it out again. So, it is item 5, CRP9; item 7, CRP8; item 6B, CRP5; item 4, CRP1; item 6A, CRP7; and item 6C, CRP10. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. I see no more requests for the floor. We can continue, and I imagine that you agreed with my proposal. Now, i would like now to submit CRP3 as an L document with small amendment. This will be document L/11. I submit for adoption document L/11. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see no request. The floor. L/11 is adopted.

Thank you, distinguished delegates, for this spirit of compromise.

The next item, CRP 9 on agenda item 5, biodiversity and climate change. The co- the delegates, when we closed the plenary for lunch, we had heard some input from parties on the CRP before us. Colleagues, please allow me to remind you of the hard work and consensus that had been achieved on this agenda item this week. I understand that there were some informal consultations seeking to resolve the remaining concern with the unbracketed text, and wish to propose the following approach: First, the annex will be bracketed. For paragraph 6 of the Substantive Recommendation, where a party requested the footnote, I propose that the paragraph be moved in its entirety to the draft COP decision, with the footnote and bracketed as a new para 9bis. For paragraph 8 and 9 of the subsidiary recommendation, I recognize the concern raised by a Party. and that informal consultation were enabled to find compromise text. I therefore propose that these two para are deleted from this recommendation, noting para 22E of Decision 16/35 on cooperation with other organizations as requested the Secretariat to report to the Subsidiary Body on implementation at its meeting on requested activities that include those to which paragraph 8 and 9 were related to. Dear colleagues, I ask if, with these changes, we can adopt this CRP in its entirety. I can recognize Brazil, followed by Norway and Canada. Canada will be the last one. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the efforts made to find a good way forward regarding the brackets in this text. Brazil, as the incoming Presidency of COP30, supports the maintenance of paragraph 8. We see real value in fostering closer collaboration among the Rio Conventions. And we understand that this approach will also contribute to the success of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, by advancing an integrated vision that reinforce the implementation of the three conventions in a complementary and mutually supportive manner, while also respecting the respective mandate of each convention. As a compromise package to facilitate consensus regarding what one party had expressed before, we would propose deleting paragraph 9 and maintaining paragraph 8. We would also reiterate our request to insert text regarding paragraph 6 of the COP decision. We understand that this might be sensitive, but we see that if we don't deal with this now, we would just be postponing a discussion to COP. And we have already been working on some language that might be very helpful for the discussions that we will have next year in Armenia. So we are at your hands, but we hope to count with your understanding and indulgence. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. In the interest of time, we implore all parties to not add new language at this point. We had a clean recommendation text from the contact group. Our time here is very limited, and we need to get through all items in this last session. We urge the Chair not to open the clean text from the contact group. In order to move forward, perhaps Argentina or others could note their views in the report of the meeting. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Norway. Canada, you have the floor, followed by Germany, then Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support the proposal made by Brazil. We'd like to retain paragraph 8, and we'd also like to support the proposal by Norway just now. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Germany, then Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we would align ourselves with Brazil and Canada, but would like also to take the opportunity If there's compromise text possible to include further additions from OP.9 into OP.8, this would be in our way also a good way forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. And I thank our colleague from Brazil for the explanation and the proposed compromise. We still consider that these matters are better placed for the SBI consideration, but in considering that in particular paragraph 8 would not be possible in time for the timeline mentioned, we are in agreement to the compromise solution Brazil proposed, which would be to keep paragraph 8 and delete paragraph 9. also support your other proposal for solution for paragraph 6. I remind that I requested a similar thing on paragraph 5, and it was not reflected. And that would be all. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. The last one will be New Zealand.

Thank you, Chair. We'll simply support the statements of Norway and Germany at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the Secretariat. Secretariat, can you provide us some changes?

Thank you, Chair. It is the understanding of the Secretariat that the request is currently to keep paragraph 8, but to delete paragraph 9. Paragraph 6 is moved to the draft decision as 9 bis and is placed in brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. I don't see any requests for the floor. Norway and Saudi Arabia. Germany.

Thank you, Chair. Just a point of clarification. When para 6 is moved as para 9 bis in brackets, is what's moved the same as the clean text from the SIPS recommendation?

Thank you, will be in the footnotes. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a remark on paragraph 10, and we want this paragraph to be bracketed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Germany, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We understand that we are here in a scientific and technical advice body. and OP.9 included clear reference to an expert-driven approach. So we believe this notion on expert-led activities, in our understanding, should be included in any formulation of the OP.8, which focuses on technical information exchanges at an expert-driven level. So we would be happy to provide additional compromise text in order to reflect that point. And if you would allow, I could also read it out. Thank you.

Thank you, Germany.

But at this stage, I am looking for solutions. Would any parties like to offer a solution, help me out? Otherwise, I'll say this: at the point we're at, there is no longer any scope for negotiations, and this is not the place for negotiations. Negotiations will take place at the COP. So I propose that The elements that go into the sub 2 recommendations are scientific, and they make no demands on the COP. So in principle, in theory, these recommendations should not be discussed at great length. But the recommendations proposed for the COP Those are the ones that will be negotiated at the next COP. So I beg your indulgence once again, that any recommendations for SUBSTA should be without brackets, and that the brackets should be for the recommendations to COP. So if you can accept my proposal, then we can move ahead. Let me give the floor to the DRC, who I'm sure will have a solution. DRC, you have the floor.

Chairman, we propose that the annex be placed in brackets in its entirety.

Thank you, DRC. That is one of the documents going to the COP, so that is accepted. Argentina, you have the floor.

Chair, as I mentioned earlier, during our previous session, I requested to delete paragraph 5, I explained that Argentina believes that it is preferable that the considerations on policy coherence be left to parties themselves to avoid proposing one-size-fits-all approaches, and that in exchange, later on in the cooperation with other organizations, some text could be considered on the call for coordination or enhancing coordination between respective national focal points, and we did not hear the way forward with this paragraph that we requested to the earlier. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Let me once again ask for your indulgence. Thank you. So can I propose that we could find a compromise on these elements? I propose that a small group get together at the back of the room. Argentina, Norway. Brazil. Germany. So, with that, we will continue. And the instructions for the small group are to discuss paragraph 5 and 6. that are correlated? Thank you. So, I'll remind you of the correlated paragraphs that are not yet agreed on. That's paragraphs 5 and 8.

So, can we?

Quickly allow this small group to get together at the back of the room and find a solution, and with that, we will move on to the next topic. So, on that basis, we are going to continue to item 7, and that is CRP 8.

Nigeria. Nigeria, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, I don't mean to take you back, but I think the instruction on what that group is doing wasn't clear enough, because what we had here is for paragraph 9 to be deleted, and paragraph 8, which we found a compromise with Brazil. My understanding is that what this group will be discussing is paragraph 5. So if you can take the para that the group will address again? I think we seem to be confused here. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nigeria. The discussion will be about para 5, para 5 and 8. Please, Nigeria, could you repeat what you said earlier?

Chair, my understanding of the discussion I heard here is that Germany had requested for an element in paragraph 9. to be part of eight, so I would say the group should be discussing that so that they don't come back and look at five, and then we start arguing about nine again, because I heard Germany talk about some elements in nine that they want to see under eight. So I think the group should look at the three paragraphs at the same time so we can have a solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Nigeria. And on your proposal, we will This small group will discuss on paragraph 5, 8, and 9. Thank you very much, Nigeria. On that, I mentioned earlier, now we will consider the CRP 8. Norway, we have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We understood you that para 6 has been, which was clean, has been proposed to move to the COP decision, para 9 bis, with new language from Argentina in brackets. we would like to add the following text in brackets in the footnote of the paragraph 9 bis: "Adopted at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." This is so that both views are reflected in the brackets. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chairman. I am not sure I followed that, but I would like your guidance as to how we will proceed to the review of CRP 8. But as I understand it, this was what was said was for the previous CRP. Could you please clarify? Thank you.

Thank you, Togo. Yes, indeed. My clarification was on the CRP regarding climate change and biodiversity. And for that, there's a small group to discuss paragraphs 5, 8, and 9. And now, we're going to commence review of CRP 8 on item 7. So is that what you were asking clarification for?

Togo, you have the floor.

Okay, thank you. Yes, it was for that. We would like to express our thanks for all the efforts and the negotiations, and tell you that we are entirely in agreement with the procedure you're outlining to help these negotiations to a successful end. On CRP 8, I'd like to understand the procedure.

The Chair, if I can interrupt the distinguished delegate of Togo, I have not yet explained CRP 7, so if you allow me, I will give you an explanation and then I will give you back the floor. Thank you.

The colleagues, we will now take up CRP8 on risk assessment and risk management of living modified organisms. The CRP was developed by the contact group on risk assessment and risk management, which met twice and advised the text significantly. During the afternoon sitting of the plenary, the co-chair of the contact group presented the progress made and the outcomes of the deliberations. Given that the CRP before us is the outcomes of the two contact group sessions, I suggest that we adopt CRP as a whole. Option one Finland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Finland is making a statement that we wish to be added into the meeting report, and it reads as follows: Finland has informally consulted a large group of party colleagues from different regions and would like to suggest alternative text to Annex 1, paragraph 1d. We believe that this would help to take care of the concerns raised around the term technical notes. The D-alt would read as follows: Develop concise supplementary guidance for voluntary use that provides specific, clear and focused information for and then the possible topics are in brackets. After this, after the brackets, the text continues as in D. So it reads, "comma, in accordance with Annex 3 to the Protocol and avoiding duplication with existing guidance materials, comma, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body at meeting held before the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol." Full stop. Then new text: "The guidance may include procedural or practical elements or points to consider during risk assessment." Full stop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Hungary. Then Germany.

Thank you, Chairman. What has just been said by Finland. So yesterday, the contact group had finished its work due to procedural reasons and time constraints. However, after the meeting, parties were keen on proceeding on certain elements of the text which remain undiscussed. We continued working informally, as just was mentioned by Finland. Quite a number of participants were discussing these elements. We think that we made very good progress, and at the end of our discussions, we found a compromise on the paragraph, as mentioned by Finland, in the annex, paragraph 1d. We have a compromise text in our hands. which is not incorporated in the CRP at this point. So my suggestion would be to include it into the document now. Since the annex is already in brackets in the CRP right now, I see no difficulties to include this compromise text into the document. I would like to kindly ask you to consider my suggestion, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now I am giving the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The text in the annex, paragraph 1D, would read: Develop concise supplementary guidance for voluntary use that provides specific, clear, and focused information for (YY) representing the topics, operationalizing protection goals into relevant assessment and measurement endpoints, the use of living modified organisms in centres of origin and in traditional agricultural systems, and bracket, comma, in accordance with Annex 3 to the Protocol and avoiding duplication with existing guidance materials, comma, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body at a meeting held before the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol, full stop. The guidance may include procedural or practical elements or points to consider during risk assessment, full stop. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. Are there any objections to what was just read by the Secretariat. I would then invite those that are in opposition to raise their cards. I see Brazil, who is in opposition, Togo. Okay, then I will give the floor to Brazil and then Togo. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, Brazil could not take place, participate in the discussions of the Friends of the Chair. We are a small delegation of negotiators, and we don't particularly oppose to the language that is proposed. But if we are to accept this language, I would like the paragraph that we were proposing just a few minutes before to be considered again. We would very strongly ask for consistency in the conduction of the work, because if we are adding language now, we should allow Parties to add language to the document. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. We welcome the work that was done. It's true that much effort was put in, but we think that we must nevertheless have some time to review. I don't know if this approach proposed is to replace D. We did not have the time to better review the new proposal. If it is going to be included as a DBIS, or an alternative D-Alt, so that the old version is kept, so that we could have the two texts side by side with a clear clarification in the form of a footnote explaining that the parties did not have the time to review this text. And therefore, this would allow us to come back to this. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Togo. Again, this is in the spirit of compromise. Panama, you have the floor, and then India.

Thank you, Chair. We support the concerns of Brazil and Togo regarding the initial proposal. We see Brazil's proposal that includes this element, and we would hope We would like to have the review opened again for Article 8, paragraph 8.

Thank you, panama. India.

Annexure 1, there is 1C, this living modified fish should be keep in bracket because Annexure 1 was not described in contact group. That's why our objection is there, living modified fish should keep in bracket.

Thank you, India. I'm going to turn towards the Secretariat and ask about the changes. Secretary, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the changes come in paragraph 1D of the annex. And the proposal would be that would be develop concise supplementary guidance for voluntary use that provides specific, clear, and focused information for bracket YY representing topics, and bracket operationalizing protection goals into relevant assessment and measurement endpoints, bracket, the use of living modified organisms in centres of origin and in traditional agricultural systems, in accordance with Annex III to the Protocol, and avoiding duplication with existing guidance materials, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body at a meeting held before the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, serving as the meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol. Full stop. The guidance may include procedural or practical elements or points to consider during risk assessment. Full stop. So in comparison to the original paragraph 1D of the annex, which originally used the term technical notes, this has been replaced with supplementary guidance for voluntary use. And the final sentence, starting with the guidance may include, has been added as a new addition. So that was the proposal from Finland. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. Just would like.

To remind you that the text is in brackets as is, and the proposals are also going to be in brackets. Therefore, the document will go to the COP as is with brackets. With that, I believe you agree with me.

Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman.

I think it's important to mention here that The translation into Spanish and other official languages is extremely important under the Convention and Protocol. We need to make sure that the translation is correct in the L document. So I suggest that for this document, and only on this issue, we work on a publishable version, and we agree on it before the night is closed. Thank you.

Dear colleagues, I appeal to you to please work with me. I understand that this item is very important for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. I deeply appreciate that colleagues are disappointed that SACSAR was not able to advance the recommendation to any COP/MOP any further. I trust that during the intervening period to COP/MOP 12, parties will be able to reflect further and have more clarity on this important issue. Now, i would like to resubmit SABSAR CRP-8. Now, I submit the CRP to you to be approved. I see no request for Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to reiterate the appeal that I just made. I think it's important. to not approve this document until we have seen Finland’s proposal for this. I think we are in a position to approve the document for COP, but until we can see the proposal in black and white, we can’t move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, panama. I need to remind you that nothing has moved in an impasse. We are not in negotiations. Everything is in brackets. All of the proposals that you made are in brackets. That allows us to continue the discussion during COP/MOP 12. Unless you feel that there are places where we have forgotten to put brackets, but if everything is in brackets, the discussion will continue during COP 12. Brazil. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just a clarification, I would like to ask if we are, the CRP8, will follow with the inclusion of the language proposed by Finland. Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for the question. So the text proposed by Finland would be in brackets, so either represented in the paragraph itself or as a D-alt, but in brackets, just to be clear. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. As I said earlier, we will keep the document with the brackets. And now, I see no more requests. Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. I would like it to be stated for the minutes, once the document has been approved, that we expressed our concern about this and that the recommendation was not accepted. by the Bureau. Thank you.

Please, Panama, could you repeat your proposal?

Yes, thank you, Chairman. I would like it to be stated in minutes in this meeting that Panama expressed its concern that we didn't have a hard copy to review, either in Spanish or in English, and we ask that to be put in the minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. That is noted, and it will be reported in the report. Togo, you wish to take the floor? You have the floor.

Mr. Chair, it was possibly to expedite things, would it bother you if we kept this proposal without it being entered into the CRP to cover the concern of Panama?

Thank you, Togo. The concern of Panama, Panama's concern will be taken into account and reflected in the report. and the brackets remain in the document. With that, the document CRP8 is approved.

I will now like to resubmit CRP8 as a document with those small amendments. This will be L.6. I submit for adoption document L.6. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see no request. The floor, L.6 is adopted. The next item. Thank you. Now we will move to CRP 5 on item 6B, strategic review. The colleagues will now take up CRP 5 on agenda item 6B, strategic review and analysis of the programmes of the work under the Convention in the context of the framework. Colleagues, the CRP before you is the outcome of the work of a contact group, as reported to plenary on Wednesday. I recognize that there are square brackets in the draft decision. At the same time, I know that the document was thoroughly discussed in the contact group. Therefore, with the time in mind, I ask for your cooperation to accept my proposal to approve the document as a whole. Can you accept this and approve CRP.5 as a whole? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just seek some clarification on whether this is the text directly from the contact groups or some of the work done by small groups has been incorporated. If the Secretariat could point to how was the document prepared, it would be easier for us. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Now I'm giving the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you. So indeed, the outcomes of the small informal group that was tasked to review several paragraphs in the annex to this draft decision is included now in the document that you have in front of you, in this SRP 5.

Thank you, Secretariat. As you mentioned earlier, This CRP will be approved as a whole. Argentina, you have the floor, followed by Namibia.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Secretariat, for the explanation. We see that we had at our discussions requested to bracket paragraph what is now action 29. So we would prefer that you add that bracket around around action 29 and thanking the Secretariat for already including the proposed text from the small groups. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Namibia would like to make some minor amendments. We see that during the non-paper, under the annex, under target 1, 2, and 3, the first activity had protect and conserve all forests. But we see now that in the CRP, the all is deleted, and this has not been agreed in the small working group. Thank you. So I would like to reintroduce Aweit Ol.

Goede Namibia.

Thank you for the spirit of cooperation. I see other requests for the floor, then we will have Belgium and then Sweden, and that will be it.

Thank you, Chair. Just to seek some clarification, I am presuming that the word “all” will be re-added in brackets. That is correct? Thank you.

Thank you. Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you. We were asking for the same clarification, as long as all are in brackets, they can move.

On.

I think that is exactly what I said at the beginning, and that is that all of the recommendations that are addressed to the COP and have brackets will be going as is. There will be no more negotiations at this stage. The negotiations will continue at the COP. Are there other requests for the floor concerning this issue, or do you have other essential changes to propose?

Thank you, Chair. We have a small amendments on the action 31 in the annex. I'll read it. So, after address obstacles, we want to add comma, including green trade barriers, comma. Thank you.

Thank you, China. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would just like to clarify that the Annex is bracket. Japan fully appreciates the hard work undertaken in the Contact Group and welcomes the streamlined list of action in the annex. However, we note that some of the action in the CRP do not seem to fully reflect the discussion in the Contact Group, such as item 33. Therefore, we would like to put brackets around the item 33. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

I would like to remind you that the whole document is bracketed, and that the brackets that were proposed are already in the document, therefore not to worry about that. And as I mentioned, the discussion will continue at the COP. With that, can we adopt this document now?

Any objection to approve this CRP? Belgium, then Finland.

Yes, thank you, Chair. And I'm terribly sorry to keep on this subject, but I am once again seeking for some clarification because I understand the way you want to move forward, but we've now heard from some parties that they want to put certain activities in brackets that we agreed on during the contact group. So if those specific activities will be put in brackets and then sent to COP, then this might give the feeling for those negotiating at COP that there was no agreement on these activities. So my proposal would be to just revert to the version of the CRP that we received, and then we can send that one to COP as that is the version that everyone has seen. I am willing to let the Secretariat check if the deletion of all was a mistake from the CRP version, but otherwise we also still have small amendments to make. So our proposal would be to go back to the CRP as it was presented to us. Thank you.

Finland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have just a technical question, because now the bracket starts around the substar, and I don't think that's the right place in the beginning of the document. It should then start around the conference of the parties. Otherwise, this is very strange. So could you please correct that? Otherwise, this is not a right thing. And I also regret that Japan, which was in the group, we were looking at the wording in 33, which is exactly from the Kunming-Montreal framework, we changed it. So I just want to say that as well as a comment that this is, of course, regrettable that we are going back now where we were in the contact group correcting the language on this action exactly like it is in the Kunming-Montreal and the order of that. So I think I would also plead that we have the whole document in brackets, and I think the brackets are now also placed in the right place. Thank you.

The colleagues, I see many requests for the floor. Colleagues, at this point, I will kindly ask you to support me and accept this out any further discussion. If I open the floor now, I'm worried to get into a lengthy discussion. Please, reconsider your request for the floor. Colleagues, I beg your indulgence, please reconsider your request.

I would like to remind that if you are asking for the floor just to ask if there are going to be brackets, if such and such has been taken into account, I would ask you, please, to reconsider taking the floor, because, as I said, the whole document proposed here is bracketed already.

Thank you, Chair. Before agree to approve the CRP, we want to request Secretariat to clarify if there are any new revision based on the discussion on the CRP we just had it now.

Secretariat, you have the floor.

Dear colleagues, we have received a lot of proposals to rephrase the text. I don't think we can find a compromise because this is not a negotiation. Would you be prepared to accept the original version of this CRP as it was originally proposed? Are there any objections to that? If you have an objection, please raise your card. I see Argentina and Brazil.

Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. To answer your question, we would need some time to go back and review the original CRP and see how it was There were requests for clarification as to the order in which we would review the documents, and the decisions are going so fast, it's not possible for us to give an informed response. So if the course of action is going to be to adopt the CRP, as it was originally proposed, I would ask that we be given a few minutes to look at the document and then give an informed response. Otherwise, as one delegate pointed out, we will need to have clarification as to precisely what text is being amended and precisely what is being proposed for adoption. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. You asked for a few minutes to review the original version, and we can do that. So we will come back to this document later, and we'll move on. now to another point, another item. Let’s move on to CRP 1, agenda item 4, on IPBES.

Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. we see an inconsistency. In the last CRP that was accepted, we accepted suggestions for the final version, but in this CRP, we're not considering any changes. So, we'd like to know what the difference is. Thank you.

Gracias, DRC.

Thank you, DRC.

Thank you, Chairman, for giving me the floor. I would like to go back to the other CRP. I apologize, I don't think we have enough time. The principles have been applied, whereby the elements for COP are to be sent directly to COP, and there's to be no discussion on that. And the entire document was in

which means that we're adopting this according to the principle where it goes to COP with brackets, and then we move on to another item. But yet you keep, you've sent a CRP to a small group, but I thought we just adopted it with brackets and moved on. Thank you.

I think that you are, you advise me, you are my friend, you are advise me to take the right way.

Thank you for your cooperation. Based on what Argentina requested, a bit of time to look at the document, I'm going to take up that request and allow the plenary five minutes break.

Dear colleagues, please take your seats. Thank you, colleagues.

During that five-minute break, we had consultations to achieve consensus, and I would like to ask the Secretariat to provide us with all the elements on which agreement was reached. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you. So the brackets were introduced now around the activity 29 in the annex to the draft decision, as this is a correction based on the results in the contact group.

Thank you, Secretariat, on this explanation. I see no request for the floor. The CRP 5 is approved. Then let's move to CRP 1. I would now like to resubmit this CRP 5 as an L document with some amendments. This will be L 7. I submit for adoption document L 7. Can we adopt this recommendation? DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. As you know, we lack time, and so we are adopting the CRPs without considering them at the level of an L document. So what we're going to ask, and we would like it to be reflected in the report, is this. And then secondly, for this CRP, we can continue to speak to the work done by IPBES, but in paragraph 2, for example,

please, dRC, I think, in fact, I have not opened the floor for CRP1. I believe you're on CRP1. So I would like to close with CRP on CRP5. Do you agree, DRC?

Yes, I believe you said we were moving on to CRP1. That was why I asked for the floor. Thank you for your understanding.

This recommendation, L7, is adopted.

Now, we will, in fact, move on to CRP1 regarding the IPBES work.

Now, turn to CRP1, item 4, IPBES. We started our consideration of this agenda in plenary. We had approved paragraph 3, 6, and 7 with amendment. We opened paragraph 1, 2, 4, and 5, but did not come to a conclusion. I asked a small group of friends to consider para 1, 2, 4, and 5, and despite their effort, I understand that they could not arrive at a consensus. We also did not consider para 8, 9, and 10 in plenary. Given the late hour, I propose that we leave para 1 and 4, and para 2 and 5, and their sub-para, and also para 8, 9, and 10 as they appear in the CRP and entirely in brackets. This is very regrettable, but I do not see another way forward at this time. Colleagues, can we adopt this CRP with this bracket in para 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10, and with para 3, 6, and 7 without brackets to move this item forward? With that, can we approve CRP 1? DRC.

Monsieur. Chairman, firstly, we would like to understand a bit what you are proposing. As the document stands, we have not seen brackets the paragraphs that you have just brought up. So currently, we do not see why we are going to be doing that currently. Secondly, looking at the document, we find that the document in any event, addresses in general the contribution of assessments done by IPBES in order to support the implementation of the framework, and particularly the Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework. But we see in several places throughout the document that children are mentioned. on line 4 of para 2, line 3 of paragraph 2A, line 4 of paragraph 5, and line 3 of paragraph 5E. So we are wondering, oh, and even in paragraph 8, line A on the third line, 8A. So we are wondering if children are going to have to carry out these actions mentioned here in this document as cited. Are children capable of contributing to the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework? Our proposal would be to delete children, the word children, wherever that word is found in this document. We are talking about a document that goes to the COP. There are no recommendations for a substa. in the version that we have currently, does not have brackets. Is that not so? It is the principle that you announced. I'm sure you don't want to contradict yourself, and that is to adopt the CRP as an L document, and then to close the debate on this item. Thank you.

Thank you to the distinguished delegate of the DRC. I would like to remind everyone that this document was discussed in the plenary, and the elements that you have brought up were already discussed. And a small group was created to develop a response. Unfortunately, the small group could not come to a consensus on paragraph 1, 2, 4, and 5, which were correlated to begin with. So no response was developed. The small group could not find a solution. to propose for those paragraphs that they be put in brackets. And it is normal to be able to have brackets currently, because what we are going to do is we are going to bracket these paragraphs. Secondly, paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. were not considered by the plenary, and taking into account the time that we had, these paragraphs are in brackets, and I'm speaking of 8, 9, and 10. Since we already had a methodology that was quite simple and dynamic, when the paragraphs are bracketed, the document is subject to be sent to the COP as is, and this is why the correlated paragraphs will remain in brackets. However, paragraphs 3, 6 and 7, where a consensus was found, they will remain without brackets. And I believe that on the basis of that explanation, we can submit this document for approval. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We agree entirely with you that the issue of children was raised in the plenary. And again, if you open the door for discussion again, We're not finished. So let us go for approving this document.

Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. I also think that the DRC will align itself with us. DRC, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you. chair for the explanations, because sometimes there are misunderstandings and we have to bring them up in the first place, because things that are well designed, they are presented and then people will align themselves with that. So we agree that the document should be adopted, namely with brackets around the paragraphs that you have mentioned, because the French document that we have, the version, does not have those brackets, and so we will then continue the debate at the COP.

I see no more requests of the floor. The CRP1 is approved. I would like now to resubmit CRP1 as L document with some small or with amendments. This will be L10. I submit for adoption document L-10. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see no request for the floor. L-10 is adopted. Thank you, colleagues. Dear colleagues, we will now turn our attention to CRP 7, which is the result of the work of a contact group. I was informed that the co-chairs tasked a small group to come up with a solution for one element in the SABSTA recommendation. I would like to invite South Africa, who led the group, to inform about the plenary of results. I give the floor to South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Chair. The Friends of the Chair met yesterday evening between 7:00 and 7:30 PM. The mandate of the small group was to resolve the divergent views on the brackets around other areas of work. and cross-cutting issues. The small group decided to delete the reference to other areas of work and cross-cutting issues in paragraph 2 of the sub-style recommendations. The small group further proposed inserting a new paragraph in the COP decision in brackets by introducing new text which reads, 1bis. This is after the operational paragraph one of the COP decision, appreciating the evaluation methodology contained in the annex document to the present decision prepared by the Executive Secretary and noting its potential for future use in reviewing the work of the Convention. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. Proposals were made for the substantive recommendation and for the draft decision. I would like to start with the recommendation. With this understanding, I put forward to remove the bracket text in paragraph 2 after "programme of work". I would like to give the floor to the Secretariat to read the para. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you. The paragraph 2 in the draft recommendation reads now: "Also requests the Executive Secretary, further to the request of the Conference of the Parties, of the Convention in paragraph 9 of the decision 15/4 of 19 December 2022 and the paragraph 4E of the decision 16/12 of 1 November 2024, to propose a systematic approach, timeline and schedule of the review and potential updating of the programmes of work under the Convention, and the text continues as it is in the current document. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. I see Russia Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We are happy with that paragraph. I just like to ask Secretariat to read again what the paragraph presented by South Africa.

Thank you. So the paragraph which was now read by representative of South Africa reads the following: It was made as a suggestion as 1 bis, appreciating the evaluation methodology contained in the annex to the present decision, prepared by the Executive Secretary, and noting its potential for future use in reviewing the work of the Convention.

Thank you, Secretariat. I propose to delete the bracketed text in paragraph 2. Are there any objections? I see no objection. The text is deleted. Let's move to para 1. I see the word "para" is in brackets. With the new reading of para 2, most of the elements of para 1 are covered. Therefore, I suggest to delete para 1, which is currently in square brackets. Are there any objections? Belgium, then Canada, followed by DRC.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we would prefer not to delete that paragraph. because it gives the strategic review, as well as the report on the strategic review, it will give it to SBI. And as we all know, we will have the multi-year program of work, as well as budget discussions in the SBI. So taking this into account, they should be aware that the strategic review gives some guidance towards some programs of work that haven't yet been updated. This is not reflected in paragraph two, so therefore we would like to retain paragraph one as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Belgium. Canada.

Thank you, chair. In the interest of time, I will just align myself with the comments made by Belgium.

Thank you, DRC. Monsieur.

Thank you very much, Chair. My intervention is addressed to the Secretariat and a question that you asked of the Secretariat, Mr. Chair. I would like to know if we are deleting this paragraph as you had suggested. If so, what is the reaction of the Secretariat, and how would the Secretariat like to proceed then to the analysis of the work programmes under the Convention on Biological Diversity? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The point we were going to make has already been made by Belgium. We think there is value in keeping this paragraph, just to recognize that some work has already been carried out in this area. We don't want to review to completely start from scratch again. So it's definitely worth noting that this work has been carried out and submitting it to SBI. Thank you.

Thank you. Argentina, followed by Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with what was mentioned in the agreement, according to paragraph two. In our mind, this agreement is also on the basis that this proposal of the systematic approach would not be on the basis of the INF document, that is INF document six. That was our understanding of the work we did also in the small group, even though it did not have in its mandate covering exactly paragraph 1. And since, in our view, the work that is being reflected in paragraph 2 is not based on those documents, we support your proposal to delete paragraph one, and at the same time note that those documents are still referenced in the COP, in the recommendation for a COP decision. So if ever in COP we might consider that these documents are useful for future use, which is not the work that will happen between now and COP, then we will be able to decide collectively to retain it there. But at this time, since it is not relevant to the work that we are requesting, we would follow your lead and your suggestion and delete the complete paragraph one. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Switzerland, then European Union.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is just to support Belgium, Canada, and the UK. We would like to retain this first paragraph. Thank you.

European Union, followed by Russian Federation.

Thank you very much. I would also need to support the statements by Belgium, UK, Switzerland, and others to support keeping this paragraph. Just to stress, this report may not answer all the questions we had, and we had significant discussions on all kinds of issues raised in it. It will remain a good basis and a start for further discussions, and therefore we would also like to express our appreciation for the work done on this report. Thank you.

Russia Federation, followed by Norway.

Thank you, Chair. So we like to support your approach. And also what Argentina said, we at those circumstances, and at this point, we don't see the relevance. And also we are talking about the problems of work. They belong, most of them belong actually to SAPSTAR, and it will be continued for that. So what's the business of SBI there is not really clear. So as also I think Argentina mentioned and yourself, both documents are available anyway if anyone like to use it or like to refer it to it during the work. So we suggest to delete paragraph one. Thank you.

Now we have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Norway also supports the statements made by Belgium, Canada, the UK, Switzerland, and the European Union.

Thank you.

Thank you, friends. I see many requests for the floor. We don't have time in our favor. Allow five minutes for discussion again, but we don't have time in our favor. That's why I would like to propose to delete completely paragraph 1. Colleagues, no agreement has been reached. I therefore have to delete paragraph 1. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have listened closely to the concerns raised by Russian Federation and Argentina. I have a suggestion that would involve the deletion of paragraph 1. In our view, the critical element that needs to be retained from paragraph 1 is the acknowledgement that work has been done on this. And thus, while I don't think it's critical that the work be transmitted to the SBI, I would like there to be a note that work has been undertaken. So my suggestion, Chair, would be following your direction to delete paragraph 1, but to add to the agreed paragraph 2, noting the work undertaken to date, and then continuing requests the Executive Secretary as written in paragraph two. So this would simply note the work that has been undertaken to date as a way of acknowledging that we have been following a process. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Canada. Before I give the floor to DRC, followed by Panama, I would like to give the floor to the Secretariat to read the new proposal.

It is our understanding that the new insertion is for the new one bis. Okay. So, it's insertion in the paragraph 2 of the recommendation. Notes the work undertaking to date. Also request the Executive Secretary, further to the request of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention in paragraph 9, and then the text reads as it is.

Thank you, Secretariat. Now I'm giving the floor to DRC, followed by Panama.

Thank you very much, Chairman, for giving me the floor. DRC does not oppose the deletion of paragraph 1. We'd just like an explanation as to the question, as for Secretariat. Thank you.

Thank you, DRC. Panama has the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. We propose the deletion of paragraph 1 and also take out the reference to the recommendations on the basis of the work programme proposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. In my humble opinion, I think that the proposal to delete paragraph 1, well, some elements are already in paragraph 2, and paragraph 2 is more fulsome than paragraph 1. And in view of what Canada did to improve that paragraph, I think paragraph 2 is better than paragraph one. But let me give the floor to Secretariat. Secretariat, could you reread paragraph two with Canada's amendment?

So the text of the recommendation reads now, noting the work undertaking to date, and then the start of the paragraph two, also request the Executive Secretary comma, and the text reads as it is, as was agreed.

Thank you, Secretariat. Argentina.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks for the text proposal. We do think this is unclear on what this means, and we fear this still could be interpreted by anyone who was not present at this meeting to listen to the discussions as a support for using the documents in the document INF-6 as a basis for the work we are requesting. That was not our understanding of what was the work that we were requesting, but to address the consideration of having some reflection or acknowledgement of the efforts in the work, maybe we could have a paragraph for in the section of the COP recommendation, and then at that time, we would consider that. So that is my proposal to not include it here, but that it would be part of the recommendation for the COP decision to be discussed later on. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Just as a reminder, the paragraph that is correlated with this is for SubStA, and we're not supposed to spend too much time on recommendations for SubStA. The recommendations of concern to us that are up for discussion are recommendations to COP. This is why once again I beg you to leave alone the substantive paragraphs, don't discuss them at length, and for the paragraphs in brackets that are addressed to COP, those paragraphs remain with the brackets. If that is clear, then I think

We can approve this CRP with those explanations.

Belgium, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. We had understood from Argentina's intervention that there was a reference to the review, strategic review, as well as the report on the strategic review that it was in paragraph 2. However, we do not see a reference to the strategic review nor to the report of the strategic review in that paragraph. So we would like to still insist that there should be at least a reference to the Add 1, because we understand that Argentina doesn't agree on the scientific basis. of the report of the strategic review. So we would like to have your indulgence to note the work and the proposals based on the work from the strategic review in the paragraph two, or in a separate paragraph. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Belgium. We are still in a race against time, and I really must urge you not to delay so that we don't lose the interpreters while we're still debating. Canada made a proposed amendment, which was read out by Secretariat. Can I ask Secretariat to read that proposal one more time? You have the floor.

Thank you. So the text starts with noting the work undertaken to date. And the paragraph starts, I believe there will be a correction, "request the Executive Secretary, further to the request of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in paragraph 9 of the decision," and the text goes as it is.

Thank you, Secretariat.

Is there any objection? to what Secretariat just read out. Please raise your hand if you object. I see no objection to the proposal. I'm sorry, I can't see in that direction. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you for giving me the floor once again. I understand that Canada's proposal seeks to recognize the work to date, and the Secretariat has done some work, for example, in the rapid review, and that is a basis for this work. So we can agree to the text as proposed. So long as the report of the meeting states that this paragraph does not say that the previous work, the previous work does not refer to document SUBSTA 27/5/ADD.1 or the work of SUBSTA in INF 6, with those clarifications, it's evident what the work to date is as a basis, and that is acceptable to us. And the rest of the work of the Secretariat will be considered by COP. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. I give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by Russia.

Thank you, Chair.

I think what I wanted to say has been overtaken by events. We agree with your earlier decision to delete para 1 and not the work done so far in para 2, like what Canada suggested. So we agree about that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. Russia Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Our understanding of introducing this language, noting the work undertaking to date, If this language applies to all previous work Secretariat did on reviewing Marine Program of Work, Island Program of Work, et cetera, that's, of course, we are happy to recognize in this context. But if it goes beyond that, then I would prefer to join Argentina and to see a clear reference, whether in a footnote or Argentina, I believe, proposed in the report, that this sentence doesn't apply to those two documents. And also, as Argentina earlier said, we may insert this paragraph for consideration by COP as part of the COP decision. But at this point, We can go either without this language or with this language, but then the language in the report proposed by Argentina. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chairman. We share the concerns of Argentina. We had raised the same questions at the beginning of the meeting, and so we support Argentina's proposal. Thank you.

Gracias, Panama. Thank you, colleagues. I see no more requests of the floor. Could you approve this CRP with Canada's proposal? And we recognize what Russia Federation said and Argentina. Please, could we approve it with these amendments as whole document? Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Happy to approve. What I understand you're putting to approval is the entirety of the CRP, in which case I just want to confirm that the language introduced into the bracketed COP decision by South Africa is also included in what we are approving, that Canada is happy to approve. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Canada. the document will be approved with bracket on issue on COP. Now, I propose to approve this CRP as word document. I see no more request. The floor of CRP is approved. I will now like to resubmit CRP 7 as an L document with some amendments. This will be L 8. I submit for adoption document L 8. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see no request for the floor. L.8 is adopted. Thank you, colleagues, for your cooperation. Now, let's move on to CRP 10 on agenda item 6 (c), area of potential further work. The colleagues, we will now turn our attention to CRP 10. which is the result of the work of a contact group. I would like to focus on the text of recommendation that has two sections, both are in brackets. Let's move first to section A of the recommendation, equity, gender equality, and human rights-based approach. I suggest lifting the square bracket around section A. Colleagues, are there any objections to lift the brackets? I give the floor to Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we have objection. We put brackets around The whole section, we extensively discussed it at the group. I don't need to repeat all discussion again. So if chair you like and with your indulgence, I may offer in the spirit of compromise and, you know, spirit of recognizing certain interests, a possible paragraph. But I'm happy to offer it on a kind of take it or leave it basis because I don't want to stimulate long debates here. So I think that as soon as we start negotiating it and long discussions, so I simply will withdraw the proposal. not to waste our time. So under those conditions, if you like me, i can read it, or if you like to proceed as a way, I can abstain.

Go ahead, Russia.

Read it. Okay. So as we requested the entire section to go, So if we suggest the paragraph, then of course the title in a way may stay, and the paragraph will read the following way: Requests the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity to inform parties through notification of approved global analytical study on the implementation of a human rights based approach conducted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, once and if officially submitted to the Secretariat. If Secretariat you like to... Okay, okay. Request the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity to inform parties through notification of approved global analytical study on the implementation of human rights based approach conducted by the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, once and if officially submitted to the Secretariat. So we were informed that this report is not there. It probably will be considered next year by the Council. Council may approve it, may not approve it. So once all formalities there will be completed and the High Commissioner officially will send the approved by all countries and the Council version to the Secretariat, Secretariat will inform us and make it available for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia Federation. Any objection to Russia Federation proposal? I see no. Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Our understanding from the contact group discussions yesterday is that there was broad agreement on the paragraphs in the recommendation. As you can see in the CRP, we have clean text beyond the brackets around the recommendation. So we would very much regret if we could not submit our recommendation to COP17. The recommendation is simply just responding to decision 16/12, asking the Secretariat to make a proposal for potential further work for consideration by Sub-Ste ahead of COP17. Decision 16/12 actually means that parties have already agreed to consider a proposal for potential further work at COP17, which these recommendations intend to address. As the recommendation is reformulated, we've simply asked the Secretariat to forward the results of the tools and guidance on a human rights-based approach, which we have also already asked for through the invitation to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, through decision 1635 on cooperation, paragraph 20, to COP 17, every COP, to consider the need for potential further work. And we think it would be really unfortunate if we cannot provide the advice of substance on this matter. Coming back to hearing the proposal from the Russian Federation, it is not acceptable to us. First, we would like to clarify that this global analytical study would be submitted to the Human Rights Council at its 61st session starting in February. So it will be presented by the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights mid-February. The human rights, it will be presented to the Human Rights Council. It will not be approved. Moreover, In view that we have decision, and which what I mentioned previously, and that we have decision 16/35, where we invite the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to develop tools and guidance and to convey the results to the Secretariat, we think this is very much in line that it actually would be submitted to the Secretariat for information. So, with that said, we do not agree with the proposal made by the Russian Federation, and we would like to lift the brackets around this recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you, Sudan. Due to the time constraints, colleagues, no agreement has been reached. I therefore ask to delete section A of sub-SA recommendation. Section A is deleted. Let's move to section B of the recommendation, pollution and biodiversity. I suggest lifting the square bracket around section. In this section, we have three set of brackets. I propose lifting all brackets. I see Russia Federation. Russia Federation, you have the floor, followed by Togo.

Thank you, chair. Same as with the previous section, we made a very substantial discussion on this topic. So we can accept what is paragraph three. There's a slight amendment there. I think that there is a technical mistake there, as I believe after further request, the executive secretary, then small A should start. and the current small a should be a continuation of that small a and then small b. So we are happy to continue with this section, but just paragraph three, as we also presented it yesterday, with this minor technical amendment. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I would like to make an observation about the form of the whole document as well as this paragraph. We are on item 6 currently, which was divided into three parts. And so I have to keep that into account because there is a logic that links 6A, B, and C. And so more enhanced work program is envisaged under the global framework. It hasn't started yet, and if we have themes here that are important. We talk about gender equality in line with the three objectives of the framework. That's all that we're talking about: conservation, sustainable utilization, and sharing the benefits. So we have five areas, and on those five areas, we need to conserve the logic. And when you have brackets everywhere, perhaps that means that the work needs to be enhanced. And it is possible that up to 2030 there will be two or three that are extremely important and then the rest will continue, the work will continue on the rest. We could reject the whole text because there are so many brackets, but for A, for instance, I could propose for future work, taking into account gender equality, human rights, is very important for implementing the Convention. And that is what paragraph A is talking about. Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to respond to the paragraphs 1 and 3, the options and the suggestion from our side. Perhaps first of all, to really explain the background, we have an annex, well, the COP decision, with options for further work, either an ATAC or an expert group, and from our perspective, we need more information to decide how to proceed on this important matter. Paragraphs 1 and 2 come from our proposal. We want, we believe in cooperation and transparency, and we want to involve everybody with finding that further information that we need to make a good, well-informed decision. And we think it's a very light work here to be done. It's an invitation, anyone who has relevant information that can help to inform that decision would be invited to contribute to it, and we all would benefit from those views. So the purpose of paragraphs 1 and 2 are really to help the further debate and to avoid that we are in a difficult situation at the COP. Paragraphs 1 to 2 do this effectively and focus on the issues. Paragraph 3 is much more narrow in scope and would not have the same effect, and therefore we strongly support keeping paragraphs 1 and 2 and not retaining paragraph 3. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. I would like to give a reminder that usually the recommendations to Substa should not be discussed at length, and then if they're in brackets. So either we consider a clean text or we remove the proposal to substitute totally? I would like to hear speakers on this. Either we keep a clean text or we remove it all. I would like to have your reactions on that question. Mexico, then Togo.

Thank you, Chair. You are proposing to remove the brackets in 1 and 2 and ask for the flexibility from the Russian Federation colleagues. It's not very complex work that we're asking the Secretariat to do. We are asking to request additional information. My delegation has been very flexible because we accepted the option that does not require an expert group to be convened and asks for information on the impacts of pollution on biodiversity. We don't think it's a large workload, and COP will have the best elements to make the best decisions. And so we would like to have the brackets removed. Russian Federation has been flexible regarding paragraph 3, and it seems that it is also appropriate for the first two.

By Panama.

Thank you, Togo. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the recommendation regarding D, which is on decision-making. So if we delete, there are implications for D. Thank you.

Thank you, Togo. taking into account the time constraints, we only have 15 to 20 minutes of interpretation, and we don't want to lose the interpretation. And so these recommendations are to substa. Since we cannot have a clean text, I propose that these be removed. and that all of the proposals to the COP remain in brackets in order to have the discussion continue. Thank you for your understanding. I will then propose that this CRP 10 be approved.

Then is Mexico.

Thank you, Chair. During my intervention, I asked a question of the Russian Federation, and I wonder if they could be flexible to remove the brackets. I mentioned that the workload is not so significant, and I would like to hear the response of the Russian Federation to see if they can be flexible on that in order to have a clean document. Thank you.

But since we cannot have a clean text, you would like to continue the discussion, but I had proposed that the text recommended to SUBSTA, usually recommendations to SUBSTA should not have brackets in them, but we risk having a continuation of this discussion, and so I propose that everything that is addressed to SUBSTA be removed. And in that case, there are no other requests for the floor. European Union, then Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would actually like to support the request made by my colleague from Mexico and ask indeed whether the Russian Federation could be flexible. If it be, we could then be flexible also in retaining paragraph, the paragraphs in yellow, no, sorry, in three and four, three, so that it's that we have both requests next to each other.

Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. Then I turn to the Russian Federation. Could you accept the proposal from Mexico?

Chair, I really hate to spend time here, as extensively explained, including those colleagues who just were spoken last evening. But of course, i can repeat. I have a different estimate of labor compared to my colleague from Mexico, I think that in the coming months it will be difficult, and it's not only about Secretariat. As I understood, the last notification was 132, so that will be another one. And we will need to see, collect this information, and it's not that simple information in five minutes, yeah? At the same time, many of parties sitting in this room have on their tables seventh national report, which we discussed a bit earlier, and we're trying to urge all parties to complete in time by February. Many parties sitting here, they have the in preparation on their tables. They have their financial plans on their tables. And now they also will need to distract from it and do another paper on pollution, et cetera. So our estimates are different. And again, I don't challenge the estimate of a colleague from Mexico. So, and I don't challenge the feeling of European Union that it's a small, minor things to do. So we disagree with that. They have their opinion, we have our opinion. On another point, it's a little bit interesting to hear you that the flexibility will be to keep paragraph three. That's kind of like not the paragraph we suggested. We basically We're trying to help, and I like to reiterate again. So that's happened with the section A. We were open for cooperation. We offered a solution. It was rejected. And those parties lost the entire section. We offered yesterday and today another solution for another section. It was rejected, and now we are losing another section. So, I mean, to what extent we need to extend our flexibility and the feeling of cooperation being absolutely not appreciated. And we did it already earlier, yeah? We remember with another document. So they don't really see in these circumstances, and in particular, expecting the substantial volume of work, including for the Secretariat in the next few months, yeah? in preparation for upcoming meetings, to do some extra work. So that's why, sorry, we will be again, I will reiterate, to keep the area of work, to keep the reference for pollution, to start this job, we will be happy to keep paragraph three. But if the decision is whether all of them or none, I mean, that's not our choice. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. We don’t have any more time, unfortunately. We have no more time. We cannot continue debating this issue. And I’m sorry, the parties that have asked for the floor, I cannot give you the time. We cannot continue this discussion. And so what is proposed to SUBSTA, there is no agreement on that part. And since there is no consensus, I propose that this CRP be adopted. Dear colleagues, I know this is difficult, but we don't have the time to continue the discussion, and so I would ask you for your indulgence. regarding the discussion that we've already had, we can continue the discussions at the COP, and so I ask for your indulgence. Canada, Mexico, Sweden, Togo, I would ask for your indulgence to allow us to continue the review of the documents. If not, We will have other difficulties moving forward. So I ask Mexico, Sweden, Togo, I ask for your understanding so that we can continue, so that we can move forward.

Thank you, Chairman. Just to have some clarity, when the Russian Federation said that they were willing to move ahead on paragraph 3, we agreed with that. We want to keep up the momentum. and we could agree to keeping paragraph 3. I don't know why it's being said that all of the paragraphs are being thrown out on this very important topic of pollution. So, we'd like for paragraph 3 to stay in and be the only action under pollution. Thank you.

Thank you. Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would just In view of the discussions here, hearing the quite strong support on paragraph A1 and 2, hearing just the opposition by one party, we would like to have it reflected in the report by the Secretariat, actually, that there was indeed strong support for this ABSA recommendation with regards to the paragraphs 1 and 2, so the first option. and that it was not supported by one party. Thank you.

Thank you, Sweden. Togo, you have the floor. I will give you two minutes on this issue, otherwise we won't be able to review the rest of the documents as is. And I'm sorry that we cannot continue the discussion on this issue. Togo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Togo would just like to know what your approval means. What does approval mean? Your approval. Thank you.

To answer the question of the distinguished delegate from Togo, approval means that I make proposals, so I did make proposals. Based on those proposals that I made, I then approved the CRP on the basis of the proposals I had to make.

Uruguay.

Uruguay.

Thank you very much, Chairman. It was not clear to us what we were approving in this CRP, and we are quite unhappy with the way this item on the agenda is being handled, and we agree with Mexico and Sweden. Thank you.

Chair.

Dear delegates, I made a proposal. told you that for recommendations to SUBSTA, those recommendations are either clean without brackets, and if we don't have consensus on those recommendations to SUBSTA, at that point, those recommendations are deleted. recommendations to the COP remain with the brackets as proposed. So anything that goes to COP remains bracketed, but those going to SUBSTA, if we do not have agreement on those, if we can't have a clean text, and since we aren't able to have consensus over the issues and the discussions continue. We can't have a clean text, and so I suggest we delete the recommendations to SUBSTA. I do believe it's clearer now. And with that explanation, I call to you, to the parties that are asking the floor. for the floor, please reconsider taking the floor. We only have eight minutes left for interpretation. Could you reconsider your request for the floor, please? I see Chile asking for the floor, but we must agree when we have eight minutes left and you don't want us to move forward. After those eight minutes, do you agree to continue without interpretation? We have to have some agreement on how we're going to proceed after interpretation. If you want to maintain interpretation, then I will ask for your indulgence and we will continue. Moving forward. Chile, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairman. We understand that we don't have much time, but I don't think it's a good precedent to send a document with zero recommendations under this section. We share Uruguay's frustration, and we don't think that this is a good solution to move ahead with the document. Unfortunately, we don't agree to the proposal. We don't think it's fair to eliminate the section as you propose, and Chile agrees with the Mexican proposal, seeing as Russia is showing flexibility as well. So can we ask, Chair, most respectfully, if it's possible to have that option, keep in paragraph 3 and the recommendation. Thank you.

Okay, Finland, then Togo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think many of these secretariats and parties which are also involved in TEE, which is mentioned, is sitting in this room, and I think the invitation is really important that they get it. So I also support, Chair, that we include TEE in this, para-TEE. in under pollution in this draft recommendation. I don't think nobody has challenged these three. Of course, it's unfortunate that we don't have more, but I think at this stage, please include and start request text to Secretary, and that's the only thing we have under. And it's unfortunate, but I think it's better than nothing. And I don't think anybody has challenged. So I support Mexico, Chile, and others in this regard. Thank you.

The last one is Togo.

Thank you, Chair. We thought that the proposal from Canada and that of the Russian Federation, we thought there was a compromise found on the basis of what Mexico said, and we thought that you had approved it, but we wanted to understand what it meant to approve it. What you said was that we could delete all of these recommendations, but the recommendation aligns with part D of the recommendation. So if you are going to delete the recommendation, then D must also be considered as having been deleted. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Togo.

Please, in that case, the para 3 can be approved. I see none, the para 3 is approved. With this agreed, can we approve all the documents? The CRP is approved. I will now like to resubmit CRP 10 as an L document with some amendment. This will be L9. I submit for adoption document L9. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see no objection. L9 is adopted. Now, let's move to the last item on climate change and biodiversity. Thank you, colleagues. Dear delegates, when we close the plenary for lunch.

Interpretation services are now suspended. Thank you.

I would like to hear the report from the small group. I give the floor to Armenia.

Thank you, Chair. We joined the voluntary group and would like to thank the parties for flexibility and compromise regarding the sub-sea recommendation text. We agreed to delete the fifth paragraph and the ninth one, and keep the eighth paragraph, which will now read as follows: "Request the Executive Secretary of the Convention to share relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties and recommendations of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, and invite the Executive Secretaries of the other Rio Conventions and the current and incoming Presidencies of the Conferences of the Parties of the three Rio Conventions to collaborate on the organization of technical information exchanges, to further discuss options to enhance cooperation and policy coherence and synergies across the Rio Conventions, and subsequently develop a multi-level roadmap with short, medium, and long-term actions, including a mapping study to help to identify concrete actions on the headline options for enhancing policy coherence provided in document CBD/Substa/27/4, as well as possible gaps and overlaps in existing national and international policies and existing coordination bodies that address the implementation of the Rio Conventions, and to report its findings to Parties at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Armenia. Now I'm giving the floor to Secretariat to summarize the proposal.

Thank you, Chair. So, currently, the document remains the same to paragraph 5, which is now deleted. Paragraph 6 is moved down to 9 bis of the draft COP decision. with a footnote that currently reads: “Adopted at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties to under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC/CP/2015/10/Ad.1, Decision 1/CP.21, Annex).” And that paragraph remains in brackets as 9bis in the COP decision. Paragraph 7 remains the same. Paragraph 8 now reads: "Request the Executive Secretary of the Convention to" with additional text "share relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties and recommendations of the Subsidiary Body on scientific, technical and technological advice and carries on the same with “subsequently develop” instead of “to develop”, otherwise remains unchanged. Paragraph 9 is deleted. The rest of the decisions, the rest of the paragraphs remain as they were, with the annex now in square brackets. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. I am giving the floor to Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to take this opportunity to appreciate Armenia's work in facilitating this agreement and consensus reached on this paragraph, in particular because we were not able to participate in the contact group. So these efforts they made in order to accommodate the concerns of all of the parties is very much appreciated by us. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. As I mentioned earlier, that we will be before the risk to lose translation. Right now it is the case. And you have to continue in English, and I think that all of us will be comfortable with only one language. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would also like to express our gratitude for Armenia for pulling up the solution and for its effort to find compromise and help us finding this way forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. I see no more requests of the floor. Can we adopt this CRP as all documents? Can we approve? Sorry. I see no requests for the floor. The CRP is approved. I will now like to resubmit CRP 9 as an L document with some amendment. This will be L5. I submit for adoption document L5. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see no objection. L5 is adopted. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Now let's move to another item. Item 11, other matter. We have now reached agenda item 11, other matters. I open the floor for any other matters to be raised.

I see no request for the floor. Thank you, colleagues. We can move on to the next item on the agenda. The next item on the agenda is item 12, adoption of the reports. We now come to document SABSTA/27/L1, which is the draft report of the 25th meeting of SABSTA. The document was distributed, and I hope that all of you had a chance to read it. I now invite the rapporteur, Ms. Ruliana, of Indonesia to introduce the document. Ruliana, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Document SUBSTA/27/L.1 contains summaries of the statements made during the meeting and matters regarding the organization of this meeting. I have examined the report and found it to be accurate. I am submitting it for adoption with the understanding that today's proceedings and approved changes will be incorporated in the final report. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Denmark, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So earlier on, under the agenda item of invasive alien species, we asked to have a statement recorded regarding brackets. So we just want confirmation from the Secretary that it was indeed included in the report. Thank you.

Thank you, Denmark. Sweden.

Thank you, Chair. Just seeking for clarification and confirmation from the Secretariat in that it will be reflected in the reports what I raised earlier under the consideration of the CRP 10, having the statement that there was support There was only one party opposing section A and section B, so we would like to have the confirmation from the Secretariat in that what we raised earlier would be reflected in the report. Thank you.

Thank you, Sweden. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to make sure that it is added to the report, our request across all of the documents to be included in the report, the request for the Secretariat to produce the administrative and financial requirements for all activities that were proposed in time for consideration by COP. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina. Belgium, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Relating to agenda item 6 on scientific and technical needs, in paragraph 45, Belgium should be added to the list of representatives of parties that made statements. Thank you.

Dear colleagues, about the review of the report, we will go page by page, but now we are just collecting the general views. I would like to give the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, the report that you have before you was produced as of 11:00 PM last night to allow our editors and translators to work on it in all languages. So the proceedings of today have been recorded and will be added to the report by the time it is published. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. Dominican Republic.

Thank you, Chair. Grolak would like to add a text for the summary of the meeting. Grolak requests that it's concerned regarding the limited ability of delegations to effectively participate in parallel contact groups due to inadequate funding be reflected in the meeting report. Rulac emphasizes the need for adequate and predictable funding to support full engagement that is well aligned with the ambitious SASTA agenda. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now we can proceed. I propose that we review the report page by page. I will start with page one. Any comments? I see none. Page one is adopted, is approved. Page two. Any comments? Page two is approved. Page three. Any comments? Page 3 is approved. Page 4, any comments? Page 4 is approved. Page 5, any comments? Page 5 is approved. Page 6, any comments? Page 6 is approved. Page 7. Any comments? Belgium, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So, as said earlier, but now in the right moment, in paragraph 45, Belgium should be added to the list. Thank you.

Thank you, Belgium. Thank you, Belgium. Now we continue with page 8. Page 8 is approved. Page 9. Page 9 is approved. Page 10. Page 10 is approved. Page 11. Page 11 is approved. In this context, we reviewed our reports. I will incorporate all the changes approved by the plenary. I therefore request the meeting to adopt the document with this understanding. I see no more requests of the floor. The report is adopted with the changes. Thank you. As usual, the consolidated report will be reviewed by the rapporteur for clearance before it is released. We have completed agenda item 12, adoption of the report. Now let's move on to the agenda item 13. Closure of the meeting. We now move to the item 13, closing of the meeting. I have pleasure to invite Ms. Astrid Schumacher, Executive Secretary, to address the meeting. You have the floor, Ms. Schumacher.

Thank you, Chair, dear Jean Bonno, distinguished delegates, dear participants. Our meeting is drawing to a close, and what a meeting it has been. My heartfelt gratitude goes to the Government and people of Panama for their hospitality, to our interpreters for showing maximum flexibility, to UNDSS for keeping us safe, to our Chair and Bureau members for guiding our work throughout five fairly intense days, to the co-chairs of the various contact groups for their tireless efforts to forge compromise, and to all of you for your commitment, patience, and perseverance. A big thank you also to the staff of the conference center that kept us hydrated and fed, and to the staff of the Secretariat that has worked hard and slept very little. I would like to thank all partners, stakeholders, and observers. We've gone to great lengths to attend and contribute to the conversations on the sidelines, those in the halls and in the side events. You shared your thoughts, insights, dedication, and expertise to ensure the role of science was very present in our discussions this week. What happens in our side events makes a key contribution to advancing collectively. Let me recognize in particular the remarkable contribution of IPBES this week, reminding all of us of the need to invest in fostering the science-policy interface and inspiring our work. A special word of appreciation also goes to the representatives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and to the representatives of youth and women, who made their voices heard and reminded us of the need to act with the required sense of urgency. I also wish to thank again the Governments of Canada, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland for their generous financial support which has enabled the participation of delegates from 92 Parties. But I also want to say again, the list of donors used to be longer. And so I call again on all countries in a position to do so, including new donors, to do their utmost as we move towards 2026. Dear Delegates, The wide range of themes that you discussed this week demonstrates the importance of the scientific, technical and technological work this body is charged with. Although consensus could not be reached on all items of the agenda, SUBSEA-27 has achieved some important progress. To highlight just one issue, Your hard work delivered agreement on the scope and format of the Global Report, which will be instrumental for a successful global review of collective progress in the implementation of the CMGBF at COP17. This is, in fact, a crucial contribution to a successful COP17. We have heard a couple of reminders this week that this should not be a mini-COP. I think we've also felt, all of us, it has been a mini-COP quite often. So we need to continue our discussions, how we work together. We believe this week has also demonstrated the importance of continuing our discussion on how we can make our meetings more efficient. Thank you for your flexibility, engaging on new modalities for effective meeting proceedings, and for embracing early submissions. Please give us your feedback and how we can further improve our working methods. Colleagues, we are exactly 12 months, or even less, I think 359 days away from COP17. We must make this time count. I urge all of you to accelerate implementation, submit national targets, update NBSAPs, and ensure the timely submission of your seventh national reports by the end of February 2026. And as you know, these 12 months will also see intensive international work on biodiversity, amongst them COPs of our sister conventions CMS and CITES, our own three meetings of the subsidiary bodies of this Convention, and some of the issues we're dealing with will also feature on the agendas of COPs of UNFCCC and UNCCD. So I believe we collectively owe it to the world to make these meetings stepping stones to a global surge of action to preserve and restore our world's biodiversity in Yerevan. Distinguished delegates, dear participants, on this day, UN Day, we are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the entry into force of the UN Charter. We at the Secretariat of the CBD see in your collective commitment a powerful symbol and reminder of multilateralism, the kind that the UN sustains and champions as the only viable response to the global intertwined crises that are affecting the world. So happy UN Day to all of us. And to those of you staying for the inaugural meeting of SPAJ1, I wish you a restful weekend, and we look forward to seeing you on Monday. To those leaving Panama, please have a safe journey home, and we'll see you soon. Our work for nature and people their well-being and prosperity will continue, has to continue, has to accelerate. I know you're all committed to that, so let's make it happen. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Shamaker, for your closing remarks. Now, I would like to open the floor for closing statement. I ask the region to keep their statement to a maximum of two minutes. I will start with Denmark, followed by Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dear colleagues, the EU and its member states sincerely thank the government and the people of Panama for their generosity and hospitality. We greatly appreciate the tremendous efforts made by the host country in organizing SACP 27. and we very much look forward to the continued hospitality at SPAJ1. A proper preparation of COPs through the work in its subsidiary bodies is a key priority for the UN's member states. During this SASTA, we have taken good steps towards preparing for COP17 by approving, amongst others, scientific and technical advice on PMRR. We are also pleased with the broad support for the two recent IBES assessments and their summary for policy makers, which provide a crucial scientific basis for the work of the Convention. We are, however, deeply concerned that we are leaving this SBST with text bracketed without disagreement on the substance, and we believe this should not become common practice. Finally, we thank the observers at SBST 27 for their willingness to engage constructively. The UN and its Member States remain committed to constructive engagement with all parties and observers at SBST, SBAs, SBI, and at COP17 in Armenia. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Canada makes this statement on behalf of Australia. Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom as members of the JustCans group. First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the people, sort of the government and people of Panama for their warm welcome here in Panama City this week. We would also like to express our sincere thanks for the strong efforts of our Secretariat in ensuring that all official SPS 27 documents were prepared on time. Great job. Our work here at Subsidy 27 once again has pushed us to focus on key scientific and technical issues for global biodiversity. This has included an updated program of work on forest biodiversity, possible improvements to the invasive alien species portal, and an annotated outline of the Global Report on collective progress in implementing the CAM GBF, amongst other items. As just CANS, we are of the strong view that here at SUBSTA, we need to safeguard scientific integrity and respect scientific processes across items and programs. Unfortunately, we have witnessed too many moments this week where the exact opposite has been done. We have noticed that most of the content of the interventions are political and not of scientific nature, asking repeatedly for bracketing whole paragraphs not respecting the way we work in this body. Evidence-based decision-making needs to be the pillar of our processes here at SUBSTA. Our agenda is ever-growing, and we recognize there is limited capacity in the Secretariat and in our delegations. This means it's critical we make best use of our time and think carefully about prioritizing and rationalizing the decisions we make. We must ensure we send a clear signal of what is most important and will have the greatest impact in delivering the CAMGBF, as ultimately, it is this that is our shared challenge and something that should unite and not divide us. But providing scientific and technical advice requires time. Time to think things through, time to consider evidence, and the implications of various options. We need to maximize the time we have here at SUBSTEP to do our work. This requires being as efficient as possible including holding parallel work sessions and contact groups. This all urges us to rethink the way we do things. In this regard, we were happy to see a relatively successful pilot this week of early written submissions for two agenda items. Our countries deeply respect every state’s right to make interventions and to safeguard their country’s national interests and rights within the UN system. But being efficient means sharing the scarce time we have and listening to the views of others. We have noticed that a very few countries stand for most of the interventions in our deliberations over the last days. Finally, Mr. Chair, UN General Assembly Resolution 53/101 is about principles and guidelines for international negotiations, onto which we have all signed, including that we should use our best endeavors to continue to work towards a mutually acceptable and just solution. Holding whole sections, recommendations, and decisions hostage through procedural arguments that are not related to the mandate of SUBSTA violate this principle in our view. JISCANS remains committed to working with everyone to find common ground on the scientific, technical, and technological advice needed to support the implementation of the KMGBF. With only five years left to meet the Global 23 targets, let's focus on providing Parties with the scientific and technical guidance most needed to support implementation efforts. JISCANS looks forward to continue working very hard with everyone on the road towards COP28 next year. Once again, we thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership. We acknowledge the daunting task you had and greatly appreciate your guidance in bringing our deliberations to their conclusion. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. It is my great honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Asia-Pacific region. This is a short version of the statement. The full version will be available online. First, we would like to express our appreciation to the Chair, to you, to the Bureau, the Secretariat, and the ground and logistical staff for their excellent facilitation of this meeting and their hard work in supporting Parties through a very full and technical agenda. We would like to express our sincere thanks to the host country, Panama, for its meticulous efforts in preparing for this Conference. We appreciate efforts in finding ways to ensure our proceedings are conducted in an efficient and timely manner. While we acknowledge that the pilot for early submission of statements is certainly a useful tool to achieving that, we also know that it could be a potential barrier for some. It is our view that even with the existence of such tools, it should not create restrictions for parties who may not have utilized that tool from being able to voice their positions on issues during the plenary. It is also our view that Parties who have submitted national early statements should still be given the opportunity to make a short intervention when the item is discussed. Our region would also like to express our concerns about the financial and logistical challenges for Parties in participating fully in the work of the SBST. With such an ambitious agenda, These constraints can limit our ability to engage meaningfully. We therefore encourage continued efforts to ensure adequate, predictable, and accessible funding and capacity support for eligible developing countries. Moving forward, our region reaffirms its strong commitment to the full and effective implementation of the KMGBF. We will continue to strengthen regional and sub-regional collaboration, scientific and technical cooperation, and capacity building efforts ensure that the framework's targets and goals are achieved. This, however, will again depend largely on our ability to access necessary funding. We also wish to emphasize the need for strong mechanisms for data sharing and coordination. Use of existing platforms and technologies to facilitate the sharing of biodiversity-related data will ensure timely and accurate monitoring of progress. Finally, to conclude, Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to convey, on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Group, our heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Muhammad Jahidul Kabir for his dedicated service as a member of the Bureau for the past two years. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now, I'm giving the floor to Antigua and Barbuda.

Good evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Antigua and Barbuda make this statement, closing statement on behalf of Small Island Developing States here at SBST. This is a short version. The longer version will be updated. We express our appreciation to the host country, panama, and their excellent hospitality, to the Chair, the Secretariat, and all Parties for the productive SBST 2023. 27, as biodiversity richness yet. Sorry. As biodiversity rich, yet highly vulnerable nations, we stand on the front lines of the interconnected crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. We reaffirm our commitment to advancing the scientific, and technical foundations of the Convention on Biodiversity, especially through the KMGBF. We continue to call for enhanced support from the Secretariat and its partners to assist Parties in the timely submission of NBSAPs and national reports, emphasizing that any reporting delays from our region reflect reduced capacity and resource limitations, and not a lack of political commitment. We call for stronger coordination among CBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD, and we urge increased investment in ecosystem-based approaches and nature-based solutions, which are central to our survival and sustainable development. On the scientific and technical cooperation, we congratulate the Secretariat and TSC-IAG for the hard work to set up the network for scientific technical hubs to support Parties. We emphasize the urgent need to strengthen regional and sub-regional data and knowledge sharing systems, including the use of traditional and community-based knowledge. We advocate for continued utilization of the regional support centers and South-South cooperation mechanisms to fill data gaps and enhance our participation in the global review process. We continue to stress the need for focused attention on programs especially relevant to islands, including island biodiversity, invasive alien species, marine and coastal biodiversity, ecosystem restoration, and capacity building. We urge that island biodiversity remains as a standalone program for work and not merge with other areas. We call for greater investment in biosecurity, capacity building, data sharing, and rapid response systems and we welcome the use of innovative tools within a One Health framework. We reaffirm that soil biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, including wetlands and coastal systems, form the foundation of food security, resilience, and climate adaptation. We call for increased and sustainable financial and technical support to integrate soil biodiversity in natural planning and reporting. In closing, we emphasize that biodiversity is the foundation of food, our water, culture, and our future. We stress that these scientific and technical deliberations must focus on the lived realities of our people. We amplify the importance of discussions in this forum. remain in scientific and technical in nature and free from heavy political agendas. We reaffirm our continued determination to implementation of the KMGBF. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Antigua and Barbuda. Now I give the floor to Panama.

Thank you, Chair. As the host country, I'll keep it brief. I hope you still get to enjoy a little bit of Panama beyond these meeting rooms. Over these past days, Panama has had the honor of hosting the SBST. And after closing the COP last year, we felt we own this one, and we're happy to have made it count. This meeting has brought together experts and delegates from around the world to discuss the most urgent challenges for biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources. We deeply appreciate the active participation of all delegations and organizations that made this space one of constructive dialogue and international cooperation. Through our discussion, we have advanced in identifying key scientific recommendations that will guide governments in the coming months. These results reflect our shared commitments to halting biodiversity loss, confronting climate change, and ensure that future generations can continue to benefit from the natural wealth of our planet. Panama reaffirms its commitment to these objectives and will continue to promote the integration of science, policy, and cooperation for the benefit of global biodiversity. Thank you all, and enjoy Panama.

Thank you, panama. Now I'm giving the floor to Senegal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I know that at this time we don't have the translation, but allow me to do my statement in French, and after we will submit the English version. Monsieur le Président, Excellence, distingués délégués, j'ai l'honneur de prononcer cette déclaration au nom du groupe africain à la clôture de la session importante du SUBSTAD. Permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous exprimer notre sincère gratitude à vous, Monsieur le Président du Sapsata, pour votre leadership constant et inclusif tout au long de ces négociations. Nous exprimons également notre gratitude au gouvernement et au peuple panaméen, au secrétariat de la CBD pour leur la leur chaleureuse hospitalité et l'excellente disposition, les excellentes dispositions prises pour accueillir cette réunion. Le groupe africain exprime également sa reconnaissance à la Commission de l'Union africaine, à Oda Nepad, au PNE et aux autres partenaires pour le soutien technique, financier et la coordination qui a permis la participation substantielle du groupe africain à ces négociations. Michel Président, la région Afrique demeure préoccupée par les moyens nécessaires à déployer pour la mise en œuvre du cadre mondial qui reste encore à désirer. L'Afrique voudrait souligner l'impérieuse nécessité d'accroître les contributions attendues au Fonds du cadre et d'améliorer les procédures et d'accélérer rapidement les audits au niveau des fonds tout en encourageant les parties qui ne l'ont pas encore fait à soumettre leur NBSAP révisé et à toutes les parties à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour leur permettre de soumettre leur septième rapport national dans les délais convenus. L'Afrique accueille avec satisfaction le lien entre la plateforme intergouvernementale, scientifique, politique de la biodiversité et des services écosystémiques (IPBS) et l'évaluation des changements transformateurs, qui marquent l'entrée dans cette nouvelle ère de science transdisciplinaire. Nous appelons à des approches inclusives, flexibles et adaptées aux contextes nationaux visant à faciliter la mise en œuvre du cadre mondial. Dans le même esprit, l'Afrique insiste sur la nécessité de concrétiser les approches One Health par le renforcement des capacités, la coopération technique et un soutien financier durable. L'Afrique réaffirme également son ferme engagement envers le Protocole de Cartagena sur la biosécurité et envers les approches de précaution fondées sur la science et l'inclusivité. Le renforcement des capacités, l'accès équitable aux technologies et la promotion d'une participation significative des experts africains sont essentiels pour promouvoir une innovation responsable tout en protégeant la biodiversité. Monsieur le Président, Une préoccupation constante de nombreuses délégations africaines concerne le soutien financier limité disponible pour la participation à cette réunion. L'incapacité de nombreux pays à participer pleinement aux discussions parallèles pose des problèmes d'inclusion et d'équilibre. L'Afrique appelle donc à une mobilisation accrue des ressources, et à des modalités de participation plus équitables lors des prochaines réunions afin de garantir la participation pleine, équitable et effective de toutes les parties. L'Afrique a également constaté avec inquiétude qu'un important texte dans les négociations n'est pas est entrecroché malgré les efforts persants. pour parvenir à un consensus. Nous exhortons les parties à toujours maintenir l'esprit constructif dans ces négociations. Monsieur le Président, Excellence, le Groupe africain réaffirme son engagement indéfectible envers la Convention et reste pleinement déterminé à œuvrer de manière constructive dans un esprit de partenariat et de solidarité afin que les recommandations de cet organe subsidiaire soient à la fois ambitieuses et applicables sur le terrain. Enfin, Monsieur le Président, l'Afrique est prête à contribuer à l'avenir où la science, l'équité et la coopération guideront nos efforts.

Thank you, Senegal. Now I'm giving the floor to Chile. Chile.

Thank you, Chair.

I am talking on behalf of GRLEC. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Grelac would like to thank Panama for its hospitality and his delegates for their warm welcome. This region is proud to host another CBD meeting. We wish Armenia the best of success in its preparation for the COP, which, as was mentioned earlier for our Secretariat, there is less than a year away. We thank the Secretariat, the Sub-structure, the technical staff, and the translators for their hard work, timely documents, and for continuing to seek solutions for delayed participation. GRULAC reiterates its commitment to the Convention and biodiversity conservation, and we welcome future efforts to improve funding and ensure equitable representation for all regions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chile. Now I'm giving the floor to indigenous people and local communities.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. We pay our respects to the Kuna, Emberá, Wañan, Nobe, Bugle, Bribri, and Nasu Tmí, Indigenous Peoples of Panama and their traditional territories. We want to thank the Government of Panama and its people for their kind hospitality and support to the CBD Secretariat. We also thank all those who have supported our participation, including through the CBD Voluntary Fund. The IPB urges the implementation of a whole-of-society approach and human rights-based approach that ensures the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women, and youth. The IFB also urges that participation in national and global monitoring and reporting mechanisms be ensured. A comprehensive global review must incorporate reports from Indigenous Peoples and local communities based on traditional knowledge and their biodiversity conservation actions. The IFB urges parties to increase synergies between the Rio Conventions to avoid isolated actions that may exacerbate crisis. The IFB, along with other major observers, were not able to deliver statements in a number of agenda items. We request that the next Subs the meeting ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and major observers in all issues to be addressed. The IFB will continue to contribute to advancing the issues discussed at this meeting for a successful process leading up to COP17. We wish a safe journey to those who are already leaving, and we relay the invitation of our indigenous brothers and sisters to visit their territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, indigenous people and local communities. Now I'm giving the floor to Woman 1.

Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the CBD Women Caucus. During every hour that Parties spend delaying and sending decisions further down the line, women and girls in all our diversity, indigenous peoples, local communities, youth, and other right holders are losing their lives and livelihoods, and even loss of identity and future. We urge Parties to stop addressing only symptoms, but rather the root causes of biodiversity loss. which may risk threatening our rights further, and a global review is an opportunity to alert the world at global and national level. As we transition from COP27 into the first meeting of the Article 8j, The CBD Women's Caucus and its membership of diverse experts stand ready as a committed partner in achieving the objectives of the CBD and the targets of the KMGBF. We urge Parties to fully recognize and respect our rights, knowledge, and contributions, and see us as equal partners in our shared goals. We cannot continue ignoring the reality. We're facing a social crisis, and the women and the girls are in the center, trying to carry with all the effects of our bad decisions. The knowledge is there to protect the nature and the people. This is a wake up call to start building the right tools and show compromise with all the women and girls that live in our territories back home. We are now failing to all of them. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Human One. Now I am giving the floor to Youth One.

Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network. Delegates, becoming a good future ancestor means listening and learning. It's about Listening to what the science and evidence are teaching us, listening to each other's concerns and constructively addressing them, and listening to voices from the ground. It means learning from past mistakes so we don't fail over and over again for the same reasons. Learning how to live in harmony with nature and learning from Mother Earth. Dear delegates, unfortunately, There was not enough listening and learning here. We came here looking to our decision makers to strengthen the foundation of our policies in science and traditional knowledge. Instead, we witnessed many instances of putting national agenda over our survival. This must not set a precedent for future sub-stars. We came here. having no doubts about the links between equity and human rights with biodiversity. And yet, here we see it questioned yet again by a few parties. IPBES underscores that equity and justice are cross-cutting principles that can advance governance and sustainable management of the nexus elements. It is also the path to addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and guiding transformative change. Equity and justice are a scientific and technical matter. The Convention must take this very seriously and advance work on this matter. In a moment of multiple crises, we need to find synergetic solutions, ensuring that we do not accelerate one crisis by trying to solve another. During the negotiations, we called for a compilation of evidence on how carbon credits and offsets impact biodiversity and livelihoods. This aspect is critical to identify the gaps and further explore how to strengthen fit-for-purpose, social, and environmental safeguards for biodiversity. While not adopted in the SAPSTa recommendation, please rest assured that the global youth movement will continue to push for the best evidence that will ensure future generations' safety and rights to a good quality of life. And finally, We came here to meaningfully participate, to make the voices of our global youth community heard, to put our proposals on the table. And yet, for many agenda items, we are not able to do so. Time pressure should not justify denying us the space for our proposals to be heard, explained, and considered, and the right to be part of decisions that disproportionately impact our lives. Our participation adds value. not only to the negotiations, but to the broader process. This value is rooted in our role as key implementers of biodiversity action. We contribute anyway, often in our free time and despite limited resources. Making commitments sometimes is difficult, as we don't know what future resources and capacity we will have, but our actions are clear, concrete, and meaningful. We call on you to enable us to bring our examples to the national reporting process and the global review process. Dear delegates, we, the youth, urge you to listen and to learn, to build bridges instead of tearing them down, not only in the spirit of compromise, but in the spirit of Mother Earth, of Paskon la Naturaleza, of collective care and of being good future ancestors. Thank you, Chair.

Now I'm giving the floor to NGO 1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak for the CBD Alliance. IPBES makes clear that transformative change is essential to stop biodiversity loss. Its insights, together with the links between biodiversity, water, food and health, must shape every aspect of CBD implementation, and SABSTA must ensure its guidance is applied. We care deeply about the work of the Convention, but we are concerned with the strategic review and analysis of the programmes of work. Some cross-cutting issues have simply not been included or received inconsistent treatment, including identification, monitoring, indicators and assessments, and new and emerging issues. The cherry picking of specific issues, such as business engagement as a work area, is deeply troubling. Meanwhile, the planet is burning. Climate change impacts are destroying biodiversity, and so are the so-called climate solutions, such as geoengineering, genetically modified trees, offsetting, and monoculture plantations. The peer review of the supplement must ensure it includes different value systems. human rights, and non-market based approaches, and exclude destructive activities from NBS and other mitigation activities. We need to address the impacts of carbon and biodiversity offsets and credits on biodiversity and human rights. Other threats: Loomas biotechnology develops rapidly, creating new ecological and social risks. Current risk assessment methods developed mainly for crops and inadequate for new challenges. We regret that some parties oppose developing additional guidance on ATEC. Such guidance would help developing countries assess and manage the risks posed by new LMOs. It would be regrettable if those opposed prevent others from accessing needed guidance. Much work lies ahead. We need to rise to the challenge. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. NGO 1, now I give the floor to RAMSEA. RAMSEA, you have the floor.

It's the OECS, please. The organization, thank you, Chair, the Organization of the Eastern Caribbean States Commission. We affirm its unwavering commitment to support our member states and the full and active implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which aligns closely with the vision of the St. George's Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability, a commitment that by 2040, the peoples and governments of the Eastern Caribbean will live within environmental limits, guided by the principles of equity, resilience, and sustainability. For Caribbean SIDS, our priorities are clear and urgent. Decisive action is needed on agenda items 3, 5, and 6 to conserve, restore, and sustainably use biodiversity, strengthen resilience, and address invasive alien species. Capacity remains a defining challenge for SIDS. We therefore call for innovative partnerships and strategic resource mobilization, which includes the private sector and sustained technical cooperation to translate ambition into action and measurable progress, particularly under Target 2, to restore healthy ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss. The OECS Commission expresses sincere appreciation to the European Union for its flagship support to marine and terrestrial biodiversity and integrated land management, initiatives that are driving measurable progress toward KMGBF targets across our member states. The OECS also reaffirms its partnership with the CARICOM Secretariat in advancing collective Caribbean action toward global biodiversity goals. Guided by these collaborations, the OECS Commission is developing a sustainable financing model through which the 30x30 transformational program charting a bold path towards resilience, prosperity, and a native positive future. The OECS welcomes the spirit of collaboration and the constructive outcomes of this meeting and remains committed to building them to accelerate implementation and deepen cooperation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I thank everyone once again. Dear colleagues, I would like to thank all of you for your spirit of compromise during our work. I know that it was difficult to reach consensus on some items. But the crucial issue is to fund science solution and bring them to policy makers to allow them to have good solution to reverse and halt biodiversity loss. I would like to thank the government, the Panama government, for hosting this meeting. Finally, I wish all of you good journey and good luck for the forthcoming meeting of the next COP in Armenia. Thank you, thank you, thank you again. The colleagues. We arrive at the end of our session, and I can say the meeting is closed.