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

Good morning, colleagues. I'm now ready to start the meeting. Good morning, everyone. We will continue to deliberate on the CRP document. and one is L1 file, one L file. I would like to invite the Chair of Contact Group 10 to report on his work. I now invite Ms. Holly Kelly-Wile from the United Kingdom. You have the floor. Ms. Holly. Apologies. So we will -- because it's there and she's not there. Okay. So it seems that our co-chairs are not present at the moment. Apologies. So I would like them to continue our consideration of conference room papers and I would like first to conclude our work on CRP3 on synthetic biology. On Sunday, as you recall, we had left an outstanding issue in paragraph nine in this CRP. I requested the European Union, Brazil, Fiji and Switzerland to consult. I have heard that these parties have consulted and have a solution to propose. So, Brazil, European Union, Fiji, Switzerland, please, one of you ask for the floor so that you can share your proposal with us. Brazil, Brazil, you have the floor. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, thank you to the colleagues from the European Union, Fiji and Switzerland. We arrived at a proposed language that I will read out loud to you. It reads, encourages developed country parties, comma, and invites parties in a position to do so, comma, other governments and relevant organizations, comma, to make financial, technical and in-kind resources available to support the implementation of the Thematic Action Plan, especially for developing country parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states, and countries with economies in transition, Then open bracket, as well as the most environmentally vulnerable countries, close bracket, comma, in line with articles 16, 18 and 20 of the convention.

Thank you very much, Brazil. I would ask you just to read the first part. Thank you again.

Reading the whole paragraph again. encourages developed country parties and invites parties in a position to do so, other governments and relevant organizations. Is that okay or should I continue?

No, no, that's fine. So I would like to see if we can all agree with the paragraph as it stands, but I will also be bold and ask if we could delete the part about vulnerable environmental countries because I don't really think that this belongs here. So if we could ask for your flexibility on that. Is there any opposition to deleting this language between brackets? I see none. So the paragraph is approved as amended. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you. And with that, this CRP3 is approved. So since I cannot gavel. Thank you very much, and we will produce an L document for this item. Thank you. Now we will resume our consideration of CRP 2 on agenda item 7 on the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. I remind you that as this is an item pertaining to the Nagoya Protocol, I will only be giving the floor to parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Yesterday we left off on paragraph 10. I had encouraged parties to consult on this paragraph and so I'm hoping that we can clear this quickly. So I would first like to open the floor to ask if the parties involved, and I do remember it was also the European Union, Brazil, Fiji, among others, if you have come with a solution for paragraph 10. And I would like to remind you that what was, what I asked is that you could come with language for the chapeau that was acceptable to all. So colleagues, would you like to ask for the floor to present language for paragraph 10? Do we have a solution for that? I don't see it. I don't see any party asking for the floor. So I would, okay, the United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. After the discussion in plenary yesterday, A small group got together and prepared some text that was shared with other parties that were part of that discussion. We have not heard back from all those involved as of yet, so I could not say it was agreed text, but we do have a proposal that perhaps with a little bit more time we could bring as an agreement.

Okay, thank you very much, UK. So we'll wait, if possible, through the rest of the review of the CRP. Thank you, thank you very much. And so with that, I would like to begin the consideration of paragraph 11, encourages parties. No, no, I'm sorry. And so I would like to begin with paragraph 11, invites parts as applicable. Is there any objection to the chapeau? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. we would suggest a change instead of domestic law, we put national legislation, just to be consistent with other CRPs. Thank you.

Thank you very much Argentina. So your suggestion just to... Yes, to change domestic law by national legislation, but please note that on the Nagoya Protocol, Article 12, the appropriate language is domestic law. So I would ask for your flexibility. Thank you. Thank you very much. and if that the chapeau is approved pending on the sub paragraphs so I would like now to invite comments on paragraph A do we have any comments to ensure the full and effective participation I see no okay Argentina you have the floor.

Thank you chair we would suggest a change in line three instead of supporting with facilitating so that we could read including by facilitating. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Argentina. I understand this is in parallel with other suggestions for this text. So can we agree with the suggestion from Argentina to substitute supporting by facilitating or are there any objections? I see no objections, so the subpara is approved as amended with the changes made. Subparagraph b, to make such protocols and procedures available. Do I see any comment, any request? No, so Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry for taking the floor once again. Here we don't understand the caveat which has been added where it says if the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned so agree, take into account that paragraph A already calls to guarantee the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples. So in this regard we think that the reference to if the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned so agree is redundant and doesn't really have any meaning here. Therefore we would suggest deleting it. So we'd suggest deleting if the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned so agree. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Argentina. I will give the floor to Brazil and then we'll get back to that. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In this regard, this small B is about disclosure of information and to make available some information that IPLCs would give to the process. This is why this caveat, if the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned so agree, We could change it to respecting the right of free, prior and informed consent. It's agreed language and would make it better for this small paragraph here if Argentina agrees. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Brazil, for presenting a compromising, a compromise text. Argentina, given the explanation, just made by Brazil and the text suggestion can we approve the sub paragraph as amended?

Thank you Chair. We think the reference is still redundant but in order to move forwards in text we can accept it and therefore we would ask for an added to the footnote when we talk about free, prior and informed consent with regards to different acceptations of the term. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, Argentina. So I see no request for the floor and then the subparagraph and the whole paragraph is approved as if the change is made. I would like now to invite you to examine paragraph 12, invites relevant organizations. I see India. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. India supports the paragraph and suggests the additions in line two after among them, please add through national focal point. and this would ensure that supports to IPLCs is appropriately coordinated to the national mechanism taking into account national circumstances priorities while facilitating effective support for the development of community protocol and procedures. So I would request to add through national focal point. Thank you Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair. Just as in paragraph 11, we would add in accordance with national legislation in this paragraph in order to ensure consistency with regards to what we're inviting fighters to do. We would also add in accordance with domestic law at the end of the paragraph. Then it would be community protocols and procedures in accordance with domestic law. Thank you.

Okay, Argentina, are you coming back to paragraph 11, is that it?

No, no, no.

I mean, the consistency with what is requested in the way it's phrased, I think.

Okay, developing in accordance with domestic law. Right. So Okay, thank you. I will take the interventions from Namibia and followed by Fiji. Namibia, you have the floor.

Good morning and thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia would like to go back to para 11 and just for consistency in terms of treaty or the Nagoya Protocol language, I would want us to reconsider adding the word free prior informed consent or if we relate it to the relevant articles where free prior informed consent lives instead. I would rather want us to have free than comma and then prior informed consent, but it would require us to be consistent with the language of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

I'm sorry, Namibia, could you please repeat your text proposal for us?

Para 11, we proposed suggested in terms of the Argentinian proposal, we insert the words free prior consent. our request is that we delete the word free and keep to the Nagoya Protocol language for consistency. Thank you.

Yes, of course. So I will ask if anybody has any objection. Of course, this is the language of the Nagoya Protocol. It's only prior informed consent. Yes, European Union, you have the floor on this matter? Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Would it be possible to repeat how the paragraph reads now because we are getting a little bit confused. Our understanding about this paragraph was that this is about uploading into the ABS clearing hours necessary information about procedures, even those included in community protocols, We were fine with the previous language because we understand that this has to be done in accordance with the indigenous peoples and local communities practices and rules. Now we're getting a bit confused. Thank you very much.

Yes, of course, European Union. I will ask the Secretariat to read paragraph 11b as it stands now after the suggestion from Namibia.

Thank you, Chair. So paragraph 11 could read, "To make such protocols and procedures available through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse as part of the national records, respecting the right of prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities concerned to so agree and without prejudice to the protection of confidential information. Thank you.

Okay, so can we agree with this language? Fiji, is that on this paragraph? Okay, as amended. Okay, thank you very much. The European Union, are you asking for the floor again? Okay, thanks.

Thank you. Yeah, sorry to step back again. It's just a question of clarifications. Maybe the Secretariat can help here because I think this is about the procedures for uploading information onto the ABS clearing house, not necessarily about granting prior informed consent. on access to traditional knowledge of genetic resources. Again, it's just not to be confused about what we are talking about, and maybe the CBD Secretariat could help on this.

I ask the Secretariat to respond. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding of the idea here is that paragraph 11 in the chapeau is inviting parties to make protocols and procedures developed in the paragraph A available through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse. If parties are publishing that information, it could be published as part of the national records on the ABS clearinghouse. And so, and then so become part of the records for that party on the clearinghouse. And I understand the idea here is that this should be done with the agreement of the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned to avoid publishing their information in a way that they do not agree with. Thank you.

European Union.

Thank you very much for the explanations. I think it is very clear, but this is why we think the previous wording was more appropriate then. It was capturing better this whole idea behind it. So, you know, my question would be whether it would be possible to come back to the previous language, which was precisely reflecting well the need to get the consent or consult or involve the indigenous peoples and local communities when they have to upload or when they wish to upload their necessary information into the ABS clearing house and national records.

Thank you very much, Opinion. I see the United Kingdom also asked for the floor. Is this intervention on this sub-paragraph?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, it was really just to support what my colleague from the EU said. I think this addition mixes different issues and makes it less clear, and we would prefer to return to the original text too. Thank you.

Thank you very much, United Kingdom. So I would like to ask Brazil, Fiji, do you want to intervene? No. I would like to ask Brazil and Argentina if they could be flexible given the explanation just made by the secretariat and the European Union UK. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We were okay with the original text also. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil.

Argentina.

Thank you so much. We could perhaps read the text just to know so we know what we're dealing with right now.

Thank you very much. So the paragraph as it originally appeared in the conference room paper read, to make such protocols and procedures available through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse as part of the national records, if the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned so agree, and without prejudice to the protection of confidential information. Thank you.

Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Well, in line with what we've been saying, we can accept Brazil's proposal of free prior and informed consent with a footnote. That would be a lot sensitive, but coming back to original wording, we prefer to avoid it.

Okay, so what I would like to propose so that we don't spend more time on that is that we bracket the if the indigenous peoples and local communities concerned so agree. And if you could please try to talk to each other and try to agree on some language so that we could review and withdraw those brackets during the L document review, I would very much appreciate. Thank you. So now going back to paragraph 12. Yes, I see Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in paragraph 12, we are flexible with the insertion that we are proposing, but it is our understanding that community protocols and procedures developed under Article 12 of Nagoya Protocol are supported through the programme of work adopted in decision 16/4. So we thought it would be Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but we thought it would be then useful to include what Argentina had mentioned in the end, but also to include in line with the program of work on Article 8 and other provisions related to the indigenous people and local communities adopted in decision 16/4. We stand guided by both you and the Secretariat. If a more simpler iteration is required, then we could join Argentina saying national circumstances and the programme of work adopted in decision 16/4 as our suggested text towards the end of the paragraph.

Thank you very much, Fiji. I will ask the Secretariat to read. Yes, could you please repeat? Yes.

So our inclusion is at the end of procedures in line with the programme of work on Article 8 and other provisions adopted in decision 16/4. Thank you.

And so together with the insertion made by Argentina, I will ask the Secretariat to read the paragraph as it stands now. Secretariat.

Thank you very much. So the paragraph with the different amendments would read, invites relevant organizations to support indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, through their national focal points, in developing community protocols and procedures in accordance with domestic law, and in line with the programme of work on Article 8 and related provisions adopted in decision 16/4. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Can we -- okay, Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I'm not mistaken, I heard through their national focal points and it was not reflected in the original text. Is this a suggestion from the secretariat?

From India.

Oh, sorry. Thank you very much.

Okay, so can we agree with the text as amended? Okay, I see no objections. Thank you very much, colleagues. I would like now to go to paragraph 13. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kingdom suggests, as appropriate, after benefit sharing, the paragraph will then become as follows: invites parties to engage user organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing process. as appropriate, in line with the provisions of articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia. I see the European Union. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We had proposed some textual suggestions from this paragraph and maybe allow me to explain the rationale behind it. We are fine with the content in general. It's just the fact that we believe the decision, the future decisions, at least in this paragraph, should also capture the fact that there's a lot of efforts and work that has been done also to implement article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol. There are guidance, there are best practices, there are code of conducts that have been developed. Many of them have also been made available on the ABS clearinghouse. So we would like to suggest first a small minor amendment to this text to again to capture these efforts and to invite to continue making these efforts. So we would like to add in the first line invites parties to continue to engage and then on line three after networks again to continue to facilitate. And then we would also have another suggestions to add an additional paragraph. We're flexible on whether this could go before or after paragraph 13. And the paragraph would read, urge parties to use already existing tools developed according to Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol ensured through the ABS clearing house. Again, the rationale is the same. Sorry.

Could you repeat please the last one, the paragraph, new paragraph?

Sure. Urges parties to use already existing tools developed according to Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol ensured through the ABS clearing house. And again, we're flexible whether this could go before paragraph 13 or after paragraph 13.

Thank you very much, European Union. Namibia, I'll give the floor to Namibia now.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I would like to make an insertion in the same paragraph, but once done, I would like you to If possible, let the Secretariat read the text back to us so that we can reflect on the language suggested by the European Union. So, in the first line, invites parties to engage, we would like to insert IPLCs and then the sentence can continue. Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much, Namibia. I will now ask the Secretariat to read the paragraph 13 and the new 12bis, I would say. Yes, thank you. I'm sorry, I will ask Cote d'Ivoire also because if there is more insertions, we can get it on board. Cote d'Ivoire, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. I would like to add something else to paragraph 13. Just after the interpreter apologizes, he cannot see the word that the delegate referred to. Perhaps she could repeat again.

Because the interpreter couldn't catch your wording. Could you please?

Paragraph 13. 13 invites parties to associate as required and in keeping with the circumstances and national priorities, the user organizations and so forth. So just an addition at the beginning there.

Thank you very much, Cote d'Ivoire. Okay, so now I will ask the Secretariat to read. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Perhaps if the new paragraph proposed by the EU is to be 12 bis, I'll start with that and then read the revisions to paragraph 13. So the new paragraph 12 bis, urges Parties to use existing tools developed according to Articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol and shared through the Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearinghouse. Then paragraph 13, with the different proposed amendments, invites Parties to continue to engage, according to national circumstances, IPLC's user organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes as appropriate and encourages user organizations and networks to continue to facilitate user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements and the rest of the paragraph continues as it was. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Secretariat, I will give the floor to Namibia. Namibia.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. If the delegate of the EU could just explain to us the difference in para 12 bis and para 13, the last part that indicates and to make the tools available through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse mechanism and 12 bis that indicates to share it through the clearinghouse mechanism, if we can just understand the rationale of the two paras because it speaks of the same exercise or requirement. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. I understand that the difference is that we are encouraging parties to use what is already there, but of course I will ask the European Union to respond to you. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm very happy to try to explain the rational behind and the difference. As I said, we believe that there's already quite a lot of materials that has been developed and it's been made available, including through being published on to the ABS clearing house. So the difference is precisely what you have explained. Paragraph 13 is about inviting to continue to engage in all with all relevant actors in these efforts of developing materials relevant for Article 19 and 20, the new paragraph that we have proposed is about urging parties to also use what exists, because sometimes, you know, we do a lot of work that then is simply forgotten or not used and it's It's a pity in the end. So it's just that is the rationale behind it. We're flexible about the language if you want to align to the language of paragraph 13 in relation to the ABS clearing house. So the last part instead of shared through the ABS clearing house could be made available through the ABS clearing house if that helps.

Thank you very much, European Union. I will first ask Namibia if with this change, can we approve? Oh, I see that there are. Okay, so Namibia first and then Kenya. Namibia, you have the floor.

Madam Chairperson, let me yield to Kenya and then I come back.

Okay, so Kenya, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. may be a matter of language. We are wondering if youth organizations will also include academia and research institutions. If not, then we add academia and research institutions.

Kenya, I understand that it does, it does include. Can we leave it as it is, okay? I see Cote d'Ivoire, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Now, I've gone to Articles 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol. And these articles start by saying that every party encourages as appropriate. This means that the codes, the clauses, are elaborated by the parties. How could the parties forget? This is why I support Namibia's proposal to say that what the European Union recommends is included in Part 13. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Cote d'Ivoire. Namibia, Namibia has the floor.

I think Cote d'Ivoire said it all, but I would like to hear with the consideration that the EU had what the word is and where that word would be included so that we can see what difference it would make to para 13.

Yes, European Union, could you please read your text suggestion?

With pleasure, Madam Chair. Urges parties to use existing tools developed according to Article 19 and 20 of the Nagoya Protocol and made available through the ABS Clearing House. Maybe if you allow me, Madam Chair, We do understand the arguments by the other parties. Probably this is somehow captured already in the protocol's article, but I think probably 90% of what we have in these draft recommendations is already captured by the text that we have in the Nagoya Protocol. So just to add on the further reflections.

Thank you very much, the European Union. Can we agree with the explanations just made by the European Union? Can we agree that... Okay, Namibia, you have the floor.

Madam Chairperson, I suggest you may move on to the next para. We have a strong belief that what the European Union is suggesting is already captured in paragraph 13. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. So paragraph 13, the Secretariat just read it. Is there any objection to paragraph 13 with the changes? European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just about I'm no longer sure now where the natural circumstances is placed in the text. And I wonder if that is really needed precisely because of the delegates of Cot d'Ivoire, I think, read the Article 19 and 20 where as appropriate is mentioned. And we have now as appropriate here in the text thanks to the valuable addition from India. So I really wonder if that is needed. Otherwise, we would like to put it in square brackets.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We just want to have another reading of the paragraph as it stands because we are not sure anymore how it reads now. Thanks.

Okay, Malawi. So I'll ask the Secretariat to read now paragraph 13 with the changes made. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Indeed, we had placed the "in accordance with national circumstances" in the first line, but I think to make the text read a bit smoother, assuming it stays, it could come a bit further down. So with that, the paragraph could read, invites parties to continue to engage indigenous peoples and local communities, user organizations and relevant stakeholders in access and benefit sharing processes as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances, and encourages user organizations and networks to continue to facilitate user compliance with access and benefit sharing requirements and then the rest, including by developing, that continues as it was in the CRP unchanged. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can we agree on paragraph 13 as it is right now or do we need to bracket as appropriate? Yes, European Union, you have the floor.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, I don't want to be complicated, but it's really a question of whether we need that because to my understanding, as appropriate captures also national circumstances. So we wonder what the added value of that is.

Okay, so I ask India. India, do you still need as appropriate if you have already in accordance with national legislation circumstances as suggested by Cote d'Ivoire? Can we India have the floor?

We are fine with the national circumstances. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you very much, India, for flexibility. So can we approve paragraph 13 as it is? I see no objection. And my suggestion would go to paragraph 12 bis. I think that we could bracket it and perhaps since we already have some language pending on this document, perhaps we could try to lift the brackets further on. Thank you very much. So I would like now to proceed to paragraph 14, encourages parties. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you. We are suggesting some adjustments on the the last line and enhance, then we put transboundary for transboundary cooperation. Then after cooperation we add in accordance with Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank.

You. Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. So the paragraph at the end would read, could the secretariat please read it out loud for us?

Sure, no problem. So the last part refers to development of regional approaches to access and benefit sharing and enhance transboundary cooperation in accordance with Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just on this, we think that this should not be Article 10 that would be mentioned here, but transboundary cooperation is in Article 11 of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Switzerland. So United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to make the same point as Switzerland. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I see the European Union is the same point. Okay, so can we agree with the paragraph as amended with paragraph 11? I'm sorry, article 11 of the Nagoya Protocol. Yes, I see no objection. Thank you very much. So paragraph 14 is approved. And now I would like to invite you to examine paragraph 15. Are there any comments? I see none. So paragraph 15 is approved. Paragraph 16 agrees that. Do you have any comments? Yes, South Africa, you have the floor followed by Namibia, South Africa.

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph A16 agrees that it is premature to revise the compliance procedures and mechanisms. The African group has consistently sought stronger compliance pathways. Therefore, South Africa would like to add language requesting a timeline for when revision will be considered as follows and requests the executive secretary to propose indicators of sufficient practical experience that would trigger reconsideration of the compliance procedures at a future meeting of the parties.

Could you please repeat, South Africa?

We request that the Executive Secretary to propose indicators of sufficient practical experience that would trigger reconsideration of the compliance procedures at a future meeting of the parties.

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

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia would like to support the intervention by South Africa. And I just want to check after practical experience, review based on sufficient practical experience, comma, and note that the limited number of cases brought to the attention of the compliance committee does not in itself constitute evidence of compliance with the Protocol. Thank you.

Could you please repeat, Namibia?

Sufficient practical experience, comma, and notes that the limited number of cases brought to the attention of the Compliance Committee does not in itself constitute evidence of compliance with the protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. I don't see any more requests for the floor, so I will ask the Secretariat to please read the paragraph with the amended text.

Thank you, Chair. So with the revisions proposed, paragraph 16 would read, well, the first part stays the same. The proposed amendments were additions at the end of the paragraph. So beginning from the last phrase of the text that was in the CRP, without prejudice to any future review based on sufficient practical experience, and notes that the limited number of cases brought to the attention of the Compliance Committee does not in itself constitute evidence of compliance with the Protocol, and requests the Executive Secretary to propose indicators of sufficient practical experience that would trigger reconsideration of the compliance procedures and mechanisms at a future meeting of the parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Do I see any comment from parties on the floor? No, I don't, OK. I would just ask the Secretariat to comment on the amendment made by South Africa so that we can have a clear picture about that. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Just to note that in the compliance procedures and mechanisms which were adopted by the meeting of the parties to the protocol, in decision NP1/4, the final section of the compliance procedures and mechanisms which are annexed to the decision is section G, review of procedures and mechanisms. And that section of the compliance procedures and mechanisms states that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Nagoya Protocol shall undertake the review of the effectiveness of these procedures and mechanisms under the assessment and review provided for in Article 31 of the Protocol and take appropriate action. So regular review of the compliance procedures and mechanisms is built into the compliance procedures and mechanisms themselves and occurs every four years when we do the assessment and review of the protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. I understand that South Africa is asking for us to approve indicators to do this exercise, isn't it, South Africa? Yes, thank you very much. Malawi, Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you. Madam Chair, on the same item we had proposed text for an additional paragraph, 16 bis, which we didn't see reflected here. So I don't know if I can read that out.

Yes, Malawi, you can read it. Thank you.

Okay, so the paragraph 16 bis is request the executive secretary in coordination with the compliance committee to assess why the compliance procedures and mechanisms under the Nagoya Protocol have not been triggered through submissions, including whether parties and relevant stakeholders are sufficiently aware of and are able to access and use the procedures and to identify any procedural, institutional or practical barriers and options for addressing them.

Thank you very much, Malawi. I will ask the Secretariat to read so that you can check. Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Malawi for speaking in dictation speed, so I hope I have managed to capture it all, but yes, please do confirm. Requests the Executive Secretary in coordination with the Compliance Committee to assess why the compliance procedures and mechanisms under the Nagoya Protocol have not been triggered through submissions, including whether Parties and relevant stakeholders are sufficiently aware of and are able to access and use the procedures, and to identify any procedural, institutional or practical barriers and options to address them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. I see that Malawi agrees with the text. So I would like now to ask if we can agree with the proposed text. No, I see Japan, European Union, yes, Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may ask to coming back to the paragraph 16, it says agreed as a verb, conference of the parties agreed. Agree is the term to use for legally binding agreement. So we, Japan proposes to replace agree with decide. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. European Union, followed by the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to say that we're getting now a little bit confused on what are we trying to address here and capture with all these new additions. We had understood this paragraph First of all, I have to say that we did not find this paragraph so necessary in the context of this text, but we were fine to have it because we understand it as taking into account the outcomes of the submissions and the process that has been undertaken to assess whether we had to review the whole tools and procedures for ensuring compliance with the whole protocols. This is not to address the users measures compliance or the compliance pillar of the Nagoya Protocol, but the whole Nagoya Protocol and the whole compliance of parties with the Nagoya Protocol. So we were quite fine with the previous with the text as it was previously quite clear. Now we are getting a bit confused with the additions. What are they referring to? We also would need a little bit of more time to scrutinize them. In particular, the addition from Malawi, we would prefer to put it in square brackets and understand a little bit better the rationale behind also if all this is really necessary here.

Thank you very much, European Union. I see the United Kingdom followed by Malawi. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On paragraph 16 with the new additions and based on the explanation that we received from the Secretariat, which was very helpful, we don't think it is necessary to ask the Executive Secretary to develop indicators. In fact, the the necessary procedures and processes are in place, as was described by the Secretariat, that allows us to undertake that work without additional indicators. I think we would prefer to remove that. I think we could go along with some of the text that was proposed by our colleague from Namibia, providing some kind of further justification and explanation, but I don't think we need necessarily new indicators. And regarding 16 bis, we would also like a little bit more time to consider that paragraph. It has got quite a lot of content that I'm not sure we fully understand yet. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you very much, United Kingdom. I'll give the floor to Malawi, and then, of course, we'll bracket the new text. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are happy to still have our text reflected there, either in brackets, because our understanding is that we just got a synthesis of the review of effectiveness, and there were findings there that were very critical for the Nagoya Protocol's future, and we feel that if there are issues there that should be addressed, we should be able to point them out, find ways of responding responding to those issues so that we improve the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. So it's not enough for us just to say this is what we found, but then what are we going to do about these findings? That's why we have made that proposal and we are happy if other parties could reflect and find ways of improving our proposal, but really the intent is to make sure that we respond with action and proposals to the findings of the review of the effectiveness. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Malawi. Thank you for giving this explanation. I would like now to propose then that we approve paragraph 16 with brackets on the new text, and then I would invite the parties concerned to please try to lift the brackets or change the wording on the L document phase. And also, paragraph 16 bs urged the parties, I would also put brackets on that as requested and with that both paragraphs would be approved as amended. And now I would like to ask, oh yes, Egypt you have the floor.

So Madam Chair, before moving to paragraph 17, The African Group notes that Article 10 and the need for a process to make it functional highlighted in our statement under this agenda item is not reflected in the CRP. The Group considers that substantial work have been already undertaken on Article 10 and should be taken forward through a party-driven intercessional process focused on developing the modality of the global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism with a view to enable substantial consideration by the COP 7. We therefore propose the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph 16 or 16 bis. It reads, decides to establish a party driven intercessional process to advance the development of the modalities of the global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism under article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. Comma, building on the work already undertaken, pursuant to decision, COP 11, 1B, Nagoya, COP MOP decisions, 1/10, 2/10, 3/13, 4/10, and 5/7, and taking into account the relevant finding of the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol, 16 TERF requests the Executive Secretary, subject to the availability of resource, to convene as part of the intersessional process referred to in paragraph 16 bis above an open-ended intersessional meeting of parties with the participation of indigenous people and local communities and relevant stakeholders to develop concrete elements of the modalities of the global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism under Article 10, building on the work undertaken pursuant to the decision referred in para 16 above. for consideration by the Conference of the Parties serving as meeting of the party to the Nagoya Protocol at its seventh meeting. Should I repeat again or is it okay?

Thank you very much, Egypt. If you could please just repeat the decisions that you quoted there. Thank you.

So it's Cop CBD 11/1B and Cop Nagoya decision 110, Nagoya 210, Nagoya 313, Nagoya 410 and 57. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Egypt. I request the Secretariat to read the text proposed by Egypt. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So as we already had a 16 bis insertion, this is 16 ter and 16, I've forgotten what comes after ter. Anyway, the next one after ter. So 16 ter would read decides to establish a party driven intercessional process to advance the developments of the modalities of the global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism under article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol. building on the work already undertaken pursuant to decision 11/1B of the Conference of the Parties and decisions NP1/10, NP2/10, NP3/13, NP4/10 and NP5/7, of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol and taking into account the relevant findings of the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol. And then the next new paragraph to be inserted would read, requests the Executive Secretary subject to the availability of resources, to convene as part of the intersessional process referred to in 16 ter above, an open-ended intersessional meeting of parties with the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities and relevant stakeholders to develop concrete elements of the modalities of the global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism under article 10, building on the work undertaken pursuant to the decisions referred to in paragraph 16 ter above for consideration by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the protocol at its seventh meeting. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Okay. We haven't really finished consideration of 16 and 16bis, so I would like first to ask if we can approve 16 and 16bis with the bracket suggested, Yes, I see no objection. Thank you very much. So 16 and 16B are approved. And then the new paragraphs suggested by Egypt, I will ask if there is any objection to it. and I want to see if there is, yes, there are several. So what I would like to suggest is that we bracket this text and I would really ask colleagues to please make text suggestions, especially if they are too long during the first reading of the CRPs. I know this suggestion completely consistent with your intervention, but it would really be helpful, especially for COP, if we could not take all this text on board during plenary. So that would be my suggestion. European Union, you want the floor? Yes, European Union have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, it's more procedural questions. Just wondering if this news text proposals paragraphs were also part of the initial submissions by the group. So just to make sure.

I can also, of course, ask Egypt, but as yes, it was consistent with their intervention and they did say that they would send us text, but I would hope that it was before now. Yes, thank you very much, European Union, thank you. So I would like to suggest this, Rebecca, and please also talk and see if we can come to an agreement afterwards. And with that, I would suggest that we approve the suggestion just made by Egypt, 16 ter and 16-- Quarter. Quarter. Quarter, quarter. In between brackets. Thank you very much, colleagues. Now, article, paragraph 17 requests the executive secretary to propose Do we see any comments, objections? India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We support this paragraph as it is with a small insertion line first after methodology, please add in consultation with parties. This would ensure that the methodology for third assessment and review reflects experiences, perspective and national circumstances of parties. Given that the assessment concern the effectiveness of implementation of Nagoya Protocol, parties consultation would also help to ensure the transparent, inclusive and balanced methodology and ownership of the assessment process. So please add in line first in consultation with parties. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. India, South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Para 17, there's a critical gap. The terms of reference for the third assessment contain no reference to Article 10, given also Egypt's intervention now. Article 10, transboundary situations, historical collections, or the relationship between the Nagoya Protocol and the Cali Fund. Without these, the third assessment will repeat the same bilateral implementation focus and the multilateral gap will widen further. We therefore would like to add to A17, a D, the need to assess progress toward the operationalization of Article 10 of the protocol. and the experience of the multilateral mechanism established under decision/2 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

South Africa, could you please repeat?

Thank you, Chair. It's a D, 17D, the need to assess progress towards the operationalization of Article 10 of the protocol and the experience of the MLM established under decision/2 of the COP of CBD.

Thank you very much. South Africa? I will give the floor to Namibia. Namibia will have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We support the new insertion made by South Africa. and we would like to add a D to this paragraph. We welcome paragraph 17, which accepts that the third assessment must reach the operationalization and effectiveness of access and benefit sharing systems and paragraph 12 of section B on disaggregated reporting of benefits received, that is the direction in which we looked at these paragraphs together, but in the instrument that produced the problem that is untouched, so we propose a new paragraph E under paragraph 17 and it would read, and I'll read in dictator speed the need to review and, as appropriate, revise the framework of indicators contained in annex two to decision NP3/1A, with a view to incorporating indicators that measure the operationalization of access and benefit sharing systems and the outcomes achieved in terms of benefits shared, comma, in addition to the existence of legislative, comma, administrative and policy measures. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Namibia, I think it was captured. Thank you. I will give the floor to Switzerland. Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to comment on the insertion made by South Africa, so on the review of the progress of the operation, operation, operation, operation, operation, operation, operation, operation, I think it was the operation. I cannot say it, Article 10 and the experience with the Cali Fund. So we would not support these insertions because on Article 10 this would preempt our further discussions that are foreseen for COP17 and also in this context we do not support the review of the Cali Fund here under the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Do I understand correctly that we are taking the whole paragraph 17 with the sub-paragraph together, right? Okay, so we had small minor suggestions for improving the language on paragraph, sub-paragraph B. We were going to suggest to have the need instead deleting four more and to collect and analyze information that would enable an assessment of the level of operationalization and all the rest remains as it is. So just replace "for more" with "to collect and analyse". And I may be wrong, but I think this subparagraph captures somehow what it is now in new additions, most likely also in this new subparagraph e, even if it does not refer to indicators, but I think if I got it right, the overall idea here is that we collect relevant information precisely to assess the effectiveness of existing measures in achieving the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol. So I see a little bit of overlapping with what has been proposed now, but maybe the proposer can further clarify. And then in subparagraph c, we wanted also to add the inputs from the compliance committee. So it would be an addition in the first line, input from the compliance committee and the informal advisory committee. And I think on the same, similarly to what Switzerland has raised, we would also prefer to put in square brackets this new addition on paragraph on Article 10 of the Nagoya Protocol, the review of the Cali Fund. Also here is a question of understanding better and also the connections. Now with all this new text it becomes difficult to go with a thorough assessment.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Japan aligns itself with distinguished delegates from Switzerland and EU and supports their comments. Particularly, the review process of the Cali Fund should not be included in this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As paragraph 17 stood with a, b, and C, including I think the additions on compliance committee are helpful and also the addition in the chapeau and consultation with parties is also helpful. It provides quite an overarching high level direction for the review. I worry that with the additions at the end we go into a deeper level of suggestions of what the review should cover and that could then take us down the path of creating a very long list. So we would prefer to stick with the overarching concepts and areas for focus in A, B and C. Thank you.

Thank you very much. United Kingdom, Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Brazil would like to support the additions of small d and e from South Africa and, if I'm not mistaken, Namibia. We see the pertinence of relating the article 10 with the Cali Fund and the need to review and assess the information in the next round of collection of data. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Brazil, Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to also indicate our support for the additions made by South Africa, Namibia, but also the EU, including the compliance committee and advisory committees. We feel that we have learned a lot from this review, and the proposals would strengthen the next review, and anything that would strengthen the next review I think it's acceptable for us. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Malawi. I would like to propose that the Secretariat read the insertions on the original paragraph so we are all on board. So the chapeau and A through C. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So the chapeau to paragraph 17 as amended would read, requests the Executive Secretary to propose a methodology in consultation with parties for conducting the third assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol, taking into account: Then little a has not changed, so it reads the outcomes and lessons learned from the second assessment and review. Little b, the need to collect and analyze information that would enable an assessment of the level of operationalization of access and benefit sharing systems and their effectiveness in achieving the objective of the Nagoya Protocol while avoiding additional reporting burdens. And then little c, inputs from the Compliance Committee and the Informal Advisory Committee on Capacity Building for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Do I see any objection from for 17, A to C, with the insertions, no, thank you very much. So those are approved. And I heard already several parties asking for us to bracket the remaining paragraphs that were suggested here. And I would like to Of course, I will have to bracket them, but I would like to see if we could at least delete the suggestion made towards the Cali Fund given the explanations given by parties here. Could I have some flexibility here or not? I see no. Okay, so the two other paragraphs would be three. Yes. The two other paragraphs will be bracketed and I will ask the Secretariat to read them so that we know what we are talking about. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So the paragraph D in brackets would read the need to assess progress towards operationalization of Article 10 of the protocol and the experience of the multilateral mechanism established under decision 16/2 of the Conference of the Parties. And the new paragraph E in brackets would read, the need to review and, as appropriate, revise the framework of indicators contained in Annex II to Decision NP3/1A with a view to incorporating indicators that measure the operationalization of access and benefit sharing systems and the outcomes achieved in terms of benefits shared in addition to the existence of legislative, administrative and policy measures. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So those two insertions are also approved between brackets. Paragraph 18, request a subsidiary body on implementation. There were no comments on this paragraph, so I would like to approve it as it is. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We do agree with you. We would like to propose a new paragraph after paragraph 18, if you are amenable to it. The text is silent on provisions that remain unimplemented and as South Africa indicated, including transboundary situations. So we would like to include a new para after para 18. If you get to that point, I assume you first want to clear para 18. So let me hold on and then come back.

Thank you very much, Namibia. Can we approve paragraph 18 as it is? Yes, thank you. So paragraph 18 is approved. I will ask parties to avoid inserting new language unless you have already submitted new language and it's not reflected on the text because the time to propose new language was during the first reading and all the time we had until here It's we won't be able to approve the documents if we proceed on this on this way of working. You know, if you have submitted text that is not reflected, of course, I would take this text on board. But right now, during plenary, it's not the time to propose lengthy and lots of new text. So I will ask Namibia, Namibia, have you submitted texts? related to the proposal that you want to make right now.

Madam Chairperson, I think it would be appropriate if the Secretariat and the Chairperson continue to check the records. We submitted our statement, we indicated that we will provide text, we submitted the text yesterday, definitely not today. We have uploaded the statement, we have proof thereof. I do think that it is appropriate that we continue the spirit in which we are dealing with the proposals, so please if you allow me, may I read the text or the Secretariat can download it from our submission. I stand to be guided.

You may read your text. I understand that yes, you submit the text, but of course you submit the text after the CRP was published and that's the problem. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Whilst we take note that nothing is agreed until fully agreed and consideration of the procedures, we would like to propose the following text after paragraph 18. requests the Executive Secretary to compile, comma, on the basis of the second assessment and review and information available through the Access and Benefit Sharing Clearinghouse, comma, information on provisions of the Protocol for which limited or no implementation experience has been reported, including with respect to genetic resources, occurring in transboundary situations, and to make that information available for the consideration of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol at the sixth meeting. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. Is there any objection to the text just read by Namibia? Yes, I see. UK, you have the floor.

Sorry to slow down things. I wonder if we could just have it reread, please. I didn't quite capture it all. Thank you.

Thank you very much, United Kingdom. I'll ask the Secretary to read. Secretariat.

Thank you. Yes, so the proposed insertion as a paragraph 18 bis would read, requests the Executive Secretary to compile, comma, on the basis of the second assessment and review and information available through the Access and Benefit Sharing Clearinghouse, information on provisions of the Protocol for which limited or no implementation experience has been reported, including with respect to genetic resources occurring in transboundary situations, and to make that information available for the consideration of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol at its sixth meeting.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this new text, there may be good elements, valuable elements, it's just a question of having the right enough time to assess it properly and also, you know, have 27 constituencies to consult before I speak. So I would prefer to put that in square brackets and have the time to look at it.

Thank you very much, European Union. So the text is inserted between square brackets. So with that, can we move on and approve the Text suggested by Namibia. Yes, thank you very much. I would like now to go to section B, enhancing the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. So recommends the first preamble paragraph. I see no objection, so it's approved. And then operative paragraph one recalls its decision and there was no comments, no suggestions for this paragraph. I would like to see if we can approve it. Yes, thank you very much. Going forward to paragraph two and I would like to take paragraph two as a whole if it's possible. Okay, so I'll give the floor to the European Union, followed by Argentina, European Union.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's just a small addition in sub-paragraph c. We would like to add on the fourth line after managing processes for granting access, comma, timely responses to requests for information by users of genetic resources, comma, it's minor addition to further clarify and improve this paragraph. It was also in our written submission.

Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We agree in taking the paragraph and sub paragraphs as a whole, we would just suggest one addition in the chapeau. After in a position to do so, we would add the following.

Taking into account national circumstances, priorities, capabilities and legislation.

I repeat, after in a position to do so.

Taking into account national circumstances, priorities.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Argentina. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to support the Argentina insertion in suppose and we have some minor insertion in this small B after protocol. please add in accordance with national circumstances, priorities and capabilities.

Thank you very much, India. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Again, in subpara b to c, we see the listing of articles 15, 16, 17 and 18 as the framework for national authority capacity building, again omitting article 10. The capacity building mandate should explicitly include capacity to participate in any global multilateral benefit sharing mechanism, including under Article 10. So we hope to include that article. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, South Africa. And now I would ask the Secretariat, since I see no more requests for the floor, I will ask the Secretariat to read out loud the changes made to the paragraphs where we made any changes. And you don't need to read the whole paragraph, but just insertions. Okay, so paragraph two, Chapeau.

Thank you, yes. So the chapeau to paragraph two would be amended by adding at the end, the last phrase would read, in a position to do so, taking into account national circumstances, priorities, capabilities and legislation. Paragraph A stayed the same. Paragraph B, I'm not sure if I fully caught the exact wording by the distinguished delegate from India, so I hope he can correct me, but the addition at the end would be in accordance with national priorities, circumstances and capabilities. And then in paragraph C, there were two proposed amendments. After the colon in the third line, so it says efficient and effective manner colon, managing processes for granting access comma, timely responses to requests for information by users of genetic resources comma, negotiating mutually agreed terms and ensuring compliance in accordance with articles 10, and then the rest is as it was, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So can we approve paragraph two and subparagraphs as amended by parties? UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's just on little c, the addition of article 10. I don't think really fits within the context there to strengthen the national authorities to implement the protocol. As we know, there's still discussions to be had on Article 10, and so I don't think it's appropriate. It's a bit premature to ask national authorities to take action on that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So I understand that we should bracket Article 10 specifically. Thank you very much, UK. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia would just like to support the suggestion made by South Africa because on Article 10 specifically, the important thing is that its absence here is not necessarily something that we should overlook because Article 10 is part of the Convention, it has never been implemented over the years. This document looks at the assessment and review in the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and so we do support the insertion of South Africa in relation to Article 10. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Namibia, the European Union.

Doesn't get right. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. We had very similar points to the one raised by the UK. We also do not see very much the connection here with Article 10, so please keep it in bracket.

Thank you. Of course. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Japan also supports the intervention made by UK and EU. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. So can we approve the paragraph two and its subparagraphs as amended, considering that article ten is between brackets? Oh, I'm sorry, Switzerland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So yeah, for us it's also fine. We also want to keep the brackets around Article 10, but then we were also wondering in letter B, the addition of in accordance with national priorities, circumstances and capabilities, if we do really need this addition here because we already have it in the chapeau. So maybe we can just streamline, streamline the whole text. Thank you very much.

India, take into account the, okay, thank you, thank you very much. So the tax is streamlined as suggested by Switzerland and with the agreement of India. European Union.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's not, we're fine with the way forward on this paragraph. It's more a general comments for aligning language when we refer to the regional and sub-regional technical and scientific cooperation support centers throughout the documents. We have been told by colleagues dealing also with the capacity building agenda item that it was agreed that when we refer the first time in the document we have the full name and then we only refer to it to support centre. So it's just an invitation for the secretariat to keep an eye on that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, European Union. We will see that the secretariat do make these editorial changes. So paragraph two is approved. Thank you very much, colleagues. And then I would also like to take paragraph 3 as a whole from A to C. Do I see any suggestions from the floor? I see none. Oh, yes, Bahrain. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We propose to amend paragraph 3, chapeau. In the chapeau, we can suggest this amendment. invite parties then to strengthen communication effort subject to the availability of resources and in accordance with the national priorities.

Thank you very much, Bahrain. I don't see any more requests for the floor. I ask the Secretariat to read the insertion made by Bahrain. Secretariat.

Thank you. So The insertion would, I believe, come on the third line after communication efforts. So perhaps if I start from the including on line two, so including as appropriate the cooperation support centers to strengthen communication efforts, comma, subject to the availability of resources and national priorities, comma, including through campaigns, continues as it was. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Could we agree with sub-paragraph 3 and paragraph 3 and its sub-paragraphs as amended? Yes, thank you very much. So paragraph 3 is approved with the changes made. And I would also like to take paragraph 4 as a role, request executive secretary, Fiji, Fiji you have the floor.

Thank you Madam co-chair and as Fiji submitted this submission, this request before the CRP came out, we again are under your guidance on how it should be reflected. This is towards the end of paragraph 4C where as mentioned by UK in terms of the centers. So we would like to reflect on and to support those centers. Oh, sorry, and to support, comma, through those centers, comma, the establishment and operationalization of checkpoints under Article 17 of the Nagoya Protocol. And as explained, our justification is just 46% of parties have a designated checkpoint. In the Asian Pacific region, the figure is 27%, the lowest of any region. And only 15 parties worldwide have provided checkpoint information to the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse mechanism. For Pacific seeds, the national focal point or the competent national authority and the checkpoint functions are frequently held by a single officer. So delivery at national scale is really not viable for us and so we are really seeking the regional and the sub regional technical and scientific cooperation centers designated under decision 16/3 as the practical delivery modality for us. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are happy for its deletion if this is not the right place to find its home. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Fiji. I will now give the floor to Kenya. Kenya, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We also had submitted before this CRB an insertion to which read to promote cooperation, collaboration and synergy among relevant multilateral environmental agreements addressing access and benefit sharing such as the BP and J agreement.

Could you please repeat, Kenya?

To promote cooperation, collaboration and synergy among relevant multilateral environmental agreements addressing access and benefit sharing such as the BBNJ agreement.

Thank you very much, Kenya. So with the amendments, can we approve? Yes, Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Regarding the proposal from the distinguished delegates from Kenya, we, to our understanding, the benefit sharing mechanism in BBNJ is still early stage, is still in the negotiation process. So I would like to keep that in bracket. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. I would like to ask Kenya if we can keep your paragraph but without making any reference to BBNJ given the explanations made by Japan so that we could have perhaps some clean text.

That is okay with us, thank you.

Thank you very much, Kenya. And with that, can we approve the paragraph four and sub-paragraphs as amended? Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. With regards to Kenya's proposal, we would ask to keep it in brackets until we have time to go through it in more detail. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Argentina. Kenya, you have the floor.

Yes, as members say, maybe we can retain the PPNJ and put in brackets as we continue discussions.

Okay, perfect. Thank you very much, Kenya. So we keep PPNJ and we keep the sub-paragraph suggested by Kenya between brackets and with that we approve paragraph four as amended by parties. I would like now to go to paragraphs five to ten and I have to say that we didn't receive any comments on those paragraphs. So I would like to take them as a whole and ask for your approval. Is there an objection? India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have very small insertion in paragraph 6, line second after clearing house, please add in accordance with Article 14 of the Nagoya Protocol. And in paragraph 7, in line first after provide as appropriate and in accordance with national circumstances and legal framework. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, India. Cote d'Ivoire, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I just have one response to seven. Contrary to the previous speaker, I'd like to remove up to date and accurate because I believe that information, oh no, sorry, move accurate to practical. It's up to date, but it's always accurate, so it's not necessary to have that here. And when I see practical as well, when we submit information, what do we understand by practical? So for me, it's also not necessary to have either accurate or practical. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Cote d'Ivoire, Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. On seven, I would like to make an addition. So it reads as follows, we request parties to provide upstate accurate and practical information, comma, as appropriate and as necessary. And then the sentence continues as it is.

Colleagues, we did not receive any comments on those paragraphs. Also, of course, we are trying to make as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation some obligations that are foreseen on the treaty. I would like to ask if we can keep the paragraphs as they are. since there were no suggestions, nothing that you're suggesting is really essential from what I can see. So I would ask your flexibility on that so that we can move on. Is there any objection? No, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for flexibility. So paragraphs five to ten are approved as they are. I would like now to go to 10 to further-- oh, I'm sorry. No. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I would like now to go to 11, recalls. I don't see any request for the floor. OK. And paragraph 12 encourages parties. Is there any objection? I see none. Thank you very much. Paragraph 12 is approved. Paragraph 13 notes that the outcomes. Is there any comment or objection? I see none. Thank you very much. So paragraph 13 is approved. I would like now to go to section C, financial mechanism and sources. The first preamble paragraph recommends. Is there any comment? No, thank you very much. So operative paragraph recalls this decision. We did not receive any comment. So yes, there is no objection or comment. So paragraph one is approved. Paragraph two urges developed country parties and other parties. Yes, I see Maldives followed by the European Union. Maldives, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to propose to add to the para two after developing country parties, in particular, least developing countries.

And small island developing states. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Maldives, European Union.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We were wondering the real need added value for this new paragraph two because we believe that the content is already covered and well explained under three and four. So we are not really sure if this is really needed. So we're going to ask whether we could actually delete it.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to support the by Maldives and also we see the relevance of having this paragraph here. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Malawi. So I see that there are several requests from the floor on this paragraph. My suggestion, okay, I will take more interventions and then I will know that Norway, you have the floor followed by the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Norway would like to support the EU in deleting paragraph two. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I don't need any support for deleting, so I would ask people who are supporting the deletion to please not ask for the floor. I see Bahrain followed by Zimbabwe.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bahrain supports to retain the paragraph.

Okay, we do have support from several parties to retain and also support to delete it. What I would suggest here is that we put this paragraph between brackets and I will ask you to please consult among yourselves if there is any kind of formula of the language that we can remove the brackets and keep some of the paragraph. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So we keep this paragraph between brackets and if that it is approved and to for the discussions China you have the floor.

Just need some clarification so we put paragraph two in brackets with the insertion from Maldives or not?

With the insertion of the Maldives of course yes I I asked the secretary to read it out loud so so that we know.

Yes, so the bracketed paragraph two as amended would read urges developed country parties and other parties that voluntarily assume the obligations of developed country parties to provide new and additional adequate, predictable and timely financial resources to developing country parties, in particular least developed countries and small island developing states for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in accordance with Article 25 of the Protocol and Article 20 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. And so I see that we are all in agreement. I would like to take paragraph three as a whole and I would like to remind us that we did not receive any suggestions for little letter B. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I saw the comments from the EU supported by Norway and the UK in relation to the duplicate, duplicated content of para two and three. But if we would delete parties in para three, we would invite international organization, regional and development banks and other programs and initiatives and keep the para only to parties on para two. So it would make sense if we could try once again deleting parties in para three and retaining para two as it is. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Brazil. Is there agreement to do so? No. Okay. So, of course, Brazil, would you rather also delete parties? No. It was, yeah. So, European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Maybe to explain that there's other elements in this subparagraph three that we want the parties to take into account too. So in particular, 3B to take into account the key findings and messages. So we don't want to delete the parties from there. Maybe we could explore margin of maneuver to take some languages for paragraph two and merge it into paragraph three. Now, I don't have a proposal right now, but I can think about that.

Thank you very much, European Union, for your willingness to reach a compromise on that. So with that, I understand that we can approve paragraph three and its sub paragraphs as they are. Thank you very much. I would like now to go to paragraph four and also take paragraph four and its sub paragraphs. Do I see any, yes, Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We had made a submission when this agenda item was first introduced, which is not reflected in this paragraph. So we had introduced a new sub-paragraph in our submission. So it will be C, 4C.

Yes, Malawi, please read.

Okay, so, for C, to consider establishing within the biodiversity focal area a dedicated funding window for access and benefit sharing, including for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. with adequate and predictable resources, taking into account the national priorities and needs of eligible parties and without reducing the availability of resources for other national biodiversity priorities. We feel that one of the outcomes of the review that was identified was that most parties were not able to implement articles of the protocol because of the issue of funding. And if this could be a consideration, I'm sure it would help with the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Thank you.

Malawi, could you please repeat your insertion? Thank you.

So to consider establishing within the biodiversity focal area a dedicated funding window for access and benefit sharing, including for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol with adequate and predictable resources, taking into account the national priorities and needs of eligible parties and without reducing the availability of resources for other national biodiversity priorities. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. In order to streamline the language in 4A, we would like to suggest to reflect the common language we use. This would be after to continue to assist developing country parties in particular list developed countries and small island developing states and countries with economies in transition.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Malawi. So I will now give the floor to India. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Can you allow to take a floor for 3b?

No. No, we have already approved that and there was no submission to this paragraph, India. I apologize for that.

So we have some comments on 4B also. Okay. Okay, thank you. In 4B, in last line after deadline, please include without creating additional reporting requirements.

Thank you.

Thank you very much India. Fiji, Fiji you have the floor.

Thank you Madam Chair. Firstly, support Maldives in the correct formulation of 4a, we don't mind eligible parties, but I believe there is no agreed language on among them. So after states, comma, and countries with economies in transition. The second inclusion is between the words on the fourth line, review and end. And the suggested text is similar to what was proposed in part B by Fiji on behalf of PICs. So it reads, including support for the establishment and operationalization of checkpoints and the publication of checkpoint information through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse, comma, and the sentence continues, and to encourage the use. Distinguished delegates, just to clarify as well, PCC has made it clear in its submission that paragraph 10C of section A urges the parties to actually establish and fully operationalize their checkpoints, but there is not a single paragraph in this draft recommendation that provides the means. Article 7 is the provision on which the monitoring of utilization depends and where the utilization is not monitored and the benefits are not shared. So this sub paragraph for us encourages the use of global and regional projects, but also makes available the funds to that end. So the amendment is just to attach the substance to a delivery route that the paragraph already encompasses. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Fiji. I will give the Secretariat the floor so that we can be clear on the language on the Nagoya Protocol. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So with regard to the provisions on financial mechanism and resources in the protocol in Article 25, looking in particular at paragraph three of that article and the formulation there with referring to the different categories of countries, the last part or sort of the second-half of paragraph three states, shall take into account the need of developing country parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states among them, and of parties with economies in transition. So I believe that's the formulation that we had followed in the CRP. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Thank you, Fiji, for flexibility. I will now give the floor to the United Kingdom, followed by Norway. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In paragraph 4, it refers to the submission of their third national reports. I think that is perhaps an error and it should be second national reports, seeing as parties have only so far submitted their first national report. Regarding the additional paragraph, or the new paragraph, to consider establishing within the biodiversity focal area, I wonder if we have the JEF in the room that could provide some clarity on what already exists in terms of access and benefit sharing funding from the JEF just so that we all have the same understanding. Thank you.

Thank you very much, United Kingdom. I'll give the floor to Norway and then I ask the JEF to, if they're in the room, to please also push the microphone. Norway, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Norway also has questions regarding the new insertion by Malawi. As of now, we cannot support it and we would suggest putting it in brackets. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Norway. I will now give the floor to the JAF. JAF, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon at this hour to everyone. I'm happy to clarify that at the JAF, The business model is that countries have country allocation and we always add a window to enable countries to implement the protocol. As of the entire past four year cycle, 15 countries have access funding through the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund and the Global Biosecurity Framework Fund for projects dedicated to access and benefit sharing for total funding of 57 million from the GEF, we have as a response to COP16 guidance created a small but specific set aside dedicated to both the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols that will be supporting in the GEF9 period that just started, global and/or regional projects. to advance the implementation of the protocols, prioritizing countries that have not benefited from GEF support for the protocols in the recent cycles. This will be a compliment to the use of allocations by country. So we strongly encourage, as we have seen at the end of the GEF eight cycle, countries to use their country allocation. And just to clarify that any window, what we call set aside in the GEF vocabulary, we create, does remove funding from the country allocation. So it reduces country drivenness and it does reduce funding for other biodiversity objectives. So it's up to the parties to decide. But in JEF 9, we already created this small set aside or specific window for both protocols. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Jeff. And then with this explanation, I will ask Malawi if you want to retain your insertion. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We will digest the information that has been provided by Jeff and maybe reframe accordingly. So I would ask that we still keep the text and then we'll be able to respond and get further clarification from them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Malawi. So I would like now to ask the Secretariat to read I think that we just had some amendments. And please just read the amendments on paragraphs A and B and the BBs. Thank you.

Thank you. So paragraph A, for A, the first part would read to continue to assist developing country parties. That's the amendment in the first line. And then in the fourth line, it says taking into, well, third line beginning there, taking into account the outcomes of the second assessment and review, comma, and then a new insertion, including the support for the establishment and operationalization of checkpoints and the publication of checkpoint information through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse. In paragraph B, there was the correction so that it should refer to the second national reports rather than the third national reports in the second line, and then an addition at the end of the paragraph of the phrase, "without creating additional reporting requirements." And shall I read the new C that's proposed? Okay. So a new paragraph C was proposed to be added and that has been bracketed, but the text would read to consider establishing within the biodiversity focal area a dedicated funding window on access and benefit sharing, including for the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol with adequate and predictable resources taking into account the national priorities and needs of eligible parties and without reducing the availability of resources for other national biodiversity priorities. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So can we approve paragraph four and without brackets except on for C as requested? As I see no objection, thank you very much. So paragraph four is approved as amended. Paragraph five underlines the importance. Do we have any comments? I see none. Thank you very much. So paragraph five is also approved. And then finally, paragraph six, I will take paragraph six and its sub paragraphs, and I would like to point out that there were no comments, no assertions to 6a. I will now give the floor to Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor.

Indeed, Madam Chair, there is, our suggestion is on 6b, and the only inclusion that we would like reflected is after the word review on the first line, to include the language that we have in paragraph 4a, which is including the needs of developing country parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states, and parties with economies in transition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Fiji, the DRC, the Democratic Republic of Congo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. We would like to make small addition for 4a, just after indigenous peoples local communities, we would add women and youth. Thank you.

Thank you very much, dear C. So I will ask the secretariat just to read the insertions, secretariat. Oh, I'm sorry, Fiji, we need your help with your insertion, if you could please repeat it, thank you. Yes, where does it go? Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It goes after the word review in the first line, including the needs of developing country parties, comma, and continues, and then comma, when preparing the documentation related to the four. And if clarification is needed, we are happy to provide that as well.

Thank you very much, Fiji. I think that we got that. I will ask the Secretariat to read it. Thank you, Secretariat.

Thank you, yes. So paragraph 6a, the amendment was to add women and youth after indigenous peoples and local communities. And in 6b, the first part of the paragraph would read to take into account the outcomes of the second assessment and review, including the needs of developing country parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states among them, and parties with economies in transition when preparing the documentation, et cetera. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So with these amendments, can we approve paragraph six? I see no objection. Thank you very much, colleagues. So Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We would like to introduce a new paragraph seven. And the secretariat can copy and paste based on our submission, but for the purposes of the room, we would like to read it in dictated speech. Twice in section B, the executive secretary acts subject to the availability of resources attached to the clearinghouse and to capacity building. Now it is our understanding view that these obligations under article 14 and 22 are core functions. So we propose a new paragraph in section C and it reads as follows, invites the conference of the parties, comma, in adopting the integrated program of work and budget for the biennium 2027-2028, to ensure that the core functions of the Secretariat in servicing the Nagoya Protocol, including the access and benefit sharing clearing house and the compliance mechanism, are provided for from the core budget. Full stop.

Namibia, please bear with me. There are at least two problems because you are inviting the COP instead of the COP-MOP and of course we are making an insertion in a decision that should be approved by COP, by the next COP, referring to a decision that -- to a budget that will be approved at the same COP. So it really doesn't get very clear as that. And, well, we can put this in the report or you can rephrase it. Namibia, you have the floor, and then I will give the floor to the European Union. Namibia.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Article 28.3 confers budgetary authority over protocol secretariat costs on the COP/MOP. This section that we are discussing here recommends to the MOP, it is the competent body, And paragraph seven, as we have just inserted it, is addressed to the COP as an invitation, not as an instruction. And for those reasons, we would like to retain it here because it is a core function, governance issues under the COP. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. I will give the floor to the European Union. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It was not on this point actually when I asked for the floor, it was because I may have a textual suggestion for compromised language to merge paragraph two and three. Is it appropriate to propose it now?

Yes, since you already have the microphone, we can take this on board and then we come back. Yes, European Union, you have the floor.

Okay, thank you very much. So we would like to propose in paragraph 3A, subparagraph A, to add after to provide new and additional states, adequate, predictable and timely. These are all the words taken from paragraph two, financial resources as appropriate and were relevant in line with their respective mandates. and in accordance with Article 25 of the Nagoya Protocol. So we think that the important elements of the paragraph two have been now added here, so we could probably delete paragraph two.

Thank you very much, European Union. I will give the floor to Brazil and the synthesis on the last insertion proposal, yes. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to you for engaging in a possible solution. I would ask if we could take the first sentence of the second paragraph and include into the third. It would read, urges developed country parties and other parties that voluntarily assume the obligations of developed country parties and invites international organization and so forth. So we would then actually merge the two paragraphs. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Brazil. I would like to ask the European Union if they can agree with the suggestion made by Brazil. Microphone to the European Union, please.

Thank you very much. I mean, our intention was also to streamline a little bit a decision that is a potential decision that is already quite long. We know that this is somehow language that we also have in many others, so we don't really see the need for repeating it. But maybe if instead of huge we could have invite, we could be probably flexible.

Brazil.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No, we would prefer to retain the para two and three as it is and then discuss it in a small group afterward. Thank you.

Yes, I would rather do so, so that we don't waste more interpretation time. Thank you very much, Brazil. So I will ask you to please, if you could come back to us afterwards. And now we have to take into account the suggestion made by Namibia on paragraph seven, a new paragraph. Do we agree with the suggestion made by Namibia? Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In response to the suggestion by distinguished delegates from Namibia, we don't see it's possible to afford this work as used by the core budget. That's not possible in terms, well, with reference to the discussion going on in the budget discussion. So we would like to kindly ask for deletion. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Japan. I understand that this any suggestion of utilizing the funds will be a matter of decision by the Budget Committee. So Malawi, followed by Namibia. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to have it reflected and I think our rationale is the same as Namibia's that we cannot leave core functions under the Nagoya Protocol subject to the availability of resources. We need to have an indication of how those important elements would be funded. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Malawi now will give the floor to Namibia, followed by the European Union. Namibia will have the floor.

Thank you, Chairperson. We would like to re-emphasize that this paragraph indicates that it invites the Conference of Parties and we further want to substantiate that Article 28 designates the Convention Secretariat as the Secretariat of the Protocol. It applies Article 24.1 of the Convention and the functions of the Secretariat is mutatis mutandis to the Protocol and it provides that to the extent they are distinct, so the costs of the Secretariat services for the Protocol are met by the parties of the protocol with the COP/MOP to decide the necessary budgetary arrangements. So we are not indicating costing, we are not indicating posts, we are not indicating anything. We are asking that this insertion be reflected in this recommendation because it is a function of this convention. It is not a privilege. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Namibia, I'll give the floor to the European Union. European Union, we have the floor.

Thank you very much. Maybe on this point, I wonder if this would not also deserve a little bit of further discussions, maybe in a small group together with the secretariat to also understand a little bit better the way we see it is, I mean, maybe this could be addressed in the decisions on budget at COP, not necessarily pleased to hear. Again, it's not I think we understand from where the proposals come from and what is the intention behind. It's just a question of understanding where it has to be properly reflected and how and what is the best way forward.

Thank you very much, Serpin Union. I see the UK and followed by Namibia, but I don't want to linger on this discussion really. I will give the floor to the UK. I think that Namibia already had several opportunities and then I will rule UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be quick. I think really this is a discussion that should be taken up in the budget negotiations at COP and therefore it's really hard to prejudge here what those should be. All parties can be represented in those budget negotiations and discussions and therefore these views can be taken there. Thank you.

Thank you very much. UK, just a moment. Namibia, you have the floor, but my suggestion would be that we bracket it and then perhaps we follow the European Union suggestion so that we can try to find a compromise solution. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairperson. In terms of the text prejudging as indicated by the UG, we would want to reemphasize that this text invites, it does not direct, it sets no figure, no post and no scenario. We are comfortable that you bracket it if there is such a request, but we are not comfortable taking it out of this assessment of this item 7 document. Thank you.

Thank you. I ask, of course there was no suggestion, clear suggestion to bracketing the text, but is there any willingness? Because the alternative to deletion is to bracket. That's why I'm suggesting it. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa would like to support Namibia's inclusion of this text, unbracketed if possible. Thank you.

Thank you very much, South Africa. So I would ask for no more interventions for this item please I think that uh it's clear we we will bracket it and of course you can always uh uh talk about it and try to find a solution for us and if there is any suggestion for a solution for any of the outstanding issues during the discussion of the documents we will take this on board but um I would like now to move on because we took really a long time on this CRP and with that I would approve paragraph seven as suggested. Yes Fiji you have the floor, it's on the subject. Okay thank you very much. UK are you asking for the floor again on this subject? Okay thank you very much. So I would like to ask you to continue conversations on outstanding issues and with that I approve CRP2. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you. UK, are you coming back with a solution? Oh, okay, I'm sorry. So, UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the beginning of this discussion, we touched on paragraph 10 in section A, and I would like to report back the text and thank all the delegates that have shown flexibility in reaching this compromise. So I'll read paragraph 10 from section A. Encourages parties that have not yet done so and then little a to develop clear and streamlined step-by-step access and benefit sharing procedures as appropriate and in accordance with national legislation and circumstances including clear information on their scope of application responsible authorities required documentation and procedural steps and any existing exemptions standardized templates forms and checklists for commercial and non-commercial users and publish them through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse. There is then an ABIS as was proposed and which remains in brackets. Parties to develop user measures as appropriate including guidelines and in accordance with national measures and to publish in the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse. remains unchanged; and to establish and progressively implement, with a view to fully operationalising their checkpoints, and to publish information collected or received by the checkpoints through the access and benefit sharing clearinghouse, without prejudice to the protection of confidential information and in accordance with article 17 of the Nagoya Protocol, as well as articles 15, 16 and 18. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Yukay. I would like, since this was the result of some side negotiations as requested by parties, can we approve as it is, as it was convened? Okay, I see no objections. Fiji, do you want to speak another matter? Do you also have a solution for us?

Proposal though.

Yes, thank you Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor. And then paragraph 10 is approved, I'm sorry. Yes, Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just seeking clarification also, I understand both you and the Secretariat would like to save time when this document becomes a L document. and is up for consideration, so would you be producing a rough version of this given that we have had the first round of inputs and all the textual suggestions? The only reason why I ask this is because it's easier for us to follow through our suggestions which were not bracketed and what was bracketed and it would be easier for us to then go through that iteration before we come to the plenary for the consideration of the L document. Thank you.

No, Fiji, we will proceed to a document and with all the brackets and the suggestions that were suggested here and as I've stated, if we do have solutions for brackets, I will open the floor. Thank you very much, Fiji. So with that, I consider that CRP2 is approved then. After long hours. Thank you very much. And I will produce an L document as I've said. And now we don't have much time, but at least I would like to turn to L document number 2 on the fifth assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and mid-term evaluation of the implementation plan and the capacity building action plan for the Protocol. Let me remind you that we went through the draft recommendation for this L document paragraph by paragraph and approved the CRP. Therefore, I hope that we can quickly and Please be attentive to the word quickly, approve, adopt this document, focusing only on ensuring that the document is faithful to our approval. Delegations should avoid reopening agreed texts or introducing new issues at this stage. I count on your support in this regard. With that understanding, I submit for adoption SPI/7/L2. Can we adopt this recommendation? I see Peru. Peru, you have the floor. And I would recommend not to reopen issues, but only to please see if your proposals are reflected. Peru, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just to ask if we could remove the brackets in paragraph 52, if other colleagues would agree to this. Biosafety is facing increasing challenges due to the issues of modern technology, including developments in synthetic biology. Maybe colleagues have had the possibility to reflect on this para 52 and would be ready to remove the brackets there.

Okay, I see that Peru, have you engaged with colleagues in order to remove the brackets on paragraph 52? Okay, thank you very much. So can we remove the brackets on paragraph 52 and we do have different brackets here. So the first European Union have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a surprise for us. We're really sorry for that. So we would like to keep the brackets as they are there. Thank you.

Thank you very much, European Union. And I understand, of course, thank you very much for your flexibility, Peru. I see Norway also asking for the floor. Norway, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. We just support what the EU said that we would have to keep the brackets. Thank you.

Yes, of course. I will not engage on this proposal anymore. If you are asking for the floor for the proposal by Peru, please. Okay, so UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to support the intervention from the EU and Norway, we prefer to retain the brackets. Thank you.

Yes, no, the brackets are retained. Thank you very much. So can we adopt this L document? The European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Regarding paragraph 32, There are brackets and we suggested to have brackets here, but after consultation, internal consultation, we would like to lift the brackets, so we would like to have the content of the addition there. So we are ready to have the paragraph without brackets. Paragraph 32. Thank you.

Thank you very much. European Union, New Zealand is also on the same issue. New Zealand, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, but New Zealand would like to retain the brackets in paragraph 32. Thank you.

Thank you very much, New Zealand. And then the brackets are retained. Thank you. And so Cameroon, Cameroon, you are asking also for the floor on another issue? No.

Yes.

Okay. Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I see square brackets around paragraph 14, and I would be in favor of having them removed. including around the word priority, because States often guard their sovereignty with great deal of jealousy and it would be wrong to include this as a priority. So we would be happy to remove the word priority. Thank you. Paragraph 14.

Yes, I see. Have you engaged with the party that has suggested this language to remove the insertion or not?

Yes, I mean, if they agree, then we would be happy to do so.

Okay, so the proposal by Cameroon is that we delete as a matter of priority on paragraph 14, and then we can get rid of the brackets. Is there any opposition to doing so? I see. Can we just take this on? Okay, so European Union, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And we would like to keep the text as it is and as it is in brackets now. Thank you.

Thank you very much, European Union. So thank you, Cameroon, we'll keep the text as it is. I see Japan. the same matter. Same as you. Thank you. Okay. So we are keeping the brackets on this document. Can we approve the document as it is, adopt the document as it is with the brackets and the text? Thank you very much. So L2 is approved. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you very much. We are making some progress. And as we still have some minutes, I would like now to take up CRP4 on agenda 11 on the clearinghouse mechanism and the knowledge management strategy. I give the floor to the Secretariat for a small technical correction. Secretariat.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in the current document, in paragraph three, the text currently reads as, in particular developing countries. This should read as, in particular developing country parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Secretariat. And so, CRP4 was prepared taking into consideration all of the interventions made on this item. There was broad support for this agenda item among parties and we heard a number of very valuable inputs. As such, changes have been made to the draft recommendations by adding new paragraphs while also balancing the different views. I hope that we can move smoothly and send a clean document to COP17. I would like now to open the floor for interventions. I would like to go through this document paragraph by paragraph. Let's start with the first paragraph. Are there any comments on paragraph one? Notes with appreciation? I see none and there was no comments submitted. Thank you very much. Paragraph two reiterates the need. Is there any comments? European Union, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We have several comments on this paragraph. First of all, we understand that actors other than national governments refers to earlier decision. However, we understand that there's quite some discussion at this moment under PMRR and other agenda item. So we would like to bracket this text for now so that we can get to the outcomes. Then next after the actors other than national governments, it should be the regional and sub-regional technical and scientific cooperation centres. Then also at the end of the paragraph we see In particular, through capacity building and then we should add and development as is usual text. And then we've got questions with regards to digital transformation because this is not a term that has been used in the convention before and we do not know what it really implies. So we would like to propose to delete the reference to digital transformation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, European Union. I will now give the floor to Colombia. Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would also like to ask for an addition after actors of the national governments, as follows. Regional sub-regional support centers and, as appropriate, indigenous peoples and local communities, the representatives of women and youth, and initiatives and organizations as relevant. And we also support the deletion of digital transformation. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Colombia. I understand that your suggestions about the IPOCs, women and youth would also be related to the discussion about actors other than national governments. So we can take it on board and bracket it so we'll have both bracketed. as a note alternative. And I would like now to ask if there is any objection to deleting and digital transformation. I see none. So I would suggest, I will ask the secretary to read the amendments. only the part that has been amended and of course the mention that digital transformation is no longer there. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. So the new para reads as reiterates the need for parties, other governments, the regional and sub-regional technical and scientific cooperation support centers, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to continue to strengthen the implementation of the program of work for the clearinghouse mechanism and the knowledge management strategy, in particular through capacity building and development.

I think that we are missing the brackets, the bracketed language on actors other than national governments and of course the insertion made by the Colombia.

Sure, my apologies. So it will read as reiterates the need for parties, other governments in bracket, actors other than national governments, the regional and sub-regional technical and scientific cooperation support centers, and as appropriate indigenous peoples and local communities and women and youth, the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and then to continue to strengthen the implementation of program of work for the clearinghouse mechanism and the knowledge management strategy and in particular through capacity building and development.

Yes, Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Just to note that we'd like the mention of relevant initiatives and organizations. Thank you.

Yes, Colombia, yes, as you've Okay, with that, can we approve paragraph two as amended? I see no objection. Thank you very much, colleagues. I would like now to go to paragraph three, notes the persistent challenges. Is there any objection to approving this paragraph? Yes, European Union, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. We just would like to propose a small deletion of the word persistence because we heard in the plenary that there were challenges, but we've never heard that it was persistent challenges. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, the European Union, so you would not be so pessimistic and we would delete persistent. Is there any objection to accept the amendment made by the European Union and approve this paragraph? I see none. Thank you very much. So it's notes the challenges right now. Thank you. The paragraph is approved. Paragraph four urges developed country parties. I see Colombia. Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I also would like to propose addition to the end of the paragraph. It would read it as follows, including necessary support to facilitate the participation or full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in its implementation.