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

Good afternoon, colleagues. We will continue our consideration of agenda item 14, administrative and budgetary matters. In our last session, we introduced the item, and we will now move to invite intervention from parties speaking on behalf of regional groups. The floor is open. Please just ask for the floor if you are a party speaking on behalf of a region. I see Namibia. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia speaks on behalf of the African Group. We thank the Executive Secretary for the documents before us and the Secretariat for the documents before us. Chair, a budget is a statement of political priorities. It is the clearest test of whether the mandates we adopt in this room are meant to be implemented or merely announced. The group comes to this item constructively. We accept that the Secretariat cannot deliver the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework on a structure built for a smaller mandate, but we must be precise about what is before us. First and foremost, table two of the document records that target nine, 10, and 11 have no dedicated unit or staff resources. Chair, these are the sustainable use targets, wild species, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and nature's contributions to people. They are the targets on which African livelihoods most directly depend. A structure that leaves them unstuffed is not aligned with the framework as a whole. We ask that this gap be closed in the 2027-2028 budget. Second, on core mandates require core funding. The access and benefit sharing unit carries goal C, target 13, the Nagoya Protocol, the clearinghouse, compliance and digital sequence information, and no additional post is identified. We ask that this be reassessed. The global coordination entity should likewise be supported through the core budget as an interim measure. Reliance on voluntary funding for permanent secretariat functions undermines institutional continuity and institutional memory. Core mandates cannot rest on voluntary contributions. We would like to speak on the issue of coherence, understanding that policy responsibility for digital sequence information remains in the Access and Benefit Sharing Unit, while support for multilateral mechanism and the Cali Fund sits in the Mainstreaming Economy and Finance Unit. Given their collective importance to Decision 16/2, we seek clarification on the rationale for this arrangement. how coherence will be maintained across two units and whether parties were consulted. Fourth, on the cost of parties, none of the three scenarios is neutral. Assessed contributions rise under all of them by 1.6% under zero nominal growth and by 14.1% under the proposed scenario because the savings applied in 2025 and 2026. through 2026 are not repeated yet the three core trust funds held 18.2 million dollars in cumulative surplus at the end of 2022 finally in terms of our observations on the oversight the revised organizational structure was submitted to the United Nations program for approval on 17 June before parties had considered it we accept that budget neutral measures may proceed but we ask that no further irreversible steps on posts or reporting lines be taken before COP17 has decided. We also request updated information on the geographical and gender distribution of secretariat staff in the professional and higher categories indicating which posts are core funded and which rely on voluntary contributions well ahead of COP17 chair. The means of implementation is where our collective credibility is judged. We must not renege. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia, on behalf of the African group. I will now give the floor to Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Fiji delivers this statement on behalf of its 14 member states, Pacific small island developing states. Madam Chair, decision 16/28 adopted less than two years ago reaffirmed the importance of full and effective participation of at least two delegates from developing country parties, in particular the least in developed countries and small and developing states. For us, we ask this meeting's close attention on this item because it determines whether we are in this room for all others. The documents before us propose as the first listed option for every subsidiary body meeting of the next biennium funding one delegate. That is the second meeting of Article J, the 29th substar and the eighth SBI. For the 18th Conference of Parties, the first option is two, where three were funded for the 17th. Chair, the specific small island developing states cannot accept that. It reduces an important consideration that this conference has reaffirmed, and it puts us into an administrative option. We ask this meeting to select options that are equitable and that can, for the record of the decision, be consistent with paragraph 33 of decision 16/28. We understand the pressure as well, Madam Chair, particularly in terms of the replenishment of the voluntary trust fund. But we ask this meeting to look at what sits alongside that. At the end of last year, three general trust funds held a cumulative net asset surplus of $18.2 million over and above the working capital reserve and decision 16/28 has already established the precedent of a drawing on unspent balances from prior financial periods. A defined share of that surplus should be transferred to the participation fund. It is difficult to explain to our capitals why money that cannot be spent on the conventions work is being held while parties least able to attend are being told to send one person. There is also a venue arithmetic. The estimate for holding the AGM meeting in Montreal is $1.5 million against $0.4 million in Rome. The difference of $1.1 million is more than $977,405 in the same document estimates for funding one delegate from every eligible party at that meeting. We ask that venue selection be assessed expressly against the effective participation consistent with decision 16/25 and 16/27. Madam Chair, we also question the architecture being proposed. three stand-alone subsidiary body meetings in Montreal or Rome, in Nairobi and in Bangkok, and then the Conference of Parties. That is four separate long-haul journeys for Pacific delegates in two years, and for delegations that are only often able to send one person, justified in part by a short participation in funding. Back-to-back scheduling reduces journeys and decision 16/24 gives us agreed procedures for online and hybrid participation that would reduce them further. This document weighs the secretariat's workload carefully, it does not weigh ours. We have three further requests. One, that the allocation of participation funding be reported by least developed country and small island developing state status. Two, that the meeting be told how many SEEDS delegates were funded to attend it and how much budget for Arvan since reporting cut off of 31st May excludes both. And three, on the functional review which proposes 10 new posts of which one concerns conference savings. We encourage constructive discussions on budget scenario and we note that in passing 14 approved posts are currently vacant. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Fiji, on behalf of the Pacific SIDS. I don't see any more interventions, requests from regional groups. Yes. Okay, so I would like now to invite parties. Okay. So I will begin with New Zealand, followed by Ghana. New Zealand, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. New Zealand thanks the Secretariat for the work that has gone into preparing the background documents. We note, however, that the format and late arrival of some documents will not facilitate SBI consideration as directed by Parties through Decision 16/28. This will compress opportunities for meaningful discussion at COP and leave a lack of clarity on Parties' views in the formal record of this meeting. We request greater consideration of budget restraint, consistent with developments across the United Nations, including UNAT. The functional review was an opportunity to consider efficiency and effectiveness alongside structural change. Proposing 10 new positions, particularly when 14 positions are currently vacant, does not persuade us that the Secretariat has adequately appreciated the need for savings, especially given the fiscal situations of many parties. We note that COP17 will take place shortly after the Secretary General presents the UNAD package and encourage parties and the Secretariat to reflect on its implications in preparations for budget discussions at COP, including in particular work package 27 on the environment. Regarding the scheduling duration and location of our meetings, we are increasingly concerned by assumptions that extra days of meetings can be added or supplemented by additional unscheduled sessions. Beyond the extra costs involved, many delegates support multiple processes and plan travel and work programs well in advance. This is particularly relevant to the Secretariat's proposals for 2028, an already busy year in the environment calendar. Meeting scheduling also has substantive implications and effective intersessional work depends on adequate time for preparation by the secretariat, parties and stakeholders. On location, we require more detailed costing information for each proposed venue. We're concerned that Canada is being considered only as an option for a single subsidiary body meeting. There are practical as well as sentimental value in.

Thank you very much, New Zealand. I apologize. I will now give the floor to Ghana, followed by Japan. And I would like to remind delegates to please upload your statements. Ghana, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Ghana supports Namibia on behalf of Africa and wish to make the following additions. First, we wish to stress that long-term implementation of core convention mandates should be financed through predictable core budget resources. Reliance on voluntary or extra budgetary funding for permanent secretariat functions risks undermining institutional continuity, preserving institutional memory and ensuring consistent and equitable support to parties. Two, to enable parties to assess whether the proposed secretariat structure reflects the principles of equitable geographical representation and gender balance, we request that updated information on the geographical and gender distribution of the secretariat staff across all professional and higher categories together with a clear indication of which positions are funded from the core budget and which rely on voluntary contribution be provided ahead of COP17. Three, Ghana recognises that the secretariat continues to face increasing responsibilities as implementation of the KMG-BF as relates We therefore support efforts to ensure that the Secretariat is appropriately staffed to deliver its expanding mandate efficiently and to support the effective implementation of the framework. Finally, Ghana is concerned by the persistent funding gaps in the Voluntary Trust Funds, particularly the significant shortfall in the Special Voluntary Trust Fund for facilitating the participation of Parties in the Convention process. limited resources for participation constrain the effective engagement of developing countries in the convention processes and undermine the principle of inclusivity and equitable participation. We therefore encourage parties in a position to do so to make timely and predictable voluntary contributions to these transfers. I thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Ghana. I will now give the floor to Japan, followed by Egypt. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation has submitted a written statement and please allow us to highlight key points that merit further emphasis. While fully recognizing the importance of implementing the Convention at this critical juncture, we must emphasize that zero nominal growth is the principle of the Japanese government for the budgets of all international organizations and the CBD is no exception. The budget for the next biennium must therefore be kept at the same nominal level as the current one. In this regard, the 10 additional posts proposed under the PSG scenario would need further qualification. What we need is cost effectiveness, not simply an increase in numbers. We are also concerned that the number of parties in arrears has not significantly improved since COP16. We look forward to more detailed information from the Secretariat and to constructive engagement on this agenda item. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Japan. I will now give the floor to Egypt, followed by Belgium. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Egypt aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group and would like to highlight the following point. First, as the Secretariat evolves to respond to new mandates, including those relevant to the It's important that the parties are kept fully informed of significant organizational development affecting the implementation of the convention mandate. This will enable parties to consider the evolving structure of the secretariat in an informed manner in the context of functional review and future budget decision. Second, Egypt notes that the revised secretariat structure allocates secretariat support for the implementation of the multilateral mechanism and the within the mainstreaming economy and finance unit. while responsibility relating to the digital sequence information on genetic resource continue to be reflected within the access and benefit sharing unit. Given the close relationship between these functions, we would appreciate further clarification on the rationale for this institutional arrangement and how it will ensure coherent and integrated support for the implementation of the relevant decision of the Conference of the Parties. Third, Egypt recalls that the multilateral mechanism was established by the Conference of the Parties through decision 16.2 and that the Secretariat has been entrusted with important responsibilities in supporting its implementation. It is therefore important that the institutional arrangements supporting this work provide clear lines of responsibility, effective coordination and continued accountability to the Conference of the Parties. Fourth, Egypt considers that the Secretariat should be provided with adequate, predictable and sustainable capacity to implement the mandate entrusted to it by the Party. As new responsibilities are assigned, corresponding staffing and resources should be reviewed accordingly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Egypt. I will now give the floor to Belgium, followed by Cameroon. Belgium, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Belgium would like to express its appreciation to the secretariat for the timely delivery of the budget documentation for COP17. Having reviewed the documents, Belgium would be grateful for clarification on the following aspects, in addition to other questions that have already been asked by other parties. We note that the meeting line is projected to be overspent by approximately 880,000 US dollars in the current biennium and we would welcome additional information on how the Secretariat intends to address and absorb these additional costs. Second, it appears that the proposed scenarios do not take into account the use of the unspent balance authorized in COP16 decision and we would therefore appreciate clarification on that point as well. Belgium remains committed to a transparent, affordable and predictable budgetary framework that ensures the effective implementation of the Convention and its protocols. We look forward to continuing this discussion in a constructive spirit and we will submit our questions to the Secretariat. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Belgium. I will now give the floor to Cameroon, followed by Indonesia. Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Cameroon supports the statement made by Namibia on behalf of the African Group. We acknowledge that the functional review proposes measures with no budgetary implications, such as strengthening internal coordination, sharing information and clarifying roles and responsibilities among staff members. However, we believe that under the zero growth scenario, A clear analysis of expenditures should be conducted in greater depth to determine how certain expenditures can be reduced. We believe that concrete measures for cost savings and internal reallocation may still be feasible in order to offset, to the extent possible, any potential increases. Developing countries have for some time been suffering from a reduction in the funding of at least two representatives per country as agreed at COP16 due to a lack of available resources. Similarly, we have all observed a decline in resource mobilization and a waning of donor enthusiasm. In light of the foregoing, we would like to know how the Secretariat intends to cover the additional costs associated with the ten new proposed posts that ensure the effective participation of developing States in the activities of the Convention and its Protocols. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Cameroon. I will now give the floor to Indonesia, followed by the Russian Federation. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Indonesia appreciates the Secretariat's continued efforts to strengthen its performance, including the implementation of budget-neutral organizational reforms, improved internal coordination, and the redeployment of existing resources to enhance operational efficiency. These are positive steps that deserve recognition. Indonesia supports a transparent, prudent and results-oriented budget that prioritizes the core mandates of the Convention and its Protocols while ensuring value for money. In light of the current global economic and fiscal constraints, Indonesia encouraged the Secretariat to continue maximizing efficiency gains, optimizing the redeployment of existing resources, and making greater use of cost-effective online or hybrid modalities where appropriate before introducing new recurrent expenditures. Against this backdrop, Indonesia reserves its position on the proposed budget level, staffing requirements, and revised scale of contribution until comprehensive information is available on their financial implication, workload assumptions, and demonstrated efficiency gains. Indonesia remains committed to the timely payment of its assessed contributions and supports adequate and predictable resources to enable the effective participation of developing country parties. In this regard, voluntary contributions and broader donor engagement should remain transparent, preserve party oversight, and complement rather than substitute for the obligation of developed country parties regarding implementation finance. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Indonesia. I will now give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by the European Union. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. We are grateful to the Secretariat for having prepared the documents for the further development of the Convention. We are gratified to see the results of the functional assessment. and the changes within the organization of work of the Secretariat. It is with a great deal of pleasure that we note work on the preparation of the assessment on expenditures related to funding the requirements mandated to the Secretariat. What we wish to see is a consolidated document upon all the requirements in the draft decision, something that we had already asked you to prepare for this meeting during our meeting in Rome. We haven't seen it so far. This would enable us to better assess possible expenditures and prioritize our requirements with the secretariat and which would enable us to remove a whole set of square brackets in Yerevan. We would like to see such a document as rapidly as this possible. It would enable us to more constructively discuss the budget. The budget, as was noted by a great many colleagues, proposes a large increase by the Secretariat. We would like to see what your positions are regarding such a large number of vacancies. Finally, we would like to express our concerns regarding the lack to date of any clear documents regarding enhancing the effectiveness of the Convention, including reviewing all of the comments regarding the improvement of the effectiveness of the Convention. These are discussions that we started in Rome. We expected that we would continue them here and that we would be ready to discuss them in detail in Yerevan. We hope that in the near future a review of all of the recommendations that have been submitted by States will be prepared and we would propose that they should be included in the decisions.

Thank you very much, Russia Federation. I will give the floor to the European Union, followed by the DRC. European Union, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, The EU thanks the Secretariat for having conducted the functional review and for carrying out the budget neutral actions as requested by SBi6. We support the underlying rationale that reflects the need to implement the coming Montreal global biodiversity framework as well as to service the meetings under the convention. We also thank the Secretariat for several responses to the questions we asked in SBi6 and for the transparency provided. We appreciate the timely preparation of the documents on the budgets and the opportunity here at SBi7 to ask information to support the negotiations at COP. We will submit a number of questions in writing and are looking forward to the further discussions. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. The Democratic Republic of the Congo fully aligns itself with the statement made by Namibia on behalf of the African Group. The document under review shows an imbalance between centralised bureaucracy and the reality on the ground. While a budget has been approved for the 2025-2026 period, We should note that the priority is still not well set out. The IUCN notes that the Secretariat already has 87 posts with an extra 18 posts financing by UNEP and 72 consultancy contracts and individual contractors. The current structure is amply sufficient and it's not by inflating the number of posts in the Secretariat that we will stop the biodiversity crisis. the absolute urgency is elsewhere. It resides in the effective participation of developing countries which host global biodiversity. Let's look at the reality of the figures of this report. The voluntary fund to facilitate the participation of parties has a need of more than seven billion dollars but in 2016 they only received 2.17 million so a wide gap. Only 352 delegates from developing countries have been able to be financed for all of these cycles. This is derisory to guarantee an equitable governance. We therefore ask for developed countries to urgently pay their contributions because more than 12.2 million contributions remain unpaid as at present. Thank you.

Thank you very much, dear colleagues. I will soon close the interventions from parties for this item. So I will now give the floor to Namibia, followed by China. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. In our national capacity, Namibia would like to add the following points. The workload has grown. The core budget has not grown with it. Nominal restraint in these circumstances is not fiscal discipline. It is a decision to under-deliver and the shortfall is borne by developing country parties. First, in terms of how this biennium was balanced, we recognize that staff costs are unspent by $885,000 arising from 14 vacant posts. Meetings of intergovernmental bodies are overspent by $880,000. The two figures are within $5,000 of each other. In effect, posts approved by this conference finance an unbudgeted meeting. Namibia asks what vacancy factor is applied to the 87 continuing posts and how additional meetings will be provided for in the coming biennium. In terms of distribution, in the proposed scenario, the two protocols fall by $285,000 in one and a half posts, while ten new posts are created elsewhere. And maybe I ask which posts is removed and from which unit. We ask that both questions be reflected in the Secretariat's analysis of inputs, and we reserve our position for the informal consultations. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. I will now give the floor to China, followed by Canada. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. China welcomes the Secretariat's internal institutional adjustment based on the findings of the functional review. We hope the restructured Secretariat can better support implementation and advance the delivery of KMGBF. The Substa 28 and SBI 7 has gone through some challenges and difficulties concerning KMGBF and treaty. And this should be the important reference for adjustment going forward. China is concerned about the proposed 10 additional posts in the document. We believe that the internal structuring should Also factor in reassessment later on to decide whether to add or to minus. Regarding 27-28 biennial budget, China stands ready to engage in in-depth and detailed discussions with other parties under the principles of cost-effectiveness and focus on priority deliverables. Thank you.

Thank you very much, China. I will now give the floor to Canada and I'm closing interventions for part, the floor for interventions from parties right now. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of this document, although we regret the delay in its posting such that it did not allow us sufficient time to fully review the contents. We agree with many of the questions raised by other parties here, notably seeking further information on how efficiencies can be achieved. Canada is very pleased to be the host of the Secretariat, and we reiterate our commitment to work with the Secretariat to find solutions such that we will be able to continue to host these ever-growing meetings in Canada. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Canada. I will now give the floor to Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Brazil would like to briefly join the delegations who also expressed their concern with the lack of funds to finance the participation of the delegates of developing countries in the works of the convention and its subsidiary bodies. We consider this a fundamental condition for healthy multilateralism, one that needs to be fully taken into consideration in our budgetary conversations. We will also coincide with the delegations who regretted that the documents were posted with delay. And we are, of course, still examining the implications and we're curious, of course, to understand what the efficiency gains and in the terms of the functional review are being presented. In terms of prioritizations, our delegation looking forward will of course be looking very closely at the positions who are being envisaged to support the work on DSI, one that we consider is a fundamental pillar of the activities that are currently being undertaken by the Secretariat together, of course, with those related to indigenous peoples and local communities, specifically after the groundbreaking decision, of course, that we had in COP16 to establish subsidiary body HA. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Brazil. I don't see any more interventions from parties, any more requests from parties. I would like now to open the floor to other governments, IPOCs and other major stakeholder groups. IPOCs, you have three minutes.

Thank you, Chair. I'm making this statement on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. While we acknowledge that this item is normally reserved for consideration by the parties, we wanted to provide comments regarding the functional review of the secretariat and the resulting organizational updates. Article 8J is the main provision of the convention regarding indigenous peoples and local communities. This article specifically refers to the importance of traditional knowledge for in situ conservation. Many COP decisions, including target 21 of the KMGBF, recognize the co-equal status of traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge as the basis of decision making on biodiversity. Therefore, it is of grave concern for us that the peoples and Biodiversity Unit has been moved to the Engagement and Cooperation Unit rather than maintained under the Science Monitoring and Capacity Division. We therefore request clarification from the Executive Secretary regarding how the Peoples and Biodiversity Unit can maintain its focus on traditional knowledge and continue to inform the work of the Science Division. A clear connection between traditional knowledge and science that allows the Peoples and Biodiversity need to work with the science division in an institutional and systematic way is important. Without this clarity, we risk once again marginalizing traditional knowledge to the detriment of our work under the Convention. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, IIFB. I will now give the floor to NGOs. NGOs, you have three minutes, NGOs.

Thank you, Chair. I'm from the Third World Network. We appreciate the organizational updates resulting from the functional review of the Secretariat. While we recognize that this agenda item is primarily under Parties' purview, we seek clarification regarding the mainstreaming economy and finance unit taking on the function of the interim Secretariat of the Kali Fund. The multilateral mechanism, including the Kali Fund, implements the third objective of the Convention, Access and benefit sharing is not merely a resource mobilization exercise. It concerns the sovereign rights of parties over their genetic resources, the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and measures to prevent misappropriation and misuse of genetic resources and DSI while promoting the right to science. We seek clarification as to how these considerations will continue to guide the implementation of the multilateral mechanism, including the Cali Fund, the work of the mainstreaming economy and finance unit and how cooperation with the access and benefit sharing unit will inform this work. Maintaining this coherence is essential to ensure that implementation remains fully consistent with the convention, the Nagoya Protocol and decision 16/2. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. And, Jose, I don't see any more requests from the floor. Yes. So with that, I understand that we have concluded the first reading for this agenda item. So after hearing your interventions, I propose to undertake an informal consultation on item 14. At the meeting of the informal consultation parties may provide further inputs and continue the preliminary discussion started here so that this exercise will allow the COP to begin budget negotiations in a more streamlined manner. The informal consultations meeting will be facilitated by Miss Patience Gendewa from Zimbabwe. And together with the facilitator and under my guidance, the Secretariat will prepare an analysis of inputs from parties through early submissions as well as interventions at this meeting as a basis for facilitating informal consultations. The Secretariat will inform us of the time and room for the informal consultation meeting. I wish to advise you that this informal consultation is open to participation by parties only. Please check the online schedule and monitors the time and place. If you have not already done so, please be sure to upload the full text of your intervention no later than one hour after the close of this meeting. Okay, so thank you very much. I will now give the floor to the Secretariat for any announcements. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. So we had thought that we will take one hour, but we finished in 45 minutes, so we have 15 minutes extra today. So just a few announcements, which is more of a repetition what I announced earlier. So the contact group on item 12, mainstreaming, will be meeting from, let's say, five minutes from now till 7:00 p.m. in conference room number one. We hope to start the discussion exactly at 4:00 p.m. So from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. in conference room number one.

Yes, I acknowledge the Russian Federation asking for the floor again. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, but secretariat completed or because I can speak after secretariat or it's done okay uh chair we like to raise the issue we raised yesterday at both contact groups we find it very difficult to work the way we see non papers and actually also crps which deviated significantly from the way we used for many, many years in this Convention, clearly showing changes. What will be the way of doing it through the track changes or in bold text, struck out text, et cetera, that's up to Secretariat. But we strongly request to come back to this practice. And again, despite the fact we raised it yesterday, We see today new non papers still done just as a clean text where we can't see where the changes are. So we strongly request this next one and of course for all CRPs to do it and allow us clearly see the differences in documents. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I see that the DRC is also asking for the floor. DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Indeed, we support the statements made by the Russian Federation. That's also our concern. understanding documents difficult and it means that we can go in circles for around two hours in contact groups without moving forwards because we don't know where to start. Another thing is that the Secretariat has not communicated an update on the topic of the contact group on planning, monitoring, review and reporting. Therefore we'd like to know when this will start and when that work will finish. Mentioning that for security measures we don't want to go beyond 10:30pm. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Dearce. We were getting there at the timing for the contact group at the evening. I will let the secretariat please respond to the issues raised here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If I can finish the announcement first. So, as I was saying, the contact group on item 12 mainstreaming will meet 00 to 7:00 p.m. in conference room number one, which is just opposite the corridor. The contact group on item five, DSI, will meet from 4:00 to 7:00, same time in parallel with mainstreaming in conference room number three, four, which is just behind this room. And contact group on agenda item three, PMRR, or global review, 00 to 11:00 p.m. in conference number three and four, which is just behind this room. Just to respond to the colleagues from DRC, we had considered that if we can start the PMRR at 7:30 and go till 10:30, but some delegates have requested that 30 minutes break for dinner is not enough because sometimes the queues at the restaurants are a bit long. So that was the reason that we had to take this option of going from 8 to 11 p.m. Thank you.

I see that the DRC is still requesting the floor.

Yes, very quickly, Chair. Thank you to the Secretariat for these clarifications and thank you for your help. with our experience from past week in the subster we really had difficulties in leaving here after 11 p.m. so therefore we would really insist upon the fact that we won't be able to approve worker contact groups going beyond 10 30 p.m. thank you.

Thank you, Darcy.

So -- Yes, thank you very much, Darcy. I will try to make a proposal. Could we convene the contact group in the evening from 7:30 to 10:30? Is there any opposition to that? I would like to see if there is any opposition on my screen. So just please push your button. No, so let's do this. Thank you. Thank you very much, dear C. Thank you, colleagues, for collaboration. I will now give the floor back to the secretariat. Okay, thank you very much colleagues. Regarding the request made by the Russian Federation, we will discuss this in Bureau also. And with that, we have concluded the first reading of all agenda items. Congratulations to you and let's resume with the contact groups.