(6th Session) First meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) and Other Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity Related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (SB8J)

Good morning colleagues, please take your seats, we are going to start soon. Good morning, colleagues. We are going to start. I hope you had some rest last night. Today is our last day, so we have the last push to get as much progress as we can. So I'm going to take as much advantage as we can of this plenary to do that, and I count on your cooperation to achieve that. So good morning, colleagues. I hope you had some snacks before this session. I know it's during lunchtime, we will all be hungry, but if we're hungry, I'm pretty sure that we will try our best to progress as fast as we can while leaving sufficient space for the discussions. Okay, so as I mentioned yesterday, it is my intention to start the discussions, continuing the discussions on the CRPs, starting with CRP 2 where we left it yesterday. I'm going to ask for your cooperation again to progress as smoothly as we did yesterday. So I'm going to ask you to focus your interventions on the comments or text proposals that you have for the paragraphs. If rationale is needed, I will give the floor to the parties to provide the rationale as per the explanation or the request of all the parties. But I'm going to ask you to keep your interventions short and sweet on the text proposals so we can advance as fast as we can while leaving sufficient space for the discussion. I'm going to give the floor to the Secretariat for some quick logistical notes and announcement and we will start.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Delegates, due to the scheduling of this plenary, we would like to inform you that the side events have been moved from 3:00 PM to 4:30 PM. We also want to remind delegates to return the headsets on your way out after this session. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Please do not forget to return the headsets. It happened to all of us, but please remember to bring them back. So my goal is to review and adopt the conference papers, so we'll start addressing them one by one. We will continue on CRP2, as I mentioned, on the voluntary glossary. Then we will go to CRP3 on traditional knowledge inputs to the global report. We will move to CRP4 on the modus operandi, and we will go to CRP6 on recommendation on the permanent forum on indigenous issues. So we will start on Annex II, para b of CRP2 on the glossary of terms. So I am going to ask for the floor for comments or suggestions on paragraph 1b of the Annex II. Very good, I see no request for the floor, so I take this para can be accepted as it is. Moving us forward now to the next page, to para 2.01. Is there any comment, colleagues, or proposal to para 2.01? Russian Federation, please, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, co-chair. Thank you for giving us the floor. can you specify how you like to work on those three alts? Because we have a particular choice among them, right? So actually alt two. So I'm a little bit puzzled what I can talk about alt one. And I will right away say that alt one and alt three in a way may not work for us because One of the principles we use in the Convention for a long, long time, that when we are creating this kind of temporal subsidiary bodies to discuss particular topics, there was a rule that among participants, the majority should stay with parties. So that's why the alt one and alt four doesn't work, and that's why we suggested alt two. which is based on the balance, 15 people from, 15 experts from parties and 14 experts from observers. Then of course there is another element which we discussed on the modus operandi, whether those nominated by LPOLCs need to be selected from five regions of the convention or seven social cultural regions. That's another discussion. But in terms of numbers and the balance, we will be pretty kind of strong in this position that we like to keep the usual practice when the number of observers can be higher than number of parties in those bodies. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation and thank you for the question and for putting.

In perspective that we are taking this text as a whole and also warming up as you are for this plenary all. So colleagues, my proposal is as you can see all of the alts are in brackets. All of the alts respond to different proposals made by the parties in this plenary. But what I can see for the interventions made in the last plenary for the intervention that you just made, Russian Federation, is that deciding between the alts and the decision among the alts is also connected to the discussions that are happening in the modus operandi. And I feel, and it's my perspective, that there are differing views on those discussions and on those representations that will likely require further discussions, further engagements for us to bridge those differences. So my proposal is as follows. Considering that we have all of the alts in brackets, meaning that there are differing views still on all of the alts, my proposal is that we move this section as it is to the COP in brackets, 2 alt 1, 2 alt 2 and 2 alt 3. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we've, we went through this in detail in the informal and then again in the contact group. We very much support your proposal. I will note though that there is still, in the hopes of having just, a little bit cleaner text going into COP. The first alt, so 2 alt 1 subparagraph A has a bracket at the end of the first sub A paragraph. We would propose, I don't think we heard any kind of opposition to just removing the brackets so that within the alt we have clean text. So there are currently brackets around nominated and selected through an agreed process. We feel that there was no, we don't recall any opposition to that wording when we discussed this last. And so we would just propose that those brackets be lifted so that each alt is a kind of complete and clean set of options. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Canada, Azerbaijan, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning, everyone. I am just taking this floor to kindly ask if that would be possible to share the screen of the computer of the secretariat so that we all could see, just like we do it in the contact group meetings, just to be able to see all the amendments. We are just, we're still guessing what is alt one, what's alt three. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Azerbaijan.

And unfortunately for this plenary, it won't be possible to share the text on screen. So I will make sure that every change that it's proposed by the parties is read slowly and if needed several times from the secretariat so you can capture it. The text that we're looking at, it's on CRP.2 that it's already uploaded and available for all parties. And you can see that in the last page, page three out of three are the alts in question.

Thank you very much, Canada, for the proposal.

I have to ask the floor if they agree with this proposal. And I believe that it's constructive that we try to send as clean text as we can to the COP, considering that the whole section is going to be in brackets either way. So Instead of double bracketing, it would be more easy for parties to retake the discussion with just one. So thank you, Canada, and I ask the floor if there is any objection to removing the brackets in to alt point one para A at the end of the sentence on nominated and selected through an agreed process?

I see none. Thank you very much, colleagues.

So I'll move us forward to, ah, but before that, we noticed there is a typo in the CRP, so I'm going to give the floor to the Secretariat to clarify. It's for the next item? Okay, good. So no typos here. So I'm going to move us to para three that reads the co-chairs of the subsidiary body. Are there any comments, colleagues, or suggestions to para three? I see none.

Thank you very much.

We are progressing really fast. We will finalize the CRPs at this speed.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

I will go to paragraph four now. Experts shall be selected. Are there any comments or suggestions? Yes, Uruguay, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. Regarding paragraph four, Uruguay would like to make the following addition. After the wording and relevant expertise, add including in gender perspective. And that's it. Even that is considered a gender balance in the group, in the expert group, that not necessarily includes a gender perspective. And we believe it is important that this to be included. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uruguay, Azerbaijan, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We would also suggest to put among the three the relevant expertise before gender balance and geographical distribution as relevant expertise we believe is more important than the other two. I mean, the others are no less important, but relevant expertise I think should come first. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, followed by Senegal.

Thank you, Co-Chair. We support Azerbaijan. That was our proposal also in our submission, which is not reflected in this CRP. So we also like to see that into consideration a range of relevant expertise. We like to stress that we like this group to be consisting of a multi-dimensional knowledge and expertise. And we are a little bit challenged with this suggestion, I think from Uruguay, we can't understand the difference from having gender balance and gender perspective. So what does it really mean and how it's different? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, you have the floor, followed by Uruguay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Paragraph four, we would like to add at the end, after enforcing the policies or applying the policies, we add developing relevant policies. We would like also some clarification when it comes to the gender perspective. What's the difference between gender perspective and between taking into account the gender balance as we heard from the distinguished delegate from Russia? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia.

Uruguay, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I'm answering to the distinguished delegate from Russia regarding the distinction between gender balance. We believe gender balance is referring only to equity in the number of representatives in a group coming from different genders. is a step towards more gender inclusive perspective, I agree, but that not assure ensure gender perspective expertise in those technicians that will be part from the expert group. I hope that I made myself clear. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Although we don't think it's necessary for this paragraph, but just to address the interests of our colleagues, we may say, I don't have the full paragraph in front of me, but after we said about expertise, including on gender perspective, and then continue. So then we link it specifically to the range of expertise we like to see and not just a standalone, otherwise it sounds strange there. And again, our concern is that then we will start to say all type of expertise we like to see. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation, for that constructive perspective.

So let me read the para trying to accommodate everyone's views and perspective to see if this is acceptable. And I ask the Secretariat to correct me because I have my notes in paper and I could have made a mistake. So expert shall be selected taking into consideration relevant expertise, including on gender perspective, gender balance, geographical distribution, ensuring a diversity of knowledge systems, including traditional knowledge and relevant policy development. And I'm trying to accommodate the suggestion by our colleagues from Azerbaijan here as well. Can I take this proposal is acceptable, colleagues? I see no objection, so I'm going to say it is. Thank you very much, colleagues, and with this we have cleared CRP2. Thank you very much for your cooperation and thank you very much for the constructive engagement with this. Okay, thank you colleagues. So we are going to CRP3, okay.

You have everyone has the document at hand.

I hope you do, so we're going to start the reading, but this is where a typo has been found, so I'm going to give the floor to the Secretariat on this matter. Olivia, you have the floor. No, no, no, wait, wait, my mistake. I thought we had finished and we have not because we are missing the whole draft recommendation. Yeah, apologies for that. I need more coffee this morning. Thank you for your indulgence and your patience on this. But before going to the draft recommendation, I have two questions I have to make. One is to the EU and Zimbabwe on step three. If I recall correctly, we had a suggestion on subject to the availability of resources that you were consulting if it was possible to move it to the draft recommendation. So I want to ask Denmark the result of those consultations. Denmark, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair, and good morning to everyone. We have consulted with Zimbabwe and we are in agreement that we can move the sustainable, the subject to the availability of resources to the decision part and in this understanding that also the Secretariat takes note of this, we can remove it from Annex 1. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And now we also had a consultation from Indonesia on the suggestion on step three. Indonesia, can you report back on those consultations?

Thank you very much.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So following consultations with our capital.

We are obliged to inform that we are unable to demonstrate flexibility on this matter and we will reopen negotiations.

Within the framework of the COP. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Indonesia.

So with these two results of the consultation, Secretariat, can you please read the para as it stands?

Thank you, Madam Kocher. Step three reads, open brackets, step three, the executive secretary shall convene an ad hoc technical expert group on the review and update of the glossary, which on the basis of the views received, shall review and formulate technical advice and proposal on which elements of the glossary should be updated. close brackets, open brackets. The process should ensure that any revised definition should reflect the diversity of legal and cultural context across parties and allow national adaptation. close bracket. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretariat.

I believe that we should not have the brackets at the beginning of step three and after the period on update. This is something that we managed to clear, but thank you very much for adding the suggestion in brackets by Indonesia. So I repeat, we will have no brackets from step three until the period after updated, and afterwards we will have in brackets the suggestion by Indonesia. Azerbaijan, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, although due to technical constraints, we, I'm not sure we fully understood the text, although it was read quite clearly well. We still don't have it before our eyes. But as far as we understood, we would like to support the Indonesian addition to the text. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Azerbaijan.

So can I take it is acceptable to move step three in that shape, no brackets until updated period and afterwards in brackets Indonesia's suggestion? I see this is acceptable.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

And now on our newest step four, I believe that the EU were also in consultations on this new proposal. So EU, can you report back on those consultations? Yes, Denmark, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Yeah, these consultations we have done internally and we're very happy to let you know that we're ready to lift the brackets and have this step four agreed. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Denmark, and I am very happy that we are able to leave the brackets, not before asking the floor if it's acceptable to remove the brackets from our new step four. And I'm going to ask the Secretariat to read it for the floor one more time, please. Slowly.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Step four, the Executive Secretariat shall make available the technical advice and proposals formulated by the ad hoc technical expert group on the review and update of the glossary for peer review and make available as an information document to the Subsidiary Body on Article 8j and other provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity related to indigenous people and local communities at its second session.

Thank you very much, Secretariat.

Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? I see no objections.

Thank you very much.

And with that, we have closed the annexes. I will not make that mistake of emotion anymore. So now we are moving towards the draft recommendation for the COP colleagues. So I would like to ask, and I would like to start with the first para. This reads the conference of the parties. Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? Okay, I see no request for the floor, so we're going to move to para 2, which reads recalling task 5.4. Can I take this para is acceptable, colleagues? I see no request for the floor, so thank you very much. It is accepted. Now I will move us to para one of the draft recommendation which reads, decides to endorse the process. Are there any comment, colleagues, to this para? I see none. Thank you very much. So I will move us to part two, which says request the executive secretary of the convention. Are there any comments or suggestions to this? Denmark, yes, you have the floor.

Thank you so much. And also in the spirit of agreement with Zimbabwe, we think that here after convene, we would need to insert subject to the availability of resources. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Denmark.

So I'm going to read slowly, slowly the proposal, which reads, to request the executive secretary of the convention to convene, comma, subject to the availability of resources, an ad hoc technical expert group, and the rest of the para will read the same. Can I take this is acceptable for the floor, colleagues? Very good.

I see no comments.

Thank you very much for that. So now I'm moving us forward to the next and last para of the recommendation, para number three, request the subsidiary body to make a recommendation. Are there any comments or suggestions to these para colleagues? Yes, Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We would like to add voluntary before glossary at the second line. Thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. So now I'm going to read the para as it stands. request the subsidiary body to make a recommendation for updating the voluntary glossary and the rest of the para will read the same. Can I take this as acceptable, colleagues? Russian Federation, please.

That's a technical question. I think Secretariat will fix it when editing the text. So of course we are working currently within the context of this particular subsidiary body and we understand it, but this is a draft decision of COP. So from our perspective, that needs to be a full name of subsidiary body and not just subsidiary body. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation, and we count on the Secretariat to make these corrections when editing the text. So, colleagues, can I take this paragraph as accepted with the proposal from Brazil and the correction made by the Secretariat on the full name of the subsidiary body? I see no objections.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

And now I'm very pleased to say that we have indeed finalized CRP two. So thank you very much for the constructiveness and for the good pace that we are advancing this morning. So now correcting my previous mistake, we are moving to CRP three in which yes, there is a typo. So now I'm going to give the floor to the secretariat to provide clarity. Olivia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dear delegates, we would like to inform you that there is a typo in the footnote of CRP3. The footnote is written as follows: free, prior and informed consent refers to the tripartite terminology of prior informed consent, free, prior and informed consent and approval and involvement. However, the agreed language as in decision 15/4 is that this should read or and not and. This footnote will be corrected in the revised version of the document.

Thank you very much to the Secretariat.

So let's start with CRP3, colleagues. Again, I count on your cooperation. Remember, to make interventions focused on the comments or suggestions to the text, and if further rationale is required, I will give you the floor for it. Okay? So let's start with para 1 of CRP 3 of the draft recommendation, which reads, "Recalling decisions 15/6." Do we have any comments or suggestions for that para?

I see none. Thank you very much, colleagues.

So I'm moving us forward to the next para, para one that reads, reiterates its encouragement. Do we have any comments or suggestions to this para? I see none. Thank you, dear colleagues. So we are moving to the next para, para A, that reads to enable the full and effective participation. Do we have any comments or suggestions? Yes, South Africa, you have the floor, followed by the Russian Federation and Nigeria.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We suggest that we include a statement saying only number C and D immediately after paragraph 23 then we insert C and D because those are the only text that is applicable in terms of decision 1632. I thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, co-chair. We prefer not to have sub-paragraphs a and b. So just reiterating a particular decision and paragraphs, I think that South Africa made addition to it, we agree. And we like to delete a and b. Thank you.

Okay, now I give the floor to DRC, please.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. Like Russia, we would also like to see paragraphs A and B go. We think it's quite enough to simply refer to decision 15/6 and add what South Africa proposed. That would make the text much more flexible. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC. So, colleagues, I'm going to ask if the proposal by the Russian Federation and the proposal by South Africa is accepted. Secretariat, please, can you read the text with these suggestions?

Reiterates its encouragement to parties in paragraph 23C and 23D of decision 15/6, full stop.

Thank you very much colleagues.

Can I take this is acceptable? DRC please you have the floor.

Just one comment of a drafting nature. After decision 15/6 usually the secretariat includes the date of the decision. Thank you.

Thank you very much to DRC.

So is there any objection to this para as read by the Secretariat plus the suggestion made by DRC on including the date of the decision? I see none.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

So I'm moving us forward to para two of the recommendation which reads stresses the importance of including. Are there any comments? Yes, Russian Federation, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. We think that we don't need this paragraph. We said it 57 times since COP15. We also make a decision of COP17. We still are very optimistic and hope that many NBSAPs will be ready by the time. So we don't think we need to repeat again and again same things. said many times before also here as definitely those documents are in relation to the global review but this specific point is going beyond the point of the report we also have a concern we see the enormous expansion of this decision compared to the initial one. So, and we like actually to shorten it to practical things. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation.

I now give the floor to India, followed by DRC.

Thank you, Madam Kocher. I'm sorry, I couldn't follow in the paragraph one, what was the decision taken?

Can you please repeat?

Of course, India on para one, which reads, reiterates India's commitment to the Paris Agreement. its encouragement to parties. And now I'll give the floor to the Secretariat to read again that para as it was accepted.

Reiterates its encouragement to parties in paragraph 23C and 23D of decision 15/6 of 19 December 2022. Full stop.

Thank you very much to the Secretariat.

I now give the floor to DRC.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. We think that paragraph two is very relevant and important because it highlights the importance of including women and youth not just in the update and implementation of NB SAPS, but also, and above all, in the seventh and eighth reports, which will truly ensure that this will be included in the global report. So we think this paragraph is important and we would like to keep it in the document. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC.

So colleagues, I'm seeing two different views here, so let me see if we can bridge and accommodate them. Russian Federation, you have the floor before.

Always happy to find a solution. We agree with the colleague from DRC. on relevance for the preparation of reports, so that can be stresses the importance of including women and youth from indigenous peoples and local communities in preparation of seventh and eighth national reports. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation.

So, Secretariat, DRC, please, you have the floor.

We commend that flexibility on the part of the Russian Federation and we agree to that position. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues, and congratulations for that spirit of compromise. Secretariat, can you please read the proposal?

Stresses the importance of including women and youth from indigenous peoples and local communities in the preparation of the seventh and eighth national reports.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Can I take this as acceptable? Good, I see no objections.

Thank you very much.

I am moving us forward to paragraph 3, which reads 'welcomes the contributions'. Are there any comments or suggestions? I see none.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

I'm moving us forward now to para 4, which reads, encourages parties to facilitate submissions. Are there any suggestions or comments here, colleagues? DRC, please.

Madam Co-Chair, we would like to just insert something in the third line after local communities, including women and youth. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC colleagues. I'm going to read the suggestion. Para four encourages parties to facilitate submissions on indigenous knowledge systems and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples in local communities, including women and youth, obtain with their free, prior and informed consent, and the rest of the para will read the same. Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? I see no objection. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the flexibility and DRC for the suggestions. Moving us forward then to para five, which reads also encourages parties to provide Russian Federation, you have the floor.

We may have this paragraph, but with different actors. So we're concerned sometimes that everything is coming to the shoulders of parties and some organizations, and I don't see much what LPOLC is supposed to do. So we're happy to see it if we replace parties with LPOLCs. They first of all need to provide this information and also our understanding will be when they provide this information this way, the PIC is already there. So it's not us constantly coming to LPoCs asking for information and also trying to get PIC. That's first of all for LPoCs to collect this information and bring it to us in a form we may use. So if it will be encourages LPUCs to provide, we will be happy to see this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, DRC, you have the floor.

Yes, in fact, that is our opinion as well, that this recommendation should be addressed to the indigenous peoples and the local communities. And at the end, the very last line, we would add target 13. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

I'm going to read the para with the suggestions. also encourages indigenous peoples and local communities to provide extensive relevant information on actions by indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, in relation to the implementation of the framework, highlighting successes, challenges and possible gaps in the implementation of section C and targets 13, 21, 22 and 23 of the framework. Can I take this as acceptable, colleagues? Canada, yes, you have the floor.

I understand the point made by the colleague from Russia on encouraging indigenous peoples to also provide this information, but I don't think we should exclude the request for parties to do so. Can we have wording that says encourages IPLCs and parties so that we're covering all of our bases? Thank you.

Thank you.

Canada, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

We believe it will be repetitive because also in paragraph 4 and some other paragraphs we already asking parties to use this information and then BSAbs and reports, et cetera. From our perspective, we already did it. So this paragraph 5, we are balancing the request to parties to incorporate into governmental policies and documents. with a request to the OPCW to provide relevant information for that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Russia, I'm going to give the floor to Denmark.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Speaking on behalf of the UN's Member States, we can support the proposal from Canada.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

DRC, you have the floor, followed by Saudi Arabia.

Madam.

Madam co-chair, in any event, the indigenous peoples and the local communities, women and youth belong to the parties. We don't understand why there should be redundancy here. And as Russia explained very well, a lot of the additional paragraphs involve the parties in this type of action and not Not only in this document, it's in other documents as well. And obviously it will be analyzed and has been already during this session. So if we only leave indigenous peoples and local communities, I think we will have done a good job. And we have a lot of work left to do. And so let's be flexible and let's move on. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The KSA would like to add after the provision of relevant information when available. Thank you, Madam Chair, to provide extensive relevant information when available in between two brackets.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia.

So, okay, let's see how can we find a compromise that reflects both. I see the, and I hear the suggestion for some parties to see the role of indigenous peoples and local communities in providing information. and I also hear the interest of some parties in keeping the call for parties. From this perspective, what I can see is the most balanced approach, and I understand and I hear what you're mentioning on the redundancy of this, but colleagues, we're trying to reflect everyone's perspective in the text. So the most balanced approach that I can see from this perspective is to keep both. So parties that want to see parties can see themselves reflected, but also that parties that want to see indigenous peoples and local communities can also see themselves reflected in the text. So I'm going to ask DRC and Russia if you can be flexible in trying to find a solution that allows everyone to see what they want to see in the text. DRC, you have the floor.

Madam Co-Chair, we hear your proposal and In a spirit of flexibility, we had our own proposal, which was presented to you, and that is, which will be presented, invites the indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth, and encourages the parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC.

So the proposal would read five, also invites indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, and encourages parties to provide extensive and relevant information. Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? Russian Federation, followed by DRC.

So thanks to DRC for coming with suggestions. We may agree, we usually, it's true, we usually invite observers to do something, but we still like to see reference to parties in square brackets. We really like a paragraph which will be specifically addressed to LPs. and not mix it with other many obligations already, I repeat again, already fixed for parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, DRC, you have the floor.

Yes, just a small comment of an editorial nature after the proposal. invites, not also, just invites the indigenous peoples and local communities, and also encourages the parties. And then in brackets, as Russia has asked, and then the rest is as it reads now. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC Secretariat.

I'm going to ask you to read the proposal, please, including the suggestion by Saudi Arabia.

Thank you. So the paragraph reads, invites indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, brackets, and also encourages parties in brackets to provide extensive relevant information when available on actions by indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them in relation to the implementation of the framework, highlighting successes, challenges and possible gaps in the implementation of section C and targets 13, 21, 22 and 23 of the framework.

Thank you very much to the Secretariat.

Colleagues, can I take this is an acceptable compromise? Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With this wording, I got the impression that invites IPLCs, including women and youth among them, It's not in brackets.

Brackets you have is only on parties.

Yes, Cameroon.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much for that clarification question. Can I take this as an acceptable compromise that everyone feels comfortable with?

Thank you very much.

I see no objection. So that moves us to para six, which reads, takes note with appreciation. Are there any comments or suggestions to this para? I see none, colleagues. Thank you very much. I'm moving us forward to para seven, which reads, notes that many of the sources of information. Are there any comments or suggestions? I see none. I see, yes, DRC followed by Azerbaijan. Can we give the floor to the R.C. please.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for the floor. We were thinking that point sub paragraph B should be a separate paragraph, so separated out from paragraph seven. because we have asked that the ATEG preparing the global report could involve the intergovernmental platform, the IPBES, the task force of IPBES that is working on traditional knowledge and local knowledge in their work. in order to be sure that traditional knowledge and indigenous knowledge is completely taken into account, particularly with the assistance of IPBES. Thank you.

Thank you very much, dear C. You have gone ahead of myself with the reading because we are on para six that reads takes note with appreciation before that one. So I'm going to save your intervention and I'm going to bring your suggestion when we arrive to para seven, but thank you very much for the spirit of moving us fast. I really appreciate that. So now I will give the floor to Azerbaijan. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On a technical note, we wonder if we should add date after decision 16/32 to streamline the text. Thank.

You. Okay, so seven again, let's get into the depth of seven. So I have two suggestions. Include the date after decision 1632. I'm going to ask to parties if this is acceptable. I see no objection, so we will include it. And with regards of separating para B from para seven, I'm going to ask parties if there is any objection with making para seven point B a new para, which would be para eight. Canada, yes, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding of paragraph seven is to recall the various sources that were identified in decision 1632 and paragraph B is one of those sources which may include information related to traditional knowledge. As a standalone paragraph, there's no action tied to it. So we support the retention of paragraph 7B where it is as a factual representation of decision 16-32. As a standalone paragraph, there's no action, there's no real, I struggle to see the purpose of identifying it as a standalone paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Canada.

I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Co-Chair, we do not very much like the whole paragraph seven as it's on a very sensitive threshold. We discussed extensively the issue of global report last week at Substa 27. We agreed there on the text that was also not easy negotiations. So we have different sources. The negotiations also covered sources. Here again, we are kind of coming with the interpretation and further elaboration of potential sources. If those sources are already mentioned, in 1632 and were considered by the advisory group and by SAPSTA, then we see a clear redundancy. We also concern with C, the second part of it, which start kind of, you know, describing and telling what can be in indicators, what kind of data. Everyone knows that the issue of data for global report is a very sensitive topic. So overall, our preference will be really to delete paragraph seven. We can be flexible and live with that if also as Canada said, that will be still ABC as one paragraph, but prefer to delete or to leave only with the chapeau of the paragraph without ABC. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation.

I now give the floor to the DRC.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. We do not want to prolong the discussions on this paragraph, but we believe that the majority of traditional knowledge and local knowledge are oral and are not usually in the form of documents. And so we have to have methodologies and specific approaches to take them into account. And in order to do so, there is a task force on indigenous and local knowledge of IPES, which works on this area, but whose work could always be improved. And so we were showing flexibility in proposing that. We thought that paragraph seven should just mention the decision 16/32 and end there. and then create a new paragraph eight which recommends to the ATAG to involve IPBES, particularly the task force on indigenous and local knowledge in the global report. Thank you.

Thank you very much, dear C. I now give the floor to South Africa followed by Norway.

Thank you, co-chair. So in emphasis, we just want to support the sentiments shared by Russia in deleting paragraph seven. Just to reiterate, these elements were discussed last week in the sub-state and the sub-state has provided guidance in dealing with those elements, so it might not be necessary to keep them there. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, South Africa.

I now give the floor to Norway.

Thank you. Considering the amount of detail we have put into other instructions and mandates to ARTEX, we find that the proposed level of detail here is exactly appropriate and certainly for this forum which involves the traditional knowledge innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities so we find that these elements are indeed essential in the instruction to the Arctic thank you.

Thank you very much Norway I now give the floor to the Russian Federation.

So is a also kind of way of compromise compared to what we like the whole paragraph to go. We can accept suggestion from DRC. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation.

I now give the floor to India.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. India's comments with regard to seven paras because in my opinion, the whole 7 is now considered. Am I correct?

Yes, considering that we have suggestions for removal or not, then I will take that yes, we are considering the whole para, so please go ahead.

Madam Co-Chair, in 7 we would like an insertion. in the second line, traditional knowledge, that is second line is component or complementary indicators of the framework or other relevant national indicators as appropriate. Then I further like that after monitoring and information systems, I would like to delete from noting to till the indicators.

Thank you very much, India.

Okay, colleagues. So let's see if we can find a solution here that works for everyone. I'm hearing parties that are proposing to delete paras a, b and c. So what I was doing is I was making sure that everything is contained in decision 16/32. So to make sure that we are referring something that contains the content of paras A, B and C. So what I'm hearing and what I'm seeing here in the text is that indeed decision 16/32 refers the additions of the local biodiversity outlook. It also refers para B and it also refers the indicators of the framework. I'm going to, before proposing a potential solution, I'm going to give the floor to the Secretariat to provide some explanation in terms of processes on why we cannot move para b to a separate paragraph with the verb proposed. So Secretariat, please, you have the floor.

Thank you. So the task force on indigenous and local knowledge of IPBES has its own terms of reference and its own procedures. And the mandate of that task force is to provide guidance on IPBES knowledge products, which means that there's no direct way for us to involve that task force in the work on the global report. And so any sort of advice that that task force would have would be information or any information that they have would also manifest in IPBES deliverables. And so this is why it is captured already in paragraph B. That's the only way that we are going to be able to include inputs from that body. Thanks.

Thank you very much to the secretariat.

So, considering that there is an interest in streamlining this paragraph, but also an interest in referring the content of decisions A, B and C, what I am going to propose, colleagues, and let's see if this is acceptable, is that we leave with the chapeau only. considering that it has a reference to decision 16/32 and that the content of subparas a, b, and c are referred in this decision. Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? Very good. DRC, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. We agree with your proposal, but perhaps we have a clarification to ask of you. That there are no direct links between IPBES and CBD is what you explained, if we understood the Secretariat's explanation properly. And so we would like to know how the proposal will be worded that you have just provided. Thank you.

Thank you very much, dear C. I'm giving the floor to the secretariat to provide first the clarity and then to read the proposal.

Thank you. So as mentioned, by the chair. The proposal was that any inputs from these groups would be already captured in 1632 as 1632 paragraph 18 does describe that the assessments reports and deliverables of IPES would already be a source of information. And so at current, the paragraph seven reads notes that many of the sources of information for the global report on collective progress described in paragraph 18 of decision 1632 of 27 February 2025 may include information related to traditional knowledge, innovations, practices, and technology of indigenous peoples and local communities. provided by them with their free, prior and informed consent, full stop.

Thank you very much to the Secretariat.

Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? Yes, DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. We support your proposal and this will help us to move forward. but could also include information related to traditional knowledge, innovations, practices, and technologies of the indigenous peoples and local communities, including youth and women. Thank.

You very much to DRC colleagues.

Can I take that the suggestion of the DRC and the proposed way forward is accepted? I see no objections. Thank you very much, colleagues, for that spirit of compromise and constructive way of addressing the discussion. Moving us now to paragraph eight, which reads, "Also notes that." Are there any comments or suggestions? Yes, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

A short one on the second line. From our perspective, it should read, "Recommendation should be considered in production instead of in form.".

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, DRC, you have the floor.

Yes, Madam Chair. I have a quick question of clarification. For the Secretariat, it says that the recommendation will be communicated to SubSTA. Then I would like to know which meeting of SubSTA is this recommendation addressed to, where will it be communicated to SubSTA? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to give the floor to the Russian Federation before providing the clarity you asked for. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Oh, my apologies, co-chair, as I jumped ahead of the secretariat. So I like to remind all participants what kind of document we consider. That's a recommendation of this body. That's not a draft recommendation of COP. So this is a document for intercessional period. The work on the global report will start in early March. So whatever is designed here can be sent only to substat 28. And of course, SBI, there are two options, the February or August. In this case, we may specify the number of SBI if we wish. but clearly only 28. And with that, I also like to draw attention to everyone that this is a document which doesn't allow for any square brackets in it at the end. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation for that explanation and that clarity. Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the Russian Federation had a suggestion to exchange, inform with, I think, to something like consider. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the difference is. I think this is, you know, some delegations are taking the floor the entire time for sometimes on important issues, I realize that, but sometimes it's on issues that seems very microscopic. So in my view, we cannot work this way. Thank you.

Norway, thank you very much for the intervention.

Russian Federation, I'm going to give you the floor to provide clarity on your suggestion and I'm moving us to find a solution. Thank you.

So from time to time, we also hear the same microscopic changes and stubbornness of some other delegations. So that's negotiations and I think everyone need to be patient or maybe participate other meetings. And for informed, we read it as more obligatory thing to be actually necessarily used, while actually to be considered for us means that SABSTA and SBI may see and take what they wish from it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

I'm going to ask for flexibility here. So can I take that we can move forward with the suggestion by the Russian Federation? Are there any objection to that? I see none and thank you very much colleagues and I appreciate your constructiveness and your willingness to show flexibility so we can move quickly in these discussions. Thank you very much. So now I'm moving us to para nine, which reads request the executive secretary. Are there any comments or suggestions on this para? I see none. Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm moving us forward to nine A. Are there any suggestions to nine A? I see none.

Thank you very much.

Nine B. Canada, please, you have the floor.

This is just a procedural clarification or suggestion for clarification. Paragraph B references a recommendation. I believe the recommendation from sub to 27 is L4. And then the specific activity noted in L4 with regards to the informal technical dialogue, and both in L4 and decision 32 is subject to the availability of financial resources. So we would want to make sure that at the end of the currently proposed paragraph that we have comma, subject to the availability of resources included in that text, please.

Thank you very much, Canada Secretariat.

Can you please read para 9 with the suggestions?

So the only suggestion is at the end of the sentence. So it would say to include in the informal technical dialogue referred to in paragraph 24 of decision 1632 and in paragraph seven of recommendation 27 one, which is the number that L four will become the collection of inputs related to traditional knowledge, including the sharing of best practices, challenges, gaps and solutions subject to the availability of resources.

Thank you very much.

DRC, you have the floor.

Yes, perhaps just for editorials, we can specify the state of the references in the paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC.

Please, Secretariat, can you read again the paras?

So the addition with the date, I will have to check because we don't have a date for the recommendation 27/1 yet. So if you could bear with us, we could add this as an editorial change.

Thank you very much, Secretariat.

Colleagues, can I take this is acceptable?

I see no objection. Thank you very much.

I'm moving us forward to para 10. Also request the Executive Secretary. Are there any comments or suggestions to para 10, colleagues? Russian Federation followed by Malawi.

There is a minor change in B. So we believe that it should read to support indigenous communities, including women, youth among them, to submit information on their commitments as actors other than national governments. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation.

I now give the floor to Malawi.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We had the same point as the Russian Federation because as it stands, the paragraphs assumes that indigenous peoples and local communities as actors will submit information on behalf of other actors. I think that's how we were seeing it, I think, which is not the case. other actors can submit information on their actions contributing to indigenous peoples on there so we can support the textural proposal made by Russia. And also just to reflect that we are talking about indigenous peoples in local communities, I think that can also be edited. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Malawi.

I now give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by South Africa.

Thank you very much, Chair. Our comment was also similar to that of Russia and Malawi. We had suggested text, but we are happy to also go with the text that has been suggested by Russia.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, co-chair. We align ourselves with the inputs that were just made right now by the three parties that have commented regarding the actors. And to that effect, we have crafted a text that we thought it can be used as a footnote. If I can read it as footnote, I think it will be four or five, then it will read as follows. All submissions from actors other than national government would be available for national focal points to review. After, this is another sentence now, after a period of four weeks, the submitted commitment would be published if the relevant national focal point has not objected, comma, with the understanding that the commitment could be withdrawn from publication at any time if there is an objection. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

South Africa.

Thank you very much, South Africa.

So, okay, we have minor changes to this para that have been supported by several parties. South Africa, I would like to propose what you're describing is the exact procedure in decision 1632. So my proposal is that we, for your consideration South Africa and for the consideration of colleagues, is that we refer to the procedures in or as per in the procedures of decision 1632 so we can have a more streamlined reference in the text and we avoid including too many texts at this stage of the discussion. So I will give the floor to Brazil before asking if this is acceptable. Brazil, you have removed your request for the floor? No. I can see you did.

Thank you very much.

So, Secretary, please read the para with the additions proposed.

To support indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, to submit on their commitments as actors other than national governments in line with notification 2025/132 and recommendation 27/1 of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice and following the procedures described in decision 16/32.

Thank you very much, Secretariat.

South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair, and thank you very much for your indulgence on that one. We are fine with the advice that you are giving us, but we thought we should take the floor just to clarify that we were not proposing a text or another paragraph to be included, but this was just a footnote making reference and clarifying the aspect referred to in subpara with reference to the word actors. Thank you.

Thank you very much, South Africa, and very much welcome that clarification. Okay, colleagues, can I take the para is acceptable as read by the Secretariat? I see no objection, so thank you very much, colleagues. We have finalized CRP3. Oh, yes, Denmark, followed by the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam Co-chair, I believe we have a bracketed sentence to revisit before finishing this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Denmark, for that reminder.

So we will go back to paragraph five.

Thank you very much, Denmark, for the reminder.

So, colleagues, we need to find a solution for this, because we, as the Russian Federation kindly reminded us, we cannot leave this plenary without we need to leave this document without brackets. Russian Federation, you have the floor, I hope, with a solution for the brackets.

Good chair. So let's remove brackets and move forward with our considerations.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation, for that flexibility and spirit of compromise. So can I take that para five is acceptable and I'm going to read para five. invites indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth among them, and also encourages parties to provide extensive information. Are we all comfortable with this? All a bit comfortable and at the same time a bit uncomfortable, which means that we have reached a very good compromise. Very good. So with this we approved CRP3 and we also approved CRP2 right before this, so thank you very much. That is going to allow us to move forward to our next document, which will be CRP number six. Okay, colleagues, so let's move to CRP number six. Thank you, colleagues. So we had a very, very good discussion for item seven, which is now CRP six yesterday night in the plenary. And if you recall, there were divergent views around this item and there was a request from the floor to reflect those divergent views in this item. And there were also reflections and interventions from the floor on the need to connect these recommendations in the context of the CPT. So colleagues, the document that you have ahead of you, and we have made an effort with the Secretariat to reflect explicitly in the text the divergence of views that we have around this issue. And also we have reflected in the text the suggestion by several parties here on the importance of connecting these in the context of the CBD Convention. So we really hope that this reflects the views and the feeling around the room and that once again allows us to find a compromise that we are comfortable but also a bit uncomfortable which means that it's a very good compromise for everyone okay so now going to open the reading of the CRP thank you very much for your constructiveness spirit of compromise in advance and again I'm going to remind you to keep your comments short and sweet on the text proposals that you have for this so we will start with para one that which recommends that at its 17th meeting Are there any comments, colleagues, or suggestions on this? I see none. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to move us to the next one, which I believe will have many comments. The conference of the parties. Yes, DRC.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. I am grateful to the Secretariat for the efforts to produce this paper. However, on this first paragraph, we think that it should be read as follows: envisage intends to do an in-depth review of the possibility of recommending to the Conference of the Parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC Secretariat.

Can you please read the part with the suggestion?

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The text reads, with the intent of the possibility of recommending, and the text continues.

Yes. DRC, I will ask for your patience and I'm going to ask you to please repeat your suggestion so the Secretariat can confirm if it was accurately captured and afterwards I will give the floor to Norway. Thank you. DRC, please, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Intends to review in depth the possibility of recommending that the Conference of the Parties adopts a decision as follows. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat, can you please read it?

Let me read it in French. Considers to perform an in-depth review, a decision that would be as follows, and so the possibility of an in-depth review. And if that could be repeated at dictation speed, please. Thank you.

Norway, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. And I believe that before we went into analyzing the individual lines of text here, we might have been approached to consider the consider the full recommendation, which is, you know, short and sweet and therefore should be considered as such, primarily before going into the individual lines, especially so because we believe that the way this is now phrased, it does capture the disparity of views that were in the room and proposes a simple way forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Norway, Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am doubtful and I have a question about the wording, the recommendations that we're making in the subsidiary bodies for the COP. These are recommendations with a view to achieving decisions. So I'm not so sure that in this document we can include wording that doesn't specify what we're asking of COP. I think in the text, we need to specify what we want COP to do, what needs to be done in the decision recommended. But here we're asking the COP to take a decision, and it's in the body of the text that we can specify that. But I think the wording in the chapeau makes me uncomfortable. Either we make a recommendation because we want a decision or we don't say anything.

Thank you very much.

DRC, you have the floor, followed by Australia.

Yes, my apologies, Madam Co-Chair, and my thanks to the distinguished delegates of Norway and of Cameroon there for sharing their concerns. I don't think we really understand each other, so I'm going to try to clarify. My proposal would read as follows, to address the doubt expressed by Cameroon. recommends that the Conference of the Parties review in depth the need to take a decision that would be as follows. I repeat, recommends that the Conference of the Parties examines or reviews in depth the need to take a decision that would resemble along the following lines. So we believe it is up to the COP to take the decision to adopt such draft recommendation or not because we here are not in a position to settle this problem. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

DRC Australia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. And it may just be that it's been a long couple of weeks, but I'm struggling to understand. My understanding is, and I would like to seek clarification from the Secretariat, that standard language that we have at the top of every recommendation that a subsidiary body makes, that we adopt a decision along the following lines. So I'd be reluctant to change that language and perhaps the usual process would be to, unfortunately, bracket the options to take the decision, which means that it's open for discussion. I thought that this was a great balance actually on the divergence of views expressed last night, having sat here and listened to them. And so we were happy to support the decision as it's been drafted for the CRP, but I really would like to clarify if changing that line is creating a new situation, because I understand that to be standard language and we haven't seen anything like that before. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Australia.

Cameroon, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. I would like to come back to the wording of the DRC, just to recall that the terms of the decision presented to express renewal of the decision that's already been taken. It's a continuation of the existing decision. So to say that we can't decide here and to see the decision in context, nothing has been added to the COP16 decision. It's just a continuation of the decision that has already been taken that we are taking up here. I don't want to reopen the discussion on this work done. The work has been done and the intention is for us to agree on the language of this CBD and the forum, the Indigenous Peoples Forum. We want them to understand that CBD has language and terminology. So in Africa, proposal. It was just that we wanted to specify that this should be done in the context of the CBD, the convention.

Thank you very much.

Dear C, I'm going to ask for your indulgence so I can give the floor to the Secretariat first to provide the clarification requested by some of the parties with regards to the proposed language. Secretariat, please.

Yes, regarding the recommendations by subsidiary body such as ours, they go directly to the COP which reviews all the recommendations so as to take a decision. So to answer that question, that is clear that that is the procedure that is followed in the work of this body, thank you.

Thank you very much.

DRC, you have the floor, followed by the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, and thank you to the delegate from Cameroon for her clarification. Nonetheless, I should say that The decision that she mentioned, but reviewing the decisions were at the 20 and 21st meetings, and then 23 and 24, meeting 23 and 24. So we have to see what the rationale is for our interventions. We're talking about different things is what I'm trying to say. We are talking about different documents. Therefore, in order to move forward, and we are flexible, we would like our proposal to be bracketed and that we move forward.

Thank you very much, dear C. I now give.

The floor to the Russian Federation and to Cameroon colleagues, and I'm going to ask that if further interventions are going to be made on this topic, are focused on solutions that allow us to move forward.

Thank you very much.

Russian Federation, followed by Cameroon.

Thank you, co-chair. I don't think you will like my intervention. We do not believe that these short paragraphs and a very also dry paragraph on noting really reflect discussions yesterday. So we also see many concerns now that's a CRP stage. So we like to put the entire draft into brackets and stop with the decision and send it to COP. Everybody probably will clarify more and prepare for COP. for the moment square brackets and move forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation.

I now give the floor to Cameroon, followed by Norway.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It would be a simple addition to the proposal of a recommendation to add the group, the Africa group, which had asked that we add in the framework of the convention. If we add that in, that makes it possible to take into account new recommendations that are taken at the 23rd and 24th sessions of the permanent forum. And so we are taking into account those recommendations. But it has to be taken into account in the framework of the convention. That's what we would like to add. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Cameroon.

Norway, followed by Brazil.

Thank you very much, Chair. And taking note of the constructive input from Cameroon, may we also propose another way forward, which could allow us not to bracket the whole thing. with reference to point one, to simply delete the references to the 23rd and 24th sessions. So focusing on the function of the Permanent Forum to come here and make observations and recommendations, but in line with the breadth of views presented yesterday, reflect that there is such a divergence of view that the most fair and reasonable way forward is to take note. So this compromise proposal, we believe, prepares the ground for an even more neutral representation of the discussion last night. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Norway.

I now give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Unfortunately, we agree with Russia. We do not think that the text proposed is reflective of the discussions we had yesterday. We have major concerns regarding it, and our first attempt would be to bracket all of it as well. And the first and the second place, we would like to add some text, even if it's bracketed. And the third attempt would be considering the solution proposed by Norway would be if we are taking note of the recommendation of the Permanent Forum in general, maybe we could take note of the recommendation that are not controversial, select a few paragraphs that are not controversial to us, to this forum. Thank you. But just to reinforce, we would like to break the whole text. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Brazil, DRC, please.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. We just heard the proposal from Norway. And this regards the removal of the reference to 23rd and 24th. So if we remove that, what is COP going to actually take note of? Absolutely nothing. Secondly, As Brazil and others have said, and Brazil said, we could simply square bracket this text. If we do that, it becomes a package and it gets sent to COP. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Norway followed by Indonesia followed by Denmark.

Thank you, DRC, Brazil and Cameroon. Just to explain that what we want to safeguard here is the procedure of permanent forum, having this spot to make observations and recommendations, but also underlining that as from their position outside of the COP, outside of the CBD, we simply take note. And thus, there is no need, of course, which will also be very difficult to review each time on a case-by-case basis, whether we like them or not. But simply the procedure to hear these views, we think is very well worth safeguarding. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Norway, Indonesia, followed by Denmark.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We support the suggestion.

Made by Russia, which is also supported by others like Brazil and Darzi, to bracket the whole.

Recommendation and send this negotiation to COP.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Indonesia, Denmark, followed by Canada.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We are of the view that the recommendation as it stands is quite balanced because it explicitly notes the divergent views that are there and we are in full support also to find a good compromise solution. So having heard some of the explanations and preferences from parties, we could try with bracketing the first para, taking note of the recommendations, etc. And then we can potentially dig into, dig deeper into this and explore which recommendations are very valuable also for the convention, just as Brazil explained, that could be a way forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Denmark, Canada, followed by India.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. You know, certainly we would prefer not to bracket the whole thing, but we understand that it may be difficult here today to arrive at an agreement. I would just like to have clarity about when colleagues, various colleagues have suggested bracketing everything. Clearly, we can't bracket the small line on recommending that the sub-sta recommends, sorry, sub-sta, sub-body and HJ recommends something. And so we're assuming it's just the COP part of the decision. And in that regard, I'd like to get clarity on how that text would remain. Because if it remains with the proposed text from our colleague from Democratic Republic of Congo, we fear that that would even complicate things even more. We'd be down in a hole and losing control quickly. So if I can get clarification on that, on what the actual proposal is and what we're bracketing and what text remains, I think that would be really important. Thank you.

Thank you, Canada.

I now give the floor to India.

Uh, thank you, co-chair. Um, I think we would like to, uh, invite your kind attention that, see, uh, we are listening, uh, carefully about the, uh, uh, the discussions that happened and, uh, what exactly we have been discussed and, uh, to bring the language in this paragraph. I think it is not accurately captured and we are of the view that what Russia had said and our other colleagues and including Indonesia. So we put it in bracket and we can discuss further in the COP. Thank you.

Thank you colleagues for the patience. Okay, so let's see. I would like to do an attempt before we bracket the whole text. I think that we can, I hear you colleagues, I hear the parties that are asking us to bracket the whole text. But I am also hearing parties that are asking not to bracket the whole text. So my proposal is that we try to take a sequenced approach to the brackets. Let's take step by step before sending a CRP full of brackets to the COP. Okay? So here it is my proposal to see colleagues if that's acceptable for you. My proposal is that in the third para of the recommendation that now reads nothing, I am hearing that there are several differing views and we might need a stronger language to reflect that set of different views. So my proposal is that here instead of nothing, we mention stresses. So the para will read stressing that there are divergent views among parties with regards to the recommendation of the permanent forum on indigenous issues. So we can have stronger language that reflects the diverging views that we have right now and that allows us to reflect that in a stronger way, considering the different views that we have around the table. Now, with regards to para one, my proposal is that we follow Denmark's suggestion, Because what I'm hearing colleagues here in the floor, what we heard yesterday is that there are strong different views with regards of their recommendations. In Brazil, I hear you that there are stronger views with some recommendations rather than others, and that will require further discussion, in-depth discussion. I agree on that. So my suggestion is that we do two things with this para. that we take the suggestions that I heard on the floor on that text, which is removing the reference to the 23rd and 24th sessions, and that we, instead of mentioning in the context of the Convention, we mention in the framework of the Convention, which is the suggestion by the African group. So the para will read bracket one takes note of the recommendation of the permanent forum on indigenous issues in the framework of the convention on biological diversity. And that we leave only this para in brackets because this is where the substantive difference and the substantive discussion is. And for the second para, My suggestion, and I'm hearing in the floor the need to reiterate the importance of reading these in the framework of the Convention, so my suggestion is that in para 2 we leave at the end of the para in the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. So that would read, request the executive secretary of the convention to continue to inform the permanent forum on indigenous issues of developments of mutual interest and to provide information to the forum about activities undertaking under the convention that are related to the aforementioned recommendations of the forum, COMA, in the framework of the convention on biological diversity. We would reiterate this important issue that has been raised on the floor different times. And colleagues, my proposal seeks to find a balance again between the parties that want brackets on the whole decision, the parties that do not want brackets on the whole decision. So we find that middle ground that we have brackets only where we have substantive differences and where substantive discussions are needed. So let's see if this is acceptable for the room. DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We appreciate very much your efforts, your efforts to find consensus. You are really trying hard, you're a maestro. We have heard your proposals, but unfortunately we are not able to accept them because the Convention on Biological Diversity is very dear to our hearts. We believe it is our last hope in this world, which is out of balance. And we cannot in any way tolerate a situation where someone or something, of whatever nature it might be, of whatever the origin might be, wherever it might come from, undermine the credibility and the philosophy and the depth of spirit of our convention on biological diversity, unfortunately. We think that this is the case with this document. Yesterday, we demonstrated how the motivation of this body is, in fact, to torpedo the efforts to achieve agreement on inclusivity and diversity. And so, paragraph one, This is regarding your proposals. If we remove the 23rd and 24th sessions, then COP will be taking note then of what recommendations? That's the problem. At that point, the COP will have nothing to take note of. And secondly, We fear, in paragraph 2, that if the Secretariat continues to inform the Permanent Forum, the Forum will find ways to sow discord, as it has through its recommendations, and in no way should that be seen as acceptable. The best way to move forward is to put the document in square brackets, send it to the COP for COP to make the related decisions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC.

I now give the floor to Norway, followed by Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. I'm taking note with the, I would feel, unnecessarily emotive language being used about the issue here, which is simply for this body to hear and learn about the views of a perfectly legitimate body which has been appointed to safeguard the special rights of indigenous peoples, also in relation to the way we have organized the representation of indigenous peoples as well as local communities of various categories in this body. We remain of the conviction that we need to learn about these things from a specialist body, that it can be no harm. And in the case of RDC, may we also remind them that that country too has a law that recognizes the special rights of indigenous peoples, which, you know, does it go some way to explain that this is a real issue. Indigenous peoples have special rights which needs safeguarding. There are bodies that are appointed to do so. and there are local communities, which is a compromise category to accommodate some parties' difficulties with indigenous peoples terminology. And we should be able to live happily with this diversity, and that is represented in the solution presented by the Chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Norway.

I now give the floor to Brazil, followed by Canada.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We appreciate the efforts made by you and the Secretariat, but we understand that by deleting the reference to the sessions would make the paragraph refer to all the recommendations, which would still include those paragraphs that are problematic to us, that urge the parties to make this separation that is very problematic to us. And this are not just about recognizing that one of the groups have more rights than others. We have some concerns, very specific and major concerns about the implications of this separation to traditional knowledge. separating the knowledge, having indigenous knowledge and local knowledge, which in some countries, Brazil included, it's not possible to differentiate and the implications of it to the access and benefit sharing regime. So it's not just about taking note of these recommendations. This might have serious implications for the whole aspect of the convention. So we would still recommend ask for the whole text to be bracketed. And regarding the paragraph that starts with noting, we had drafted some text that for us, what would be more reflective of what we saw yesterday was that there were different divergent views among parties. with the majority of the parties raising concerns and we would like to propose this text stressing or noting that there are divergent views among parties comma with the majority of the parties raising concerns and then continue with regard to the recommendation of the permanent forum on indigenous issues thank you madam co-chair.

Thank you Brazil Canada you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. And I think like others, really appreciate the efforts to try to find that middle ground. We like particularly what you did with the, that, that Chapeau paragraph with the stressing. We think that's a fair, a fair reflection. Not sure about the majority of parties. It'd be interesting to maybe go back to the record and, and, and take a look at that. But I do want to highlight here that, again, we're not welcoming the recommendations here. Right? All we're doing is taking note. And we're just, we're really, really concerned. If you step back and think about the bigger picture, are we going to arrive someday at wanting to pick and choose who we listen to and what parts of what they propose? Can we, you know, are we that far off then from a day that we're going to pick and choose the information from the IPBES that we want to talk about? because we don't like certain things. I think we're a mature organization here, we're a mature convention, and we should be willing to look at things we like and things we don't like. I think actually the secretary did a really good job in the document for this meeting and walked through each of the recommendations and highlighted what we were doing as a convention to address these recommendations and highlighting where we had different views. And so in that regard, I mean, I'm under no impressions that this will convince people to change their views at this point, and again, I do thank the efforts But I think perhaps this is something that we're going to have to reflect upon, particularly, you know, when we, you know, start talking about in the framework of the convention, we have to think a little bit more about what that means and the implications of that. So I'm not necessarily saying bracket the whole thing, but I think the wording that you've added perhaps should be in square brackets so we can think about that and not send it to the COP under the impression that we agreed to it. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And I have DRC and Norway on the list. Colleagues, considering that you have already taken the floor on this list of speakers, I acknowledge that there's a need for discussion on this. So I'm going to give you the floor, but I'm going to ask you to be very brief and short so we can find a way to move forward.

Thank you.

DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. In the course of our work, state sovereignty is the rule. And we have come to negotiate in good faith. Mutual respect should be a key component of our meeting. And for this reason, we would ask you to ask our distinguished colleague from Norway to remove the term emotional. Thank you. Emotive.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to give the floor to Norway to respond, and then I'm closing the speakers list so we can have and propose a way forward.

Thank you.

Norway, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and happy to remove the language that offended the DRC. The fact remains and this is that we the learning is a good thing, we think. But to get back to the constructive proposal by Brazil, just a short comment to note that we make decisions by unanimity and so referring to majorities of views in a context where parties make repetitive statements is not a good thing. I am happy to close down this issue now that we have all the issues represented. We think it is unfortunate that the procedure is to put this to COP, but that is where we are. Thank you.

Thank you.

Norway? Okay, colleagues, so I've heard the views on the room and the still divergent perspectives, so here is what I'm going to propose. I'm going to propose that indeed we square bracket the text, starting by the conference of the parties, I hope that resolves the question on whether where the square bracket would begin, the square bracket would begin on the conference of the parties. But my proposal, colleagues, is that we square bracket the text as it was presented in the CRP. I'm hearing a divergence of views on the proposals made by parties on new text. So my proposal is if we're going to square bracket the whole text, that means that the whole text is under discussion, that the whole text will have to be addressed by the COP. and that the whole text will require further consideration and it is not agreed. So my proposal is that we indeed square bracket the whole text but as it stands right now in the CRP. Can I take this is acceptable? I see no requests for the floor, so I take this is acceptable. We're going to square bracket the whole text from the Conference of the Parties until the end as a package as it stands right now, and we're going to send it to the COP this way. So with that, we approve CRP number six. I need to go. Okay. Okay, colleagues, apologies for the delay. We were discussing the way forward. So colleagues, we have CRP number four, which was uploaded in the website in all languages. So my proposal is that we move on to CRP four, which is on the modus operandi. Colleagues, my proposal for this CRP is as follows. There were extensive discussions in the contact group sessions on this CRP. So my proposal is that we take this document as a whole. I'm not planning to open any discussions on this document, considering that parties had extensive opportunities to discuss, incorporate the views on this document, but my proposal is that we approve the CRP as a whole and send it to the COP as a whole. So colleagues, I'm hearing from the Secretariat that there is a small mistake. So I'm going to give you the floor Secretariat to indicate where and what will be the correction. But again, I repeat the proposal is that we take this document as a whole to the COP. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So in paragraph on the annex of this document, CRP4, Paragraph 10 on page 4, you see footnote 8 between brackets. There should be another bracket there. And at the end of paragraph 10, you see two brackets. It should be only one bracket. So just to also maybe guide the parties, paragraph 10 starts with a bracket and the closing bracket of that paragraph 10 ends in paragraph 12. The closing, the brackets around the footnote 8 and then the brackets around seven socio-cultural regions open bracket footnote eight close bracket close bracket I hope that helps thank you.

Thank you very much to the secretariat so okay colleagues I hope that was clear.

Everyone is on the same page on that bracket yes Azerbaijan please you have the floor.

Chair uh I just want to make it clarify for ourselves paragraph 10 in the document that we are we just opened from the website uh starts from page three and only uh one line and two words falls to the page four is that right are we checking the same document?

Yes we are checking the same document thank you thank you very much Azerbaijan so colleagues.

I'm asking for your views and I'm asking if it's acceptable to move this document as a whole to the COP. Guatemala, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I would like to commend the work of the contact group, which was exhaustive. There were respected deliberations, but I can't leave this session without making a comment. In 2023, we had a similar meeting where we were able to analyze, debate, share views on the modus operandi, and unfortunately, we did not reach a consensus, and we sent modus operandi in brackets as a whole to COP16. And this is the first meeting of this body and I had got my hopes up that we would have been able to reach a consensus on this now. Unfortunately, I see that is not the case. And once again, we are sending a document entirely in brackets. to the COP, which is essentially a modus operandi. I know we didn't have sufficient time to analyze that in depth and discuss it, but I'd just like to point out that we take this commitment seriously to establish a subsidiary body, but we can't continue without a modus operandi. So I would invite everyone to give this some thought, and we have bilateral talks. and in COP17 perhaps we can adopt a modus operandi that will be functional for States, for indigenous peoples, local communities, for everyone involved, all stakeholders. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Guatemala.

That parties can have good deliberations at COP to clean up this document. We do have made progress, but a lot of discussions are yet needed. So I hope that the next time this subsidiary body meets, it can be with agreement on its modus operandi by COP17. I see no further request for the floor, colleagues, so I take it is acceptable to send this document as a whole to COP17.

Thank you very much.

That means CRP4 accepted and I thank the co-chairs of the contact group for their work on facilitating these deliberations. Okay, colleagues. Okay, colleagues. So now we have approved CRPs 2, 3 and 4. And now I would like to request the Secretariat to turn these CRPs 2, 3 and 4 into L documents so they can be translated and we can approve them in our last plenary session. Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? Okay, and the Secretariat has indicated that document L2 is already online and posted in all six languages. We have 12 minutes left of plenary time right now, so I am going to give you a couple of minutes to look for L2 online so you can check it. And what I'm going to propose is that we take advantage of the few minutes we have left to approve L2. So I'm going to give you two to three minutes to look for the document and then we will adopt.

It.

Okay, colleagues, we have had two minutes left to check the L. I want to ask if everyone has had a chance to take a look at it. I see nodding around the room. That's good.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

So I would like to propose that we approve document L2 on the in-depth dialogue as a whole. Are there any comments around this proposal? Yes, DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. We do agree to your proposal and we see that a lot of amendments have been made to paragraph 3 of the L document and we would like clarifications from Secretariat on the reasons for these modifications and After having heard from Secretariat, we will give our view. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, DRC. I will give the floor to the Secretariat, not before reminding everyone that we had extensive discussions on this para yesterday. We had consultations from some of the countries and we accepted it and adopted the CRP. So Secretariat, please, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So with regards to paragraph three, the only changes are editorial. The spirit of the theme that was discussed in plenary has remained one to be consistent with task 7.1 and also to make reference to the consistency with relevant international obligation and instruments that was demanded and discussed. So in essence, the only changes are editorial, and the theme development of guidelines in collaboration with the relevant United Nations body, as well as indigenous people and local community, to contribute to the enhancement of the contribution of indigenous people and local community to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, in line with a human rights-based approach consistent with relevant international obligation and instrument. I believe this reflects exactly the core of what was discussed in plenary in terms of the next theme for the Subsidiary Body at this second meeting.

Thank you very much.

Secretariat, DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor, and thank you to Secretariat for the clear explanations. Well, we would refer to the guidelines in this paragraph, and we would just ask, because the guidelines provide it, to include indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth. Thank you.

Thank you, dear Chair.

I trust the Secretariat will do this editorial as comment and suggestion. Having said that, colleagues, can we adopt document L2? I see no request for the floor, so document L2 is adopted. Okay, colleagues, so here is what we'll do in the next plenary. We have a CRP for documents 5A and 5B. It's only in English now, so we will give a couple of hours for the editors and the secretariat to translate the CRP for 5A and 5B. We will start our next plenary session hopefully approving, adopting the CRP for 5A and 5B so we can move it to an L document and we can adopt that L document by the end of our plenary. And we will hopefully, with your collaboration and constructive spirit, we will adopt the remaining L documents that we will have by then on the CRPs that we adopt in this plenary session. So now I'm going to give the floor to the Secretariat. for any announcements or arrangements and we will announce in a second the timing of the second plenary.

Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Just to announce that as soon as the decision is made on the timing of the last plenary, we will be of course screened, the information will be available. So this will depend of course on document flow and translations because we want the documents to be considered in all languages at the last plenary and of course, The last plenary also will involve the adoption of the report, which is already online in all languages. So I invite you to consider the report during this break. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Secretariat.

St. Lucia, you have the floor.

Apologies, Madam Co-Chair, that was an accident.

No problem. Thank you very much, St. Lucia.

So, colleagues, we will announce the plenary timing pending on the speed of the translation of the documents and the editorial process. I really would love to give you an estimate, but I won't because that will be pending on that process. But please, be assured that we are doing our best to do that as soon as possible. Okay? So we will announce in with sufficient time for you to know. I will ask for the support of the secretariat to broadly communicate that as soon as we can. But I'm going to ask for your indulgence because we are trying to do that as soon as possible and to accelerate as much as we can the process. Okay? So thank you for your constructive spirit, for your comments, have a good lunch. And we will see you very soon. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Just a quick question. Do you have an estimate about how the timing the documents will be uploaded so we don't have to be checking every moment? The time of the session as well, please. an estimate.

Thank you, Brazil. So definitely not before six unless something spectacular happens and we'll let you know. But not before six would be sort of the estimate that I can give you. And hopefully the documents will come shortly before or shortly around that time. So with your indulgence, we'll do our best to make sure that we start as early as possible.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

And please remember that side events have been moved from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. So I'll invite you to have lunch and join the side events, and we'll see you as soon as possible.

Thank you very much.