Working Group II (3rd meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity – COP 17

Oh. Good evening, distinguished delegates, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call this meeting to order. I invite delegates to take their seats. We are starting. Good evening, colleagues. Welcome back to our second session of today. We made great progress, and I'm looking forward to continue this session in the same spirit. We will now consider item 17 of the Cartagena Protocol. MOP, Nagoya, Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress. As this item has not been addressed by a subsidiary body, we will hear interventions on this item. I'll give the floor to the Secretaria to introduce the item. So, Secretaria, it's Peter, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress entered into force on 5 March 2018. An overview of the status of the supplementary protocol is provided in section 2 of document CBD/CP/MOP.12/13. Further to Article 13 of the Supplementary Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties decided in decision CP.10/13 that the first assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Supplementary Protocol would be undertaken in the context of the fifth assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol. In its decision CP.11/10, The Conference of the Parties, serving as the Meeting of the Parties, invited Parties to share information on financial security mechanisms, together with other information on national measures for the implementation of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol in their fifth national reports, and requested the Executive Secretary to use that information when preparing the documentation for the first assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Supplementary Protocol. Information to facilitate the first assessment and review has been summarized in section 3 of the document, and cross-references to the analysis and information prepared for the fifth assessment and review in document CBD/SBI/7/6/Add.1. Conclusions are provided in section 4 of the working document. Section 5 of the working document contains a draft decision for consideration at this meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. As previously explained, information document INF-8 lists the five submissions received from parties and one statement from observers on item 17 by the deadline. The list of parties and observers indicated in the information document is also being displayed on the screen. Note that this list only includes observers that have registered on site. I need to clarify that there is also one statement by a non-party for the supplementary protocol. So in this case, I would like to ask parties to the supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress if you agree to take on and consider the submission, the early submission by a non-party to this body. Is there any objection to consider this submission? Please raise your hand or press your button. I don't see any opposition, so we'll take it on board. And now, as you can see also, there is one submission by one observer, the Harding Ball Foundation on behalf of CBD Alliance. So I'd like to know if they are here at the room. I see a hand. You are here. Then I'm asking parties to the supplementary protocol if there is support for the submission of this observer. So please press your button if you support such early submission. I don't see any support. Thank you very much. So that will not be taken into account, and we will move on in our deliberation on this document. So I open the floor. This is a first reading of this document. I open the floor for parties representing any region at this time. Now I see Malawi, I believe, on behalf of the African region, so Malawi has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Malawi speaks on behalf of the African group. The African group thanks the Secretariat for the documentation prepared for the first assessment and review of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress, and welcomes the additional accession deposited since Decision CP. 11/10. The African group reaffirms the importance of the supplementary protocol as a key instrument for ensuring that where damage to biodiversity or human health results from living modified organisms, appropriate response measures and redress are available. For African countries, effective liability and redress arrangements are essential to safeguard biodiversity, food systems, farmers, indigenous people and local communities, and the integrity of the receiving environment. The African Group, therefore, calls upon all parties to the Cartagena Protocol that have not yet done so to ratify or accede to the Nagoya Protocol as appropriate, thereby strengthening the global biosafety regime and ensuring equitable protection against damage arising from living modified organisms. The African group support the draft decision with the addition of a request to the secretariat to provide technical support and mobilize financial resources to assist parties, particularly African parties and other developing country parties, to ratify and implement the Nagoya Protocol. Africa stands ready to work constructively with all parties to ensure that liability and redress for damage resulting from living modified organisms become operational, effective, and accessible to all. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Malawi, on behalf of the African region. Now I'll give the floor to Eswatini.

Thank you, Chair. The Kingdom of Eswatini aligns itself with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of the African group. Eswatini wishes to add two brief national points. Firstly, as a developing country, we face constraints in establishing financial security and civil liability rules in line with Articles 10 and 12. Therefore, we ask that the encouragements that are made in paragraphs 8 and 9 to be meshed with support. Secondly, we strongly support paragraph 11 on capacity building. Eswatini believes that a practical support would be most valuable in building institutional and technical capacity to access and respond to damage. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Eswatini. Now I'll give the floor to Nigeria.

Thank you, Chair. Nigeria aligns strongly with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of African group and supports the draft decision. Nigeria has signed and ratified the Nagoya Protocol supplementary protocol, recognizing its importance in ensuring appropriate response measures and redress for damage to biodiversity and human health resulting from LMOs. So drawing from experience, we join our voices with Eswatini to emphasize that effective implementation requires more than ratification. So therefore, adequate technical assistance and sustainable financial resources must also be dedicated to strengthening the capacity of parties, particularly African and developing countries, to implement the protocol effectively. So we therefore support the African group's call for the secretariat to facilitate technical support and mobilize the necessary financial resources to make liability and redress mechanism very operational and accessible to all parties. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Nigeria. I'd just like to draw your attention that this is also quite short draft decision of 13 paragraphs and I hear support to this. draft decision in general. Now I'll give the floor to Uganda.

Thank you, Chair. Uganda also supports the statement by Malawi on behalf of the African group. Uganda recognizes the importance of effective liability and redress arrangements in protecting biodiversity, taking into account risk to human health. For Uganda, the priority is strengthening national, legal, institutional, and technical capacity to assess damage resulting from living modified organism and ensure timely and appropriate response measures. Therefore, Uganda supports the draft decision, including the request to the Secretariat to provide technical support and mobilize financial resources to assist developing countries in ratifying and implementing the supplementary protocol. Uganda also encourages parties to the Cartagena Protocol that have not yet done so to ratify and accede to the supplementary protocol as appropriate. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Uganda. I don't see more requests of members of the supplementary protocol, any of the 55 parties. So I open the floor now to parties of Cartagena Protocol if you want to have an intervention, either on behalf of a region or on an individual basis. So the floor is open. I don't see any requests. Now I open the floor for observers. I don't see any requests. So with this, we are finishing the first reading of this agenda item 17. As you know, we have a draft decision with a number of paragraphs. So, as usual, I will work with the Secretariat to prepare a CRP document for submission in a further meeting of our working group. Thank you very much. With this, we finish documents for Cartagena Protocol and the Supplementary Protocol as well. And then we will move to issues related with COP. Thank you very much. With this, we close the session of the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol to continue with the COP. Thank you so much. I'll give a minute for you to change crews if needed. So we will continue with the documents on forest invasive species and agriculture CRPs. Any announcement from Secretaria?

Yes, a reminder for those who made your statements and also the ones at the end of last session to submit your statements to the website. So, Secretary can work on that in order to prepare the different CRP documents.

Thank you very much. I'll give a couple of minutes for you to switch delegates for COP documents, CRP documents. Thank you. Dear colleagues, we'll take up CRP3 on agenda item 17B, a strategic review of forest biodiversity. Of the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity in the context of the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, we will go through this document addressing paragraphs containing square brackets. We will start by resolving brackets in the annex first and then move to the operative paragraphs, followed by the preambular paragraphs. I held informal consultations with some of you, and I am confident that we can resolve these brackets So I am counting on your spirit of compromise to bring this agenda item to the finish line and have something good for the Presidency. So Friday evening, hopefully, can be adopted by the COP on the plenary. So we will start with the annex that appears on page 4. The first square brackets in the annex are in paragraph one. There are four sets of brackets. The first set is around the word protect and, and I have a proposal for you, which is to align this language with target three. So my proposal is to delete the text in brackets, protect and, and add a reference to protected areas in the paragraph. The paragraph would then start with conserve, and we insert including through the use of protected areas and OECMs, and then continue as is. So I'd like to know if this suggestion is acceptable. So I open the floor on reactions to modify this first paragraph by deleting protect and so it will start with conserve and we insert including through the use of protected areas and OECMs. I think that can clarify the difference of views about the use of the word protect. Is this acceptable? I don't see any objection, so thank you very much. So we proceed with that amendment. Namibia, you have the floor.

Sorry, Mr. chair. I'm trying to find my wording. I think we had an issue with that formulation anyway. Sorry, actually, we are trying to find our bearings here. But we had initially proposed an "all" between protect and conserve all forests. So I think the changes that you are making takes away, or the changes that you're suggesting takes away a lot of the focus on forest biodiversity. So we would ask for your indulgence to maybe also read again your proposal, but we are a bit concerned to lose the focus on forest if we just import text from target 3. I thank you, Chair.

Yes, Namibia, I will ask Secretariat to read slowly the proposed amendment. This is mainly to address the issue in relation with the expression protect, right? So please, Secretaria.

Thank you. So the beginning of the sentence would read, conserve forests, comma, including through the use of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, comma, and then We haven't dealt with the rest of the sentence. The whole paragraph, sure. Apologies, I'll read the entire paragraph as it is with the chair's proposal. Conserve forests, comma, including through the use of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, comma, in particular, primary and high integrity forests through participatory and biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning practices to enhance ecological integrity and forest connectivity, respecting and protecting human rights, including those of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. I asked to see the whole thing, but we're going part by part just to have clarity that the first set of brackets is regarding protect and so by using this formulation at the beginning, so probably we avoid the confusion. I hope that first part as amended is acceptable by Namibia. We are calling on conservation of forest and also recognized in protected areas and also OECMs. Is that acceptable by that part? Namibia.

We had another suggestion, and that is to kind of, you know, We wanted to reinsert what we had insisted at the SAPSTA meeting in Panama, to use the word "all forests." Actually, we wanted to say, like, conserve all forests. But maybe, you know, what I can maybe ask you, can you give us some indulgence? We can move on. We will consult. We'll get back to you about your proposal. Is that acceptable? Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your patience. So we practically solve the first part of this first paragraph that has three sets of brackets. So I hope that this formulation is helping to do with the first part. The second, the following set of brackets is in reference to high integrity, particular primary and high integrity forest. My suggestion, if it helps in order to move fast, is to remove and high integrity and to keep in particular primary forest only. Is that suggestion acceptable? I don't see any opposition for this part. Thank you for your collaboration. So we can move on. And the last part of this paragraph is a set of brackets regarding the expression respecting and protecting human rights, including those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. My proposal is to lift the brackets and retain the text as it aligns with the coming global biodiversity framework. So there is no new language. It's an expression we already accept. So can we accept the deletion of the brackets and keep the text? Russian Federation.

Yes. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. We would like to delete the text in brackets. We understand that it is something that is mentioned in the KMGBF. However, there are already references to the targets in the table, and we just do not see the additional need to keep repeating the same language.

Thank you.

Spasiba, Russia. I'll give the floor to EU, followed by Panama.

Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to ask for clarification on the text that we now have starting from conserve, because I think we couldn't catch actually what we're adopting.

Yes, I will ask the Secretary to read the paragraph. as it goes now in the new formulation.

Thank you, Chair. So it would read as follows. Conserve forests, including through the use of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, in particular primary forests, through participatory and biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning practices to enhance ecological integrity and forest connectivity, respecting and protecting human rights, including those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Thank you, Secretary. Okay, what you hear from the Secretariat is the formulation considering solving the issue and protect, eliminating the high integrity, and it's implicit that we leave the brackets in the mention to in particular primary forest. So it's as Secretariat read it, and stay in the discussion if all these amendments are accepted, just retaining the last set of brackets that start with respecting and finishing with local communities. So I'm wondering if we are all in the same line before continue to discuss the last set of brackets. Meanwhile, I give Panama the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with removing the brackets in the reference to respecting protection of human rights and we align ourselves to what you said to remove those brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama.

I see no more requests from the floor. Now Namibia, help us.

After we have consulted, we are concerned with the formulation that you have put forward, that we are confining forest conservation to protected areas and OECMs. OECMs is a framework that has not been adopted in all parts of this world, and so actually it's very limiting to where forest protection and conservation can happen. It is against this background that we would prefer using the previous formulation, protect and conserve. We would like to add all forests. Thank you.

Let me see if I can follow you. Can you live with the expression, conserve old forests, in particular, primary forests through, and so on, through protected areas and OACMs and so on, as a middle ground? Yes, Namibia.

We strongly promote the conservation of forests, especially through the sustainable use. However, we also believe that certain forests should be protected, which is, I think, slightly different in how far we go, and particularly the primary forest. We kind of have accepted the deletion of high integrity forests. But I think, you know, the bottom line should be that, you know, we use all mechanisms to protect and conserve. So we feel like, you know, this is taking a direction that is probably not the original intention of this paragraph.

Okay.

We wonder if we would help if we can save all, we say like, protect and conserve all natural forests to make it a bit more clearer.

So you're now putting about protect, and you're adding all natural. So we're supposed to streamline the text, so you're adding more words. I please ask you for your support. Remember that in many cases, less is more. We don't want to have a very long document. I think, and this is not a new program of work. We already have it for many, many years. We are updating this program of work, please. think I think we should be more more practical so I see Mexico followed by Bangladesh EU and Russian Federation I'm sure you're going to help me Mexico.

Thank you chair we agree with the proposal to retain the paragraph which first to indigenous peoples as noted by Panama so to keep to previously agreed language thank you

thank you Bangladesh.

Thank you, Chair.

We support the deletion of "protect and" and support the Namibia to include "conserve all forests".

Other text as proposed by the Secretariat, we agree with you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Bangladesh. I hope we agree to include the word "all". I hope there is no opposition for that, as suggested by Namibia. And I give the floor to EU, followed by Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We would prefer to have protect and conserve forests, so to retain, protect, in particular, primary forests, and we could ask in forest ecosystems of high ecological integrity. We would not like to go along with all forests in relation to protect and conserve. And we would also like to retain the text on respecting and protecting human rights, especially those of indigenous peoples. Thank you.

Thank you, Yu. I remind you all, we need to be flexible and to have clarity on what we want. This is, we're updating. our very old program on forest. We are not reinventing the wheel. Russian Federation, followed by Canada.

Thank you.

Initially, we were also in favour of protect and conserve forests. However, we would like to support the initial proposal of the Chair, which refers to OECMs and protected areas. I would like to also note that we are against saying all forests or all natural forests. We would ask parties to maybe consider the initial proposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Canada, following Brazil.

Thank you, Chair, and hope that our suggestion is not going to complicate things, but this is an attempt to help out. in order to further align with the KMGBF target one language, we would like to propose adding manage in the first, within the first set of brackets. But we also support your proposal to include, including through the use of protected areas and OECMs. Thank you, Chair.

So how could it read, Anaveh?

It could read either as protect, conserve, and manage, or conserve and manage forests.

Thank you. I have Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to support your first proposal. I think it leaves a good compromise because at the same time, when we start to have this different considerations, in addition, it gets complicated, for example, if we are going to have protect and conserve all forests. That's something that we cannot go along with. At the same time, the position that the chair had put on the table before, although not perfect for every party, reaches a middle ground that I think it's achievable. For example, if we are going to have protect and conserve, I would like to add protect, conserve, and sustainably use. But I would not like to do that. I would like to go with the proposition and just conserve forests. I don't know, so instead of complicating things, I think we should try to close the stacks here with the simpler proposition, thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, and Switzerland, and I will go again with a proposal.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to second the intervention made by Brazil just now, which I think very explained the trade off going on here. And I think your proposal struck a good middle ground and I hope we can all be happy with it to some extent at least. Thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland and Brazil and those supporting my proposal. put again on the table to, since I see that there is no full support to get intervention of all and no support from all to get protect. I didn't hear anything about manage, but it's something, well, the lines of what Brazil is saying. I see there is no consensus in to keep in high integrity, and I know some want to keep it, so we need to be flexible. So like to put on the table so far to use a conserve forest, in particular primary forest, through participatory and biodiversity, oh, through protected areas and OECM, through participatory and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning practices to enhance ecological integrity and forest connectivity. and leaving in brackets the last part, respecting and protecting human rights, including those of indigenous peoples and local communities. This is my suggestion, and to keep the paragraph as it is with that set of brackets at the end, move on, and maybe we can come back again to that. Otherwise, we're going to spend too much time just in the first paragraph, is that? acceptable as a proposal, a temporary one, and then we will come back. Namibia.

Chair, we can mostly go along with your proposal. We have to take out the "all" and "natural". We would prefer to have the "protect" and still in brackets. Is that acceptable? And otherwise we accept your suggestion.

You're tempting me to take the -- if you have flexibility and can accept that, and we just leave it with one set of brackets at the end, I will appreciate that. Otherwise, we need to put protect in brackets, but leave it with two sets.

If you can -- Let me hear from others.

I have Saudi Arabia on this in order to move to next paragraph. I know it's not perfect, it's not finished yet, but after we go through the different elements in the annex, remember this is only making reference to targets one to one three. It's not to solve the whole program, okay? There is space for other issues. Saudi Arabia, followed by you.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with your Excellency with regard to maintaining the paragraph as is with the additions you have just suggested with regard to the protected areas and the oecs and we would like to add after the end of this paragraph according to National conditions and systems.

EU, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. We understand that this text of activity 1 is bracketed for the moment, is that correct? Thank you. So with this, we can go back and consult.

Thank you. Yeah, it is bracketed. I will ask the Secretariat on my proposal how to read with only one bracket at the end as a proposal. We will come back to this paragraph later. So please, Secretary, with my proposal.

So again, the Chair's proposed text would read, "Conserve forests, including through the use of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, in particular primary forests, through participatory and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning practices to enhance ecological integrity and forest connectivity, bracket, respecting and protecting human rights, including those of indigenous peoples and local communities, close bracket.

Thank you very much. Can we accept this text and after we go through the whole annex, we can reconvene. to that one again. I see no opposition. Thank you. Let's move to the next part where we have brackets. And those are, I see Papua and Namibia. Please, we can come back again, Papua followed by Namibia.

Thank you, Chair. just want to raise the primary forest in case of Papua New Guinea, maybe other tropical countries as well. There's a bit of disturbed forest which also needs to be captured in the protected forest space. So maybe we'll have to convene ourselves and maybe define what areas outside of the protected area should be also considered. to disturb forest areas in the primary forest space. Thank you.

We're saying including, right? So it's considering forest and, okay, including primary forest instead of in particular, maybe can that be a way forward. I see noting, so maybe then that can facilitate that concern. Now Namibia, followed by Saudi Arabia.

Chair, we made a couple of concessions. We have not kind of, and we had that discussion before. We didn't insist on our proposal and we have also accepted, although with kind of, you know, some concerns, your suggestions, but we will insist on keeping the protect and. Thank you.

Okay. I'm in your hands. So let's put back protecting brackets at the beginning and keep the last set of brackets at the end. And then all in between is clean, so far. Okay, Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to inquire why wasn't the proposal I made with regard to the sentence to be added to the end of the paragraph according to national laws and conditions and will this addition being discussed later when we go back to the paragraph I would like to to clarify this matter thank you Mr.

Chairperson yes I'm trying to see in one hand regarding your suggestion. I was trying to keep consensus where we have already, you are adding a new expression, but it's not necessarily the language we apply. We usually say that according to the natural circumstances, you use a different word and what's that law? Conditions. Conditions, but usually is circumstances. But I believe in this case, in general, it does not fit necessarily. But I would like to know if there is support to the suggestion of Saudi Arabia, but now using the agreed language, which should say, "according to national circumstances." Is there any support to add the language proposed by Saudi Arabia at the end? If there is any support, please raise your hand. Russian Federation, so you are supporting that inclusion. I see noting, so we can include it with no brackets. Okay? So your language is there with this slight formulation that is using a great language and not the other word you mentioned at the end. Okay, let's move on. Next set of brackets is on part of five, promote guidelines, mechanisms and indicators for forests. No, sorry, it's on number two. Thank you, Secretariat. It's saying identify, disseminate and apply best practices and principles is in brackets for forest restorations that's the only bracket can we delete the text inside the brackets it's not necessarily very clear when we talk about principles and with that we can have a clean text any opposition to delete and principles seems it do not fit I don't see any opposition thank you very much now let's move to paragraph five. We have brackets around promote guidelines, mechanisms and indicators of forest restoration, monitoring and evaluation. I would like to suggest if we can lift the brackets. Any opposition to delete the brackets? EU, Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We're not in principle against lifting the brackets. We would just like to add a text that clarifies what this activity concerns to, and namely that it is about promoting guidelines, mechanisms, indicators at the national level, and that it builds on existing national monitoring and reporting systems where available and avoiding duplications. And with that, we would be happy to lift the brackets.

Can you repeat exactly? I understand the national level only, right?

So at the national level, building on existing national monitoring and reporting systems where available and avoiding duplication.

I think this is kind of new language. It's not only making a precision of what you begin with according to national issues, but do we really need all those elements? I think it's maybe with the first part at national level for me can be enough, otherwise can unnecessarily complicate, but I'm your hands. Can you accept a short formulation I'm suggesting EU and then I'll go to Russian Federation. EU.

Thank you very much. What would be important for the EU is to have a clarity that this is about national level activities and that there is no duplication with existing national monitoring or reporting systems.

So my suggestion is to keep national, but I don't see the need to say without duplication. That is up to the parties. I mean, I'm sure that nobody wants to duplicate just to keep the essence to the national level. So can that be acceptable just to include at the national level?

It would be okay, yes.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Russian Federation.

Thank you.

To build on the proposal by the EU, we would rather not limit to exactly national mechanisms. However, we would be fine with stating that the promotion of guidelines, mechanisms and indicators, etc., etc., is done in accordance with national legislation, which I think would cover those indicators being national for the parties that would like it to be so. And also separately, we would like to kindly ask for an inclusion of the word biodiversity between the words for and the restoration, just for further clarity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. I think we're getting close. So you're also considering national level and in accordance with national legislation. So probably can match with the EU proposal. So it can read for both guidelines, mechanisms and indicators. in accordance with national legislation for forest biodiversity restoration, monitoring and evaluation. Can this be acceptable by EU? So instead of saying on national level, we're saying in accordance with national legislation or you want to keep both? Sounds a bit strange, but it seems we are close. EU.

Thank you very much. Could we just repeat, we have now end evaluation at the national level in accordance with national legislation, is that the proposal?

My proposal, okay, you asked at the national level? for forest biodiversity restoration, monitoring and evaluation, and we can put at the end what Russia proposed in accordance with national legislation. I think it sounds better, so we're keeping both ideas there. Is that acceptable?

That would be in, that part of the sentence would be acceptable for us. We would like to maybe suggest forest ecosystem restoration.

Instead of forest biodiversity.

Yes.

Russia, can you live with that?

It's very close. We would have rather kept biodiversity, but in the spirit of flexibility, we're fine with ecosystem. However, we still would rather not limit the level of the guidelines, mechanisms and indicators to the national level. Also, just while I'll have the time, if I may ask, when we're done with this paragraph, to read out again the complete formulation of the first paragraph with the brackets.

Thank you.

Okay, I have a proposal by including the word "including". So I will ask the Secretariat how the formulation of this paragraph 5 will read, including both ideas from EU and Russia, and I hope that is acceptable for all parties. Please, Secretariat.

Promote. guidelines, mechanisms and indicators, including at the national level, for forest ecosystem restoration monitoring and evaluation in accordance with national legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretaria. Can we go along with these formulations to have clean text? I don't see any request from the floor. Thank you very much. I see noting. We clean one. And do you ask Russia to read again paragraph one with brackets at the beginning and at the end? Please, secretariat, and then move to next page.

So, the paragraph as it stands would begin with protect and, and protect and is in brackets, conserve forests, including through the use of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, in particular, primary forests, through participatory and biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning practices to enhance ecological integrity and forest connectivity, respecting and protecting human rights, including those of Indigenous peoples and local communities, according to national circumstances. Thank you.

Thank you, secretariat. I hope we can make progress. We will reconvene to that paragraph later. Panama. I think we can.

Continue and then come back.

Thank you very much, Chair. This is about the fifth activity. So we would like to ask for the removal of including because it means that it could also be a request for or invitation to have indicators at a level higher than the national.

Yeah, the inclusion of including was to address Russia concern not to limit only to national circumstances that was the reason why include that. So that's leaves open to different scales, including the national level. I hope that that is acceptable.

Could we leave including in brackets and we'll get back to you after we have carried out a consultation.

I'm in your hands. Russian Federation.

Yes, thank you. We would then like for the word "national" to also be in brackets.

Thank you.

I would like to invite the EU and Russia to get together and come with a solution when we go back to this, because the idea is to have a clean text. We only have paragraph one and I hope can be flexibility from both sides and you can, at the margins of the room, have a conversation and move on. So let's go to next page. It's on part of seven. We have brackets around to prevent and mitigate until forest species. My proposal is to lift the brackets. This is aligned with also with biodiversity and health action plan. So is there any opposition to lift the brackets in part 7? I don't see any requests. Thank you very much for your cooperation. So we have cleaned paragraph number 7. Let's move to paragraph 8. That starts with combat illegal logging and trade, and there are brackets in on step-up actions against deforestation and forest degradation. My initial proposal is if we can lift the brackets, Can we accept deletion of the brackets in paragraph-- of the brackets in para 8? I don't see any requests. Again, thank you so much for your cooperation. So we have clean text in 8. Now let's move to para 11. We have brackets around "and eradicating" in the third line. or control axis in population of such species in brackets. My suggestion is to lift the brackets. This is agreed language from target six of the framework. Can we all go along lifting the brackets? I don't see any opposition. Thank you so much. Now let's go to Target 7, paragraph 13, all these in brackets, taking the work on agro-biodiversity, global action plan on biodiversity and health, to reduce soil, and so on. So my proposal is to lift the brackets. Can we accept it? Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. We would rather delete the entire paragraph. We just do not see the sense in including it here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. So you prefer to delete it. Is there any opposition to delete the number 13? I don't see any requests that proposes to delete para 13. Brazil.

I think as we have to close this text, we would be okay with deleting 13. We wouldn't have a problem with it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So I see support on this. And EU.

Thank you, Chair. I think we can be flexible on this text, but in principle, we could also maybe clarify it and keep it by saying promote good practices to reduce soil loss, land degradation, and the risk posed by pesticides to forest biodiversity.

So your suggestion is to delete all the first part and just to leave the latter one in reducing soil loss and risk or how can radio formulation. Hold on. Okay. So it's to replace 13 by promote.

Start.

So we are deleting, taking the program of work of agrobiodiversity and the global action plan on biodiversity and health into account and to start with promote best practices to reduce soil loss and the risk posed by pesticides to forest biodiversity and human health. So we're not making reference to other things, we're concentrating in reduced soil loss and risk posed by pesticides. Is that formulation acceptable, Russia?

I'm sorry, yes. Thank you for the effort to have more specific language, but for us, it is an issue of categories. We think that it is a lot of things put together into one point. We're not sure it should be specifically here, specifically under target 7. We believe that the 14th point reflects much better the actions that should be taken under Target 7, specifically in relation to forest biodiversity. So for us, we would sadly still like to have this point deleted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. I felt that initially everybody was agreed to delete this paragraph, and it was an intent to keep only part of it. It seems it's not flying. So can we delete this? And thank you, EU, for intent. But we can continue with more paragraphs. But I see Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports the deletion, the entire deletion of paragraph 13. We support the Russian Federation and the deletion of paragraph 13. Thank you.

Thank you. So paragraph 13 is deleted. Let's move now to paragraph 15 of the annex. Encourage development and evaluation of options for the adoption of biopesticides and lower risk pest control products and approaches in forest. My suggestion is to lift the brackets. Can we go along with that? I have Namibia, followed by Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would not want to see these brackets to be lifted. We are very concerned about the suggestion to develop pesticides and would therefore kind of rather delete the entire 15. Thank you.

Thank you, Namibia. Brazil.

Sorry. Okay. Thank you, Chair. We would like if this paragraph is to be kept, we would like to add as appropriate at the end.

Thank you, Brazil. I hope that helps with There may be concerns, and I'll give the floor to Panama, followed by you.

Thank you, Chair. We also prefer to remove the brackets in paragraph 15 to keep it as a whole, including the observation recommendations set out by Brazil. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support Namibia in asking to delete this paragraph, because we believe that it is not the kind of activity that should take place under the Programme of Work on Forest Biodiversity.

So after listening that there are different views and no strong support for keeping the text, can we delete the paragraph? It's a new position. Maybe we can address some other issues later.

Panama? Thank you, Chair. Panama does not agree with the elimination of this paragraph. We prefer to keep it in brackets if there is no consensus. Thank you.

So I have no more requests from the floor. So we keep the paragraph in brackets as amended for the meantime. Now I invite you to move to next paragraph, is paragraph 20, where we have brackets around the expression on the first line on biodiversity friendly practices. My suggestion is to lift the bracket as agreed language from target 10. and we lift the brackets. EU.

Thank you, Chair. We would support lifting the brackets, but we would like to make a certain clarification there. We would prefer to have biodiversity-friendly practices for sustainable forest management, which includes biodiversity-friendly practices into sustainable forest management. and therefore delete sustainable forest management from the list that follows. So that would be biodiversity friendly practices for sustainable forest management. And we would also like to refer to a similar formulation that could be improved in activity 10. However, it is not in brackets. No, that was moved 10, sorry.

Okay, if I understand, you are moving sustainable forest management before including closer, so it would read for develop, promote and implement biodiversity friendly practices for sustainable forest management, including closer nature to forest management, then delete sustainable forest management because it's been moved and then so on. And with this, we can leave the brackets around biodiversity friendly practices for sustainable forest management. That's my understanding. I have Brazil. I hope you can agree.

Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, no, we do not agree with the proposed change. We would like to keep biodiversity friendly practices where it is. And so sustainable forest management as well, because we understand that sustainable forest management as a whole, it's a biodiversity-friendly practice. If we are limiting biodiversity-friendly practices, including or in sustainable forest management, we are saying that there is sustainable forest management which is not biodiversity-friendly, and that will be a red line for us. So, thank you.

Thank you, Brazil. With this explanation, the EU, you will agree to delete the brackets in the original text. With a move in this, can you accept this formulation?

Thank you, Chair. We would like to insist because the understanding is that sustainable forest management indeed should include biodiversity-friendly practices. So this is biodiversity-friendly practices as part of sustainable forest management, and then we list also other biodiversity friendly practices. So then we list the types of practices. But sustainable forest management in itself is not biodiversity friendly practice only. So it's a wider concept. I don't believe that our formulation goes against the formulation that the understanding by Brazil. It is about the same understanding that biodiversity friendly practices should be part of sustainable forest management. And therefore we bring it together.

We were very close to have a clean text and we should be working for the sake of forest. May I invite Brazil and EU also to have a conversation around this? Or if you have some solution, somebody else, I mean, anybody would like to help? Otherwise, I invite you to both have a conversation and to come with a solution, please. So this is a task for you on Para 20, EU. and Brazil. For me, it was clear just to lift the brackets and move on. Perfection is the enemy of the good, colleagues. Let's move to PANA 23. We have at least a couple of brackets in supporting innovative business models that contribute to conservation, sustainable use and restoration of forest biodiversity. including in the context and also through development and promotion of bioeconomy programs and policies. My proposal is to retain including in the context and to remove through development and promotion. I'm wondering if that is acceptable. I have Panama.

Thank you, Chair.

For us, it's not acceptable. We prefer to retain the reference to development and promotion. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. So you want to keep it. Can you maintain it? Anybody else? Russian Federation.

Thank you.

We would like to agree with your proposal to delete the middle bracket. However, for us, we just do not see the main bracket being there also. So we would like to request the deletion of the entirety of the text in brackets.

Thank you.

So my plan B was to delete all text in brackets. So, could Panama be flexible?

And also delete all the text after forest biodiversity? The idea is to support innovative models that contribute to conservation, sustainable use and restoration of forest biodiversity. I think that's the essential idea here. If we start to go into details, then I think things get more complicated. Could we then eliminate all the text in brackets? Panama and Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Chair. We believe that that can be a way out for this proposal. The models of work and development and promotion of the bioeconomy programs policies are quite important because we want to construct our national economy strategies and these bioeconomy programs and policies which have been discussed on the CBD needs to attend to these specific issues of biodiversity. So if we don't do it through these programs and policies, then we don't have a strategic direction when it comes to constructing these innovative processes for the sector. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama, Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Chair.

I do agree with you, sir, that the reason behind this paragraph is to focus on innovative activities, and I, we do support the deletion of all bracketed, uh, sentences and stay, uh, keep the original text that, uh, which says that support innovative business models. that contribute to the conversation, conservation, sustainable use of and restoration of first biodiversity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I see support for deletion of the last part, and I want to keep the precision on development by economy programs.

Panama, I'd like to know if you could be flexible. we have an inclusion within these innovative approaches, this idea. We don't have to go into that level of detail, so maybe we could move forwards with clean text. Any country can develop the models and policies that they would like to within this kind of general idea of innovative models. So we can't limit these to just carrying out actions in a specific manner and in forest programs. I could request a bit of flexibility so that we can leave this part of the text clean. Panama.

Thank you, Chair. This was a recommendation which came from the capital. So at this moment in time, it's not possible for us to remove references. the programs and policies, so we ask for them to be kept in brackets until we can consult with our capital. Thank you.

Gracias, Panama.

Thank you, Panama. We'll keep the final part of the text in brackets. I don't want to put you on the spot, but I hoped to take clean text to plenary. So working on the understanding that there is support on deleting the last section. Hopefully, after your consultations with the capital, we can move forward and reach a clean text. Thank you. We'll now move on to the next paragraph. Panama, question. You asked for the text in brackets to be kept. We have a combination of brackets. So I'd like to know which wording you prefer, because there's "including in the context" or "through the development and promotion of bioeconomy programmes and policies". Which wording is preferable to you? Because at the moment, the text is quite confused with so many brackets. Panama, please.

Thank you, Chair. We prefer the second option, so "through the development and promotion".

The only keep the only text that will remain in brackets would be through the development and promotion of my economy programs and policies. So we are deleting including in the context. So, it's only a single bracket. Remaining. Remaining pending consultation of Panama with capital. So, let's move to next page on There are brackets around the expression "in non-forest industry." So my suggestion is to remove the brackets. They will make the sentence redundant with other parties. So I hope it's acceptable to remove brackets. I have Japan and the EU.

Thank you, Chair. And excuse me, it's not, our statement is not on the item, but 24. While we don't intend to leave open this substantive discussion, but we would like to know the possible inconsistency between agenda item 17B and 17C. In Annex Target 10, item 24, the takes calls for promoting the evidence-based sustainable use of fungi biodiversity. Meanwhile, target 2 under agenda item 17C focuses on developing criteria and methodologies related to soil biodiversity, including fungal biodiversity. In light of this, Japan would propose placing item 24 in bracket for further consideration and alignment with the text under 70C. Alternatively, should the meeting wish to finalize the document and as an agenda item 17B, at this stage, Japan would suggest adding the word as appropriate at the end of item 24. As these agenda items are expected to implemented in a mutually supportive manner, ensuring a consistency between the text would facilitate their extensive, uh, uh, effective implementation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Japan. I have some. concerns with your suggestion because first, the rules we receive from the Bureau in the scenario note is not to touch text that is clean. I'm not sure if there is a confusion because one thing is fungi when we are talking about forest. And I believe you are making reference to agenda item 17C. on protected areas. Agenda item 17C is on the program of work on protected areas. Or probably you're making reference because you mentioned soils, that's another document on agriculture. But fungi are not only on soils, they're also in forest. So my suggestion is not to touch this paragraph because it's clean. And maybe with my explanation that fungi are also in soils and also in forest, we keep this biological group considerations in both programs of work. I hope that explanation is understandable. And also to keep with the rules we have for not to touch text of this. I count with your help and your flexibility. Thank you. Now I have EU.

Thank you, Chair. I actually asked for the floor regarding the discussion on 23. And we would not agree with deleting, including in the context and leaving only through the development and promotion of bioeconomy programs and policies, because it limits the the way to support innovative business models. And also we would like to add, so we would prefer including in the context of sustainable and circular economy, bioeconomy programs and policies. So also add sustainable and circular.

Okay. My understanding is that most parties were okay to delete all text in brackets. except Panama with a specific formulation. Now you want to keep text with a different formulation and adding new text. This is not very helpful.

We were also okay to delete the rest, leaving open the way. But if we leave this, we would like not to limit it to bioeconomy programs and policies. That means we would like to open the brackets The first brackets.

Just the first brackets, but not to add in the other text you were talking about. So we will keep both sets of brackets under the brackets. OK. I'm in your hands. We should finish with clean decisions at the end. We cannot send brackets to another body, remember? And so let's one. Now, 228, over there, brackets in non-forest industries. And the suggestion is to remove the brackets. So is there any opposition to delete the brackets on para 28? Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. This is more like a clarification. We're not necessarily against removing the brackets, but in activity 28, what we want as a group, is it really to promote good practices only in non-forest industries in the production and supply chains to address the risk of deforestation? Because in the way in which these brackets are now posted, that's the effect of the text. And I would say that we aim to promote good practices in general. including in non-forest industries and in forest industries as well, so just a clarification, for us, it is okay if you want to remove it and keep it as it is, we think it is incomplete and perhaps a missed opportunity, but I bring it for the discussion, thank you.

Thank you, Brazil, now we have Russian Federation and EU.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support the intervention by Brazil. We think the text in brackets is quite limiting, and the purpose of the paragraph is to have a general guidance on good practices. Therefore, we would kindly request for the text in brackets to be deleted.

Thank you.

Thank you. You.

Thank you very much, Chair. We would like to also support the proposal made by Brazil to delete the text in brackets, non-forest industries. If necessary, we can add in the relevant production and supply chains, but we are flexible there. Thank you.

Thank you. So I'm hearing some support to delete in non-forest industries. Maybe that can save us problems, but I have Namibia.

Thank you, Ms. Satri. We would be interested to hear the proposal to be made by Brazil because we also kind of see this as a missed opportunity and we would like to support such amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Namibia. Sounds strange a little bit. So if Brazil have a proposal for a better language, we would like to hear it. Go ahead.

The proposal would be simply to remove the brackets, because what's limiting the text right now is the brackets, right? So if we remove it, then we're talking about promote good practices in general. So that would be the idea. We don't have to add anything new. Thank you.

Okay, I will try. If we said, I mean, I see that most interventions are unfavored to delete the text. And initially, Brazil says we can keep it, sounds strange. Now maybe I say, maybe we can keep it. So if we say, promote good practices, including in non-forest industries, in the production and supply chains and so on. Can we go along that? Otherwise, maybe just delete the text. Oh, Brazil.

I'm sorry. I should have said remove the bracketed text, and I said remove the brackets. I only realized after I said it. I'm sorry.

OK, have Suriname and India. Maybe you have a solution?

Thank you, Chair. Surinam proposed to delete the text in the brackets and to propose after that the production. So it will read, promote good practices in production and supply chains to address, et cetera. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So this is in favor to delete the text. regime, promote good practices in production and supply chains, and so on. India.

Thank you, Chair. Para 15 already captures sustainable forest management practices. Therefore, we support the lifting of the brackets around non-forest industries. Thank you, Chair.

So I am, let's see, I'll put again forward my proposal to see if it works. Promote good practices, including in non-forest industries in the production of supply chains. So can we live with that? Because some want to delete, some want to keep it, but to be precise, not to limit only to that, so maybe including open the door for more options. So can we go with the proposal of promote good practices in non-forest, including in non-forest industries in the production and so on? Is that acceptable? Is there any opposition to this formulation? I see Zimbabwe. Are you opposing, Zimbabwe?

Thank you, Chair. So we support your proposal, but instead of including, we would prefer especially. Thank you.

Zimbabwe, can you live with including? Because that leaves the door open. And with that, we can have clean text, is my feeling. Can we, along with that, Zimbabwe?

Thank you.

Thank you very much. So we have clean text here, promote good practices, including in all forest industries, in the production and so on. Next set of brackets is on para 29, encourage support businesses. financial institutions to monitor asset. I suggest to leave the brackets. Is there any opposition? I don't see. I see India.

Thank you, Chair. Maybe we could just include in the para, encourage and support business and financial institutions to contribute to biodiversity conservation and monitor, assess, and transparently, and then the rest of the text follows. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. I'm listening to the explanation by Secretariat that the focus of targets 15 and 16 are not on conservation. We have that in previous targets. The focus of this is on monitoring. So we don't believe it is needed to have this precision on conservation because the focus is on the monitoring. So Maybe you can leave with the text as it is by just lifting the brackets. That's my invitation. I have also South Africa.

Thank you very much, Chair. Just looking on the paragraph itself, we'll propose the deletion of the entire paragraph. the reasons being that, you know, national legislations, policies, does to some extent govern this particular field. I'm just not sure how we can enforce that, especially the business and financial institutions, because the state doesn't have really control over those. So it creates this expectation that might not be fulfilled. I'm not sure how many member states might report back in the next city in terms of what they've achieved along this particular intention. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa, but my reading is that encouraging and support business and financial institutions to help in monitoring. I know it's a attribution of governments, but why not to have help from them for monitoring? I think that's the spirit. So I ask for some flexibility. I haven't heard more comments or opposition to delete the brackets. Is anybody else? against deletion of the brackets.

Thank you, Chair. A small suggestion to delete support there, but we support your suggestion that it's definitely we would like to see help in terms of monitoring. We just don't see the need. It's also unclear what exactly is meant by support, but encourage. Definitely we agree with that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Caneva. Maybe that also can help on South Africa concern. We're just encouraging business and financial institutions to monitor, right? So that Is that more acceptable, South Africa, maybe with this suggestion from Canada? South Africa.

Yes, Chair. We can accede to that proposal by Canada, maybe to just delete the support part. Maybe the encourage, yeah, we will be able to live with that.

Thank you very much for your flexibility. Okay, so we have clean text on paragraph 29. Now let's go to paragraph 30, "Encourage and support consumers" is all in brackets and has also another set of brackets around the expression "in line with national laws and policies." My suggestion is to lift all brackets in paragraph. Is there any opposition? Namibia.

Mr. Chair, we are a bit uncomfortable with the inner brackets, in line with national laws and policies. sounds a bit like we are supporting consumers only in line with national laws and policies to make informed decisions. And I think consumers should be able to make decisions not confined to national laws. So I think, you know, the contextualization is a little bit wrong, and that's why we'd prefer to delete the inner brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, Namibia. So you suggest to accept to leave the brackets around the whole paragraph, but to delete the text in the middle that says "in line with national laws and policies", right? I see Norway. Can we go along with Namibia's proposal? I see Suriname and Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Suriname opposes deleting paragraph 30. customer, consumers and supply chains are often in different countries. So it is unclear who national laws and policies will apply. And the paragraphs could lend support to the measure of one party to shape their trade in forest products from another party, which has no say in them. Thank you, Chair.

Can you clarify? Because I understood that you want to keep the paragraph. Just -- there's a confusion here. I understand you want to keep it when you mention encouragement support consumers. So I may understand that you can also go along with the previous proposal by just deleting in line with national laws and policies. Can you clarify before going to Roshan, you?

Yes, no, we propose to delete paragraph 30.

Okay, that's clear, thank you. Russian Federation, followed by EU.

Thank you, Chair. We would not be in support of deleting in line with national laws and policies, the way we see it, if it concerns more than one country. then consumers should observe the laws of either the country they're in or both countries, depending on the case and the exact transaction. However, we are open to the possibility of deleting the entire paragraph.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russia. I see we are different views, complications. There's one, at least a couple of interventions on favor to delete the whole paragraph, but they have EU followed by India.

Thank you, Chair. The EU is in favor of lifting the brackets around this paragraph and preserving it. We would prefer deleting the text about in line with national laws and policies, but we can be flexible about that.

Thank you. India.

Thank you, Chair. We support the proposal made by Russian Federation. Thank you.

Thank you. Norway, followed by Canada.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to keep the text as well and lift the brackets. Thank you.

Thank you, that was my original proposal to leave all the brackets. Canada, followed by Iran.

Thank you, Chair. In the spirit of trying to find solution here, we were wondering if the first set of brackets in line with national laws and policies perhaps could be replaced with either consistent with national circumstances or alternatively as appropriate. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Canada, for this proposal. Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Iran supports Russia too. Thank you.

Okay, I will make an intent. If not, it will be more homework to you. Encourage and support consumers to make informed decisions and buy from legal and stable supply chains by providing relevant information as appropriate. It's following more or less the line of Canada, as you're noting. So it can be a middle ground. before deleting everything or maintaining the inner brackets. Does this formulation comply? I know there are very different views, but this is an offer as a compromise. So to keep the language, delete the bracket in the middle, and to leave as appropriate at the end. I hope have support on with this proposal. Russia Federation followed by Suriname.

I do apologize, but as appropriate would not work for us. However, to build upon the proposals previously stated, we could live with in line with national legislature.

Thank you.

So you want to keep in, so you can accept the paragraph in line with national legislation, right? Yeah, I see noted. Now Suriname.

Thank you, Chair. Suriname can go along with the proposal of the Chair.

Thank you. So, seems we're close and the formulation can be encouraged and support consumers to make informed decisions and buy from legal and sustainable supply chains by providing relevant information in line with national legislation. Is that acceptable? Russian Federation.

Yes, sorry, but the national legislation would have to be exactly in the place where in line with national laws and policies was because otherwise it shifts the accent and what the legislation pertains to.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I understand. I was trying to put it at the end as usual, but I have limitations in English. So it would read, "Encourage and support consumers, in line with national legislation, to make informed decisions and buy from legal and sustainable supply chains by providing relevant information." Is that acceptable? I have Papua. I hope you can accept that.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with your proposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much to all. So we have clean text as amended. Now we can move to next one. So I have Surin. Sorry.

Thank you, Chair. I don't think Surin can live with that because it's the same thing is going around again. We might suggest not the text, which will encourage and support consumers to make informed decisions and buy from sustainable supply chain by providing a lot of information. That's what we want to suggest.

So, I thought we had clean text. So, you want to delete what is in between. But I thought we were there. So, maybe if you can show some flexibility on this and accept the insertion that in line with national legislation, we can go on. Otherwise, We can leave the brackets but keep that reference to in line with national legislation in brackets, as you are proposing. But I ask you for some flexibility, Surinam. Meanwhile, I give the floor to Namibia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We also share the sentiment of Suriname that this is the same thing. So actually, there is not much of a difference in the current formulation compared to laws and policies. While we don't think that this paragraph as it stands makes too much sense, and we would have really preferred your previous option, we could accept, but we would also like to be understood as that this is quite a bigger concession that we are making here. Thank you.

Okay, last try, Suriname. If we say, encourage and support consumers in line with national legislation and circumstances to making informed decisions and so on. Suriname.

Thank you, Chair. Like Namibia, we would like to in the line of concessions, of course, go along with what the Chair has proposed.

Thank you very much for your flexibility. So we have agreed text with para 30. Let's move to next one, on para 36. Hold on. Thank you for your patience. Now we are on para 36. This is on improve equitable access and employ adequate financing instruments and so on. The whole text is in brackets. My proposal is to lift the brackets. Is there any opposition to lift the brackets? I see Russian Federation followed by Argentina.

I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chair, just a clarification. When you say the whole text is in brackets, you mean paragraph 36 or the entire table.

No, just paragraph 36.

Only paragraph 36. On the paragraph 36, so we would be happy to leave the brackets, however, we would like to, in the end of the language, add in line with national circumstances and legislation. And also, while While being here at targets 18 and 19, we understand that we did not have the first reading of the document and did not have a previously established contact group. We would beg your indulgence and ask for the same language in line with national circumstances and legislation in point 33.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. As I mentioned before, the matter we have is not to deal with clean text. So I understand your suggestion on 36 in line with national circumstances and legislation. That's okay because this is a paragraph in brackets. So I ask for your indulgence for not to move at this stage on paragraphs that are clean already and take on board your suggestion to lift the brackets on para 36 by adding at the end in line with national circumstances and legislation. Meanwhile, I give the floor now to Argentina, followed by EU.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to suggest the same as the Russian Federation. We are happy to lift the brackets as long as we have that phrase in the end. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I hope we are close to lifting the brackets and with this addition at the end. EU.

Thank you, Chair. We are in favour of lifting the brackets around this text. We would like to ask for clarification of equitable access. It is not quite clear what that means.

That's a good question.

We could propose deleting it or otherwise aligning with language from another decision that deals with access to financing.

Is it acceptable to say improve financing instruments or improve and employ adequate financing instruments so to delete equitable access. That can fly. Maybe that can fly. So I'd like to see if we can go along with that. Meanwhile, I have Uganda followed by Saudi Arabia. I hope with these amendments we can go forward.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Initially, Uganda was happy to support your proposal to lift the entire bracket and leave it open, but wouldn't mind adding in line with national circumstances. However, speaking from the submission of EU, I'm just thinking that using the word equitable in the same sense and sentence with indigenous peoples and local communities, the intention is to make it possible for them to participate in the money economy without necessarily being subjected to the main, without being subjected to the same conditions as everyone else. So that will be my understanding of equitable access. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Uganda, for the explanations. Maybe that clarified the questions of EU. That's why we have the word equitable. And it's clear to me after your explanation. So my suggestion now is to lift the brackets on the original text by adding at the end The suggestion by Russia, supported by Argentina, in line with national circumstances and legislation. Is anybody opposing to this in order to have a clean text? If you are not opposing, you can erase your request. I have Saudi Arabia. I hope we can go along with this.

Thank you, Chair.

We believe we should lift the brackets. We also believe that the proposal made by the Russian Federation is positive and that we should add in conformity with the national circumstances at the end of the paragraph. And we should also mention access to funding mechanisms.

Yes, I think we're there. So I'm withdrawing my suggestion to delete any word on the first line. So to drop the brackets to keep the original formulation with the addition of Russian support by Argentina. And also a request from the interpreters that when you take the floor, please put away your headsets to avoid to have echoes when you are taking the floor. We want to keep our interpreters healthy and not to damage their ears. So please be aware of that. So can we accept the after the explanation to the EU by Uganda and to keep the original text lifting the brackets and adding the expression of in line with national circumstances and legislation I have the EU.

Thank you, Chair. We are very fine with keeping the text in the beginning of the brackets. We would definitely like to keep access. We would like to ask for scrutiny for the addition in line with national circumstances and legislation as we are still consulting. Thank you.

I hope your consultations don't take too long, in order to have clean text. So meanwhile, it's in brackets, but I'm hoping we can lift them soon. So please proceed with your consultations. So I invite you to move now to paragraph 38, sub-paragraph b. Identify and promote best practices for the legal recognition of land and forest tenure of indigenous peoples and local communities. My suggestion is to remove brackets bearing in mind that these actions are to be taken in their national context and needs. So can we proceed with delete? brackets around sub-paragraph B. Any opposition? Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Sadly, we could not agree to that. We will make one proposal concerning all these subparagraphs. The way we see it, subparagraph A is something that is quite important and definitely reflects the points that we are trying to make. However, we would like to delete subparagraphs b, d and e, and also to delete the reference to access to information and justice in brackets in paragraph c.

Thank you.

Can we go one by one? You already expressed the whole package, but let's go one by one so everybody can follow our deliberations. So you want to delete B at this stage. Thank you. I'll give the floor to Saudi Arabia, followed by Canada.

Thank you, Chair.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports the deletion of sub-paragraph entirely, considering that land tenure is a matter of national legislation and goes beyond the technical cooperation programs. and we have to make this in accordance with national legislation. And therefore, we suggest deleting this paragraph entirely.

Thank you. Canada.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to remind that access to justice and information is the text of target 22, so removing it would be actually going against the CMBF and also against the spirit of the framework. Thank you, Chair.

Canada, maybe you are making reference not to paragraph B. Your comment, I guess, was on paragraph C. We are talking about deletion or not of sub-paragraph B. So can you confirm you were referring to C, not to B? Yes? You were referring to C. So wait. So there are two delegations suggesting deletion on And I have a list of speakers now on. EU, followed by Suriname.

Thank you, Chair. We support lifting the brackets around. And we would like to suggest a text at the end of this paragraph to specify in line with national legislation and international obligations. noting the ongoing task under the programme of work on Article 8. This is to avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure a coordinated effort, but we do support lifting the brackets. And since I have the floor, just to also confirm that we can lift the scrutiny on activity 36. Thank you.

Thank you, Jo. So we have clean text on 36, that this is good. And then you are proposing to add a text. You have it? Can I ask to repeat, please? Can you repeat your proposal of the session at the end, and also considering to lifting the brackets?

Thank you. So the proposal is in line with national legislation and international obligations, noting the ongoing task under the programme of work on Article 8A.

Thank you, Yu. So this is the proposal to lift the brackets and to add this new text at the end. And I have Suriname, followed by Argentina and Namibia.

Thank you, Chair. Suriname supports the objective of recognizing the land and forest tenure of indigenous people and local communities, and propose amendment on paragraph 38B to read, "Identify and promote best practices in line with national circumstances and legislation for the recognition of land and forest tenure of indigenous people and local communities." Tenure is governed by national legal and constitutional frameworks, which vary considerably between parties. The wording ensures best practices or options parties can adapt to their own system. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I see that what last suggestion is very similar what EU suggests at the end. So it's on the same and a different part of the paragraph. But regarding the suggestion from EU, I don't believe we need to make any reference not even going like under the program of work article AJ, because in the chapeau of this paragraph, there is also mention the program of work article AJ, so it's redundant. And if you take out that part, it's exactly the same text to what the previous speaker was suggesting regarding in line with national circumstances and legislation. One says obligations, others say legislation. It's all the same. Where do you prefer to have it, at the beginning or at the end? But to avoid redundancies, so I invite you to not to consider the reference of AJ because it's already on the chapeau. So I'm in your hands, so whatever you want to have this reference for those Delegations does want to keep this language and lifting the brackets, but also knowing that a couple of delegations support the deletion. And I hope with this amendment, it's probably more acceptable. Meanwhile, I'll give it to Argentina for when Namibia.

Thank you, Mr. Tiar. In this case, as the nature of the sub-paragraph B is to set the mandates to promote legal recognition at the end of the day, we don't believe that we can find a way to redraft it in a way that it's digestible to us. So that being said, we would support the entire deletion of the sub-paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you, Namibia, followed by Panama and Norway.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We found the suggestion made by Suriname a very reasonable one, because looking at the practices, the identification of these practices is a global exercise that can't be subjected to national legislation. However, the promotion can be subjected to national legislation, and that's why we believe it makes a difference to put the brackets where we have it after best practices in line with national legislation, I believe that is what Surinam suggested, makes much more sense than having it at the end. Thank you, Chair.

I'll give the floor to Panama, followed by Norway, and try to see if we can find a solution.

Thank you, Chair.

We agree with Suriname's proposal. We think that the adequate version is the one there. Thank you.

Next, Panama, Norway.

Thank you. We would like to keep the paragraph as well. We think it's an important one. And whether it's sort of the EU proposal or the Suriname proposal, or with or without a reference to the work on Article HA, we'd like to see it in some shape or form. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. Just remind you that the chapeau of that paragraph is the reference to work on Article HA. Russian Federation.

Yes, I thank the distinguished delegates for their efforts to find a landing zone on this. However, I would just like to say this in the spirit of saving time for us. those points are very hard to negotiate on in terms of the red lines. Therefore, sadly, we could not accept in this language at least, saving the and keeping the points B, G and E, I'm going to say it about all those points. I understand that certain language is the language of the framework, however, everything is contextual, we're dealing with a specific program and specific actions pertaining to forest biodiversity. We do not believe that there is a need to copy the language of the framework. For example, point E is exactly from target 22. However, we just do not believe that it belongs here. We are not against having certain language on those issues here. However, it would need to be heavily redrafted, not just adding passages about national circumstances and priorities. Therefore, sadly, we could not agree to keeping any of the three paragraphs.

Thank you.

Thank you. I still have a request. Let's see if we can find a way forward. We are entertaining quite a long time on this one, not finding a common agreement. So I believe we -- let's see if we can have the best formulation in brackets and move to next paragraphs. So I have Uganda, Papua, and Brazil.

And then we will move -- Thank you, Chair. Uganda supports the deletion of the brackets. But our preference would be to have in line with the national laws and policies at the end, rather than having it in the middle, so that it covers the entire sentence. It commits the entire paragraph to national laws and policies. Because if it's put after best practices creates the impression that leaves the land and forest tenure of indigenous peoples and local communities outside of the coverage of the national policies and legislation. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Uganda. So you prefer the session at the end. Maybe we take now reference to AJ because it's redundant as proposed by EU. Papua.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with keeping the paragraph. Our proposal is the terminology on land and forest, if it can be rearranged to say forest land tenure of Indigenous people and local communities. Thank you.

Can you repeat please? You said forest land? Legal recognition of indigenous peoples and local communities forest land? Please rephrase.

That's correct. To rephrase, recognition of land and forest to simply forest land. Because the way we see it is, sorry, it's land is currently non-forest category as well.

Thank you.

Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. I think a number of countries have highlighted that they're keen on having some of these aspects be identified in the text, Brazil included. And the Russian Federation has said that they would be able to preserve some of the elements here. although severely redrafted. My question would be, could we get perhaps a proposal or talk bilaterally with Russia to try to find a common ground to see what are their red lines and to see what we can preserve for this sub-paragraphs? Thank you.

Thank you, Graciela. I was going something like that, but I was trying to see what can be the best basis. to see it because we have proposed a similar text in the middle and at the end and with some other amendments to what can be the best formulation to serve for consultations. We have already spent too much time. I have Saudi Arabia, followed by Russian Federation, and I close the list on discussions on this panel.

Thank you, Chair. With regard to subparagraph B, I would like to thank the distinguished delegates for their efforts to reach an agreement with regard to this subparagraph. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports the deletion of the brackets from this paragraph, and with an addition at the end of the paragraph, "according to national laws," as proposed by the EU. we can accept maintaining this paragraph if there is an addition of in accordance with national laws.

Russia.

Yes, thank you. Just to comment on the proposal by Brazil, we would be happy to have bilateral or maybe informal meetings as for the language, and we will also be happy to draft something that is closer to what we believe should be in those passages in this section.

Thank you.

Thank you for your openness. I appreciate that. So, my suggestion will be to go with the formulation by the EU without making the redundant reference to the GA. to having at the end in line with national circumstances and legislations and international obligations, full stop. So that is my proposal that can serve as a basis for consultations among Brazil, Russia, EU. I hope we can find a solution. later. So let's keep moving. We have half an hour of our allocated time. I'd like to see how's the appetite of the group to continue working. I hope we can make substantial progress. Next is on C. paragraph 38C, in the first line, we have a set of brackets around "for access to information and justice", and my suggestion is to remove the brackets, and I remind parties that this is agreed language from Target 22, so this is not something new, this is agreed language, and it's part of the rules also agreed that we should respect existing language is on our framework. So I propose to remove the brackets and they have Iran and Russian Federation.

Oh, sorry.

May I go back to the previous discussion? regarding in line with national legislations. In my opinion, we can use, as we have section C for coming Montreal Biodiversity Framework, we have in line with national legislations and circumstances and priorities for everything. Okay? So we can add it at the end of the first paragraph, at the end of 38. where we say and the gender plan of action into account in line with national legislations and circumstances or only with national legislation. And it will cover everything under it.

Thank you, Ran. My suggestion is instead of adding more elements, I invite you to join the group that is working on the basis of what we agreed already. So you can join the group with Russia, Brazil, EU to work together on this formulation because we already find that as a good basis. So I don't want to alter it more and to make progress. Thank you. Russian Federation and India.

Thank you, Chair. I do apologize, but as we know, that is the language of the target. However, still contextually, we just are not sure that it is suitable here. Since we're going to hold more discussions, informal discussions, and try to draft the section under point 38, for now, we'd like this to be kept in brackets. Maybe there is some way for us to still include that, but for now, we would like that to be kept in brackets.

Thank you.

Thank you. India.

Thank you, Chair. Just would like to make minor iterations in the para, uh, and of course, uh, lift the brackets. So identify and promote best practices for access to information through prior informed consent. That's the language wanted to pair. And then for increasing participation in the planning, comma, decision making process and management, management of forests and so on. However, we would like to again sit for a small deliberation, but this was just a minor iteration that I would like to suggest.

Thank you, India. So let's go for the easy part. So you are suggest, you're suggesting two insertions. One is to include in second line after in the planning decision making, right? I think that's -- I hope that's acceptable for those who want to retain the text. And the first suggestion you're suggesting is to include after in the bracket text for access to information to include previous informed consent. Maybe this complicates it a bit more, but That's your suggestion. So I'm seeing some support to delete the brackets and support to keep the brackets. We don't have a consensus here. And even with the addition from India, that's where we are. Unless Canada will come with a solution, please.

I will try, Chair, and appreciate, of course, the efforts from a distinguished delegate from India. In our practice, free, prior, and informed consent applies to usually when we're talking about access. use of traditional knowledge held by indigenous peoples and communities and knowledge holders. In this case, this is about increased access to information for indigenous people so that they could enable, they're enabled and supported to participate in planning and management. So we don't see that appropriate or necessary useful here or applicable, I should say, but we can support the addition of decision making since that would align with target language. And we may be flexible to remove justice there, but we'd like to retain access to information. So this is where we are at this point. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Canada. I believe this is very helpful in terms of I see that inclusion of decision making is okay. Shouldn't be a problem. And in regards to the lead justice, probably that's something that can help acceptance if we focus on promote best practices for access to information. And after the explanation of Canada to India regarding previous informed consent, maybe that is not necessary because what we want is to empower these group of stakeholders to access the information to take good decisions when we are referring to forest management. So the possibility and thanks, Canada. The text can say, identify and promote best practices for access to information. and for increasing participation in the planning, decision making, and so on. With these changes, do you believe this can be acceptable? I think by deleting justice, it gives more space and flexibility for some countries with some with concerns. Russian Federation.

Oh, thank you, Chair. Yes, with the suggestions by India and Canada, we do believe that we can go for this language here.

Thank you.

This is wonderful. I think we reached consensus. So I will ask the Secretary to read the paragraph as it reads without brackets.

So the paragraph would read as follows. Identify and promote best practices for access to information and for increasing participation in the planning, decision making, and management of forests by indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, persons with disabilities, and other relevant actors. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretaria. I see no comments, so thank you very much for your cooperation. We have clean text here on C. Let's move to D. D is in brackets, and recognize gender roles, responsibilities, uses, rights, and practices to address underlying social and gender inequalities to another gender responsive approach on forest conservation and restoration and sustainable forest management. Maybe we can, as a compromise, start with adopt a gender responsive approach and remove the beginning. So I would ask the Secretary how he would read the paragraph with this suggestion from my part.

Thank you. So the proposal from the Chair would be to remove the first part of the sentence so that it would read simply, "Adopt a gender-responsive approach in forest conservation and restoration and sustainable forest management. Thank you.

I hope this proposal is acceptable. Less is more. Give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. I believe this is not the first time we've spoken on this about the terminology of the gender responsive approach. I know it's the language of the target, but we have multiple times tried to talk about the terminology of gender sensitive. However, I do appreciate that here we have tried to make the text shorter. Therefore, in the spirit of compromise, we would agree to the text that you've proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your flexibility. Very much appreciated. So we have the text also for Sophia D. Let's go for the last one to this first round on different paragraphs of Annex 1. Ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders. My proposal is to lift the brackets as this is also agreed language from target 22 of our framework. Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chair. Again, we understand that the language is agreed, but contextually, not every formulation from the KMG-BF has to be included into every action or activity taken under specific programs. We do believe that here in the context of the forced biodiversity that is redundant. Therefore, considering the fact that we have found the common ground on the previous two points and have managed to have three clean provisions that we believe cover the three targets, we would kindly for the understanding and for deleting this provision as well as the provisions on TPI.

Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we would agree on lifting the brackets. But we would like to add the caveat in accordance with national legislation in the end of the subpara. Thank you.

Thank you, Argentina, for the flexibility and to suggest in accordance with national legislation. I'm wondering if that helps to Russia. I see that's still difficult. Well, I think at least that was an intent. We passed already through the annex. I will ask the secretariat to tell us where we are in terms of progress, because still some pending paragraphs. So can we go from the beginning of the annex? I think we were able to solve an important number of brackets. We have cleaner text, but still pending issues. Can you go one by one to remind us where we are, please?

I'll do my best. Thank you. So We did not conclude our discussion on paragraph one, and we had a need to return to this paragraph as there are a number of open issues remaining. In paragraph 5, we still have remaining brackets on a proposal for the phraseology at the national level or including at the national level to come after mechanisms and indicators. We still have brackets on paragraph 15, which currently reads as it is in the text with the addition of "as appropriate" at the end, but the entire paragraph is still in brackets. On paragraph 20, the EU and Brazil need to meet and discuss regarding biodiversity friendly practices for sustainable forest management, in particular, the placement of the term sustainable forest management. For paragraph 23, we still have brackets at the end of the paragraph. And Panama, I believe, was still considering whether they could have flexibility on the potential removal of the final sets of brackets, which include brackets within those brackets? Then we come to 38 and para 38B. A discussion is needed between Brazil, Russia, EU, and also Iran to meet and discuss 38B and potentially come up with a new drafting for 38B that may also consider the inclusion of text, I believe, from the EU and Suriname that relates to national circumstances and legislation and international obligations. And as far as the Secretariat's record, that concludes the outstanding issues. The other brackets and issues that we went through, by our records, are clean. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Secretaria. So we were able to clean 11 paragraphs with brackets and still seven, maybe six. So I would like to consult Panama if we can delete the last part of your consultation so we can have one paragraph less. Panama? Can we eliminate the...?

Oh, thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, we can't make full concession, but we have an alternative which could be agreeable to parties at the end of Forestry Biodiversity, including through the development and the promotion of bioeconomy programmes and policies. So that's a consideration that can be considered by the parties, and I hope it will be acceptable to them. Thank you.

Could you repeat it, please? So I'll try and follow in English rather than Spanish.

Thank you, Chair. From what we hear, it seems to be a bit of a combination of the two alternative phrases. So The paragraph would read as follows: Support innovative business models that contribute to the conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of forest biodiversity, including through the development and promotion of bioeconomy programs and policies.

Thank you, Secretaria. I would like to ask if this formulation is acceptable on paragraph 23. Russian Federation.

I'm sorry to be the one to be the bad guy again, but sadly, we just do not think that mentioning bioeconomy here in that context is necessary or appropriate. We are happy with the business models with promotion of the sustainable use and restoration. But this is a very specific program on forest biodiversity, and we do believe that the last part has to be left out.

Thank you.

Gracias. Russia. Panama.

Thank you, Russia. Panama? Could I ask you once again to be flexible? and allow us to delete the last part. Also, we'll leave it open. Any country could conduct these bioeconomy programs and policies. It's up to them to do so or not. So we could delete it here and leave it open to the countries. And if you allow us to do that, that will leave us less work afterwards.

Thank you, Chair. We think it's important. It's important because if it's not mentioned, then there's no financing that will exist for it. So for us, this is a red line. The other option, which is also a proposal, was to be added at the end as appropriate. So as appropriate at the end of the paragraph.

With that addition as appropriate can be acceptable, Russian Federation.

As we said, we really do not see it here. However, seeing that Panama has a very valid concern that is for them very important, I think we could live with in accordance with national legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for flexibility and proposing. I see Panama is nodding. So with this, can we accept the paragraph as amended? India, you're asking the floor, but I kindly ask if we can agree with this paragraph, with this recent amendment. India.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, we accept the final proposal made now.

Thank you very much. So, the Secretariat, how it reads, and there will be one paragraph less.

So, the paragraph would read as follows: "Support innovative business models that contribute to the conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of forest biodiversity including through the development and promotion of bioeconomy programs and policies in accordance with national legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much to all. I have EU, I hope also agrees.

EU.

Thank you, Chair. We can agree with this formulation if we could add sustainable and circular bioeconomy. Thank you very much.

Russian Federation.

I'm sorry, I do understand that they desire to make the point maybe clearer, but introducing new text here when the already existing text is quite complicated in terms of the ideas in these separate parts of the sentence, we cannot go with that. I believe the version, the final version that Panama and India have agreed to is something that we should go with.

Thank you.

EU, we already agreed on that formulation with flexibility of many parties from both Panama and also Russia and Brazil and so on. So we can live with that as read by the Secretariat. I hope we can accept that.

You thank you very much chair we consider it important to specify that this is about sustainable and circular bioeconomy we could agree otherwise with deleting the rest of the text or we could ask for keeping this part in brackets so that we can discuss thank you.

This will be more work for you I mean, I thought we reached an agreement, and you're adding new text at the end. So you should consider this. You're adding new text. Russian Federation.

Thank you.

We understand the concerns of the EU. However, if we were to take the approach of bracketing their suggestion with the new language, we would also like to bracket the entirety of the text that we have just unbracketed.

Thank you.

EU, I ask you for indulgence. We were there, remember? Perfection is the enemy of the good. I think this is a workable text. We can then go as detailed as we want under national circumstances. So I ask for flexibility in order to move on. We spent already a lot of time. We're almost over time to finish our session.

You.

Thank you very much, Chair. We made this proposal actually when the paragraph was discussed initially, so during this session. And we consider that it is a valid suggestion. I said if that is not acceptable, we are also fine with deleting the entire section in brackets. But it is text that is in brackets. So we're not proposing entirely new text. We're proposing a solution.

Okay. So we have clean text. You want to add this. It will be in brackets. And then Russia will add more brackets. So we have a combo with more brackets. Is that the basis you want to use for your consultations to remove or Sorry to put you on the spot, but I thought we would reach an agreement. So you want to add, will be bracket, and there will be more brackets also in other places.

Thank you. As always, I speak on behalf of the EU and all 27 member states, and I would need to ask to put that in brackets for the moment until we can discuss internally, and we will get back, but we need to have it in brackets for the moment. Thank you.

Thank you. So you have some time for consultation, but it was very difficult to get this balance. So please consider the efforts to reach where we are in order to have an acceptable text for everyone. And so it's a time to finish. I'm wondering to see how tired we are. We have passed through the annex and still, I would say, 6.5 text paragraphs with brackets pending for consultations. I invite this group of delegations trying to go not only for a single paragraph, but the same group is It's been we've been listening to EU, to Brazil, to Russia, to Argentina, to Suriname too, to get together and try to go through all this because for most of these programs are the same parties engaged, Namibia also, to come with solutions so then in the next session we can continue working now with the operative paragraphs and pending for you to come with some concrete solutions after some bilateral consultations. Give me just a few seconds to have a consultation on how to proceed with the Secretariat. Dear colleagues, we had a generous offer from interpreters to continue working if we want, but I see that we already make a lot of progress. So, we thank the interpreters for the offer. I believe We're kind of tired after all this progress, and maybe we can use the remain- the remaining part of the evening for some informal consultations, and we can meet again tomorrow, fresh, to continue working our deliberations. Hoping to receive some good news from this consultations and continue in our next session with the opera, operative paragraphs and still more documents, more CRPs on agriculture and invasive species pending. So I thank very much the kind offer from our interpreters, so maybe we can save your precious time for the session in the next few days. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I thank all delegates for your good efforts and the progress we made, and see you tomorrow in our next session. So the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Panama.

Gracias, señor.

Sí.

En este working group que no.

Sorry.

Todavía.

Questions that have been addressed and that.

Have not yet been passed to the contact group, it is important...

We don't believe that we should pressure the decision for the contact group for next week. Therefore, we urge the secretariat and the chairmanship to consider that pending issues which have not been moved forward in the contact group. meet again as soon as possible so that next week we don't go into the week accelerating discussions which really require us to take that time over. Thank you.

Thank you, Panama. I ask you to look at the schedule where some of the topics are included, included in the scenario note. There's already an initial proposal to continue working on everything that's been covered by the work conducted in the contact groups. Thank you.