(4th Session) First meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j) and Other Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity Related to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (SB8J)
Conferences
Date: 29 October 2025
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1z/k1zzzbjj8z
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

Co-Chair [0:06]:

Good afternoon, colleagues. Thank you very much for your patience. Thank you very much for being here this afternoon in this plenary session. I'm very happy to see you all here and I'm also very happy that we had very good discussions on the contact groups on agenda item four and agenda items five A and five B. I'm very pleased to hear that you went through the whole document on item four and I'm also very happy to hear that last night we made progress on items five A and five B that we are expecting to continue the discussions this afternoon today. My proposal for this plenary session and apologize for the delay. I was having consultations with my colleagues, so thank you very much for the patience on that on our way forward. And I would like to propose your colleagues that we start this plenary session with the reading of the CRPs. We will come to agenda item seven in this plenary, colleagues. That's something that we agreed in our last plenary session that we will touch upon agenda item seven in this plenary session. But I want to take advantage of the very constructive spirit that we are having in the room, in the hallways, so we can start cleaning and clearing out documents so they can go to the translation and we can start turning them into L documents. So colleagues, I ask for your indulgence and my proposal to you is that we start with the reading of the CRPs. I count on your very, very constructive spirit that I've been seeing these last few days so we can have a very good reading of the CRPs that we can go smoothly to those CRPs. And then I will give the floor to my co-chair to moderate the session on agenda item seven that I am sure that we're all very eager to hear the views around agenda item. Are there any objections for this proposed organization of work? Not without mentioning that we have the speaking list for agenda item seven. Thank you very much for that. So colleagues, if you agree with this proposal, I'm going to ask you to lower your flags. So we can start with the reading of our first CRP and we take as much advantage as the time as we can. Thank you, colleagues. I'm going to wait one more minute to see if these are flags that are raised with regards to the proposed organization of work for this plenary or if these are flags that are a legacy flags for agenda item seven. And I ask for your indulgence, colleagues, so we can begin with the CRPs and so we can start having progress on this. Okay. So I see Russian Federation asking for the floor. Russia, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [4:01]:

Apologies, co-chair, and good afternoon. We didn't ask. That probably was a mistake. Thank you.


Co-Chair [4:09]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. I see Mexico. Mexico, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Mexico. Now I give the floor to DRC.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [4:40]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the floor. Good afternoon, colleagues. We've just been waiting for the proposal from Madam Co-Chair in order to find a way forward. This is our concern, all of us. We want to finish the agenda that we came here to achieve. I was thinking that yesterday during the plenary, when you ended the session, you said that with the next session we would start with reviewing item seven. and that you'd already asked the Secretariat to note the countries on the list. When we intervened to ask about the session and then that we were going to come back to this item because you had brought up the fact that all of the items had to be reviewed fairly and equitably and approved. And so I would like to know, we now have a new proposal. What do you think of reviewing item seven? Thank you.


Co-Chair [6:18]:

Thank you very much to DRC and of course I take very seriously that all agenda items are equally important. When we mentioned yesterday and I have just clarified to you all dear colleagues, we are intending to go through agenda item seven. in this plenary and we are intending to have sufficient time to hear all of your views on agenda item seven as I mentioned at the beginning of this plenary. At the same time and as I mentioned when we begin I do feel that we have a very constructive spirit, a very constructive mood and we are in a position to Start with the review of the CRP, which, colleagues, was also proposed for the agenda of this plenary, as we discussed yesterday. We do have a good opportunity to start showcasing progress. towards COP17 and it is my intention that we take advantage of that very good spirit, that very constructive conversations that we've been having to start showcasing progress, to start clearing the documents so they can be turned into ELs for their approval in the last plenary tomorrow. So thank you very much, DRC. I ask for your indulgence and your flexibility so we can continue with the reading of the CRPs, not without mentioning before that we take very seriously every agenda item that we have on the table, that we are intending to have the reading of agenda item seven in this plenary. If we need more time, of course, we are very happy to allocate more time to this agenda item so we can have a full comprehensive reading that has and includes the views of all of the parties. DRC, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [8:16]:

Thank you very much for the clarification, Madam Co-Chair. Yes, this is the support, this is the spirit that has brought us all together here today, and we are prepared to move forward with you as you are guiding us. So we accept the fact that you're asking our indulgence. And we think that in the future, when we have need of your indulgence, it will be given to us. And so we can go ahead with the work in the way that you have proposed, Madam Co-Chair.


Co-Chair [8:53]:

Thank you very much to DRC and of course you can count with my collaboration always from the parties to have a very good work and thank you very much colleagues for that constructive spirit. So no seeing for the request. Okay, I see Egypt. Egypt, you have the floor.


Egypt [9:14]:

Thank you, Chair. With a constructive spirit that you ask for, I may say let us go and finish this item straight away. If there is any brackets, let us remove it and get into the other one.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [9:38]:

Thank you very much, Egypt. So, manos a la obra, as we would say in Spanish. Okay, so we will start with our first CRP for today. This is the CRP for our in-depth dialogue, agenda item three. I remind our colleagues that we had a first reading with a lot of interventions, very constructive on this agenda item, and we received all of the views presented in this agenda item in yesterday's plenary. We did our best to capture these views in a balanced manner, but also in a comprehensive manner so every party could see themselves reflected in the text. So what I propose, colleagues, is that we go through this document paragraph by paragraph. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go para by para, and I'm going to ask if there is any any views on this paragraph, any comments on this paragraph, and if we can move forward to the next paras. I'm going to ask you colleagues that we do our best not to bring any new text, not to bring any new views. We did our best job to try to capture everything that we said yesterday, but that we keep our comments on whether these paragraphs respond to the views that were already presented in the plenary yesterday and if there are some minor changes that we need to take into account. So getting into the work, I will now like to start with the preambular section of CRP number one, CRP.1, which reads the conference of the parties. And I would like to ask you colleagues if there are any comments on preambular para one. Canada, you have the floor.


Canada [11:49]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We're fine with the paragraph, but we do just want to say one thing. We made a statement during the in-depth dialogue the other day, and we don't need it to be in a report or anything, but we want to reiterate that we think that the in-depth dialogues going forward could be organized in a better way to take better advantage of the panelists, the representatives from IPLCs that are here and parties in a way that explores the ideas and enables a better dialogue going forward. So we look forward to the next one and hope that it will be done in a different way. Thank you.


Co-Chair [12:26]:

Thank you very much, Canada, and very, very good intervention, and we have taken note of that, and the Secretariat has taken note of that. We hope that we can continue learning from this process to improve it for all of the parties. I see no further objections or request for the floor for para one, so I'm moving us forward to preambular paragraph two, which reads recalling decision 16/34. Are there any comments on preambular paragraph two? I see no request from the floor, so I'm moving us forward to preambular paragraph 3, which reads nothing that at its first meeting. Are there any comments on preambular paragraph 3? Nigeria, yes, you have the floor.


Nigeria [13:24]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry to take you back, but I think there's a typo error of the date of the decision. We should be 2025 and not 2024. Thank you.


Co-Chair [13:39]:

Thank you very much, Nigeria. Very good eye-catching that mistake. So I'm now going to give the floor to the Secretariat to read the para with the correction. Secretariat, you have the floor.


CBD · Secretariat [13:59]:

So it would read then recalling decision 16 slash 34 of 27 February 2025 and the rest will remain as.

Is.


Co-Chair [14:14]:

Thank you very much to the Secretariat. I'm now moving us forward to paragraph 4 of the preambular section, which starts by reading, noting also that element 8. Are there any comments on this paragraph? Australia, yes, you have the floor.


Australia [14:38]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Just a minor editorial for the Secretariat to please check the consistency of the capitalization of indigenous peoples and local.

Communities, which seems to be different throughout the paragraphs.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [15:02]:

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


CBD · Secretariat [15:06]:

Thank you, Co-Chair. Just to note that in reference, when we use the name of the body, the subsidiary body in Article 8 and the provision to indigenous people and local communities, the word indigenous people and local communities, it is capitalized because it's part of the name of the body. Further reference to indigenous people and local communities are not capitalized. I hope that helps. Thank you.


Co-Chair [15:31]:

Thank you very much to the Secretariat, Australia. Do you feel comfortable with that response? I see you are. Thank you very much. So now I'm moving us forward to paragraph five, starting by nothing further than the implementation. Are there any comments here? Russian Federation? Yes, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [15:53]:

Thank you, co-chair. On the third line, should follow, and we don't want to refer to a particular approach, should follow approaches, plural. in line with section C. So we delete human right based and we refer to all approaches referred to in section C as many of them also important. Thank you.


Co-Chair [16:26]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. I will give the floor to the Secretariat to read the para with the proposal from the Russian Federation, and afterwards I will give the floor to Denmark. Secretariat, you have the floor.


CBD · Secretariat [16:44]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The paragraph will read, noting further that the implementation of the programme of work on Article 8 and other provisions of the Convention related to indigenous people and local communities should follow approaches in line with section C of the framework in accordance with national legislation. Thank you.


Co-Chair [17:07]:

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Denmark, you have the floor.


Denmark · EU [17:12]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I speak on behalf of the UNHCR 27 member states. As Canada, we would just first like to say that we would like to thank for the in-depth dialogue and we recognize its value. But we would also like to discuss, Eskander, the modalities for how the in-depth dialogue can better ensure an actual exchange. So we encourage that we consider how this can be done before the next in-depth dialogue. On the particular preamble text, we would like to maintain, to keep the current wording on a human rights-based approach, and furthermore, Adding to after and in accordance with national legislation, we would like to add and international instruments. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Co-Chair [18:14]:

Okay, colleagues, thank you very much. Denmark, so I will ask the Secretariat to leave the text that reads follow a human rights based approach on line three in brackets. And I'm going to ask colleagues if there is any objection for the proposed insertion made by Denmark. Secretariat, could you please read the para with the proposed insertion from Denmark? Thank you very much. And afterwards, I will give the floor to the Russian Federation.


CBD · Secretariat [18:48]:

Thank you. The paragraph reads, noting further that implementation of the programme of work on Article 8A and other provisions of the Convention related to indigenous peoples and local communities should follow open bracket human rights based approach close bracket in line with section C of the framework and in accordance with national legislation and international instruments. Thank you.


Co-Chair [19:14]:

Thank you very much to the Secretariat. I now give the floor to the Russian Federation followed by Cameroon.

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation.

Cameroon, you have the floor.


Cameroon [19:39]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. My intervention relates to what the Russian Federation had to say. We believe that the convention is a legal framework for us and that the conditions should follow national legislation. If we are adding international instruments, we would like that to be in brackets. Thank you.


Co-Chair [20:12]:

Thank you, colleagues. So this para, just to summarise, would have in brackets the proposed deletion by the Russian Federation on a human rights based approach, and it will also have an insertion proposed by Denmark on behalf of the European Union in brackets as requested by some parties on the floor. Denmark, you have the floor.


Denmark [20:41]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is just to say that in case we do bracket an international instrument, then we should also bracket the revised version and the insertion and in accordance with national legislation. Thank you.


Co-Chair [21:02]:

Thank you very much. Denmark, so we would bracket that section. Is there any objection from parties to this suggestion? Thank you very much, colleagues. I am going to move us forward to the next paragraph. Yes, the RSE, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [21:24]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. We think that the subsidiary body, Article 8a, is a process that is party-led and therefore For that reason, we propose that the term noting further should be replaced with urges. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Co-Chair [21:56]:

Thank you very much to DRC. I see no further requests for the floor. So moving us forward to the next para. Thank you very much, colleagues. And I'm going to remind you that we are trying to get text that is with the minimum amount of brackets as possible. That's the objective of our plenary session today. We acknowledge that there might be some things that need to be included, but we are aiming to have a minimum quantity of brackets as possible. So I'm going to ask for your cooperation on that and moving us forward. But if we see that there are further differing views on some things, we'll see how we can we manage and I might invite you to conduct and to talk among yourselves so we can find solutions to what's coming. So thank you very much for that. And moving us forwards to the next para, which is substantive para number one, which reads encourages parties. Are there any comments on this para? I see none. Thank you very much, colleagues. So I'm moving us forward to the next para, Leo Roman A, that reads to establish and implement. Are there any comments on this para? South Africa, you have the floor.


South Africa [23:31]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. This was included in South African statement, the last sentence, to include including women, youth and persons with disabilities among them. Thank you.


Co-Chair [23:55]:

Thank you very much, South Africa. I now give the floor to India, followed by Denmark.


India [24:03]:

Thank you, Madam Kocher. When this text was prepared, Madam co-chair promised that all our statement that we have given will be taken into consideration and further as per your suggestion we have also given through mail some suggestions for the text that was not you know getting reflected here hence in para a at the bottom we want that after including women, youth among them, through national governments and institutional frameworks, taking into account the specific challenges faced by developed country parties.


Co-Chair [24:58]:

Thank you very much, India. I now give the floor to Denmark, followed by Egypt, and then we will reread the para with all of the insertions and proposals. Denmark.


Denmark [25:10]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we would like to start the sentence by adding to consider establishing and then replace and with or, delete implement and add strengthening. So this sentence would read to consider establishing or strengthening. Then furthermore in the Second last line, it reads, and strategies for the mobilization of adequate, predictable and easily accessible financial resources. After this, we would like to add from all sources. Thank you.


Co-Chair [26:03]:

Thank you very much, Denmark. Egypt, you have the floor.


Egypt [26:07]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Just to add to the fourth line in 1A after accessible financial resource, as well as capacity building and technology transfer. Because here we are talking about means of implementation. It's not just money, but capacity building and technology transfer need to be included as well. Thank you.


Co-Chair [26:31]:

Thank you very much. Egypt, Indonesia, you have the floor.


Indonesia [26:41]:

I'm sorry. We would like to add at the end of the final sentence with the first accompanied by capacity building on financial management, monitoring and reporting.

Thank you, Chair.


Co-Chair [26:58]:

Thank you very much. Indonesia Secretariat, could you please read slowly the para with all of the proposed addition by parties?


CBD · Secretariat [27:15]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So it reads, A, to consider establishing or strengthening in line with element eight of the programme of work on Article 8J and other provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity related to indigenous people and local communities to 2030 mechanisms and strategies for mobilizing for the mobilization of adequate, predictable and easily accessible financial resources from all sources, as well as capacity building and technology transfer for indigenous peoples and local communities, including women, youth and persons with disabilities among them, through national governments and institutional frameworks, taking into account the specific challenges faced by developing countries.


Speaker 45 [28:14]:

There's a financial management reporting.


CBD · Secretariat [28:20]:

Thank you.


Co-Chair [28:22]:

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Canada, followed by DRC.


Canada [28:29]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We've been listening intently to all these ideas. We note that this paragraph A is a sub-paragraph of paragraph one. And subparagraph one specifically refers to the outcomes of the in-depth dialogue. And in reading this, I thought to myself, what were those outcomes? The only thing I can think of, because again, we didn't have a dialogue, is the presentations that were made by the panelists. And so, you know, reading and listening to all the additions that some people would, some parties want to add here, we wonder were those included in the outcomes? Did we talk about these things during the dialogue? Again, you know, that the chapeau paragraph is in reference to the outcomes of the in-depth dialogue. So I would want to be really careful about making sure that these are the out, these reflect the outcomes, both A and B. And so our preference, we thought there was a good general paragraph in the original version, paragraph one, and our preference would be to stick to that original paragraph one. Just a plea for people maybe to stick to that instead of going this way. But if the room wants to move ahead with this, we won't stand in the way. Thank you.


Co-Chair [30:00]:

Thank you very much. Canada, DRC, you have the floor, followed by the Russian Federation.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [30:11]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. We did indeed have an in-depth dialogue on this theme. And then after the panelists presented, we had an opportunity to contribute our thoughts. And there were conclusions, and we're grateful to Secretariat for having synthesized the gist of the conclusions in this document. We support what's in this subparagraph A, but we would ask Secretariat, because we understand that there's been an addition of all sources, from all sources. So we would ask the Secretariat to -- and reassure us that these are secure and reliable sources that are not going to bring harm to biodiversity. Thank you.


Co-Chair [31:29]:

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


Russian Federation [31:35]:

Thank you, co-chair. Although we see certain positive things around several additions there, but we agree with the suggestion from Canada. So we also see the chapeau of this paragraph as actually reflections from the previous dialogue. And I don't think that it's for us here to change what's happened there and try maybe to bring something what is, what was not, whether it was not discussed or was not summarized from that. So our preference is to come back to the initial A and also keep the initial B because of the same reason. Thank you.


Co-Chair [32:30]:

Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. So colleagues, I would now like to ask if you would feel comfortable with sticking to the original language that seems to be broad enough to reference the outcomes of the dialogue without getting into too prescriptive sections of text that can create divergence among the room. So I would like to ask if there are any objections to that. DRC followed by India followed by Canada.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [33:12]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly. We accept your proposal as expressed by Russia, but you'll recall that during the dialogue the matter of implementation was discussed, that is financial sources, but we also stressed capacity building, technical cooperation, technology transfer. Perhaps that's the only addition that we can accept at this time, capacity building as Egypt suggested. Thank you.


Co-Chair [33:53]:

Thank you. DRC, can you clarify if you could leave with the proposal as it is in the original version or if you are also requesting to add the capacity building? Thank you very much. And I'm going to give you the floor to respond to my clarification question before giving the floor to India. Thank you very much.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [34:21]:

Yes, I agree to your proposal, but I would ask that capacity building and technology transfer be inserted as requested by Egypt. Thank you.


Co-Chair [34:38]:

Thank you very much, Dearce. I now give the floor to India, followed by Canada.


India [34:45]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We would like to go with our proposal and inclusion of this through national governments and what we have said. We would like to see this paragraph with that.


Co-Chair [35:08]:

Thank you, India. I now give the floor to Canada, followed by Egypt.


Canada [35:14]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Apologies for coming back. I don't think I was very -- I was clear in my intervention. Our proposal was actually to revert back to the original paragraph one in the document from the secretariat. So replacing 1A and B with the original paragraph one. However, as I said, I'm not objecting if If the room wants to move forward with one A and A here as you're proposing, we wouldn't object to that. Thank you.


Co-Chair [35:45]:

Thank you very much, Canada. I now give the floor to Egypt, followed by New Zealand.


Egypt [35:51]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. What we propose is to include as well as capacity building and technology transfer. It's not reflected anywhere in the operative paragraphs. And it's one element that is present in the title of the document even, but it's not reflected. We are not talking about financial resource mobilization, but we are also talking about capacity building and development and technical support. And this is not reflected in the document as it stands right now. So we could leave with the text as it is stated in 1A, as long as we add after accessible financial resource, as well as capacity building and technology transfer.


Co-Chair [36:38]:

Thank you very much. Egypt, New Zealand, followed by Denmark.


New Zealand [36:43]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it does rather highlight that We need to actually consider the modalities of our dialogues because we're talking about outcomes as if they're agreed outcomes, and we don't -- we didn't really have that kind of a conversation, to be honest with you. So we do support a more streamlined approach, either as Canada has proposed, as going back to the original secretariat proposal, or the original proposal that we had here. But I just would like to note that if technology transfer does remain as Egypt has proposed, we would like to see that qualified with voluntary technology transfer on mutually agreed terms.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [37:32]:

Thank you very much. New Zealand, Denmark, you have the floor.


Denmark [37:39]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We can agree to the proposal from Canada to revert back to the original proposal by the CBD Secretariat, thus only having the original para 1 that starts with invites. That would be acceptable to us. Thank you.


Co-Chair [38:00]:

Thank you very much. Just a second. Thank you, colleagues, for your patience. I have to find a way to see the text while I am moderating this session because I work like that, because I used to be on the other side of this room, like all of you. So here is my proposal, and let's see if that's acceptable for the room. My proposal is, I'm hearing that colleagues are interested in having a reference on technology and capacity building, and I'm also hearing proposals from colleagues to revert back to the original text proposed by the Secretariat. So here is my proposal to see if that's acceptable for the room. My proposal is that we keep para one without the qualifiers A and B. The reasoning for that proposal is if we keep para one as it is, it is general enough to capture and to reference the outcomes of the dialogue. The title of the dialogue refers to including capacity building, development and technical support. So if we keep And if we stick to para one as it is without A and B, we will have a reference that is comprehensive of the dialogue of the title that includes capacity building and technical support as requested by some of the parties in this room. At the same time, we will have a text that it doesn't have too many qualifiers. What I want to prevent is that we have too much qualifiers, that we go too prescriptive into the qualifiers, so we can accommodate everyone, that everyone can feel comfortable in a comprehensive proposal that's general and can capture everyone's views. So I would like to ask the floor if this is acceptable, if we can have para one that is shorter than the version proposed by the Secretariat, but that it's still comprehensive enough to capture the title of the dialogue that includes the references to capacity building and technical support, acknowledging how important this is for some of the parties in the room. DRC, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [43:15]:

Madam Co-Chair, thank you very much. We see that there is a constructive spirit driving us. And Canada did not voice opposition to the structure as it's proposed. Canada just wanted instead of urges that had been proposed instead of encourage that we should go back to encourages. And so we're flexible on that, madam. because we thought that urges was a bit strong and that parties should take note of everything that was said, financing strategies, capacity building, et cetera. But we do want to encourage them, so I think it's just a matter of going back to the original term encourages and that should solve the problem and everything else stays the same. Thank you, Madam Chair.


Co-Chair [44:30]:

Thank you very much to DRC. As I read the text, para one starts with encourages. That should be what you are suggesting, yes? Okay. Can I take that it is acceptable that we have para one only? Denmark.


Denmark · EU [45:00]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to reiterate that I speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. We can support just having para one without a and b. Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [45:14]:

Thank you very much, colleagues. I see no further requests from the floor, so I take this is acceptable. Thank you very much for that constructive spirit. DRC, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [45:29]:

We note that Denmark wants us to take out A and B, and we are not able to accept that at this time. Otherwise, we would rather keep this in brackets. Thank you.


Co-Chair [45:47]:

Cameroon, you have the floor.


Cameroon [45:51]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cameroon agrees with the DRC. And I believe that would also be the position of the Africa Group for this If we can't keep this paragraph as is, then we should put it in brackets. Thank you.


Co-Chair [47:16]:

Thank you, colleagues. I will try one more solution to see if we can move forward, otherwise I will move us forward to the next paragraph. I am hearing a couple of parties in the room mentioning that they prefer to keep A and B. I am going to ask colleagues, and I am going to try this one more time, if you would be okay with leaving A and B as they are. So we prevent introducing more brackets or text. So I repeat my proposal, considering that some parties prefer to continue having A and B in the text as well as para 1, is that we move forward with both para 1 A and B as they stand, so we prevent adding too many qualifiers that can generate divergence in the room. Egypt, you have the floor.


Egypt [48:20]:

Madam, we are still struggling. We are talking about not just financial resource, but capacity building and technology transfer. So if they are kept in bracket, perhaps we need to add those concepts. They are missing in the operative paragraph. They are not reflected anywhere in the document. just in the title. And if we keep the text in bracket, we'll be missing important aspects that are not reflected here. Thank you.


Co-Chair [48:52]:

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


India [48:56]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Again, we would like to reiterate India is comfortable with para one, if we have to take into consideration A and B, then we request that our proposal should be considered.


Co-Chair [49:19]:

Thank you very much, India. I give the floor to Canada, followed by the Russian Federation.


Canada [49:25]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So we're not at SPI. We're not discussing resource mobilization. We're not discussing the financial mechanism. We're not discussing capacity building. We're discussing the outcomes of an in-depth dialogue on a topic that's related to those things. And these paragraphs are supposed to be reflecting in a summary way what was discussed in that dialogue. And so, and I won't take the floor again to urge this, but We need to stay, we can't invent things that were not talked about on Monday. We didn't have a discussion about technology transfer to my recollection and I'd be happy to be corrected if I missed that. And I don't recall having a discussion about mobilization of adequate, predictable and easily accessible financial resources through national governments and institutional frameworks. So I think we should try to keep this as simple as possible and reflect factually what was discussed in that in-depth dialogue. Thank you.


Co-Chair [50:44]:

Thank you very much. Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [50:48]:

Could you just in the attempt and just try it to maybe sort out at least a couple of suggestions. So if we go with paragraph one, encourages parties and invites other relevant actors, considering specific challenges faced by the developing countries, that will address the concern of India, to take into account the outcomes And although I understand that the full name of dialogue was already in a preamble paragraph, we still repeat the full name of dialogue because that will bring the other elements of resources back. And then we keep A and B as initial paragraphs without changes. Thank you.


Co-Chair [51:53]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. Mexico, you have the floor.


Mexico [52:03]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Mexico agrees to keep the two subparagraphs a and b as is and putting Egypt's proposal in brackets. Thank you.


Co-Chair [52:17]:

Thank you very much, Mexico. Colombia, you have the floor.


Colombia [52:26]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to say that for Colombia it's important to keep in subparagraphs A and B. Thank you.


Co-Chair [52:35]:

Thank you very much. Colombia, Cameroon, you have the floor, followed by Denmark and Panama.


Cameroon [52:43]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. In the Secretariat's paper that we received on the in-depth dialogue, the idea is for us to have a discussion on part B, and the discussion and there was the term capacity building. We understand the way in which the discussions took place meant that we were not able to actually commence discussions on capacity building, but in the country statements it did come out. And just saying that we didn't talk about it during that in-depth discussion, I think is secondary to the fact that it did come out in the discussions in the statement. So I think we can put it in brackets. Thank you.


Co-Chair [53:50]:

Thank you very much. Denmark, you have the floor, followed by Panama.


Denmark [53:55]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would just like to say that we support the Canadian proposal of keeping it simple and more factual, referring to what was actually discussed in the dialogue, and if not, we would still then want the changes we proposed in para to be inserted again, meaning that the sentence would read, "to consider establishing or strengthening," and also to add, "from all sources." Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [54:30]:

Thank you very much. Denmark, Panama, followed by Japan.


Panama [54:35]:

Thank you very much. Madam co-chair, it's important to Panama that A and B be kept in the paper. Thank you.


Co-Chair [54:47]:

Thank you very much. Japan, followed by Armenia, and I would like to close the speaking list so we can propose a solution, see if that works, and move us forward. Japan, you have the floor.


Japan [54:58]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. Japan supports the intervention made by the distinguished colleague from Canada. The outcome should reflect what was talked in the in-depth dialogue. And then, so I support keeping it simple and factual. So we'd like to have this paragraph one without A and B. Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [55:28]:

Thank you very much. Japan, Armenia, you have the floor.


Armenia [55:32]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We very much appreciate your efforts to achieve consensus on these paragraphs. We support both options, keeping just paragraph one or one A and B as they stand. I understand the proposals and positions of countries, but at this late stage I believe we need to focus on what is achievable. Maybe it's not the perfect, but the perfect can lead us to.

A number of brackets which I think everybody of us wants to avoid.

We support both options.

Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [57:48]:

Okay, colleagues, so let me try to come with a solution that can accommodate everyone's views in a constructive manner. My proposal, colleagues, is I've heard that there are several parties in the room that have a preference for keeping A and B. So I hear those and I ask for the flexibility of the parties to accommodate those views. I'm also hearing that there is very important for parties to keep the mention to capacity building as well. So my proposal is as follows. I would like to propose you colleagues that in para one, we bring back the title of the dialogue and thank you, Russian Federation, for that proposal. So I would like to propose again that in para one we bring back the full title of the dialogue that mentions strategies for mobilizing resources to ensure the availability of and access to financial resources and funding, as well as other means of implementation, including capacity building, development, and technical support. By doing that, colleagues, my proposal is that we refer back to the dialogue, to the umbrella of the dialogue, and that we explicitly mention what some parties have asked in terms of means of implementation, technology and capacity building. In addition to that, I do acknowledge that some parties ask to include in para to consider establishing or strengthening. So my proposal is that we incorporate this in para A, as well as the mention from all sources. In that sense, we will go to the agreed proposal for the title in para 1. We will accommodate the views of the Parties of keeping para A and B, and at the same time, we will bring the text proposal about to consider establishing or strengthening without going too prescriptive. Colleagues, I want to ask for your indulgence so we do not go into too many adjectives, too many prescriptive proposals that can generate diversion, but that we try to keep it as general as we can so we can accommodate the proposals of everyone, considering the text that has already been agreed, like the title of the dialogue, and that we leverage that consensus that we have already achieved with regards to the language around technology, means of implementation and capacity building. DRC followed by the Russian Federation.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:00:42]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. And thank you for your proposal, which takes into account all of the interventions, as you know, consensus, is a word that we use at our meetings. And so your proposal is consensual and therefore we support it. And we hope that this is the way forward. We have lost a lot of time on this paragraph. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:01:17]:

Thank you very much, DRC, for that constructive spirit. Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [1:01:23]:

Thank you, good chair. We support you in your way forward. I will ask only for one addition again to be sure that we address all interests. As I mentioned before, after actors, if we can simply add between commas, considering specific challenges faced by developing countries, then I think we are there. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:01:55]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation colleagues. And now I'm going to see if this is agreeable for everyone. I see no request for the floor. We have consensus. Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. So let's continue. We have a lot of work ahead. Let's keep that constructive spirit. Now we go to the next para, para two that reads encourages. Are there any comments on this para? Japan, you have the floor.


Japan [1:02:41]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Japan fully recognizes the value of having in-depth dialogue. However, with regards to the documentation of the outcome from the dialogue, it is essential to establish a clear delineation of roles in relation to other agenda items. To get to where you would like to be, you have to know where you are. You always know where you are by using a map and compass. In-depth dialogue works as a map and compass. After knowing where you are, you decide what to do. Such a decision is equivalent to COP decisions in specific agenda items. Japan believes that decision about JEF should be made in the agenda item of financial mechanism. Therefore, Japan suggests deleting the second paragraph. Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [1:03:37]:

Thank you very much, Japan. Nigeria, you have the floor, followed by DRC.


Nigeria [1:03:43]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. In as much as we like this paragraph, we have some little concerns on this paragraph because what we heard in this room is to encourage financial institutions, multilateral development banks to provide financial resources to IPLCs in a very transparent manner. We did not hear this current text in paragraph two in this room. And so we're wondering why, if there could be clarification on why it has been framed this way, because what we heard is that there's clearly issue of access, issue of financial mobilization for IPLCs in all settings, be it in financial institutions or under multilateral funding mechanism. So we're wondering why this is specifically speaking to Jeff. and to the multilateral funds in exclusion of other financial institutions, private sector and those other stakeholders. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:04:53]:

Thank you very much, Nigeria. I now give the floor to DRC followed by the Russian Federation.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:05:02]:

Yes, thank you, co-chair. Thank you for the floor. We have heard panelists who presented a whole range of financing mechanisms, Jeff and other mechanisms that were brought up. We also heard that there are processes that are ongoing to reform financing and additional sources. And so in the CRP prepared on this agenda item, there are different financing mechanisms that were presented. And so perhaps to respond to Nigeria's question, we could try to see how to mention other mechanisms as well which exist. We heard of UNDP and FINA and other initiatives which could contribute to the theme brought up under 2A and B. So it would be interesting and worthwhile to keep this, but to add other financing mechanisms and not just to underscore the GEF. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:06:47]:

Thank you very much. Russian Federation, you have the floor, followed by Egypt.


Russian Federation [1:06:52]:

Thank you, good chair. I'd like to offer two potential ways forward. First one, If there is a desire to have a strong encouragement of GF, then as a colleague from Japan said, we may put it into brackets and make a small note, footnote. We did it before actually at some other meetings, referring that this paragraph will be moved to the draft decision related to GF later on and will be then considered under GF decision. So that's one. Another suggestion, if we follow the concerns from Nigeria, we can simply saying encourage funding providers and initiatives and then we continue. So we extend it in line with my understanding what Nigeria wanted. And then our only suggestion will be at the very end of B, because we are not in principle against direct funding, but we also realize that many LPFC organizations are small organizations and we are not sure around, for example, the capacities to process money. and professional skills to deal with budget, et cetera, just to add after equitable manner that will, the same will apply to in case of JF to add and based on clear modalities for accountability. So with this addition, again, whether it will go with footnote to the further JF document or whether we will shorten the support to encourage funding providers and initiatives and keep it here. We like to see it at the end of B. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:09:02]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation and now give the floor to Egypt.


Egypt [1:09:07]:

Thank you, Madam Kocher. We propose the following addition at the end of 2B, so after equitable manner, comma, and as appropriate. in coordination with relevant national institution and focal points.


Co-Chair [1:09:29]:

Thank you very much, Egypt. I now give the floor to India, followed by South Africa, followed by China.


India [1:09:38]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We also would like to support the Egypt proposal. What we say is direct you know funding India is not encouraging India does not support as we have mentioned in our uh statement also uh these uh you know resources intended for uh these groups should be channeled through national governments and in accordance with the national legislation priorities these ensures transparency accountability and alignment with national budgetary strategies and action plans because in our country also in the NBSAP all these local communities are involved and they also know what to do so that's why we have mentioned and providing direct access to the funding outside established national systems could inadvertently undermine national sovereignty and create parallel mechanisms inconsistent with the convention's principle of respecting parties national circumstances. Therefore, India emphasizes that all financial flows must operate within the framework of national governance mechanisms to effectively reach indigenous peoples and local communities while upholding the sovereign right of the states.


Co-Chair [1:11:10]:

Thank you very much, India. I now give the floor to South Africa, followed by China, followed by Australia.


South Africa [1:11:18]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. On 2b, line number three, after youth, we still insist to include persons with disabilities among them. At the end of the same sentence, after equitable manner, we propose, taking into account the needs and priorities of the indigenous peoples and local communities. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:11:55]:

Thank you, South Africa. I now give the floor to China, followed by Australia. And I see no further request for the floor, so I would like to close the speaking list, check the text proposal, come up with a solution and see if that would work. Australia, you have the floor. Sorry, China.


China [1:12:13]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

We support broader languages to express the financial support as in 2b.

It says to consider establishing or enhancing simplified procedures and dedicated funding windows here. But not all the mechanisms are capable of establishing such windows. In particular, they are bilateral mechanisms.

I don't think it is feasible.

So we believe that the language should be a little broader, more flexible, so there will

be no conflict between A and B and the CHAPO II.

Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:13:00]:

Thank you very much. Australia, you have the floor, followed by Panama.


Australia [1:13:04]:

Thank you, Madam Co Chair.

I'd just like to we had a similar

conversation last week at the Substar meeting on a GEFF paragraph or a paragraph that invited GEFF to consider

a specific type of funding.

We'd like to recall that all of the GEFF advice gets compiled for a single GEFF contribution, they're all pulled together to be looked at by the JEF at the COP. So we would like to recall previous speakers' suggestion that we can probably avoid workshopping this text here, put it in brackets, send it to the COP with the JEF decisions.

Whether that includes a footnote or not, I don't really mind.

But I think that this is a resource mobilization discussion and probably belongs somewhere else.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:13:58]:

Thank you very much. Panama, you have the floor, followed by Jordan.


Panama [1:14:05]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We support direct funding for indigenous peoples. We recognize that in reality this funding often doesn't reach indigenous communities and local communities, so we believe that the financing process is an important factor in advancing the work. It's very important to have direct financing. Also, we recognize that very often in these contexts, you talk about institutionality, but that's not appropriate. But we also recognize that sometimes there aren't the necessary means to have direct financing. But this matter is of the utmost importance to us, it's Panama. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:15:00]:

Gracias, Panama. I now give the floor to Jordan, followed by Switzerland.


Jordan [1:15:06]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Jordan would like to support Egypt and India's project as far as the end of paragraph two to add, according to the national circumstances and mechanisms in each country, in line with our statement also regarding this document. This would give countries full flexibility when it comes to financing, would also guarantee transparency and accountability. Thank you, Madam Thank


Co-Chair [1:15:39]:

you very much, Jordan. I now give the floor to Switzerland, followed by Nigeria.


Switzerland [1:15:44]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair.

So similar to Australia and others, as this paragraph contains an ask or invitation to the CHEF, it should definitely be looked at

under the decision at COP17 that assembles all the asks to the CHEF.

So it should be discussed by our resource mobilization experts.

And we have done that in the past as well, right? So we bracketed part discussion here and submitted to the item of COP17 that discusses the financial mechanism.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:16:24]:

Thank you very much, Switzerland. I now give the floor to Nigeria, followed by Norway.


Nigeria [1:16:31]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I'm sorry to come back again, but just to reiterate that we are in support of the proposal from the recommendation from Russia or the adjustment from Russia to have the request to Jeff in bracket and have another paragraph speaking to other actors on financial mobilization. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:16:53]:

Thank you very much, Nigeria. I now give the floor to Norway.


Norway [1:16:59]:

Thank you, Chair.

Supporting Australia, Canada and Switzerland, we think this now has been so overloaded by country concerns around what was the original idea we gathered, namely to discuss the availability of finance for indigenous peoples and local communities

so as to be almost recognizably, and so this discussion

really belongs somewhere else.

Thanks.


Co-Chair [1:17:36]:

Thank you very much, Norway. I now give the floor to Mexico and I will close the speaking list after Mexico. Thank you very much.


Mexico [1:17:44]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Mexico supports direct financing. Our country has established mechanisms to do this at the national level, so we support Panama.


Co-Chair [1:17:59]:

Thank you very much, colleagues. Okay, colleagues. So let me try to propose a way forward. Let me see if there are any objections and let's see how can we move quickly of this para. So my proposal is as follows, colleagues. I would like, I understand and I hear the views of the room that this is not the space to encourage a financial mechanism to do something and I I feel that's the view of many parties in the room. So my proposal is as follows. Let's change encourage for invites. Let's take on board the suggestion by the Russian Federation to be a bit more general. not mentioning the GEF or the multilateral funds, bilateral donors, because I'm hearing many parties in the room mentioning that there's another broad setting of funding providers. So my suggestion is that we leave para 2 as follows: invites funding providers and initiatives, two periods. did not hear suggestions or comments on para so I will suggest that we leave it like that. And for para my proposal is that we take into account South Africa's proposal, including women and youth, and persons with disabilities among them. And I do heard many parties making a call for taking into account national circumstances and legislation. So my proposal is to add at the end of para B in a transparent, fair and equitable manner, comma, in accordance to national circumstances and legislation. I will ask if there is any objection for this proposal. Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [1:22:31]:

Good chair. Not an objective. So fully support your proposal again. So the only addition will be transparent, fair, accountable and equitable, just to add after fair, accountable. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:22:52]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. Is there any objection to that addition on top of the proposal I've made? Japan, you have the floor.


Japan [1:23:03]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Japan still think that we, yeah, earlier we suggested delete it, but putting into bracket and then sent to COP17 for the consideration. with experts of resource mobilization is we can support it and then we would like still would like to go for it. So we want to put it into bracket. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:23:37]:

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


South Africa [1:23:41]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to remind you that there was omission when you were reading the paragraph. that was submitted by South Africa to say taking into account the needs and priorities of the indigenous peoples and local communities. The proposal was that it gets added after equitable manner.


Co-Chair [1:24:26]:

Okay, colleagues, thank you very much. So, considering that there are no further requests for the floor, I'm going to try this once and if it is not acceptable, that's perfectly fine, but Japan, I'm going to ask if you could be flexible with this proposal, making the additions put forward by the Russian Federation and South Africa, considering that all all the parties in the room seem to be comfortable with this. So I'm going to ask if you can be flexible to it. Otherwise, we will find a solution, but I'm going to ask for your flexibility. Japan, you have the floor.


Japan [1:25:19]:

We would like to make sure the suggestion again proposed by distinct delegates from Russia and South Africa. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:25:28]:

Of course, Japan. So the proposal made by the Russian Federation is to add in a transparent, fair, accountable, equitable manner in para B. And the suggestion by the colleague from South Africa is to add after equitable manner, taking into account the needs and priorities of IPLCs. And that will go before what was called by many parties and it's to mention in accordance to national circumstances and legislation. Egypt, I give the floor to you, followed by DRC.


Egypt [1:26:08]:

We agree with your proposal.


Co-Chair [1:26:11]:

Thank you very much. Egypt, DRC, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:26:18]:

It was just to commend your efforts in finding a compromise and we support your proposal.


Co-Chair [1:26:26]:

Thank you very much, DRC. I see no further request for the floor. Japan, can I take that this is acceptable to you? Can you give the mic to Japan, please?


Japan [1:26:55]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We have to consult with a colleague from resource mobilization experts back in Japan, and they are still in bed. So I think I have to take time. So I ask your indulgence to wait for our consultation with Tokyo. Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [1:27:27]:

Thank you very much, Japan, and we appreciate your willingness and flexibility to do the necessary consultations to move us forward. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to move us forward to para three while we give some time for Japan's consultation on this para. DRC.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:27:50]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. On paragraph three, we think there are a lot of principles and approaches that are in the work program and section C of the global framework. And so we suggest that on the last line, that the sentence end at biodiversity. So biodiversity, full stop. And we would delete what comes after that. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:28:38]:

Thank you very much, dear C. I now give the floor to Egypt, followed by Brazil.


Egypt [1:28:44]:

Thank you, Madam Kocher. Just to replace in line at the end, to replace in line with consistent with a human right based approach and to add and national legislation including through strengthened participation, capacity building and monitoring of their contribution within the framework's monitoring system. I will say in dictating speed. consistent with a human right based approach and national legislation, including through strengthened participation, capacity building and monitoring of their contribution within the framework monitoring system. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:29:38]:

Thank you very much, Egypt. I now give the floor to Brazil, followed by Nigeria and the Russian Federation.


Brazil [1:29:45]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Brazil would like to add text after sustainable use of biodiversity to be coherent with all aspects of the Convention and its protocols. So after biodiversity, the text goes including through the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:30:18]:

Thank you very much, Brazil. Nigeria, you have the floor, followed by the Russian Federation.


Nigeria [1:30:25]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We are flexible with the proposal from Egypt. I think it's in line with our proposal, our request is to just have a reference to in line with section C of the framework, the way we have been using it in the other part of the text. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:30:48]:

Thank you very much. Nigeria, Russian Federation, you have the floor, followed by Cameroon.


Russian Federation [1:30:54]:

Thank you, good chair. As well as I think Nigeria, we are not against the suggestion from Egypt. So we're happy to see it. We believe that the place for this suggestion will be probably on the third line, afterwards the framework. And the theme of the next dialogue, it's actually verbatim from 7.1. So that's why we probably will ask Egypt to reconsider change they suggested, I think, after biodiversity because the sentence is exactly from 7.1 of the work program and the language is saying use biodiversity, in line with human rights based approach. So we believe we better just stay to that language exactly. As related to Brazilian proposal, we also happy to see it, but maybe that should not be again exactly in the theme. Same reason, because currently the title of the theme is simply repeating 7.1, but can be added after. That also will include and then the language from Brazil. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:32:35]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. I give the floor to Cameroon, followed by Denmark.


Cameroon [1:32:41]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. We would like to support the proposal of Egypt and Nigeria's addition. on approaches in accordance with the section C of the global framework.


Co-Chair [1:33:04]:

Thank you very much. Denmark, you have the floor, followed by Canada.


Denmark [1:33:09]:

Thank you very much, Chair. We believe that it is important to have a broad approach, so we would not like to restrain the theme to be related only to Task 7.1, so we actually prefer the original version proposed by the CBD Secretariat in its note for this agenda item. So yes, that would be our suggestion to revert back to the original proposal. Thank you, Chair.


Co-Chair [1:33:42]:

Thank you very much. Canada, you have the floor, followed by Japan.


Canada [1:33:47]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. In a similar fashion, you know, we think that it was very challenging to come up with the program of work. We did a good job at COP16. I think the language around the various tasks was a delicate balance. And I think, you know, having the in-depth dialogue in a way that helps to address some of the tasks is a good way to do things. I think when we try to try to poach or cherry pick certain terms or put more emphasis on some things rather than other things, we're upsetting that delicate balance. And so I would urge trying to respect the language that's in the program of work and not fiddle around with it too much. So in that way, we thought the original language was actually fine in the proposal from the secretariat in the document and would be supportive of maybe reverting back to that. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:34:46]:

Thank you very much. Japan, you have the floor, followed by the Russian Federation.


Japan [1:34:51]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. Japan suggests to make this wording align with the TACIS 7.1, so we would like to suggest to insert in the last part as follows, consistent with relevant international obligations and instruments. Thank you very much.


Co-Chair [1:35:20]:

Thank you very much. Japan, Russian Federation, followed by DRC.


Russian Federation [1:35:25]:

So, Chair, I'd just like to stress again that when we were considering this initial paragraph, our intention was to delete it. So we decided to come to this as some compromise. And here we can see that if it stay exactly as a formulation of 7.1, we can leave it, but we can't support the entire paragraph if it will go beyond the language of 7.1 and expand or open the door for any kind of further expansion of overall work of the Convention. So in this case, we will request the whole paragraph to be deleted. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:36:19]:

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to DRC, followed by Brazil.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:36:26]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for the floor. I would like to recall that this is a theme of a dialogue. And the dialogue theme must be clear, specific, and concise. And then this theme is prompting us to get to the perspectives of contributions for purposes of implementing the A to J work program, and we adopted that program. The theme asks us to address one point of that work program. So do we need to spend an extra hour discussing the theme of the in-depth dialogue? Madam Chair, it seems to me that we don't need to continue this discussion any further because it's taking up a lot of our time. The first proposal was somewhat controversial. This proposal is strongly supported, madam. So I appeal to you to take that into account and help us close this discussion and complete to CRP1 and continue with our work. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:38:06]:

Thank you very much, DRC. Brazil, you have the floor and I will close the speaking list here, followed by Denmark. Okay.


Brazil [1:38:14]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

Brazil can be flexible and withdraw its suggestion and get back to the original text of Task 7.1.

Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:38:28]:

Thank you very much. Brazil, Denmark, you have the floor, followed by Armenia.


Denmark [1:38:34]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe in an attempt to try and find a compromise, we could refer to the entire element seven of the programme of work instead of just constraining it to 7.1. So that could be a way forward to try and see if we can find wording aligning with the entire element, which reads, "To contribute to the enhancement of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in line with a human rights-based approach in accordance with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework." Thank you, Chair. And also, sorry, just one thing. We could also add, as was put forward previously, we could suggest that it is also in cooperation with relevant UN bodies. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:39:33]:

Thank you very much. Armenia, you have the floor, followed by Nigeria.


Armenia [1:39:38]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We, at this late stage, we believe indeed that we lost a lot of time on this paragraph. We believe that we need to keep this paragraph concise. Therefore, we would support the paragraph as it stands with the reference to the task 7.1 and the language on the use of biodiversity based on human rights based approach. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:40:07]:

Thank you very much. Armenia, Nigeria, you have the floor and I will close the speaking list and propose a solution. Thank you very much.


Nigeria [1:40:18]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, on trying to find a solution. Nigeria is not able to support the proposal from the EU, as that seems to be focusing on the entire element seven. The paragraph three is speaking on the task 7.1, and so we agree with the colleagues that have shown flexibility on going with the text in 7.1 as it was agreed upon at COP16. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:40:56]:

Thank you very much, Nigeria, and thank you very much everyone for the constructive interventions. I really appreciate colleagues bringing solutions in the intervention and I really want us to keep this pace and these proposals. So I've heard in the room many different views and additions, and when we have these situations, I believe that the best thing we can do is go back to agreed language that we have already agreed all in the past by consensus. So in that sense, my proposal is that we stick to the agreed language of task 7.1 for the topic of the dialogue. This is something that we have accepted, colleagues, in Cali, in Colombia. So my proposal is that we use language that has already been agreed so we can move forward with consensus in that sense. DRC, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:42:05]:

Again, Madam Chair, it's to support your proposal. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:42:10]:

Thank you very much, DRC. Nigeria, followed by the Russian Federation.


Nigeria [1:42:16]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We support your proposal. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:42:23]:

Thank you very much, Nigeria. Now I give the floor to the Russian Federation.


Russian Federation [1:42:28]:

Thank you very much, Co-Chair. We support your proposal.


Co-Chair [1:42:33]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. I see no further request for the floor, so I take this is acceptable. Thank you very much, colleagues. And with that, we finalize the reading of CRP one. I acknowledge that we are waiting for Japan's consultations and appreciate the efforts to conduct those consultations. So I will park CRP one here. I will move us forward and then we'll revert back to the para after the result of Japan's consultations to see if we can have consensus on that para as well. But thank you very much, colleagues. We had a very constructive discussion. We had a document with very, very few brackets. So let's keep that spirit moving. Okay, colleagues, thank you very much. I was evaluating a way forward. I acknowledge that we have not so many time left for this plenary. We have 10 minutes, maybe a bit more, to finalize this plenary session. And I also recognize that there's a lot of eagerness to conduct item seven. So what I would like to prevent is opening the floor for item seven and that then we have to cut the interventions at a very early stage. So my proposal for you, dear colleagues, is that we do as follows. Let's start with CRP two. We won't be able to go through everything, but we can start advancing with CRP two until the end of this plenary. Then we will go to the contact group for discussing 5 and 5 and then in the evening we will come back to this plenary room and we will have the reading for item seven. So we have sufficient time to have everyone's interventions on item seven and that everyone is sufficiently heard and that we do not have to cut at the very beginning of the interventions for item seven. I take this is acceptable, colleagues? Okay. I see no further objections, so now I'm moving us forward to CRP2 and let's take advantage of the minutes that we have left for this discussion. I hope yes, please. Yeah, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [1:45:53]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I ask for the floor regarding a procedural issue in order to clarify why, after all of the statements on the equality of all of the items, once again, sine diem, we have moved back the consideration of item seven. Could we please tell all of the delegations at what time the plenary session will begin the consideration of item seven, please. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:46:37]:

Thank you very much. I see no further request for the floor. Secretariat, can you clarify the time that we will schedule the plenary? But before that, I do want to mention that My proposal is precisely to give balance to agenda items. I want a full reading of agenda item seven in this plenary. We have had a full reading of other agenda items in the plenary session and to prevent opening the item Cutting the speaking list at the beginning, I am proposing that we dedicate the plenary of the afternoon for the reading of item seven fully, so precisely we keep the balance with other agenda items that have been read in full in this plenary. So, Russian Federation, you have the floor. But before I'm going to give the floor to the secretariat to clarify the time of the plenary to fully respond to your question, and I will give the floor to you afterwards.


CBD · Secretariat [1:48:01]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The plenary session, the now was scheduled from 12:30 to 5:30, and the plenary session begins tonight at 9:30 to 11:00 PM. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:48:20]:

Thank you very much to the Secretariat. Russian Federation, are you still willing to take the floor?


Russian Federation [1:48:30]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. This means then that at 9:30 we will begin considering item seven or once again will the Bureau decide to consider other issues? in the plenary session. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:48:50]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. We will not begin considering any other items. We will begin the plenary at 9:30 with item seven and we will read it in full with the collaboration of all of the parties. Thank you very much. I hope this is acceptable. I see it. Okay. Thank you. We have half an hour. So I want us to start with CRP2. I want us to take advantage of the very good pace that we have right now in reading the CRPs. So, so we can advance as much as we can on the CRP and we can have a dedicated plenary for item seven in the evening. Brazil, do you have you asked for the floor for procedural organization of work clarification or it is already on CRP2? Can you clarify please?


Brazil [1:49:48]:

Thank you, already on CRP2.


Co-Chair [1:49:50]:

Thank you very much. Okay, so let's start with para 1 that reads Conference of the Parties. Are there any comments on this para? Brazil, would you like to take the floor on this para?


Brazil [1:50:07]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We had made a number of suggestions based on what we had said in our intervention that we thought that it would be essential to have a peer review process. And we made the suggestion based on decision 8/10 about the rules of procedure regarding sub-step. And earlier this day, when we were discussing the modus operandi about this subsidiary body, no party opposed to using these rules about ATAGs. So I don't think that will be opposed, that will be a problem now. And our suggestion to have a peer review process, after the secretariat, that would be a step forward, adding an extra step in this process, in Annex 1, the intention is to add an extra layer of transparency and legitimacy. And unfortunately, we don't see any of the suggestions that we made throughout the text reflected in the CRP. So we would like to ask for clarification and suggest once again to reflect this need for more transparency and legitimacy to see this step here. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:52:05]:

Thank you very much Brazil and thank you very much for bringing that question and we take that very very seriously into account so we let go para by para and we will welcome the introductions of the peer reviewed process considering the advances of the discussions that you have taken with regards of the of applying the subster rules for the ATEC thank you very much Zimbabwe, you have the floor.


Zimbabwe [1:52:34]:

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. On, on my suggestion is on, on para one here, which is basically endorsing a process outlined in annex one, was for us to look at annex one first before we, we decide on endorsing this, otherwise we are okay with it, but if you would allow us to look at, annex one itself and see that we are agreement then we come to that particular paragraph while I still have the floor I may with your indulgence chair if you want me to add a few one phrase on the annex or I should wait for you to come to the particular annex thank you Madam chair.


Co-Chair [1:53:20]:

Thank you very much Zimbabwe Colombia you have the floor.


Colombia [1:53:27]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. To answer Zimbabwe's question, I'd like to know if we can make our comments starting with the preambular paragraphs, or do we have to hold off for now?


Co-Chair [1:53:45]:

Thank you very much, Colombia. We received a proposal from Zimbabwe not to start from the preambular section, but to start with the annex. So I will give the floor to DRC first and afterwards I will ask the parties their views with regards to Zimbabwe's proposal to start with the annex before the preambular sections. DRC, you have the floor.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:54:13]:

Madam Co-Chair, I think Zimbabwe's proposal makes sense. If you look at operational paragraph one, it already refers to annex one to this paper. So it's difficult at this time to give our view on that paragraph, paragraph one, seeing as we haven't yet come to the annex. So I would propose to take up Zimbabwe's proposal and start by looking at the annex and then come back to the operative part. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:54:58]:

Thank you very much, DRC. I now give the floor to Cameroon.


Cameroon [1:55:05]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to support the position of Zimbabwe and the DRC, taking into account that all of the paragraphs that we have in the CHAPO send us refer to the annex and one of them refers to annex two. So it is hard to adopt decisions if we haven't adopted approved the annexes.


Co-Chair [1:55:40]:

Thank you very much, Cameroon. So I hear support on the floor for Zimbabwe's proposal on starting with the annex. Can I take it is acceptable for parties that we start with the annex? I see no objection, then we will start with the annex. Okay, so let's go to para one of the annex that reads the process for reviewing and updating the voluntary glossary of terms. Are there any comments on this para one of the annex? I see none. Thank you very much. So I'm moving us forward to para two, which starts reading step one, the executive secretary of the convention. Are there any comments to para two of the annex? Colombia, please, you have the floor.


Colombia [1:56:45]:

Thank you, co-chair. Colombia considers this to be very positive. That is the way we have reviewed the annex as we are trying to reach consensus. This process is essential for implementing decision 16/16. And so we propose after local communities, persons of African descent who represent a traditional lifestyle, in accordance with decision 16/16. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:57:37]:

I see no further request for the floor, colleagues. Ah, I see. So now, DRC, you have the floor, followed by Brazil and the Russian Federation.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [1:57:51]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. At this stage, We would like firstly for the relevant stakeholders that this is quite unclear. If we could have some clarifications on these relevant stakeholders. And then following that, after the proposal from Colombia, we would like to add as needed, in line with national legislation and circumstances. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:58:51]:

Now I give the floor to Brazil, followed by the Russian Federation.


Brazil [1:58:56]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We would like to express support for the proposal made by Colombia. Thank you.


Co-Chair [1:59:04]:

Thank you very much, Brazil. I now give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by Panama.


Russian Federation [1:59:11]:

Thank you, Co-Chair. Just like to ask Secretariat to read the place and exact proposal made by Colombia.


Co-Chair [1:59:24]:

Yes, so Russian Federation, if that's acceptable, I would like to give the floor to Panama to see if there are any further additions to the text first, and afterwards we can read the full text for the parties to have the full view of the para. Is that acceptable? Okay. Panama, you have the floor.


Panama [1:59:45]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We support Colombia and Brazil's proposal with the insertion of Afro-descendant peoples, but we would also include women and youth, including women and youth.


Co-Chair [2:00:06]:

Gracias, Panama. So now I give the floor to the Secretariat to read slowly the paragraph with the proposed addition from the Parties.


CBD · Secretariat [2:00:18]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. It reads, step one, The executive secretary of the convention shall invite parties, other governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth, people of African descent, comprising collectives embodying traditional lifestyles as needed in line with national legislations and circumstances. and relevant stakeholders to submit views and experiences on possible elements of the voluntary glossary of key terms and concepts within the context of Article 8a and related provisions of the Convention that should be reviewed or updated. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:01:10]:

Thank you very much to the Secretariat, and I will also ask you to provide clarity to respond to DRC's question with regards to other relevant stakeholders in the context of the Convention. Secretariat, you have the floor.


CBD · Secretariat [2:01:29]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. The reference to relevant stakeholders in the context of the working refers to mostly to the major groups that participate in the CBD process. That means the Indigenous caucus, the women major group and the youth major group. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:01:55]:

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Now, I would like to ask Parties in the floor if the paragraph with the proposed additions from the colleagues is acceptable. DRC followed by Denmark, followed by the Russian Federation.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:02:18]:

Thank you, co-chair, for giving me the floor. Thank you to the secretariat for the clarifications. Two things. Firstly, we are going to ask for another footnote. that would explain the list of that would list the relevant stakeholders as presented just now by the Secretariat. And finally, we are going to ask that there be another footnote after Colombia's proposal, which refers to decision 16/6. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:03:05]:

Thank you very much to DRC. I now give the floor to Denmark, followed by the Russian Federation.


Denmark [2:03:13]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. We also would like to seek for clarification, so in a way, because only at COP16 we have agreed also to discuss and elaborate and better understand the role of people of African descent also in the Convention. So we would like to understand whether they are seen firstly as parts of indigenous peoples and local communities, so would it read "and people of African descent", and continues, or would it be including people of African descent and continuing? And then another question attached to this would be how is the Secretariat supposed to reach out to people of African descent here? So because in my understanding there is no list like it has been for IPLCs or stakeholder groups, et cetera. So that would be a practical question also how this request for submissions would be distributed, especially to people of African descent. Thank you so much.


Co-Chair [2:04:30]:

Thank you very much to Denmark. I now give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by Uruguay.


Russian Federation [2:04:37]:

Thank you, good chair. We have very much the same questions as the previous speaker. I also try to recollect some of our discussions and actually agreements in Cali when we were discussing that agenda item and the COP decision. And we got a certain type of assurance that The adoption of that decision will not mean in the future the mixing of established terminology around IPLC with the newly established terminology. And now we see attempts of doing that despite discussions there and certain agreements also from our side to proceed the corresponding decision of the COP in Cali. We are also not in support of extending at all the list of groups and like to stay simple with the LP LCs and relevant stakeholders. We also heard already from Secretariat that term relevant stakeholders is inclusive or, for example, women and youth organizations. So if colleagues from DRC like to see kind of footnote with the list, we are not against it, that can be done. But we don't want to see any expansion of groups within the paragraph itself. And also, as I said, we have all the same questions as the previous speaker. as well as why, in this case, not others will be included and why communities of African descent are not local communities, which they are. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:06:51]:

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I now give the floor to Uruguay, followed by Brazil.


Uruguay [2:06:59]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uruguay would like to support the draft proposed by Colombia and Panama. We had a side event which information was provided on the role of the communities of African descent in conserving biodiversity, and we would like to thank the governments of Colombia and Brazil for hosting that side event. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:07:36]:

Gracias, Uruguay. I now give the floor to Brazil, followed by DRC.


Brazil [2:07:43]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We would like to try and see if this works, if we add where applicable, before people of African descent, if we address the concern expressed by parties, then we'll be including women and youth and where applicable people of African descent, then there will be no need to maintain in line with national legislation and circumstances. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:08:14]:

Thank you very much, Brazil. Now I give the floor to DRC.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:08:21]:

Madam co-chair, we would like to be able to move forward. And at the plenary session, you'll remember that we said that we haven't seen the opportunity, nor the need, nor the urgency, nor the necessity of creating a glossary right now. There are so many things that need to be answered. For instance, we have to develop a definition of people of African descent, among others. So at this point, we don't know how this will all end. Therefore, our proposal, Madam co-chair, is that we cannot add these concepts and that we should leave the paragraph as it stands in order to be able to move forward. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:09:28]:

Thank you very much to DRC. I still have two requests from the floor, so I'm going to give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by Colombia.


Russian Federation [2:09:38]:

Co-Chair, we appreciate the suggestion and attempts from Brazil. So in this particular case, we do not see how helpful it can be because this address is not for parties where it will be applicable and certain parties can make certain steps. So request here is for executive secretary. So the executive secretary should interpret what is applicable. So try to make a list of all countries with African descent send specific separate notification to those countries only inviting their people. I mean, that complicates all things and I believe that the suggestion from DRC is the right one and that we should proceed. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:10:33]:

Thank you very much to the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to Colombia, followed by Mexico.


Colombia [2:10:40]:

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I understand the concerns aired by the DRC and the Russian Federation, but I would like to point out that Colombia's proposal does not intend to open up the discussion of the concepts at this time. in this decision, this recommendation, the proposal is to undertake a process of review. And so I think it's quite reasonable for that to be included in decision 16/6 and I think it's relevant and it should be a part of the updated review process. So we could simply quote the text in decision 16-6. And again, I don't seek to reopen the discussion on the substance at this point, but as part of the process being proposed, I think it's important to highlight the relevance of what was agreed in decision 16 to move ahead. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:12:15]:

Thank you very much, Colombia. I now give the floor to Mexico, followed by Cameroon. Gracias.


Mexico [2:12:21]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Mexico supports the text read out by Secretariat with the additions, and we believe that contact with the peoples of African descent should be done through government these peoples have contributed to biodiversity conservation and we could put the additions in brackets. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:12:46]:

Gracias, Mexico. Now I give the floor to Cameroon and I'm closing the speaking list, probably proposing something that can accommodate everyone and we will continue.


Cameroon [2:12:59]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that a lot has been said here and the text that has been included allows us to move forward. And I believe at Cali, the people of African descent was approved in 16/6 as brought up by Colombia. Thank you for that. And we're including this, and so we're not going to return to concepts that have already been the subject of a decision. And the proposal from DRC, which was just supported by the Russian Federation, makes it possible for us to see where this would be applicable. And so I believe this proposal, including people of African descent, is applicable-- as applicable. and add in line with national legislation and circumstances. I believe that we are able to, in this way, link all of these parts and move forward.


Co-Chair [2:15:37]:

Okay, colleagues. So I see we have very, very, a lot of views in the room with regards to decision 16/6, so let me attempt to do a proposal and let's see how the room feels about that. So my proposal is that the text reads, "The Executive Secretary of the Convention shall invite parties, other governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth, and as applicable, Brazil, can you correct me, but afterwards read the right text, and as applicable, people of African descent comprising collectives embodying traditional lifestyles in line with national legislation and circumstances, and we add a footnote referring decision 16/6, as it was suggested by DRC. I will now give the floor for reactions, DRC followed by the Russian Federation.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:16:50]:

Madam Co-Chair, I think that before giving an opinion on this issue, it would be worthwhile to be able to give some answer to Denmark. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:17:18]:

Okay, I will give the floor to the Russian Federation and I will ask Colombia to provide a clarification right afterwards. Russian Federation, you have the floor.


Russian Federation [2:17:29]:

Can join DRC, definitely those questions need to be answered. And I try to say again that from our perspective, All those words as applicable, et cetera, works when we coming to parties. Here we coming to the executive secretary and we do not see the relevance of those words because it doesn't work this way. There's applicability relates to us, to parties. So the executive secretary should do it one way for everyone with one notification, without kind of clarifying which country is receiving or not. So I don't understand why we need in my country to receive notification, you know, this including of those communities. So we have our own communities equally important, so then we like them to see there as well. So we can't agree with this approach and I simply can come back and say that we like to see the entire paragraph as it is. without any changes and any modifications of it. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:18:44]:

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I give the floor to Colombia to provide the clarification asked by Denmark and by the Russian Federation and DRC, and then I'll propose a way forward to weaken at once.


Colombia [2:18:58]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before that, I ask for the indulgence of my colleague from Denmark to repeat again the question so I can be precise.


Speaker 239 [2:19:07]:

Very quick, please, before I make the intervention.


Co-Chair [2:19:11]:

Denmark, you have the floor.


Denmark [2:19:15]:

Thank you very much. So we had questions, for example, around the reporting, how the secretariat or the executive secretary that is asked to do this task, this step one, reach out to people of African descent, for example. So this would be one of the questions we had. Another question was that are people of African descent part of indigenous peoples and local communities, so would it be an including or an end potentially, because in another contact group it was like we read indigenous peoples and people of indigenous peoples and local communities, and people of African descent, so this is not clear to us, so for us it's actually more logic that we approach the the substance when it comes to the discussion as part of the Actec itself and not here in this paragraph. But we might also still very much interested in the responses, but we also have potentially a potential solution that might help. So I will just read it out. It is after, so it would replace everything from youth until and relevant and it could be placed after updated and it would read and particularly invites parties to include views and experiences of people and African descent and then the, I don't know the correct terminology now, comprising collectives that embody traditional lifestyles, I guess, in their submissions, something along those lines, because then the paragraph would specifically talk to parties still and point to the people of African descent. Maybe that would be a good solution. Thank you so much.


Co-Chair [2:21:35]:

Thank you very much, Denmark. I now give the floor to Colombia to respond to Denmark's question, followed by Brazil and China.


Colombia [2:21:44]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The concern, one of the concerns expressed by Russia is that in this case, we're asking the Secretariat to do something. I totally agree with that. And it's relating to decision 16/6, it was already approved. This is, we're talking about the process to review and update the glossary. Decision 16/6 offered an explanation of what people of African descent meant, people with a traditional lifestyle, and 16/6 mentions the role of people of African descent. The process to review and update the glossary under decision 16/6 is a continuation. so that the parties at the end of the day are able to have a specific understanding of the concept of the people of African descent. So in this case, the inclusion of reference to decision 16/6 for something that we're asking the Secretariat to do, we think is completely reasonable. And two last points. We Recall two of the operative paragraphs of 16/6 or the three first invite the parties. Well, all of these concerns that were expressed according to national circumstances that won't impact the rights of indigenous peoples, et cetera, all of that's in decision 16/6. So as we see it, there's no need to include that here because that's already covered in 16.6, to recognize. And the other important paragraph of 16.6 invites the parties to seek the participation of indigenous peoples. as it stated. And then the last operative paragraph is an invitation to states to start collecting the contributions of people of African descent to biodiversity. So in this case, I don't think that referring to decision 16/6 will open the door to have the whole list of everything that countries want. is just referring to decision 16/6 and it's asking Secretariat to take actions on that basis. And if it's not in this process of review and updating the glossary, then where can we make progress in building a consensus onto what is meant by contributions of people of African descent? Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:25:04]:

Thank you very much, Colombia. And I have four speakers, please, and we have 10 minutes of plenary. My objective is that we can close the discussion of this para by the end of this plenary. So I count with your cooperation, good spirits, so we can have coffee and then we go to the contact group and we prepare for tonight. So I'm going to give the floor to the speakers list that I have right now and I'm going to read it. Brazil, China, Russian Federation, Egypt, DRC and Canada and Zimbabwe. And I ask for your indulgence so we can close the speakers list here so we can try to come up with a balanced solution. Thank you very much to the colleagues that have proposed compromises and solutions for this and so we can move on. Okay? So Brazil, you have the floor.


Brazil [2:25:57]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We understand the concerns presented by some parties, but as Colombia has expressed, we are facing a conundrum because if you want to enable the participation of people of African descent and update the voluntary glossary and insert this term, we must allow their participation. And at the same time, If the problem is not having a list of people of African descent, of organization that comprises people of African descent, we would, sorry, seek some clarification from the Secretariat if it's possible to have an update list of IPLCs in general, of indigenous peoples and local communities organization, which would include also people of African descent, organization of people of African descent. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:27:01]:

Thank you very much. Brazil, I will finish the speaking list. I will give the floor to the Secretariat afterwards. China, followed by the Russian Federation. Thank you.


China [2:27:14]:

To provide a possible solution trying to address.

Colombian colleagues because we understand as other colleagues already mentioned maybe the executive secretariat cannot invite African descendants directly but the parties who have African descendants can invite their own African descendants by themselves.

So maybe we can put it in somewhere that.

Can we need to reflect in the views from the African descendants as appropriate. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:27:53]:

Thank you very much, China, and I really appreciate solutions put on the table. Now I give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by Egypt.


Russian Federation [2:28:02]:

Thank you, co-chair. Although we basically did not hear the answers to questions from Denmark, and in addition to it, the concerns we had only increased because the response from Colombia basically bringing us clearly that they are now suggesting what need to be an updating of glossary, what kind of term, et cetera. And we strictly do not like to have any discussion at this meeting what can be in the glossary. We are discussing the process. So the attempt to push forward certain points before group established, before agreement is, that's a bit a kind of worrying exercise. At the same time, in the spirit of compromise, we are ready to keep the paragraph as it is and at the end, add the language actually suggested by Denmark, and I think now also supported in a certain way by China, that the Executive Secretary, while sending those requests, may of course invite relevant parties and encourage them to come and contact their Afro-descendant communities collect information and include it into their responses. That's fine. That's okay for relevant countries. So if we add this kind of language at the end, we may accept this paragraph this way. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:29:57]:

Thank you very much, Russia. I now give the floor to Egypt, followed by DRC.


Egypt [2:30:02]:

Thank you, Madam Kocher. I think we shouldn't extend the list that much, especially in the paragraph. We should stick to the terminology that is used. Parties, indigenous people and local communities, and relevant stakeholders. We can have a footnote after relevant stakeholders saying that this may include representatives of women, youth and people of African descent, as well as organization network and institutions supporting the four and effective participation of these and other groups in the implementation of the CBD and its protocol. Something that broadens the scope and still this is under the relevant, but do not put that into the text. The footnote would clarify what we mean by other or by relevant stakeholders in a way that it encompasses those people and their representative. Because you cannot contact them, you normally contact a representative on their behalf or organization. coordinating their works. If you want, I can say the proposal of the footnote in dictating speed. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:31:14]:

Thank you very much. Egypt, I now give the floor to DRC, Zimbabwe, and Mexico. And we are running out of time, so Colombia, I'm going to ask for your indulgence. And after Mexico, I will propose a way forward. DRC.


Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:31:29]:

I'll be brief, Madam Chair. because we want to manage our time effectively. I am grateful to the distinguished delegate of Colombia for the explanation, but he referred to decision 16/6. We need to know what we're talking about. Decision 16/6 is addressed to the parties. There are four paragraphs, and all four operative paragraphs are addressed to parties only. None of these paragraphs is addressed to Secretariat. For that reason, we are working on a paragraph for secretariat and in this paragraph we do not find rationale for what is being proposed so that is why we are asking that that not be included in the text that the text remain as it was originally put forward and we can move forward this proposal is not to say that we are opposed to people of African descent. We know what their role is in decision 16/6 and their right to be involved in decision making, but it's a matter of where to place it. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:33:13]:

Thank you very much, DRC. Now I give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by Mexico.


Zimbabwe [2:33:20]:

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. I was listening very carefully and also following. Maybe Secretary can clarify to the House if people of African descent do not qualify as relevant stakeholders. If they do qualify, I think this solves everything, also be included as relevant stakeholders. And that reason as well what H.P. also proposed that there might be no need of lengthening the list. as long as they qualify. And also, I think there was another delegate who asked whether there are local communities. Those are issues which need to be clarified, Chair, as you go forward. But I think if we can somehow find a way of integrating them into relevant stakeholders, that would be perfect, or else Russia's proposal is also worth considering.

Thank you, Chair.


Co-Chair [2:34:18]:

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Mexico. We close the speakers list here. I'll propose, make a proposal for a process that allows us to move forward and we'll close the plenary for this afternoon. Mexico, you have the floor.


Mexico [2:34:33]:

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. think the addition should be in brackets. We believe the human rights based approach to the work programme is appropriate and we recognise that this is being discussed in the UN on people of African descent and the expert group has established their importance and their role in biodiversity and climate change. And we also support Colombia's proposal. Thank you.


Co-Chair [2:35:06]:

Gracias, Mexico. Okay, colleagues, so we need to close before we run out of translation. I feel that we have solutions on the table that are almost there. So what I'm going to do is we'll close this plenary, but I'll invite Colombia, Denmark, the Columbia, Denmark, Russia, DRC, Egypt, China and other parties as relevant to come in a small group, see the solution proposed by China, Denmark and supported by Russia and come back to the next plenary where we will come back to the CRP with a proposed solution that can work for us all and that can move us forward. With that being said, please, I invite you to go take coffee, engage in these consultations in the hallways, in bilaterals with good food, so we can present a solution that allows us to move forward. We will now go to contact group. on item 5a and b and we will reconvene this plenary at night to finalise the reading for item 7. Thank you very much. Very constructive discussions and I wish you very, very good discussions in the contact group. Thank you.