(5th 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/ru/asset/k13/k132ciciil?lang=en 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. --- CBD · Co-Chair [53:59]: Play all songs of CID. Hello colleagues, please take your seats. I know we're tired, I know contact group just finished, but I do not want us to lose very, very precious time that we need to have all of the agenda items the balanced approach they need. Thank you very much colleagues, we are about to start. Thank you, colleagues. I see you have taken a few bit of coffee, a bit of tea. I see chocolates and snacks going around the room, which I think it's perfect for an evening plenary. So if you have chocolates and snacks, please make sure that you share those with everyone and that they find a way up to the podium. And please take your seats, colleagues. I want us to take as much advantage as we have from the time we have in the plenary session today. Thank you very much. We're about to start. Okay, colleagues, we're going to start. So thank you very much. I know we're all very tired. I know it's been a long day. I know we just finished the contact group discussion, but we have one hour and a half ahead of us to take advantage of this plenary as much as we can. So last push for the day. and let's keep the good spirits on that. Okay? So we are going to start the reading for item seven. Before that, I really want to close the CRP one. So I'm going to ask Japan if you did your consultations and what's your response on that so we can go to item seven. Japan, you have the floor. Japan [1:40:07]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, and thank you for your patience and all the distinguished delegates. Thank you very much. And please let me reiterate, Japan is very much cautious about having wording of specific topic of other agenda items being in the recommendation in this agenda of in-depth dialogue. That being said, having the flexible text proposal by the Madam Co-Chair and distinguished delegates, in the spirit of compromise, we can confirm that Japan can get along with this text. Thank you very much. CBD · Co-Chair [1:40:49]: Thank you very much, Japan, for your flexibility and spirit of compromise. That closes CRP1. And now I'm going to give the floor to my co-chair to conduct the reading for item seven. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, co-chair. My co-chair was saying people are tired. On the contrary, I've been resting since yesterday, so hopefully we can get through this smoothly. Yesterday the Secretariat introduced document CBD/SBA/J/1/7 and we heard one intervention from the IAFB. Many parties had requested the floor and I have here the list of who had requested the floor. That is Cameroon, Denmark, Colombia, Nigeria, Panama, Jordan, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Russian Federation, India, Mexico, Egypt, Canada, and some observers also. So we continue. I will take the first intervention then from, so I follow this list rather than. There might be some repetition, yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay, so I start with Cameroon. And yeah. Cameroon · Africa Group [1:42:38]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. Cameroon is making this statement on behalf of the Africa Group, Madam Vice Chair, the Africa Group recognizes the importance of the Permanent Body on Indigenous Peoples. This forum is a consultative platform to ensure that the rights of indigenous people are respected and to enhance the economy, health, the environment and human rights. It. Favors self-determination, strengthens civil society organizations, links that facilitates access to financing and resources, and supports the revitalization of indigenous languages and protection of their territories. Africa welcomes the note by Secretary containing the summary of recommendations relating to the convention that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues adopted at its 23rd and 24th sessions. These recommendations, which are relevant to the Convention, highlight the importance and crucial role played by our guardians of biodiversity in its conservation and sustainable use through their traditional ecological knowledge. Madam Co-Chair, nature provides many benefits to people around the world, All natural ecosystems produce essential services such as food and medicine, climate and disease regulation, productive land and clean water, protection from natural disasters, recreation, and then some. As such, Africa recommends that these ecosystem services, which are essential to the social and economic development of indigenous peoples and local communities, be taken into account in defining the scope of carbon credit and biodiversity credit projects for the effective and efficient contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities to implementation of target 11 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. In the same vein, it is important to note that in Africa, biodiversity and indigenous and local communities as specified in Article 8 of the Convention are intrinsically linked. The territories that are home to most of the continent's biodiversity are populated mainly by indigenous local communities. In this regard, if it needs to be reiterated, Madam Co-Chair, the CBD is a legally binding international agreement between states that have formally committed to complying with its provisions after ratification or accession. Africa cannot therefore violate the requirements of its commitment in favor of a declaration that sets out universal principles and expresses a political or moral intention without binding legal force. All decisions taken under Article 8J of the Convention are based on its provisions referring to indigenous and local communities. Furthermore, the same article states that the contracting parties shall apply these provisions subject to their respective national legislation. From this perspective, the creation and functioning of the subsidiary body on Article 8 and other provisions of the convention should reinforce the importance given to indigenous peoples in the implementation of the global framework and not serve as a form that divides biodiversity stakeholders in their desire to achieve the objectives of the global framework. In light of the above, Africa invites the parties to use the concepts of Article 8 as stipulated by the convention and decisions 12/12, 14/13, which refer to indigenous peoples and local communities taking into consideration national legislation priorities and circumstances. Furthermore, with regard to the recommendation on facilitating direct access to financing for indigenous peoples within biodiversity mechanisms under the convention, Africa recommends that these aspects including those related to local communities, be discussed at length under item 3 of the agenda, which concerns in-depth dialogue on resource mobilization strategies. That being said, Africa takes note of the draft recommendation in document CBD/SB/AJ/1/7 and suggests adding the following text to the end of paragraph 2: "Requests the Executive Secretary of the Convention to continue to inform the Permanent Forum to the aforementioned recommendations. The Executive Secretary of the Convention to continue to inform Permanent Forum -- to the aforementioned recommendation of the Forum. We are just in the context of the CBD. Merci, Madame la President. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [1:48:24]: Thank you, Cameroon. I then give the floor to Denmark, followed by Colombia and then Nigeria. Denmark, please. Denmark · EU [1:48:34]: Thank you, Madam Co Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member states, and I'm glad to keep it rather short. The European Union and its Member States support the draft recommendations proposed by the Secretariat, including taking note of the recommendations emanating from the Forum's 23rd and 24th sessions, as well as requesting the Executive Secretary to continue to inform the Forum of developments of mutual interest and to provide information to the Forum about relevant activities undertaken under the Convention. Thank you, Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [1:49:12]: Thank you, Denmark. Then I have Colombia, followed by Nigeria and then Panama. Colombia, please. Colombia [1:49:22]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Colombia welcomes the submission of the Secretariat paper on recommendations from the Permanent Intergovernmental Forum recognizing its importance for implementation of the global framework under the Convention. We value the substantive contributions in terms of direct access to financing, safeguarding of rights, recognition of traditional knowledge and systems, and strengthening of the legal frameworks to protect territories and resources. of indigenous peoples these recommendations to implement the work of the subsidiary body which seeks to ensure the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and people of African descent in decision making regarding biodiversity. In this respect, Colombia believes it is essential to maintain fluid cooperation between the subsidiary body and the permanent forum so as to ensure consistency and synergies between those two mechanisms. Deliberations and outcomes of the forum allow for technical and policy solutions that enable the implementation of the work programme for Article 8 and other related provisions, especially as regards funding, participation and respect for human rights and the protection of ancestral knowledge. Colombia also highlights the importance that recommendations of the forum be translated into concrete actions in the tasks set forth in the work program through 2030 and they should continue to be pursued under the targets of the framework. Colombia proposes that the recommendations be drafted as follows: encourage the parties to take account of the recommendations arising from the 23rd and 24th sessions of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to be developed in the framework of the work programme of the AHA subsidiary body. We believe that This will be a balanced reflection of the spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and institutional cooperation among the bodies of the UN system and the Convention and will promote more effective, inclusive implementation in line with the principles of self-determination and full and effective participation of indigenous peoples. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [1:52:22]: Thank you, Colombia. And then give the floor to Nigeria, followed by Panama and then Jordan. Nigeria, please. Nigeria [1:52:32]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Nigeria aligns with the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of the African group. We recognize the importance of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as a platform to promote indigenous peoples' rights, languages, and participation in biodiversity management. We take note of the Permanent Forum's recommendations from its recent sessions, which highlight indigenous peoples and local communities as guidance of biodiversity. Nigeria supports continued cooperation between the CBD and the Permanent Forum to strengthen coherence and avoid duplication. We reaffirm that the convention remains a legally binding instrument and that Article 8 decisions must be adhered to its text and to COP decisions 10/22 and 14/13, which refer to indigenous and local communities. Parties must apply this within national laws. The Subsidiary Body must therefore unify stakeholders towards shared biodiversity goals. Nigeria agrees with other African Parties that financing for IPLC should be addressed under resource mobilization and supported by strong capacity building programs. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [1:53:52]: Thank you, Nigeria. I'll give the floor to Panama, followed by Jordan and then Zimbabwe. Panama, please. Panama [1:54:01]: Thank you, co-chair, Senora Co-President. Thank you, Madam Co-chair. Delegates, it's an honor for me to speak on behalf of Panama. on this particular matter because we recognize the recommendations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and we are very pleased to recall the importance of promoting and effectively protecting the rights of indigenous peoples' local communities in the context of the Biodiversity Convention. We are pursuing targets of justice and conservation. My country reaffirms that the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples is not just an act of justice, but a key component for effective biodiversity conservation. The protection of lands, traditional knowledge, and self-determination meets targets two and three of the CUMIN Montreal framework in accordance with the recommendations of the forum and the decisions of the last sessions of the subsidiary body since the adoption of decisions 1521 and 164 inviting the secretariat of the CBD to collaborate on legal comparative studies and facilitating exchanges. the we have made historic progress. We have recently had an assessment of national reports and we believe this is a very important step, especially in cases where there's not enough participation and respect for rights and territorial protection and implementation of the framework in line with the recommendations. of the 23rd and 24th sessions of the forum and consistent with article 8J and related provisions of the convention, we propose that there be a strengthening of the national and international legal frameworks to ensure differentiated treatment and non-regressive treatment of indigenous peoples' rights and to promote full effective participation in decision making, including mechanisms for the free, prior informed consent. These recommendations are in line with the recognition of biodiversity in all forms. And finally, we recognize the importance of driving political will to further implementation of rights and social justice. Biodiversity justice is not a policy issue only, it's a bio-social issue and a spiritual issue and that is why we stand with the indigenous peoples and local communities in recognizing their rights. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [1:57:11]: Thank you, Panama. I'll now give the floor to Jordan, followed by Zimbabwe and Brazil thereafter. Jordan, please. Jordan [1:57:22]: Thank you, Madam Chair. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan affirms its firm commitment to the implementation of the provisions of the CBD, in particular with regard to indigenous peoples and local communities, in line with COP decisions 12/12, 14/13, 16/4 and 16/5, which confirm the use of these terms together without prejudice to national specificities and legal frameworks. In view of the geographical and social differences between countries, Jordan has stated repeatedly that many states, including Jordan itself, do not refer to indigenous peoples in their national legislations, although they remain fully committed to protecting the rights and traditional knowledge of their local communities and recognize their vital role in the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. Accordingly, the differing terminology should not be an impediment to the access by these local communities to funding opportunities in line with the provisions of the CBD and the KMGBF. In this view, we reaffirm the importance of developing efficient financing mechanisms in order to guarantee the participation and empowerment of relevant communities in line with the resource mobilization strategy for the period 2025-2030. We should also focus on streamlining requirements according to flexible and transparent criteria, as well as a party-led transparent governance with the participation of Article 8j national focal points. This will ensure that funding is aligned with national priorities and implementation plans. Additionally, Jordan stresses the vital role women and youth from indigenous people and local communities play in the protection of biodiversity and implementation of the framework. We support efforts to build capabilities and facilitate access to financial resources and technical support in line with Article 3 pertaining to the resource mobilization strategies to guarantee funding and access to funds by indigenous people and local communities, including women and youth. We support continued efforts to enhance institutional participation mechanism, as well as the expected participation of relevant international bodies. We also support the recommendation pertaining to socio-cultural representation. Thank you, Madam Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [1:59:51]: Sorry for interfering almost at the end of your intervention, but it was a little bit fast. Thank you, Jordan. Now I have Zimbabwe, followed by Brazil and then Russian Federation. Zimbabwe, please. Zimbabwe [2:00:07]: Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Zimbabwe aligns itself with the Africa Group statement delivered by Cameroon. We take note of the recommendations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. contained in document CBDS/SB/120/7 and we have our own reservations with such recommendations, particularly the recommendation from the 23rd and the 24th session of the forum on the separation of indigenous peoples and local communities. Zimbabwe's own interpretation of Article 8J is that indigenous peoples and local communities should always be treated as one unit, both on paper and in practice. It is equally important, Madam Chair, that the original intended meaning of Article 8j is retained by avoiding reduction of terms. Would the interpretation should bring substantive changes in the meaning of this article. Such actions would result, Madam Chair, in an unprocedural change of the convention text. Thank you, Madam Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:01:14]: Thank you, Zimbabwe. Now, I will give the floor to Brazil, followed by Russian Federation and then India. Brazil, please. Brazil [2:01:22]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Brazil thanks the Secretariat for preparing document CBD/SPAJ/1/7. Brazil recognizes the importance of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, people as a platform that strengthens the participation of indigenous peoples in the United Nations systems and other international process. However, Brazil emphasized that several of the recommendations from the 23rd and 24th session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues require in-depth consideration and assessment against the backdrop of the convention's mandate, its existing work streams and diverse national legal frameworks. We express our concern over some of the considerations that urge parties to depart from the terminology and arrangement agreed under this convention and its subsidiary bodies through decisions of the conference of the parties. We reaffirm that the convention and its bodies are and must remain party led and must act strictly within their respective mandates. Brazil stresses that the full and effective participation of indigenous people and local communities in the implementation of the Convention and its GBF requires balanced and distinct representation of both groups. In this regard, we suggest adding new language that invites the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity in coordination with representative platforms on local communities to strengthen inclusive participation modalities and enhance transparency in all processes related to the Convention and its subsidiary bodies. Finally, Brazil recalls decision 12/12 by which the Conference of the Parties decided to use the terminology indigenous peoples and local communities in decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties and in secondary documents under the Convention. We underline that using distinct and separate terminologies could relativize the rights of local communities and weaken safeguards related to traditional knowledge and access and benefit sharing. The Convention's agreed terminology reflects the diversity of national circumstances and should continue to guide our work. In this spirit, we could support language whereby the Subsidiary Body takes note of the BAFII recommendation at this stage, while ensuring coherence with Convention mandates. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:04:04]: Thank you, Brazil. I will now give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by India and then Mexico. Russian Federation, you have the floor. Russian Federation [2:04:15]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The Russian Federation recognises the importance of the participation of indigenous peoples in the implementation of the Convention on biodiversity, we welcome the recommendation of the 24th session of the Permanent Forum of the UN on Indigenous Issues to involve representatives and organizations of Indigenous peoples in the creation of a subsidiary body on Article 8J and other provisions of the convention related to Indigenous peoples. However, we must note a number of negative trends in the Permanent Forum's work. And This should not be transmitted as a problem to the subsidiary body. Experts from Western countries who are members of the Permanent Forum are constantly attempting to politicize its activities on protecting the environmental and other rights of the indigenous peoples. We insist on an end to the politicization of issues, as these issues are not within its mandate, recommendations in the field of peace and security being not within its mandate. We consider it unacceptable to spread misinformation and exploit the issue of quote unquote violations of the rights of indigenous peoples as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of other sovereign states and encourage separatist sentiments. At the same time, we are convinced of the need to include in the agenda of the Permanent Forum the issue of the negative impact on the rights of indigenous peoples of unilateral coercive measures by the West and its satellites, as well as the issue of respect for the rights of indigenous peoples of non-self-governing territories and decolonization. We are perplexed by the situation whereby Representatives of Russian indigenous peoples organizations find themselves without real representation. The UN PFII expert from the Russian Federation, V. Sofkina, who was appointed in violation of the rules of procedure for the next three-year term, has long since lost touch with the community of indigenous peoples of Russia and their traditional way of life. We are convinced that it is representatives of Russian indigenous NGOs that hold consultative status and have experience working with UN organizations should be working in the subsidiary body. We believe it should be mandatory for NGOs to have government registration and valid national legal status. Indigenous peoples organizations should be rooted in the legal, economic, and political systems of the state. And these ties should be real, meaning they are confirmed by regular work to protect and promote the rights of their fellow indigenous peoples. primarily through national institutions. We proceed from the assumption that all indigenous peoples of Russia will have the opportunity to participate in the work of the subsidiary body, including the 17 indigenous peoples living in the Arctic zone. Discrimination against them is unacceptable. Regarding the overall classification of regions, including the principles for the nomination of friends of the Bureau, we consider it important to use the classification based on five UN regions established. in the CPT system. In view of the above, we consider it unacceptable to extend the existing practice to the procedure for selecting members of the subsidiary body. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:07:36]: Thank you. That was also a bit fast, but we got to the end with the interpretation as well. Thank you. India next, and then followed by Mexico and Egypt. India, please. India [2:07:47]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. India acknowledges the valuable role of the Permanent Forum in promoting the rights knowledge systems and contributions of indigenous peoples globally. We support continued constructive engagement between the CBD and the forum. However, India wishes to place on record its reservations regarding certain recommendations emanating from the 23rd and 24th sessions of the forum. India does not support direct funding mechanisms as suggested by the forum as it is outside the established national systems and it could inadvertently undermine national sovereignty and create parallel structures inconsistent with the convention's principles. India firmly believes and supports that financial resources intended for indigenous peoples and local communities should be channeled through national governments in accordance with national legislation, priorities and institutional frameworks. Similarly, India does not support recommendation in paragraph 80 of the same report which focuses entirely on a particular socio-cultural region. Further, India cannot support the recommendations referenced in paragraph 119 of the 23rd session and paragraph 78 of the 24th session which urge parties to discontinue the use of the term local communities alongside indigenous peoples India recalls that the term indigenous peoples and local communities has been consistently used under CBD reflecting the inclusive intent of article 8J India's constitutional and legal framework recognizes that all communities have deep and historical relationships with nature therefore differentiating between indigenous peoples and local communities does not correspond to India's National context India reaffirms that the inclusive expression indigenous peoples and local communities must continue to guide all CBD processes to uphold equality unity and respect for National circumstances in conclusion India supports continued engagement and information sharing between the executive secretary and the forum while ensuring that any collaboration remains consistent with the principles of national sovereignty, balance the regional representation and the respect for national legal frameworks. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:10:22]: Thank you, India. I will now give the floor to Mexico, followed by Egypt and Canada. Mexico, please. Mexico [2:10:30]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Mexico would like to recall that one of the elements of the work program of this subsidiary body is the human rights-based approach. And on that score, we recognize that the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues is the highest instance within the UN regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as the expert mechanisms on the rights of indigenous peoples and the special repertoire on the rights of indigenous peoples. In this respect, we acknowledge that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognizes indigenous peoples as subjects of international law in accordance with this framework. I'm pleased to share that in 2024, our country took a historic step by amending Article 2 of our constitution to recognize that indigenous communities and peoples and Afro-Mexicans as subjects of public law with legal personality and their own heritage and reaffirming their right to self-determination and therefore to autonomy for purposes of conserving and improving their habitat, preserving bioculture and the integrity of their lands, including sacred sites as declared by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable legal provisions. In light of the foregoing, Mexico believes that the recommendations of the Permanent Forum are appropriate, especially those regarding the creation of a mechanism for direct financing for indigenous peoples and strengthening the legal frameworks for the rights of indigenous peoples over their lands and territories, in addition to strengthening, recognizing, protecting the rights of indigenous peoples under the international legal framework. In the collaborative framework in which we are working, we firmly believe that we can reach an agreement recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples as subjects of law, international law, and also integrate and address what parties refer to as local communities and separate the terms which cannot be conflated. We also believe it is appropriate to include people of African descent in recognition of their role in biodiversity conservation. We therefore suggest that instead of saying take note in paragraph one for the recommendations in the paper, we say welcomes. Thank you very much. CBD · Co-Chair [2:13:05]: Thank you, Mexico. And I'll give the floor to Egypt, followed by Canada, and then the Democratic Republic of Congo. Egypt doesn't seem to be in the chair. We can leave that for later to see if they come. We go to Canada. Canada [2:13:33]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Canada believes that cooperation between the CBD and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is important and supports continued collaboration between these two international institutions. Over the years, regular engagement between the Permanent Forum and CBD parties, not just with the Secretariat, has allowed all of us to better understand and analyze the critical issues and innovations that indigenous peoples are looking at around the world. We believe that this has made the Working Group on HJ, now the subsidiary body, and through it, the whole of the CBD, much better informed and aware so that our partnership with Indigenous peoples and traditional communities can be even stronger in our efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. As such, Canada welcomes the recommendations and further strengthening the exchange of information between the CBD and the Permanent Forum, and we are happy with the draft decision as proposed. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:14:42]: Thank you, Canada. I will then give the floor to the Democratic Republic of Congo, followed by Norway and then South Africa. Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:14:53]: Madam Co-Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. The DRC supports the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of the Africa Group. We would like to recall that the subsidiary body on 8J is not called upon to perpetuate or even less so apply mutatis mutandis the procedures established by the working group on 8J. For this reason, we believe that continuity of review of the recommendations of the permanent forum is not a given, as is shown by the document under review. which, in part, is questionable and negotiable. The indigenous peoples and local communities are an undividable entity, as we can see in HJ, which speaks of indigenous and local communities. If we wish to reopen the text of the convention in order to revise it, we're ready to do so. Madam Co-Chair, I would like to read a part of a sentence in the recommendations, and I quote, "The Permanent Forum reaffirms that it urges all agencies of the UN related to the environment, biodiversity and the climate to no longer use the expression local communities together with Indigenous peoples and to make a distinction between the two terms in ongoing processes at all levels. And as if that was not sufficient, Madam co-chair, it is also said in this recommendation that COP is asking its subsidiary bodies to create an ad hoc to review the amalgamation that has been made between indigenous peoples and other society groups, and what measures to be taken to avoid such an amalgamation. So this revolves around the text of the convention and seems to weaken and to undermine the collective efforts to attain the objectives of the convention. And that sacrifices the approach of government and societal activities in biodiversity under the global framework, which is very dear to us and which we have adopted through supreme sacrifice. COP cannot in any way and under any condition take note of such a recommendation, which holds within itself the seeds of destruction of the Convention. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:18:20]: Thank you, Congo, and then I give the floor to Norway, followed by South Africa. Norway [2:18:29]: Thank you, Chair. The practice of hearing recommendations from the United Nations Permanent Forum goes back all the way to the HIA Working Group, which this forum replaces. Now, this time, as before, the forum makes a number of recommendations. on our work. They have looked carefully into the agenda of our meeting and make some very specific recommendations, some more useful than others, going deeply into finance issue, going deeply into the conflation issue, which is more pertinent to their own mandate. I shall not, unlike parties before me, go into the substance of these recommendations, other than noting that we cannot really see what should be wrong about a study into the conflation issue to learn more about what it means for our work. But the point is, the problem for me is, Whatever form its recommendations take and whatever utility they have from time to time, the Permanent Forum is an important norm-setting body of great importance to many indigenous peoples. Norway therefore finds it still appropriate that the Permanent Forum be given this opportunity to submit recommendations for the SBHJ. Now, the bottom line is whether we agree with the recommendations or not, they are there simply to educate us and for us to take note of or even welcome, as the case may be, but we don't have to take argument with the substance of the recommendations. They are simply there for our learning. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:20:29]: Thank you, Norway. Now, I'll give the floor to South Africa, followed by Haiti. South Africa [2:20:37]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. South Africa supports the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of Africa Group. Madam Chair, as South Africa assumed the presidency of the G20 in 2025, we were steadfast in our commitment to advancing the principles of equity, sustainability, and inclusivity. These principles are central to our national priorities and are embedded in the agenda that South Africa promoted throughout the G20 Environment and Sustainability Working Group. South Africa knows the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is considered as the comprehensive international instrument on the rights of indigenous peoples. It sets minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples, clarifying the application of existing human rights to their specific context. However, the declaration remains a non-binding instrument and its implementation is not obligatory for UN member states. South Africa, as a democratic state, upholds, protects and promotes the rights of all its citizens, including indigenous and local communities, in line with our Constitution. The rights of our indigenous and local communities are considered within the broader framework of procedural equity and social inclusion. South Africa, Madam Chair, is working to ensure that indigenous and local communities are not left behind in the global transition to sustainability, including by promoting their participation in decision-making processes, recognising their traditional knowledge systems, and supporting their role as stewards of biodiversity and natural resources. We continue to advocate for inclusive governance, Madam Chair, where the voices of indigenous and local communities are heard and respected, integrated and where sustainability is not achieved at the expense of social justice. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:23:03]: I now only have one party left on the list, which is Haiti, and after Haiti... And thereafter, I would like to give the floor to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. So first, I give the floor to Haiti. Haiti [2:23:26]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Haiti supports the statement made by Cameroon on behalf of the Africa Group and would like to commend the text of the recommendation, the implementation of the global framework is directly linked to the rights and requirements of the indigenous peoples and local communities. Haiti notes with interest the recommendations of the Permanent Forum. However, regarding the distinct terminology, Haiti attaches itself to indigenous peoples and local communities as it is used in the convention since its adoption. In the Caribbean, including Haiti, the local communities have cultural heritage and environmental and multicultural heritage. It is important to recognize the distinction between indigenous peoples and local communities could run counter to regional, national, and local traditions of biodiversity management. And so it is important to keep in the same framework traditional knowledge of the guardians of biodiversity and keep in mind their legal status and their indigenous identity be recognized by the state. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:25:10]: Thank you, Haiti. As there are no more parties on my speaking list, I would now give the floor to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, please. UNPFII [2:25:23]: Dear co-chairs, excellences, distinguished delegates, sisters and brothers, Thank you for allowing me to take the floor at this first meeting of the subsidiary body on Article 8 and other provisions of the Convention on Biodiversity related to indigenous peoples and local communities. As this is my first time taking the floor, I congratulate the co-chairs on their appointment. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues subsidiary body of ECOSOC, provides expert advice on indigenous peoples issues, promotes coordination within the UN system, and follows up on the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It serves as a unique global platform for dialogue amongst indigenous peoples from the seven socio-cultural regions, member states, and UN entities. In its 2024 and 2025 session, the forum issued recommendations directly related to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. compiled in document CBD/SBJ/1/7. These recommendations merit careful attention. Indigenous peoples' rights are not negotiable. As rights holders to their lands, territories and resources, indigenous peoples have long called for formal mechanisms that ensure their full and effective participation in relevant UN processes. Let me now reiterate the position of the Permanent Forum developed jointly with the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms that indigenous peoples have distinct identities and specific rights that must be fully recognized and respected. The Permanent Forum, in accordance with its mandate, affirms to Its readiness to contribute to the development of the modus operandi and the subsidiary body on Article 8 and the process to reviewing and updating the voluntary glossary of key terms and concepts within the context of Article 8 and related provisions of the CBD in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. While voluntary and described as without prejudice, the glossary has real legal and political implications. Terminology in international law shapes recognition, participation, and the enforcement of rights. Language that obscures rather than prevents prejudice risks undermining Indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination, land and territories, and free, prior and informed consent, as well as their recognition under international human rights law. The forum is not calling for neutrality. It is calling for correction. Furthermore, the forum underscores that several of its previous recommendations though not included in the current document, remain directly relevant to the work of the Convention. The Forum underlines the importance of recognizing indigeneity as a key determinant of health and promoting culturally appropriate health systems that integrate indigenous knowledge and practices. The forum calls on all parties to uphold international human rights standards and ensure that the distinct status and the rights of indigenous peoples are fully recognized, respected, and protected in all aspects of the convention's implementation. Finally, I take note of the statements made by member states and I welcome continued bilateral engagement. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:30:13]: Thank you to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. That exhausted our list of speakers and interventions. Distinguished delegates, I thank you for the constructive interventions made under agenda item seven. Your views have provided valuable reflections on the recommendations of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and their relevance to the work of the Convention. So the co-chairs, with the support of the Secretariat, will prepare a conference room paper reflecting the interventions heard for considerations by the plenary. So this concludes the first reading of item seven, and I hand the floor to my co-chair to move on to guiding us on how we, oh, sorry, Democratic Republic of Congo, please. Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:31:27]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. First, we have noted that one of the observers took more time to speak, and we would like for that to be reflected in the minutes and the report of the meeting. Second, we have noted the different interventions signaling that there are significant differences of view, and that is not conducive to the production of a CRP. And we would like for that also to be noted and cited in the minutes of this meeting. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:32:22]: Thank you. The Democratic Republic of Congo, we have noted your notes. And we have the Russian Federation asking for the floor. Russian Federation [2:32:44]: It's not loud enough, the sound. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. As the delegation of the DRC, we also noted serious differences in opinion among the delegations regarding what was presented by the Permanent Forum. We believe that these differences of opinion must absolutely be reflected in the final documents of this first meeting. And just to say it more comprehensively, my delegation's main goal was to have all of the negative points of the permanent forum, for instance, politicization, interference in internal affairs, lack of procedural rules and their systematic application, a lack of proper representation for all the countries and regions of the UN in the permanent forum. We do not want this to happen in this newly created structure. And moreover, ideologically, the recommendations to the new forum, the permanent forum must take into account the legal framework that exists in the CBD, namely equal legal status for the indigenous peoples and local communities. All of these very important points for the future interaction with the Permanent Forum as we see it must be reflected in the final documents of this session. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:34:49]: Thank you, Russian Federation. I'm sure we have captured the different views and points into this discussion in the room and that they will be well reflected in the the CRP when we get to that stage. So I see no other requests for the floor, so I try again that we will prepare a conference room paper reflecting the interventions heard for consideration by the plenary. And okay, Democratic Republic of Congo, please. Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:35:29]: Madam. Madam Co-Chair. Well, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Let me reiterate clearly what I said. The practice holds that when there are differences of view, there is a contact group that considers the papers and seeks convergence. Because there are major differences that persist and there was not time to arrange for a contact group on this item of the agenda, we would just ask that this be put into the report and the document should be sent to the COP as is for their review. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:36:40]: Thank you, Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon also asked for the floor, please. Cameroon [2:36:51]: Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. We don't want to hold up our work. There were differences of view, but I think you said yourself we have noted those points of differences of views and whether it's in the position of the Russian Federation, the problem is separation of the terms indigenous peoples and local communities, the decoupling of these terms. I think this is the main sticking point. And it's also a question of recognizing that in the CBD, the recommendations of the permanent forum on indigenous peoples are not a mandate for us and the Secretariat properly explained that we have worked on the basis of those recommendations which are relevant to the Convention and the Africa Group's proposal was that we take up those recommendations, we take note of these recommendations and now the decisions taken in COP16 According to that, Secretary, it needs to continue collaboration with that body, but the discussions need to be pursued in the context of the CBT, which defines indigenous peoples and local communities for the purposes of our work, and it's on that basis that we should proceed. There are just two paragraphs in the recommendations of relevance, and I think we need to move forward. CBD · Co-Chair [2:38:57]: Thank you, Cameroon. I will give the floor to Norway, please. Norway [2:39:04]: Thank you, Chair. On the way forward, and with regard to the intervention from the DRC and others, We have stated our opinion. We certainly do not mind hearing the recommendations. We think it is a good practice. That has already been said. How will the meeting take note of this? I think we have to entrust the secretariat, the presidency, to find out how to reflect the views we have heard today and to take note or otherwise, as appropriate, in a CRP. We cannot really see, I mean the proposition from DRC doesn't really leave us with any way forward and we cannot tell the Secretariat and the Presidency what will be in that CRP, but we will entrust them to have captured the views and to propose a way forward which very likely it would be as before that we take note of the recommendations. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:40:18]: Thank you for these constructive interventions. I will need to consult the Secretariat. Okay, thank you for your patience. So we have again noted that there are different views and we will still prepare, take these deliberations that we have heard here and your interventions and prepare conference room paper reflecting the interventions that we have heard and for considerations by the plenary, which is the next step in this procedure. So you still have concerns about that, Democratic Republic of Congo? Democratic Republic of the Congo [2:42:57]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for your proposal. have repeatedly pointed out in the course of our work that there's no such thing as a big item and a small item. And we also noted that this item has not been dealt with equitably compared to other items. And the intent of producing a CPR in a very controversial item runs counter to our rules and procedures. We would like to ask if you can confirm that we are going against our rules and procedures on this. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:43:54]: Yeah, I have to ask somebody to explain in detail the rules of procedure or to respond to exactly that point. Okay, since I'm not so trained in the formulations here, I will ask the legal advisor to maybe respond to the process. As far as I could hear from the room, there was several parties that were ready to move on to a CRP with this paper. Oh, I see actually Canada's coming to my assistance here. Canada [2:48:21]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. No, just to say it's clearly always been our understanding, and in fact we had a discussion about this last week at SUBSTA about, you know, clearly what the role is of our co-chairs. and our presidency who's here this week and the Bureau in deciding how to proceed and organize the meeting and how to proceed and make these decisions if we have issues with any of that shouldn't be discussed here on the floor of the plenary can be discussed at Bureau people can raise their issues with their Bureau member and bring it up that way so you have our full support to proceed how you see fit thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:48:59]: Thank you for that support Canada seconds so we. Take a break to change among topics, 30 seconds, so while I consult with the Secretariat with regards to the organisation of work for tomorrow, and I'll be back, I'll put the chronometer, 30 seconds. Okay, 30 seconds are up, so we'll start. Thank you very much, colleagues. We're about to finish. We still have a few minutes. We have until 11.10 sharp, that gives us 17 minutes. to progress. So I'm going to take us back to CRP number two, which we started reading in our last plenary. We were on para two of annex one and I'm going to do two things. I'm going to start by asking Colombia, Brazil, Russia, Denmark about the solution for the proposal on people of African descent. I saw that you were having consultations. Thank you very much for that. I'm going to ask if we have a solution proposed for this para. And for the next few minutes that we have left, I'm going to ask you to keep your interventions very well to the proposals that you have on the Paris of the text. I know and I understand how important it is to provide the rationale for those proposals, but what I am going to ask you is that you keep your comments very short, to the point, to the comments, to the text proposals, and if the parties require further clarification on the rationale, then we will open the floor for that rationale, but let's try to keep it efficient, okay? So, Colombia, did you reach a solution on the proposal for people of African descent? Colombia [2:51:32]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Indeed, we reached an agreement on the drafting of a paragraph, and we'd first like to thank those countries that assisted us. in reaching this text and I will read it in English. The Secretary of the Convention shall invite Parties, other governments, indigenous peoples and local communities 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 8 and related provisions of the Convention that should be reviewed and/or update and further invites relevant parties in line with national legislation and circumstances to include views and experiences of people of African descent comprising collective. And voiding traditional lifestyles in their submissions. CBD · Co-Chair [2:52:48]: Thank you, Colombia. I take you finalized your intervention? Yes. Colombia [2:52:52]: Yes, that's it. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:52:54]: Okay, thank you very much for the efforts, for the consultations. I can take that this is acceptable for the room. I see no further requests for the floor. Thank you very much, colleagues, and thank you very much for that effort. So we are going to go to our next paragraph. which is paragraph number three, which is a step two that reads the secretariat of the convention shall prepare. Do we have any comments with regards to paragraph three-step two of the annex? I see none. Thank you very much. That clears paragraph three. We are going very well, colleagues. Now I will ask you if there is any comments on paragraph four, step three that reads, the executive secretary shall convene an ad hoc technical expert group. Canada, you have the floor. Canada [2:53:59]: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the second line, after the portion of the sentence that says, which on the basis of these views received, comma, Canada would propose adding "shall review and" and then we would continue on with the rest of the sentence until "which elements of the glossary" and then we would propose deleting "should be reviewed" and we would have "updated" at the end. So the sentence would read, The Executive Secretary shall convene an ad hoc technical expert group on the review and update of the glossary, which, on the basis of the views received, shall review and formulate technical advice and proposals on which elements of the glossary should be updated. CBD · Co-Chair [2:55:09]: Thank you, Canada, also for the structure of the intervention. Zimbabwe, you have the floor. Zimbabwe [2:55:18]: Thank you, Madam Chair. On the first line of step number three, we propose to add after the executive secretary, then say, comma, subject to availability of resources, comma, shall convene, then proceeds as it is now. So just the phrase subject to availability of resources, the rationale being that we know this is an extra cost on the secretariat and this must be done if resources are available. Thank you, Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:55:52]: Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. I see no further requests for the floor. So secretariat, could you please read the para with the proposals made by the parties? Excuse me, I see Indonesia asking for the floor. So Indonesia, you have the floor and afterwards we will read. Indonesia [2:56:10]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia expresses appreciation to the Secretariat for incorporating the majority of our inputs. Nevertheless, certain concerns remain unaddressed. Accordingly, we propose to reiterate our previous input by amending into the step three. At the end of the sentence, the phrase would be, the process should ensure that any revised definitions take into account the diversity of legal and cultural context among parties and allow for adaptation at the national level. Thank you, Madam Chair. CBD · Co-Chair [2:56:54]: Thank you very much, Indonesia. Cameron, you have the floor. Cameroon [2:57:02]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I am sorry, we did not want to make the text even more difficult or bracketed, but it seems to us that the addition that was just made is not appropriate because there will be an expert group that will be created and then we'll decide what will be relevant to include. If we open parentheses, we think that it will become even more complicated. Therefore, we think that this addition is not very relevant. So either we would ask to remove it or to bracket it. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:57:49]: Thank you very much. So, Secretariat, I'm going to ask you to read the text and Indonesia, thank you very much for that proposal. We have one party requesting to delete it. So I'm going to ask the Secretariat to read the text until updated period. And I'm going to ask Indonesia if you could be flexible with the paragraph as the Secretariat is going to read it. Please, Secretariat, you have the floor. CBD Secretariat · Secretariat [2:58:22]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Step three, the Executive Secretary, subject to ability of resources, shall convene an ad hoc technical expert group on the review and update of the glossary, which on the basis of the views received shall review and formulate technical advice and proposals on which elements of the glossary should be updated. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [2:58:54]: Thank you very much to the Secretariat. Denmark, you have the floor. Denmark [2:59:01]: Thank you very much, Madam co-chair. We would also support not to have the latest intervention being taken up because we are also in support of Cameroon's rationale here. We understand in this para that the ad hoc, that the ARTEC would identify the needed elements to be updated and make good proposals on how they could be updated and we have a question on the insertion of subject to the availability of resources and would like to ask the distinguished delegate from Zimbabwe whether it would not make more sense to have this insertion in the decision text. then we have the steps clearly laid out here and have the subject to availability of resources in the decision when we come to decide to have the ARTEC since this is common practice. Thank you so much. CBD · Co-Chair [3:00:09]: Thank you so much, Denmark. So, Indonesia, I'm going to ask you if you could be flexible after the rationale provided by Cameroon and Denmark on this suggestion. Indonesia, you have the floor. Indonesia [3:00:29]: Madam co-chair, we would like to put it in a bracket. So we, because we need time to consult with our capital. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:00:41]: Thank you very much, Indonesia. So I'm moving us forward to the next paragraph so we are not stuck, but I thank you very much for your flexibility to conduct consultations with the capital and I count on your constructiveness so we can find a solution that is acceptable for all of the paragraphs and for all of the parties here. So I'm moving us forward to the next para, not before giving the floor to DRC. DRC, please, you have the floor. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:01:15]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. Thank you for having given us 30 seconds of breathing time to make the transition. And yes, I will intervene on this issue. I notice, though, that it's already 11:00 p.m. I wonder what time we're actually going to finish. That's my first question. And my intervention then before you answer that first question, we found that it seems that there is a vacuum here or something that's missing between the creation of the ATEG and the review by the subsidiary body. And so we propose a fourth stage before, so a new stage in between three and four. The secretariat of the convention, and this is the text, will compile the advice formulated by the ATEG on review and update of the voluntary glossary in the context of HJ and will make them accessible via an information document that is fully accessible to the parties. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:03:08]: Thank you very much, dear C. And before answering to your questions, I have one more request for the floor. I'm going to give the floor to Brazil and afterwards I will respond. Thank you very much. Brazil, you have the floor. Brazil [3:03:19]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Our intervention is more or less in the line of DRCs. We had mentioned that we had requested for insertion of an additional step regarding peer review. I have some language to propose in here, if you allow me. CBD · Co-Chair [3:03:46]: Yes, please go ahead. Brazil [3:03:47]: Yeah, that would be step four, the executive secretary shall circulate the draft technical advice and proposals for peer review within a time bound comment period. The secretariat shall compile the comments received and as appropriate invite the ad hoc technical expert group to refine its advice and proposals in light of the peer review feedback. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:04:28]: Thank you very much, Brazil, DRC. I have one more request for the floor, which is the Russian Federation. Russian Federation, please, you have the floor and afterwards I will respond. Russian Federation [3:04:41]: Thank you very much. I think that colleagues from DRC and Brazil They actually covered the point I wanted to raise. I only can support DRC and Brazil in requesting the new step related to peer review. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:04:59]: Thank you very much, Russian Federation. Denmark, please, you have the floor. Denmark [3:05:10]: Thank you so much. We only had very initial discussions about the peer review, so we also see some benefits in there, but we would like to bracket it for now to have an in-depth consultation and most likely come back on that tomorrow morning. Thank you so much. CBD · Co-Chair [3:05:34]: Thank you very much, Denmark. 10 p.m., which is the time that it appears in my screen. We have the room and the translators until 11:50 p.m. I know we're all very, very tired. I know it's late, but I would like 50 p.m. I know it's very late. I know we're very tired, but I also want us to take advantage as much as the time we have. We're running out of time. This is the first session of this subsidiary body and I feel that we're doing a great job. and I believe that we can leave a very, very nice legacy and precedent for this first session of the subsidiary body. So I would like to take the spirit that I'm reading in the room, the constructiveness that I'm reading, the progress that we're having, and I would like to propose that we work a little bit longer. Can I take this is acceptable, colleagues? I see no request for the floor. Yes, Russian Federation, you have the floor. Russian Federation [3:07:03]: Good chair. That's of course not a little bit, it's almost an hour. Okay. Of course we are not on the market, but a little bit of bargaining. Happy to work until half past 11. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:07:22]: Thank you very much, Russian Federation. We're not in the market, but we are negotiators, so any form of negotiation is welcome in this room. Norway, you have the floor. Norway [3:07:38]: Thank you, Madam President. We're ready to work until 11.40. CBD · Co-Chair [3:07:47]: Can I take a higher bet from any party on the floor? Okay, so DRC. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:08:01]: Madam co-chair, we are in negotiations and I'm going to cut this in half. So we have 30 and we have a bid for 11:40 so yours was even higher so I'm not taking that into account so I'm going to divide those in half and we can go till 11:35 and then that will be it. CBD · Co-Chair [3:08:34]: I think that's a fair proposal. Roshan Federation. Russian Federation [3:08:41]: Deal. CBD · Co-Chair [3:08:44]: Deal 1135 it is. So back to work, okay? Okay, so let's go back to step three. So right now we have a proposal from Indonesia that will keep bracketed until consultations have been made. Thank you very much, Indonesia. We look forward to hear the response on that consultations. And we also have a proposal for a step four, which will turn step four into step five. Okay, so secretariat can, let's check together the text for step four. Okay, apologies, I was trying to come with a proposal for step 4b, okay? So I'm going to read it and see if that captures the intermediate step that parties want to see. And this proposal brings what we heard from Brazil, but also the other proposal that was put on the table, okay? by Canada. So I'm going to read step 4 bis, the executive secretary or the secretariat, we can do it like that, shall circulate the technical advice for peer review and the secretariat shall compile and make available for parties a report in light of the peer review feedback. So we have two things here. We have the ask for having a peer review process and we have an ask for make it available for parties. So my proposal is that we bridge these two into a short and straightforward text. I will read it again. The Secretariat shall circulate the technical advice for peer review and the Secretariat shall compile and make available for Parties a report in light of the peer review feedback. DRC, you have the floor. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:14:59]: Yes, Madam Chair, yes, we think that's acceptable. And so we can actually move forward. We have very little time left. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:15:16]: Russian Federation followed by Canada. Russian Federation [3:15:21]: You made us happier. CBD · Co-Chair [3:15:27]: Canada, you have the floor. Canada [3:15:31]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to seek clarification. When we say the Executive Secretary shall make available for parties a report, that doesn't, that'll just be released to parties through a notification process. We want to make sure that that report doesn't hinder the progression of the agenda item. So we're just looking for a little bit of confirmation in terms of what format, the report will be released into it doesn't need to be in the text just just maybe some clarity from from the Secretariat on that front of. CBD · Co-Chair [3:16:08]: Course Secretariat you have the floor. CBD Secretariat · Secretariat [3:16:17]: Thank you we we have heard that um to make available the results of the peer review in a form of of a inf document. CBD · Co-Chair [3:16:33]: Thank you Canada in I would like maybe to jump in to try to clarify a bit more, but maybe what would be step five can provide more clarity because that will be considered by SOPSTA as well. So please, Canada, you have the floor. Canada [3:16:55]: My understanding is that an information document is released only in the margins of subsidiary body meetings or COP meetings. And so the sequencing of this proposal, there would have to be, would it further delay the consideration because of the request for releasing an information document? Would that delay the consideration of this review process at SB8J2? CBD Secretariat · Secretariat [3:17:37]: So, as we understand it, it will be INF Doc for the second session of the subsidiary body, which we step four, an INF Doc for the step four, well, now step five. CBD · Co-Chair [3:17:58]: Go ahead. Yes, I'm sorry. Can you give the floor to Canada, please? Canada [3:18:10]: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the clarification. So the information document would be released at subsidiary, the second meeting of the subsidiary body on 8J, the second meeting in parallel to a recommendation text where parties would consider the recommendation for the updated glossary. So we would both have the outcome of the peer review presented at the same time as the recommendation text, which contained the next steps of the updated glossary, correct? CBD Secretariat · Secretariat [3:18:47]: Yes, yes, indeed. And we hope that information will provide us to guide to the, well, we'll provide information as how the discussions will be taking in SPHA too. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:19:03]: Thank you very much and thank you very much Canada for those questions which help us to clarify process. Denmark, you have the floor. Denmark [3:19:13]: Thank you very much. Just for confirmation, so the peer review is still bracketed I believe and it goes to the subsidiary bodies meeting on 8th of January in its second session and not to Substa, just to reconfirm. Thank you so much. CBD · Co-Chair [3:19:32]: Yes, Denmark. Okay, colleagues, I see no further requests from the floor. I hope that brought clarity to the room. So I'm going to ask if this step is acceptable. I see no objections. Thank you very much. So we'll take this paragraph as accepted and we'll move forward to the next one. But before I really want to confirm that step three is okay until the proposal that is right now bracketed waiting for consultations from Indonesia. So secretariat, can you read please step three until the bracketed proposal by Indonesia? CBD Secretariat · Secretariat [3:21:25]: Step 3 reads, step 3, the executive secretary open bracket subject to the ability of resources close bracket shall convene an ad hoc technical expert group on the review and update of the glossaries, which on the basis of the views received shall review and formulate technical and technical advice and proposals on which elements of the glossary should be updated. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:21:56]: Brazil, you have the floor. Brazil [3:22:01]: Sorry, Madam Chair, it's on step four. I'll wait for that. CBD · Co-Chair [3:22:06]: Thank you. Thank you very much, Brazil. Okay, so Can I take that the paragraph step three as read by the secretariat is acceptable? Denmark, you have the floor. Denmark [3:22:23]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We were just as we asked for moving the subject to availability of resources to the decision text that would be, that we would be in favor of this. and my colleague are consulting with Zimbabwe on this matter, so maybe we can keep this particular part in brackets. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:22:45]: Okay, thank you very much. Please let me know when your consultations have finished to see if we can remove that bracket from the annex and take it up to the decision. Moving us forward to step four, colleagues. So are there any comments on step four? Brazil, you have the floor. Brazil [3:23:08]: Thank you. Could you please repeat it one more time? CBD · Co-Chair [3:23:15]: Step, the new step four. So it says, the Secretariat will, the Secretariat shall circulate the technical advice for peer review and the secretariat shall compile and make available for parties a report in light of the peer review feedback. Brazil [3:23:48]: Thank you. So would that mean that the inputs made by all parties and other stakeholders will not be added to the draft technical advice and proposals that will be on a different document, the report. CBD · Co-Chair [3:24:11]: Yeah, take the floor to secretariat to provide clarity. CBD Secretariat · Secretariat [3:24:22]: Thank you. Maybe if we could see how the process is envisaged, it could help. So the first step is that we will call for submissions. We will receive the submissions from parties as well as observers. Based on the submissions, the Secretariat will prepare a synthesis, step two. Then this and this will be transmitted to the AFEC for their consideration. Once the AFEC prepares a report and advice, this advice will go to a peer review. And the peer review will be available as an INF doc for SBHJ2 as well as the report of the AFEC. The peer review will be conducted by parties and observers, so observers will have the opportunity to also engage and participate in the peer review process. I hope that helps. Thank you. Brazil [3:25:33]: Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:25:35]: Thank you, Brazil. I hope that brings clarity, and I'm happy that we're also clarifying the process, a new process for ourselves. Indonesia, you have the floor. Indonesia [3:25:45]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I would like to go back to step three please. And we still have we still need time to consult with our capital but the thing is. We don't understand why our input is not inserted in the paragraph and this amendment is. An intervention is actually already delivered during the plenary so not just now. That is the thing that we don't understand. Therefore, in that sense, this amendment, including with all the step three, we'd like to have it bracketed and for. We don't want to delay the time, we can just move forward and have it decided in COP. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:26:35]: Thank you very much, Indonesia. Right now, your proposal is reflected in brackets, as I mentioned, while you conduct your consultations. and we have moved forward towards the next paragraphs. Nonetheless, I do want to remind that we heard from some parties the willingness to delete that part. So it is in brackets right now, but we have moved forward to the other section. So your input is captured in brackets in the text, in the para, and I've asked your flexibility in conducting consultations to see if the request for removal from some of the parties could be acceptable for you, so we can leave this para without brackets, as well as we are waiting for the consultations of Denmark to see if it would be acceptable to move the input on subject to availability of resources to the decision. Thank you very much. DRC, you have the floor. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:27:39]: Yes, thank you, Madam Co-Chair, for giving me the floor. We have five minutes left, and I have a proposal that we -- so I was saying we have five minutes left, and I have a proposal. we quickly look at the last step and then put the annex in brackets with a note saying that we did not have the time to review that at this meeting because In any case, if we start on this matter, we won't be able to finish it. And there were a lot of discussions on the nomination of experts and other matters. And that way we can wrap up these documents. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:28:48]: Thank you very much to DRC. I do take the suggestion to move us to step four before we close the session. And when we reach Annex II, we will have a discussion on how to proceed, okay? So I'm opening the floor for comments on step four, colleagues, which now would be step five. I see no request for the floor, so I'm very impressed. I will take that this para is acceptable as it is, okay? So now I'm moving us to then Annex 2 in the two minutes that we have left to close this plenary. I'm very, very, I will be strict with the business that we made here with regards of the time. So my proposal, colleagues, is I do want us to give us a chance to read Annex 2 before we bracket it, before we bracket everything. If our deliberations are not progressing and we are taking too much time on Annex 2, then we can figure it out how do we reflect the different views in that Annex. But I do really want to give us a chance to go in a read and to try to do it as quickly as possible, to focus on suggestions and to focus on bringing solutions. Okay, is that acceptable? Good. So we have one minute, so I'm going to open the floor to see if there are any suggestions to para one of annex two. I see none. Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm moving us forward then to see if there are any comments that we can take for para A of annex two, Canada. Canada [3:30:51]: Thank you Madam Chair, I'll be quick. To add at the start of paragraph 1A, review the glossary and continue on with the existing sentence which reads formulate advice and proposals on which elements of the glossary should be, and then here delete reviewed or, and continue on with updated. CBD · Co-Chair [3:31:24]: Thank you very much, Canada. I see no further requests from the floor, so I'm going to read your proposal and with the last minute that we have ask if this is acceptable. So para A would review the glossary and formulate advice and proposals on which elements of the glossary should be updated. in the light of the adoption and the rest of the para would read the same. Is this acceptable, colleagues? ICDRC. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:32:01]: Madam Chair, we would like it to stay as it was because if that is the mandate to, the mandate of the group is to give views and make proposals. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:32:24]: Thank you, DRC. And I'm going to ask whether you can be flexible with that, considering that para A will keep the formulate advice and proposals. It will just change the review wording that it's ahead in the sentence to the beginning. but it will keep the essence and formulate advice. So it will read review and formulate advice and proposals. It's a change of order, Canada, if that's correct. Okay. So last minute colleagues, I really want to close this session by closing para A. So I count on all of you. DRC, would this be acceptable for you? Go ahead. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:33:16]: Formulate this. Formulate advice and proposals and possibly review or examine. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:33:33]: Okay. Canada. Canada [3:33:40]: I'm so sorry. I just, I don't understand the changes being proposed by the DRC. If they could read out the placement of the wording. Our proposal is simply to make sure that there's a two-step process which reflects the changes that we made earlier in the document. We've made several requests to say we're going to review and then we were going to update. And so I'm sorry, I just didn't capture quite the specific wording changes that the DRC is proposing. CBD · Co-Chair [3:34:08]: DRS, would you like to provide an explanation after Canada's rationale for their change? Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:34:16]: Yes, my proposal takes up the Canadian proposal to have the two steps, formulate advice and proposals, and maybe or possibly review the elements of the glossary to be updated, and then the rest is the same. CBD · Co-Chair [3:34:48]: UK, you have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [3:34:53]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to recall what we agreed. Already in step three, which is the language that Canada is proposing here. So in step three, What we had agreed, the bit of text that is clean is the Secretariat shall review and convene an ad hoc technical expert group. And then we deleted that later review so that it said that we were going to then update. So this is. The same language that we've agreed in step three that we're just bringing down, so we mirror it here in 1a. And I realize it's late, so it's hard to keep track of all the things we've changed, but I think Hopefully this is relatively easy to accept since we've accepted it once before. CBD · Co-Chair [3:35:39]: Thank you very much. DRC, you have the floor followed by the Russian Federation. I will ask you to be very brief because we're over our business. Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:35:48]: Yes, Madam Chair, what we propose is what was already accepted for step three. And in the second line it says that they will formulate technical advice and proposals on the elements of the glossary. So that's all we're proposing. It doesn't go against what was already agreed. CBD · Co-Chair [3:36:20]: Russian Federation. Russian Federation [3:36:22]: So I'm afraid that DRC broke the deal. And we suggest we just go with the Canadian proposal because it makes sense and it's also in line, I mean consistent. So let's agree on that paragraph and go to the hotel. Thank you. CBD · Co-Chair [3:36:49]: Thank you very much. Russian Federation, DRC, can you show flexibility with the Canadian proposal? Democratic Republic of the Congo [3:36:59]: Well, I don't want to keep everyone here. We're over time, so we can be flexible. CBD · Co-Chair [3:37:09]: Thank you very much, dear colleagues. We can go to the hotel. Thank you very much. Get some rest, but not before mentioning one thing, announcements. We are, so my proposal for the organisation of work tomorrow, so everyone is clear. We didn't manage to get through the whole review of guidelines 5A and 5B. We need to have at least 12 hours before plenary sessions. So my proposal is for we take as much advantage of the time that we have tomorrow, that we have a one hour contact group from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. to finalise the reading of the draft decision of the guidelines. One hour. So I expect that we can start very sharp, 10:00 a.m. sharp. We will have sufficient hours to rest, to recover. 00 a.m. sharp to 11:00 a.m., that contact group. Then we will go to plenary from 11:00 to 2:00, see? 12 to 2. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I want us to have a break from 12 to 2. And then we will announce the next plenary in the afternoon or in the evening. Okay. Super. So we'll go to the hotel when this can so thank you very much.