Workshop on the outcomes of the work of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology

process, and so it's really difficult to say what it is, how it's going to go in the next couple of weeks. And so I think we will just— obviously it's in the hands of the parties. And then in terms of the question from New Zealand, some of the indicators are outcome, some of them are not. I would say protected areas is not an outcome. Protected areas is a direct result of a policy action, and then the outcome would be, you know, related to ecosystem extent or ecosystem condition or, you know, reduction in threatened species, something like this, you know, improvement in the Red List. Those would be the outcomes. So some of the indicators are outcomes, some of them are more output, and then there's the binary indicators which are more policy measures. And for Target 1, you actually have a combination of these. And so I think that we have tried in the report to To look across what type of indicators are we looking at. And for the targets, many of the indicators are not outcome indicators. They're more output indicators, and you would see changes faster. For instance, even the area under restoration. It doesn't ask how much has been restored. It asks how much is under restoration. So again, that's not an outcome. The outcome would be the area that's restored. So this does give us, I think, a good way to to see things at an intermediate step by using these different types of indicators together and pulling out the gaps that we're seeing at different stages, and that's exactly what we have attempted to do in the Global Report.

Thank you very much. I invite you also to see in the documents the recommendations that would be the basis for our debates. I hope we can be strategic in terms of look for the technical and scientific elements during week 1 and then to leave the political and implementation elements for the second. Maybe we can save time if we separate these 2 ways of thinking to have clarity on one part and not to be too ambitious or to revolve things that can be messy. So we are running out of time. I believe this This was a very interesting exchange. I hope it's now clear for delegates where we are in terms of how this report was prepared, the different methodological elements, and under the guidance of the hashtag to have clarity in the process, and also what information so far is doing. This is the first time this is ever done. And, well, I don't know if there are some additional remarks from here on the podium.

Not at this point.

If it's not the case, so thank you very much everyone for being here and looking forward to see you on Monday when we deal with this agenda item with our chair. Thank you very much to all.

Have a good day.

Good afternoon, everyone. We're just doing a quick transition to synthetic biology, and just give us 5 minutes so that we can settle the next meeting. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this briefing session on the outcomes of. The work of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology. We're very pleased that you've taken time to spend a few minutes, 55 minutes hopefully, on this important topic. It's now my great pleasure to invite the Deputy Executive Secretary, Ms. Lee, who will provide some opening and welcoming remarks to you all. Ms. Lee has been a very good champion for the work on synthetic biology, and we're very pleased that she— and thankful for her leadership for this process.

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Wachi. Thank you so much. Distinguished delegates, representatives of parties, and observers, Colleagues, good afternoon. It is a pleasure to welcome you to this workshop on the outcomes of the ATAC Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology, being held in advance of the 28th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice. Synthetic biology is a rapidly evolving and cross-cutting field with relevance to 3 objectives of the Convention and the implementation of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. With its growing relevance, other international organizations including FAO, OECD, IUCN, UNESCO, and WHO are also examining its implications and developing innovative policies, technical publications, and decision-making guidelines. This underlines the need for careful, balanced, and science-based consideration of its potential benefits and risks. Decision 1621 on synthetic biology was therefore very timely. It initiated 2 important processes. First, stocktaking of science and the potential impacts of synthetic biology. And second, the development of thematic action plan to address longstanding inequities in participation through capacity building, technology transfer, and knowledge sharing. Together, these provide parties with both the scientific foundation and the practical means needed to engage with this rapidly evolving field in the context of the Convention. To support this work, the Conference of the Parties established a new ad hoc technical expert group on synthetic biology. The outcome of this group's hard work, which will be central to substance deliberation in coming days, translates complex scientific and technical concepts into actionable suggestions for the consideration by parties. It also illustrates how development in synthetic biology relates to the targets of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. The second key outcome is the thematic action plan, which seeks to strengthen the capacity of all actors, particularly developing country parties, and indigenous peoples and local communities to participate effectively in research, development, assessment, governance, and decision-making related to synthetic biology and biodiversity. Here in Nairobi, CEPSTA will soon consider both the expert group's report and the thematic action plan. Its recommendation will inform the Conference of the Parties and support balanced, forward-looking, and science-based decision-making under the Convention. Today's workshop is intended to support these deliberations. We are pleased that Ms. Valeria Giovanelli, co-chair of the expert group, will present the group's key findings, while Secretary Colleagues will introduce the thematic action plan. Through informed dialogue and exchange of views at this workshop, we can support sound and balanced decision-making under the Convention. I would like to conclude by expressing my sincere appreciation to the European Union for its generous financial support, which has made this important work and this workshop possible. I also wish to thank the co-chairs, Ms. Weiwen Zhang and Ms. Valeria Giovanelli, for their leadership of the expert group. My thanks also go to all experts for their valuable contributions throughout the intersessional process, and also the Institute of Genetics and Cytology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus for its support in preparing the thematic Action Plan. Thank you so much once again for your participation today. I wish you a productive workshop deliberation.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Lee, for your opening remarks and for officially beginning this brief workshop. We greatly appreciate all of your leadership and support for this work. Our first presentation will provide an overview of the thematic action plan in the context of synthetic biology, and it will essentially set the scene for our discussions. I now invite Austin McLaughlin, the lead officer on synthetic biology representing the Secretariat, and he will now give us the overview.

Thank you, Austin.

Thank you, Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us here today. So, as Watsi said, I'm going to give just a brief overview of the process on synthetic biology and then also present the thematic action plan. Sorry, while I just sort of get to— oh, perfect. So, just as a background, the discussions under the Convention on Synthetic Biology have really taken place since 2010, so that's over a decade's worth of discussions on synthetic biology. And relevant decisions have been taken under biofuels and biodiversity, new and emerging issues, as well as synthetic biology itself. And the work has been supported by, of course, submissions of information, the open-ended online forum on synthetic biology, studies, technical series publications, 5 ATAGs and 1 multidisciplinary ATAG. So the recent decision on synthetic biology, so 1621, the Conference of the Parties decided to develop a thematic action plan to support capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology, and knowledge sharing in the context of synthetic biology for the implementation of the convention and the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. It also established a new ad hoc technical expert group, or ad hoc, on synthetic biology, and requested an information gathering process, which consisted of submissions of information, convening the open-ended online forum on synthetic biology, and commissioning an independent scientific study. The new ad hoc technical expert group was tasked with reviewing and synthesizing the information gathered, Building upon the work, the previous work under the convention and its protocols, to identify current and potential benefits of synthetic biology, and then to identify the potential positive and the potential negative impacts of synthetic of the most recent technological developments in synthetic biology. They were also tasked with providing advice on how capacity building, technology transfer. And knowledge sharing can be taken into account in light of the future developments in synthetic biology. So we had a pretty busy intersessional period. So this is just an overview on the screen. So it started with submissions of information, which ran from May to August 2025. And then this fed into the drafting of the thematic action plan. So the first draft was done between August and December 2025. Then it was released for peer review, which ran over the holiday, the winter holiday season, and then finalized at the first part of this year for, of course, presentation at this subsidiary body, as well as the subsidiary body on implementation. In parallel, there was also the commissioning of the independent scientific study. So this started with an expressions of interest process, and then there was the first draft, which was done between August and March, a peer review process, and then, of course, the study was finalized for the ATAG. We also had discussions of the open-ended online forum, which occurred earlier this year in February and March. We also had the first capacity-building workshop on synthetic biology, which happened on the Isle of Vilm in November 2025. This all fed into the ATAG, which met in May, and now we are at SABSTA and SBI, and we're heading towards Yerevan. So just as sort of an overview, so since the last open-ended online forum, in terms of the information that was shared, also through the submissions, there appeared to be increased developments, or perhaps increased interest in a few key areas, including artificial intelligence, applications being proposed for conservation uses, applications for bioremediation and waste reduction, applications for bioproduction, fermentation, and industrial uses, microbiome engineering, biosensors, and of course a continued development of different tools, underlying technologies, and infrastructure.

structure.

In terms of sort of novel developments, so those that perhaps weren't necessarily shared in the previous intersessional period, there are some developments in terms of the artificial cells and pathways. So this includes the mirror bacterium, and different artificial biochemical pathways, and synthetic bypasses, convergence with nanotechnology, and, of course, proposals for applications for biocontainment. And now, just to sort of go a little bit more into detail, and sort of linking it to the previous processes that— and the work undertaken, which will be helpful for Valeria's presentation and understanding the outcomes of the ATAG. In terms of artificial intelligence and computational biology, there was extensive information shared through the submissions on the online forum. Some of the developments shared related to AI being used to design different types of organisms and proteins and biochemical pathways, AI being used for automation and acceleration of workflows, as well as AI being used for computational modeling of complex datasets. So microbial communities, trying to understand the function of unknown genes, the redesign of genome editors and viruses. There was also a suggestion that AI could be used in the risk assessment of LMOs. In terms of self-limiting insect systems, limited information was shared. However, these related to the precision-guided sterile insect technique. In terms of engineered gene drives, the developments shared focused more on technical refinement and expansion to other insect vectors and agricultural pests. However, some novel developments related to the tailoring of the particular engineered gene drive to specific ecological contexts, and there were further proposals for using engineered gene drives for invasive alien species. Also, just to highlight that in terms of the work undertaken under the Cartagena Protocol. There was also the publication of Biosafety Technical Series 5, which is designed to support the case-by-case risk assessment of LMOs containing engineered gene drives. In terms of self-spreading vaccines for wildlife, the information shared through the online forum and the submissions suggested that research is still focused on refinement of the technology and modeling. However, there was also a novel application shared for using an engineered virus for feral cat management. In terms of the inequity in the participation of developing countries in the context of synthetic biology, this was, of course, brought up through the submissions and the online forum. And we can see now that there's a thematic action plan being developed, so hopefully that will also address that. In terms of engineered microbes, so bacteria and microbiome engineering, it seems that the information shared through the online forum and the submissions suggest that the research is advancing beyond just modifying a single bacterium or a single constituent and towards constructing synthetic consortia. There's also a diversification in the proposed applications, so—

Yeah.

looking at modifying the micro— rhizobia and coral microbiomes. And then there was also a novel application for honeybee microbiomes, as well as some proposals for conjugated killing. In terms of transient modification of agricultural Plants, pests, and pathogens. So this is artificial— sorry, this is RNA interference and nanomaterials. There is a suggestion that there has been some commercialization of some RNAi sprays. And there's also— there was a suggestion through the submissions that perhaps there's a shift to working on nanotechnology.

Okay.

In terms of genome-edited plants, it was suggested both on the online forum and through the submissions, that research development and commercialization is quite active, and that new applications have been moving into woody tree species.

This—

the next one has attracted a lot of attention in the media, or at least on my Google feed on my phone, would be the use of synthetic biology for conservation purposes. So there's some companies and some research ongoing for de-extinction projects, as well as some on some self-spreading vaccines. But it seems that under this category there's a lot of proposals for trying to resurrect certain species.

Yes.

But there was also a lot of information shared that there's been technical improvements in cloning and stem cell technologies and biobanking which could support these efforts.

This is—

So there was also a lot of information shared related to bioproduction. So this is the bioproduction of antibiotics, natural products, medically relevant compounds, flavors, biofuels, chemical precursors, and industrial chemicals. So it continues to apparently be an active area of research. So these tend to be microbial contained microbial systems. However, there's also some research looking at extremophilic microorganisms and algal systems for enhancing the bioproduction. In terms of bioremediation, biodegradation, and biominining, there was a lot of information shared suggesting that there's different proposals for addressing different sources of pollution. Plastics, mine tailings, et cetera. So it seems to be the research is focusing on engineering enzymes or particular proteins or microbes to facilitate either the degradation and in the case of plastics the recycling of such pollution. There's also a lot of information shared regarding biosensors, devices, and diagnostics. So some of these are cell-free systems, others are modified microorganisms that act as reporters. So there were different proposals about environmental monitoring for pollution, pathogens, and also monitoring ecosystems and biodiversity itself. For genome-edited animals, there was a suggestion through the submissions that research is continuing on different farm animals. Fish, shellfish, and insects, and there's been an increase of patent filings. However, limited information was shared on the online forum. And then in terms of the underlying tools and technologies, there was a suggestion that work continues on looking at different novel delivery systems and chemistries, different advances in protein engineering, and increased sophistication of gene genome editing tools. Some of this is also linked to that AI topic. And then, of course, through the submissions and the online forum, there are a lot of other cross-cutting considerations that were mentioned in relation to many of these areas. So these include the interaction of synthetic biology organisms in the environment and the potential for cumulative effects, the dual-use nature and biosecurity implications of synthetic biology, transboundary considerations, and, of course, the speed of development. And now, just to shift gears a little bit, I'll now talk a little bit more about the thematic action plan that has been made available for this subsidiary body meeting, as well as the SBI. So this thematic action plan was drafted with the support of the Institute of Genetics and Cytology of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, and with the kind funding of the European Union. So the first draft was based on 29 submissions from 19 parties, 1 UN agency, and 9 organizations. Once we had the first draft, this was submitted for peer review. We had a quite robust peer review. We had over 900 comments on the thematic action plan, and we had 36 submissions from 17 parties, 1 non-party, and 18 organizations. So in terms of the structure of the thematic action plan, there's 8 main sections, and then there's 3 outcome areas that are contained in the enclosure. So these are 3 tables, more or less. I'll go through these in a little bit more detail in a moment, but just to highlight overall that the thematic action plan tries to really strike a balance between the research and development needs as specified in 1621, and the needs for assessment of synthetic biology. Also, just to highlight as well, in terms of the first draft and the one made available for the subsidiary body meeting, the first draft contained indicators. However, being that the thematic action plan is voluntary and contains a set of potential actions and the volume of comments received, the indicators were removed between versions. So now just to go through section by section, sort of explain each of these sections and its purpose. So Section 1 is really the introduction. This really tries to stick close to the language that's in in 1621. It also introduces the famous operational definition of synthetic biology. Section 2 explains the structure of the document, so that there's the 8 sections and then the enclosure with the 3 tables. And the 3 areas are capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology, and knowledge sharing. However, in 1621, there was also a request for strategies for equitable participation, strategies to promote fair and equitable benefit sharing, and mechanisms for technology transfer, knowledge sharing, and scientific— technical and scientific cooperation. For these areas, an integrated approach has been taken, so these elements have been tried to integrate into those 3 main areas. There's also reference to other action plans, and these have been referenced in the document to try to avoid some duplication and repetitive text. Section 3 speaks to the linkage of the thematic action plan to the convention and the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. So it makes specific reference to some articles to minimize the potential adverse effects and also distribution of benefits. It also makes mention of specific targets of the KMGBF. and the potential contributions to their implementation. This also introduces the fact that there are 2 capacity building action plans that have been developed under the protocol, so the Cartagena Capacity Building Action Plan and the Nagoya Protocol one, and that the thematic action plan should be seen as complementary to those. Section 4 talks about the use of the thematic action plan. So here it's introduced that the thematic action plan is voluntary and can be used by all actors. It suggests a phased approach to implementation. So this is linked to output 1.1 on the—

sorry.

So that the first step will be for the identification of needs and priorities of the particular actor. There's also a reference to horizon scanning and foresight activities. That could be used to sort of have that future-looking element and to take new developments into account. Section 5 is on guiding principles, and this section was drafted also to really help reduce repetition in the document. So it talks about several principles that should be considered when using the thematic action plan, such as taking a precautionary approach, adopting a science-based approach, free, prior, and informed consent, among many other things. It also makes reference to complementary principles, guidelines, and frameworks that have been developed under the Convention, but also by other international bodies. So, for example, the Gender Plan of Action, the Akwaekeong Voluntary Guidelines, as well as UNDRIP and the UNESCO recommendation on open science, among many others. Section 6 is on means of implementation. So it talks about how the systematic action plan could potentially be used for guiding programmatic directions of the financial mechanism and for governments to set aside dedicated national funding. Section 7 talks about the role of the Secretariat and the TSCs. So it talks that the Secretariat can be requested to support the thematic action plan, including publishing information on the clearinghouses or asking for additional information or submissions of information. There's also a suggestion that the regional and subregional support centers could provide support for the implementation of the thematic action plan. Section 8 is on monitoring and reporting, and it essentially says that it will be done in conjunction with a long-term strategic framework. So the 3 tables that are found in the enclosure have these main output areas. So for outcome area 1, this is on capacity for research and development and assessment of synthetic biology, so strengthening capacity. So 1.1 is that identification identification of needs and priorities. The second one is on strengthening the physical infrastructure. So these are the labs, et cetera. The third one is about the personnel capacity. So the human capacity. And then 4 and 5. So here's where there's— tries to strike a balance. So 4 is on essentially the research and development elements. So the capacity for developing low local capacity for research and development. And 5 is on enhancing assessment capacity. So it was to try to really make a dedicated section for each of those. Outcome area 2 is on technology transfer and improving access to and transfer of technology. So the first one is increasing access to and transfer of technology. The second is establishing robust regulatory environments aligned with existing regulation. And the third is strengthening access and benefit sharing from synthetic biology technology. So here's an example of where one of the requests was integrated in the— from Decision 1621. And finally, the third area is enhancing knowledge sharing on synthetic biology, including its development, assessment, governance, and regulation. And it has 4 output areas. The first, improving access to scientific knowledge; the second on establishing knowledge-sharing initiatives and mechanisms; the third on expanding communication and outreach; and the fourth on promoting inclusive knowledge sharing. So each of these output areas have a swath of different suggested or exemplary actions that could be taken related to these outcome areas. So just before I close, and because I did mention it in the timeline, we also did have our first capacity building on synthetic biology. So this took place 3 to 7 November on the Isle of Vilnius with our partners, the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. We had 19 participants from 18 parties that attended. Just very briefly, it introduced the participants to synthetic biology under the convention and its protocols. Oh, sorry. Thank you. It also talked about some recent developments in synthetic biology. There was breakout groups on needs for capacity building, technology transfer, and knowledge sharing. There was a section on the assessment of synthetic biology, and then some case studies and further breakout groups. I won't go into much detail, but I strongly encourage you to go to the side event that is being held on Thursday in the evening. The QR code up at the top is the link to the report of the workshop, but I just wanted to also say that please attend the side event if you want more information about this, this capacity building activity. So with that, I'd like to thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Austin, for providing a comprehensive overview of where we are and also of the thematic action plan. Now I will turn over to the chair— the co-chair of the ad hoc technical experts group, Ms. Valeria Giovannelli, who together with Wei Wang Zhang of China co-chaired the new ATEC.

Valeria—

okay. So Valeria had a mammoth task ahead before her. There was a lot of work that the ATEC had to conduct, and with her co-chair, they were able to work very well and finish the meeting before midnight. So we were very pleased with that. So over to you, Valeria.

Okay.

Hello.

Good morning, everybody, dear colleagues. I'm really glad that the Secretariat and the Biosafety Secretariat teams gave me the opportunity to share with you the work done from the ATACOS in BIO this year. It's okay. Can you— can they hear me? Oh, thank you. Thank you.

Yes.

So the meeting of the ATEC has been held in Montreal this May, and it was funded from EU, and we have 28 experts. So you can read all the details of the ATEC in my slide, but what I want to— I would like to take a minute to thank my co-chair, Wei Wen, Zhang, that is not here, unfortunately, for his hard work, and we work really well together. And I wish to thank my colleagues because we could have a really collegial and fair atmosphere during our discussion. So we had both experienced experts and new experts that bring all together their expertise and their point of view in a very constructive way. Maybe that's the reason that we finished before midnight. Of course, we have a very— a lot of discussion of the items. Symbio is really broad topic, and we already— everybody know the operational definition that we have from Decision 1370. And we acknowledge this broad sense of the definition together with the expert, but still can have discussion on symbio application and all the huge amount of information that we receive from the submission of the party and the online forum. So the the main goal of the attack was to contribute to go on further on the work on symbio. BIO. And as I said, we discuss and sometimes we have really different perspective, and that was good because what we need in NHGRI is to bring together in a constructive way different perspective to elaborate on our mandate. It's quite difficult. I cannot bring— yeah, okay, thank you. So my first information is how we addressed the draft thematic action plan on capacity building and development. Our mandate was to provide advice on how capacity building, knowledge sharing, technology transfer can be addressed, taking into account the future and recent developments on SimBio. In light of the framework, Global Biodiversity Framework, and the 3 objectives of the convention. So we start our work with some presentation to have a landscape of what we need to address. So we had a presentation from the Institute of Genetic and Cytology on the thematic action plan and its content. The Secretariat provided us some information on the long strategic framework on capacity building and development under the CBD, plus how the technical and scientific cooperation works, so the mechanism behind the technical and scientific cooperation. Further, we have some presentation by UNEP on capacity building project funded by DGEF. So at the end of our discussion on draft thematic action plan, The experts emphasize that the approach, again, with respect to the future development of synthetic biology should be flexible and forward-looking in nature. We are speaking of a very fast group of techniques that develops in a fast way.

We—

the experts emphasize the importance that the mitigation plan remain responsive responsive to cross-cutting issues. To give you an example, biosecurity, biosafety, environmental, social safeguard, public sector research, technology transfer. And all the experts agree that parties would benefit from our horizon scanning and monitoring in order to identify realistic applications and emerging developments on the issue of synthetic biology. Also, the experts underlined the importance that revision to the thematic action plan fell outside of the mandate, so we did not discuss on the thematic action plan. I have to do this. So the next part of the mandate is the review and synthesis of information. We consider— our work was based mainly on these 3 documents that you see listed: document INF-1, INF-2, and 1/2. The 1/2 is consideration on synthetic biology. That is a document prepared by the Secretariat, and we really thank for that. Well, all the information contained in INF-1 and INF-2 have been summarized and provided with rationale. So we, of course, analyze all the documents, but we start our work on— we start our work from document 1/2. So I give you a short— some short consideration on the document 3. That's on the independent scientific study on synthetic biology. Biology. All the experts have concerns of the overall methodology used to go through the analysis of literature review and bibliography synthesis. And so about the methodology, we have concern about the selection of search term used. We think that there were too narrow, that mainly focus on genome editing. And we have also concern on the subtle sides for data collection. We really think that we need more data. We provide some suggestions for improving future scientific studies, because we believe— we trust in the process to have a scientific study.

Thank you.

study on some specific scientific item. So what we suggest is adequate time and resource to provide these studies and their result, a really deep peer review process, and inclusion of multidisciplinary knowledge. So what we really note, and we see it from these studies, that similar trends in synthetic biology between previous work conducted and information gathered in organizational period have been funded during the analysis of these studies. So the ATAG took note also of other activities in other fora, as a UCM policy on synthetic biology in relation to nature conservation and Biological Weapons Convention Working Group on strengthening of the convention ongoing work. So let's go to one of the interesting tasks of the ATAC, where we are speaking about benefit, current benefit of synthetic biology. The mandate is— the mandate to the ATAC was to identify the current potential benefit— oh no, sorry, I just changed that. Identify the current benefit of synthetic biology in relation to the 3 objectives of the convention and the implementation of Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. Again, our base documents were 1/2, INF1, I will not repeat again, and most important, the available expertise present in the ATHAC. So we addressed the current benefit of synthetic biology. There was an initial round of discussion, the document and all the information we gathered from the submission of the party online forum and the synthesis of the Secretariat. And then we split into working groups. One working group addressed the current benefit. The other working group addressed the potential benefit. And then each working group reported back to the plenary of the ATAG, and we discussed on the results and make some changes, taking into account all the input coming from the experts that were not in the working group. So we— the current benefits have been summarized in a table, and we provide illustrative examples in relation to the target of the framework. That's what— that is a really important step forward. So we try to work together with the Global Biodiversity Framework, try to link, and was not a really easy task, the link between the current benefit and each target. Maybe you will not agree on what we identify, but I assure you that we have a long discussion. This is the best link we find, the best relation we find between the benefit and the target. So all the results are about the current benefit and the table I was speaking about are reported in Annex 2 of the report. And all the examples and the benefits identified by the parties are considered as initial and illustrative. And most important, they are not a result of an assessment. They are an identification from the parties and from the experts of the online forum. So what we underline, that there is a lack of clear mechanism or agreed methodology for identifying quantified benefit associated with application of synthetic biology in the context of KMM GABF. Oh, I have to move. So what the expert emphasized also is that commercialization of large-scale application or deployment should not be considered itself a prerequisite for identifying benefits. It's just that they are commercialized. So we need to really consider and take into account if there are benefits, but in particular in the context of biodiversity conservation-related activities. And so we really consider that some current benefit may relate to broader enabling contribution and tools that are cross-cutting through different targets. We can go on. Okay. So this is the table you will find in the Annex 2 of the report. As you can see, we have some examples. The most famous in our group is the recombinant factor that is a synthetic replacement for Limulus amebocyta lysate, the source is from horseshoe crabs. And the group linked this example to target 5 and 9, and the current benefit from the parties that reduce harvesting pressure on biodiversity. So I will not go through the list. I will be ready to answer to any question on that.

Thank you.

this, we cannot go on. So this working group— Working Group 2 worked on the potential benefit, and work— the way of work was really similar. We have initial round of discussion within all the ASSEG members. Then we go in a working group, prepare a table, also in this case, and report back to the ATAC to discuss this and take into account the expertise that wasn't— that were not in the small working group. So we also try again to align all the potential contribution of synthetic biology to each target of the framework. It was not easy task because different experts with different background, of course, have different perspective on the potential benefit, but we find a way and try— you can see that some of the benefits are repeated along different targets. So results are presented in Annex 3 of the report, and they were really important as every potential benefit or potential risk. They are contextualized and they're used with illustrative examples. And as I said, some applications address more than one target depending on their use. And again, also in this case, this potential benefit identified by the parties and reported in the table are not the results of an assessment and may require further verification and consideration. And again, links to the indicators in the monitoring framework have yet to be be established. We make only the relation to the target. So what we identify along all the potential benefits is there are some overarching elements.

They—

for sure, the potential benefits are context-specific, depending on the application, intended use, likely receiving environment. governance, and social environment. Maybe they are— they could be unequally distributed and need to ensure specific consideration for indigenous people and local communities, women, and youth are taken into account. Again, we identify some potential benefits identified during the intersessional period have been moved to be considered as supporting tools and technologies rather than specific benefit. And they are cross-cutting in nature and could support contribution to various targets. Some examples are molecular tools that can help to support— can help to understand biodiversity and monitoring ecosystem and intervention for conservation, sustainable use, or is biobanking for the preservation and maintenance of genetic diversity, diversity of wild and domesticated species. So this is only an example of the target. So we identify the target, for example, Target 2, and we provide some example, of course, taken by the list of submission from the parties and online forum and summarized in the document by the Secretariat. So one benefit is the remediation of degraded ecosystem and the use of the application that we consider and provide as an example is engineered microbes to degrade hydrocarbons following an oil spill or soil pollutant. So this is the way you can read the table. We provide the time target an example and contextualize and providing some specific example on the issue. But you can find more detail on the document that have been provided on the website of the SAPSA. So we have another mandate as ATEC. We need to identify the potential positive impacts of the most recent technological developments. And again, we fully pick from the expertise present into the ATEC to try to analyze somewhere— somehow all the potential positive impacts identified by the parties. In document 1/2, Annex 2, The Secretariat identified— summarized all the input received during the intersessional period in 12 areas. And the ATAG identified 5 priority areas. We agree upon this. And this is— these are artificial intelligence and computational biology, bioremediation and waste reduction applications, artificial cells, synthetic genomics, and artificial biochemical pathways. Application for conservation use, and microbiome engineering. So the ATAC decided to focus on these 5 areas. All the results are reported in Annex 4 of the report. And between these 5 areas, the ATAC decided to start with artificial intelligence and computational biology, and reflects the— All the results reflect— all the report reflects all the preliminary consideration and is based on the discussion of the work of the ATEC group. And the ATEC during this consideration and discussion take into account, of course, of the results of the previous ATEC in the previous period and COP. Unfortunately, owing to the time constraint, the other 4 areas were unaddressed from the ATAG. But we have a quite good starting point how to address the other 4 areas. These are the potential positive impacts and potential negative impacts that the ATAG identified for artificial intelligence and computational analysis. And between— within the potential positive impacts, we have accelerated developments of conservation tools, and that could be applied to different targets of the framework. Expanded research participation, and this can relate both to the framework and to the thematic action plan and capacity building. building. And then we go to some examples of potential negative impact. Increased opportunities for misuse and dual-use concern. Or some negative impacts on— at socioeconomic level. And concern regarding fair access and benefit sharing. Raised bias in material control. And ownership of data and analytical capacity. But you can find everything on on the annex to the report. And here there are the conclusions of the ATAG that are reported in Annex 1. And the ATAG recognizing the complexity of the most recent technological advances in synthetic biology, a process to assess the most recent technological developments and their potential positive and potential negative impacts based on the available multidisciplinary scientific evidence and bearing in mind decision, all the decisions related to Sampaio of the Conference of Parties may be considered. So we are asking for a process. This should be considered. No, no, no, no, no. So furthermore, the ADEQ concluded that the identification assessment of potential positive and potential negative impacts of the most recent technological developments in bio should be carried out in an inclusive and balanced manner and build on previous relevant work undertaken under the Convention and its Protocol. We had a lot of works already done by the other ATEC that worked very well. We can start from this, and we need to do it in an inclusive Further, the potential positive and potential negative impacts should be assessed on a multidisciplinary science basis, be inclusive, and on a case-by-case basis. We can go on. I will not read all of them. And then the expert notes the potential of synthetic biology to exert both positive and negative impacts in the context of the 3 objectives of the CBD and the framework. And thus, efforts to support capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge sharing in the context of CIMPALIO, in line with the thematic action plan, should be accelerated to address development, assessment, governance, regulation, and unequal participation in the field of synthetic biology. And again, the experts recognized the importance of anticipatory approaches, including horizon scanning and monitoring mechanisms, in supporting the timely identification assessment of both potential positive and potential negative impacts of future developments in synbio. So I thank you all for your attention, and I'm ready to work with you all in this beautiful Nairobi. And thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Filippa.

Thank you for your response.

Okay, thank you very much. to the co-chair for giving you, I think, even a sense of the discussions so that you have some context for the deliberations you will have this week. It was indeed a very fruitful discussion, and the atmosphere that the meeting had was really informed by the very capable—

Thank you.

hands of our co-chair, Valeria, and thank you very much. I don't know if there are any questions. And I see an old friend of synthetic biology. Yes, Osama.

Thank you, Wadih, and thanks for co-chairs and the ATIC for the wonderful work. It's not actually related to the work of the ATAG, but how the thing has been presented as a proposed decision for the SAPSTA. I have worries that if you look at the report of the ATAG itself, it says that those listing for the potential and positive impact, it has all kinds of qualifiers. It says it's preliminary, it's illustrative, it's not the result of assessment, it requires further verification and consideration. There is a lack of mechanism or methodology for identifying or quantifying the benefit, and a lot of qualifiers. And in the decision, we note those lists. I think it's better, and even include it in an annex. If you put a list in an annex, it requires certain level of endorsement that we think they are good and they are adopted and whatever. But the ATT&CK itself says that this is preliminary illustrative. It has not been assessed. I think we need to acknowledge the work of the ATT&CK and not to have the list being there, because having the list being there It means that the ATIC themselves endorse them, and we think they are fine enough. While the way they have been presented, we have like 2 proposed decisions, 3 and 4, saying that we know the list of potential, we know the list of positive, while I think this is not very good representation of what exists in the report itself. We need to acknowledge their work. They have done wonderful work.

Thank you.

But the list itself, I'm not sure if it should exist in 2 paragraphs of the decision and being included in the annex itself. Because, I mean, you got— it might be interpreted as giving a political endorsement to those examples that the expert group itself recognized are preliminary and illustrative and not based on agreed assessment and methodology.

Thank you.

Yes, Mustafa.

Thank you very much too. I'm not an expert, to make it easy for you, on synthetic biology. Having said that, synthetic biology is a very complicated subject. Not only complicated in terms of all the issues, but even when you look at the targets, GBF targets, there are more— even more than half of them deal with synthetic biology. Based on all of this and the report of the thematic areas, it was said the role of CBD secretariat.

Yes.

I would like to see the role of the focal points because focal points cannot be experts in all of the issues that are related to all of this. Not only this, but even the structure of the report itself where you have, I think, Section 5, 6, 7 should be in front rather than in the end, because you say this situation, who are involved in the whole process, and then you go to the results straight away. For example, if you take something like the benefits, who benefits from all of this? Developed countries, they know how, they have resources, whereas developing countries are seeking just to know. The knowledge, data about the technology transfer and all of this for developing countries are almost nonexistent, or even if they exist, you cannot follow them as such. So if you are talking about benefits, who benefits? Developed countries rather than anything else? And I can say many, many things like that, So this situation, it is a very important issue. It should be simplified, at least for the focal points, in a way that we can communicate rather than leaving it. And when it comes to decision makers, here again and again, the focal points have to be prepared to explain to decision makers what benefit the countries can benefit from, can get out of this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for that input. Are there any other comments? Yes, Klo.

I hope this is working. Yeah, and I don't know if it's still morning. It's afternoon now, so good afternoon, colleagues, everyone, and thanks to the Secretariat as well. So I just have— I think one is just one reflection and then maybe one question. Yeah, so I think to the ATEC, maybe just some words of comfort on the methodology. I think you will always find that when it comes to SimBio, that's always going to be a contentious area. I think Osama has spoken in terms of the expertise that you put around. You'll find that the methodology approach which is always going to be a challenging one. So it's going to be interesting to see how the discussions go, you know, in the next 2 days or so. Yeah, so on— yeah, maybe just if it can be answered maybe from the ATAG. I see horizon scanning is popping up again, and we know how this has always gone when it comes to Simbio. It gets done and then it gets thrown back, or the parties deliberate differently around it. Yes. But it always seems like it comes back as a requirement that needs to be done, either through the Secretariat Office or through the ATEC, and we know that it takes a lot of time to do. Is this something that maybe the ATEC deliberated a little bit on when it put it down again as a recommendation, and maybe just to get a general sense of, you know, if it's something that will be looked at again, or through the thematic action plan, it's something that the parties will be encouraged to do themselves. Yeah, I don't know if that will be answered or if it can also just be a reflection point. Thanks.

Thank you, Claude. Hendrik?

Hello, good morning everyone, or good afternoon already. I just was thinking that it is now at this space, at this same meeting rooms that 16 years ago the issue of synthetic biology was first raised in the Convention on Biological Diversity by the publication of a paper in Science on the creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. And I remember sitting here or running around here when that paper hit the floor and everybody was a little bit shocked. Seeing this sort of developments. Now, that is 16 years ago, and I have the impression that the field of synthetic biology has been developing much faster than we as a community have been able to address the issue in our deliberations. So just thinking about that, I would hope, and it's just a thought, I would hope that we have some very constructive discussions during the weeks to come and that is the same thing for everything that touches upon the convention, that we are— will be able and willing to start implementing everything that we decide, everything we recommend to the COP on issues related to biodiversity and in particular synthetic biology. That's 16 years in science is a very long period, but 16 years in policy development doesn't seem to be such a long period. Thank you very much.

Okay.

Ruelan, Ruelan. Yeah.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Appreciate for the presentation, which highlighted that the identification of current and potential benefit is illustrated rather than as an assessment, and that there remain significant knowledge gaps. Looking ahead, how does the AHTEC envisage prioritizing future work so that parties can strengthen the evidence base while ensuring that assessment remains science-based, proportionate, and responsive to the rapid pace of technological development, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence and computational biology. And, um, the second part is that the report identifies, identifies 5 priorities under areas for further considerations. Could the presenter elaborate on why these 5 areas were selected and what criteria or methodology that ARTEC used to prioritize them over other emerging developments in synthetic biology? Thank you. Sorry, it's a bit long.

So, in the interest of time, I think we won't take any more Oh, okay. There's one more comment from Ava, and then we will ask the co-chair to respond.

Thank you very much. I'm Ava with Third World Network. I just have a question. I'm a bit unclear about the issue of genome editing in This document, I see that there's a mention of the divergence of views about genome-edited plants and genome-edited mammals, but at the same time in the current benefits list there are genome-edited applications in there. For example, genome-edited plants is listed as a current benefit. I think— I haven't got the list in front of me. I think there's another example of the genome genome-edited microbe. That's in the current list of benefits. And then this issue isn't raised with the conservation use for the de-extinction projects, which are genome editing, which do involve genome editing. So I'm just trying to understand how this issue is being covered, whether it's within the scope or it's not the scope. And if it is in scope, then it should be reflected both in positive and negative impacts, or if it's not, then I don't understand why it's in the current benefits impact. So I'd just like a bit of clarity over that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eva, and I think we should probably have a nice lunch discussion between you and Austin as well. That will be useful. But at this point, I'd just like to ask the co-chair of the ATEC to give her reflections in terms of some of the responses. I think the inputs were important for us to have some context, and Madam Co-Chair will respond.

Okay, thank you, Secretariat. I will try to follow your advice and provide some If I miss some of your question, please ask me again. I would like to start with the genome-edited plants that maybe help somehow to resolve some other question. So what the HATEC have done is to consider the identification from the party. We didn't say— the party identified the plant the Genomede-edited plants as a potential or as a current benefit.

And that's what—

that's the claim of the parties. We didn't discuss against this. We accept and consider as a benefit. And on the other side, they say, okay, we try to understand the point of view of the parties who say this is a potential benefit, but what we underline, that's as if this is not been going through an assessment and a methodological assessment. That's the key. We couldn't, as experts, say these are not benefits if the parties perceived this as a benefit. We didn't discuss about it. We checked the list and tried to provide example, taking into account the benefit listing from the parties and the online forum.

Thank you.

or the potential negative impact and try to make the relation with the target of coming Global Biodiversity Framework. So we didn't do an assessment. There was no time and it was out of our mandate. And about the first question of horizon scanning, yes, we—

Yes.

Our work was to provide scientific advice, and all the experts in the HATEC agree on the fact that an horizon scanning or similar methodology that allows the parties to identify, how would you say, developments that can be helpful or harmful to the CBD objectives and the target of a global biodiversity framework. So we call it horizon scanning. We can call it whatever you want, but we need a process to identify as early warning system and to check what's going on around the world on symbiose application. And about the 5 areas, we check along both the consideration documents that that was the synthesis of the Secretariat that identified 12 areas. If you go through these areas, some are— somehow some of them are a kind of repetition, like genomic plants and genomic microorganisms. And I think that, for example, these 2 kind of— this has been and are going to be addressed also in other fora. So we try to identify some really One area really related to future development, that is artificial intelligence, that has been identified in the previous article as well, and come out from the scientific studies, if I remember well. And the other one is— let me check. I don't want to make mistakes.

Forex.

Sample. So some of the areas of the 12 areas has been not prioritized because they are being— they are going to be assessed or considered in other fora, or— and bioremediation is going to, you know, is a topic who's coming in different meetings at— on the CBD level. And as artificial cells and synthetic genomics, we think it's really, really in the future, but not so far, so quite near. And we need— we really think that there is a need to address these areas. And of course, application for conservation use We could see that this is a cross-cutting issue. The application on— for conservation goods go through and touch and can be related to diverse target of the Common Global Biodiversity Framework. So we consider that this is very important for the implementation of Common Global Biodiversity Framework. And microbiome engineer. So we really think that could be really interesting for the future developments that we can have in the near future. I hope I answered all the questions. Apologies if I missed somebody. You can come back to me.

Thank you very much to you, Madam Chair, and thank you to everyone for joining us for this workshop. We will stop now so that you have an hour for lunch, and the IPBES workshop will start at 2:15, at quarter past 2, to allow you 59 minutes for— 59 minutes for lunch and also to corner Valeria and Austin for more questions on SynBio. So thank you very much and have a good day.

Thank you.