Working Group I (1st meeting), UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

Okay, distinguished delegates, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting to order as we are behind the schedule already. I invite the delegates to take their seat, please. I would like to welcome you to the first meeting of Working Group 1. I can start with a joke, actually. When I grew up, I have an older brother, and he always got the bigger room. There were always two rooms. I always got the smaller room, but now I can tell him I have the biggest room of us all. So, dear brother, I hope you're watching UNTV. He probably isn't, but anyway. Okay. It's a great privilege for me to chair this working group, and I am indeed honored to have been entrusted with this responsibility. And I'm sorry to say that the workload before this working group is substantial. However, I am confident that with our shared spirit of cooperation, goodwill and constructive engagement, we will be able to address the agenda items entrusted to us in an efficient and productive manner. I also refer back to what the COP President said earlier today in the plenary session. So as the President underscored this morning, COP17 and the meetings of the parties to the protocols will be taking place concurrently. Working Group 1 serves the Conference of the Parties and the meeting of the parties to the Nagoya Protocol or COP 6. Working Group 1 will therefore address COP17 agenda items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 19. which includes COP/MOP 12, item 12, and COP/MOP 6, item 14, and 20 for COP 17. COP/MOP 12, agenda item 12, under the Cartagena Protocol. COP-MOP 6 agenda items 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 under the Nagoya Protocol. So our aim in this working group is to deliver a set of draft decisions on these agenda items to the COP and the COP-MOP, so the two protocols, for their adoption at the plenary. Given our challenging agenda, time management will be very important. I therefore propose that the limited time we have available to us should be used to address new or unresolved issues in draft decisions. These include bracketed text and issues that have not yet been addressed by parties at the intergovernmental level. I ask you to avoid requesting the floor to make general statements, including statements congratulating me or those that repeat points previously raised and discussed at a meeting of one of the subsidiary bodies, especially on those issues for which a comprehensive draft decision has already been prepared by those bodies. As set out in the scenario note contained in document COP/17/1/Add.2, given the limited time available, I will not invite general statements in this working group for most of the draft decisions that have been prepared by the subsidiary bodies. Instead, we will keep our time for negotiations on the basis of the text prepared by the subsidiary bodies. In accordance with the approved organization of work contained in document COP/17/1/Add.2, for items with only a few unresolved issues, it is proposed to consider them in this working group on the basis of a conference room paper that I will prepare with the support of the secretariat. On some items, I may consult informally with parties when necessary to facilitate our work. For items with many or complex unresolved issues, indicated by square brackets, and of course our favourite sport is square brackets, it seems. I propose to establish a contact group immediately with a view to preparing a consensus text for transmission to the working group as a conference room paper. For most items, the contact groups are expected to work on the basis of the draft decisions contained in the compilation of draft decisions. These draft decisions will be presented as non-papers for the consideration of the contact groups. For those items that have not been addressed by a subsidiary body, due time will be allocated in the working group session for a first reading. with early submission of statements. This applies in particular to part of item 11 and item 20 under the COP, as well as items 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 under the Nagoya Protocol. Dear delegates, I encourage you to monitor closely the meeting schedule on the screens, on the website or on the CBD events app, as we may proceed swiftly from one agenda item to the next. If good progress is made, we may take up the agenda items that are scheduled for later sessions. And your timely presence in the meeting room will be greatly appreciated. And a note to that is that I'll be try to be on time as well. So that goes for me as well. Before we start considering our first item on the agenda, I would like to ask the Secretariat to provide some logistical information. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. And it's once again an honor for me to serve as the secretary of the Working Group 1. And it's a pleasure to welcome you all and see you all again. If I can start with my usual thing that we have landed in Yerevan. The flight was a bit bumpy, but you all landed well. And now we have to disembark, but the policy is that you cannot leave anything behind on your seat pockets or upper had bins, so no brackets left behind. Let me start with explaining that this meeting is being held in person only. There is no online participation available. Working group sessions will be live streamed on UN Web TV in all six official languages. Links to the specific sessions will be available under the schedule tab on conference website, which will be updated daily. I also invite you to take note of the secretariat social media channels, which also appear on the slide now when you are advertising thing or you are announcing things related to the call. Let me begin with the information on how to use the microphones. To request the floor, please press the button in front of you once. The green light will turn on, and we will be notified of your request. Please note that pressing the button twice will cancel the request to speak. When the chair gives you the floor, the technician will activate your microphone, and the light will turn red, and you can start speaking. Due to high number of intergovernmental organizations and United Nations agencies in attendance, some organizations have dedicated seats designated by nameplates, while others are seated in a general area indicated as such. Representatives of observers organizations are sharing a microphone with other organization of the same constituency identified the podium by number indicated on your microphone. Once your microphone is on, please identify your organization before commencing your statement. Delegates are requested to keep within assigned time when taking floor and to speak at reasonable speed to facilitate the work of interpreters. In view of heavy agenda of this meeting, the chair will be limited interventions to four minutes for parties speaking on behalf of the regions two minutes for individual parties, three minutes for Indigenous people and local communities and major stakeholder groups, and one minute for non-parties to the Convention and other observers, as time allows. A clock is provided for you on the screen to help you to manage your time, but please do not speed up your reading. That makes interpretation very difficult. The microphones automatically turn off themselves when the time is over. Regarding the statements, in cases where agenda items are opened for first reading, delegates are requested to upload their written statements using the statements button on the respective meeting page using the procedure displayed on the screen. You must enter your priority pass or badge code to upload the statements. In the event of technical difficulties with uploading your statement, kindly send an e-mail to cbd-statements@un.org with a copy to secretariat@cbd.int for assistance. It greatly facilitates the work of the interpreters if you upload your statements prior to giving you the floor. However, they will be posted on website only after the delivery. In any case, statements must be submitted within one hour after the close of the session in which the agenda item was considered. Kindly note, if any party wishes to have a statement reflected in the report of the meeting, it must be uploaded in the same manner as statements. In your submissions, please make sure to include the name of your country or organization. and the agenda item on the first page of the document that is uploaded. Dear delegates, as explained in the scenario note contained in document CBD/ COP/17/1 addendum 2, as well as in notification 2026-072, dated 18th September 2026, modalities for early submissions of statements are being implemented for substantive agenda items that require a first full reading. For this working group, these are COP items 11 and 20, and COP-MOP 6 items 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13. The statements received by the deadline have been published online as received under the Statements tab on the web page shown on the screen. They are identified as advanced statement submissions. AI-assisted translations were generated automatically for early statements to enhance accessibility. However, the original submitted version of the statement remain authoritative. In the event that a party or observer has submitted more than one versions of the statement, we will only consider the most recently uploaded version. A list of parties and observers that submitted early statements as well as links to their statements is available on information document COP17/INF/24 for COP items and NP/MOP/6/INF/4 for COP/MOP 6 items. As indicated in the modalities, party statements were published at the respective deadline last night. except for the statements of Parties that requested that their statements be published upon upload. Observer statements were each published upon upload. When the respective agenda items are open for consideration, Parties will be asked whether they wish to support any of the statements submitted by observers. Therefore, Parties are encouraged to review the statements in advance. All relevant information regarding this conference is available to the conference webpage at the link shown on the screen. From this page, you can access information on site events, as well as logistical information, such as transportation in the section labeled information note for participants. The CBD events app also provides easy access to the meeting schedule and documents. A link to download the app is provided on the conference webpage. We invite you to look at the screen and on the website during the session for any new meeting announcements. I'm also pleased to inform you that four wellness sessions are offered for delegates to pause, refresh, and recharge. The sessions will be held between 8 to 9 a.m. starting on Wednesday, 21st October and until Saturday, 24th October. They will be held in Azad Reception Hall 1, level 6 for the Orange Building. Bring your water bottle, a good spirit. Details are to be provided on the monitor. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Azad, sorry, Secretariat. Of course, we should be formal here. And regarding these wellness sessions, do they only offer water there or do they have something else? might be interested. Thank you. Okay, let's go on. Dear delegates, we will now begin consideration of the items on the COP17 agenda, starting with item 8, resource mobilization and financial mechanism. Under this agenda item, we will consider draft decisions on two sub-items, sub-item 8A on resource mobilization and sub-item 8B on financial mechanism. Both of these sub-items were considered by the Subsidy Body on the implementation at its sixth and seventh meetings. The draft decisions are based on recommendation 6/1, 6/2, 7/2, 7/3, and those contained in document COP/17/5/Add.1, as reproduced in the compilation of draft decisions, document COP/17/2. We will consider each of these sub-items separately. Let us start with sub-item 8 on resource mobilization. I will now invite the Secretariat to introduce the documents for this sub-item. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, distinguished delegates. Under sub-item 8, you have before you a draft consolidated decision of the two elements of the draft decision prepared by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its sixth and seventh meetings. In this consolidated decision, the operational paragraphs 1 as well as 16 to 22 are from the SBI 6 recommendation, while the remaining paragraphs are from the SBI 7 recommendation. SBI 6 considered matters associated with the three studies that COP 16 requested the Secretariat to commission as per decision 16/34, paragraph 26B. It kept relevant paragraphs in abeyance pending finalization of the peer review of the studies, and those are paragraphs 16 to 22 of the consolidated draft decision. and requested the Secretariat to suggest amendments that would result from insights contained in the final versions of the studies. Accordingly, paragraph 19 to 22 of the draft, consolidated draft decision, contain such textual proposals by the Secretariat, and those are reproduced from section four of pre-session document 17/5. This pre-session document also contains a progress report on the other tasks provided by Decision 1634 for consideration of Parties. The final versions of the three studies are made available as information documents. In line with Decision 1634 SBI/7, had three tasks. It considered the further development of the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism. It considered the identification of impediments to the effectiveness of global biodiversity finance and the recommendation of elements for its further enhancement. And it further discussed opportunities for broadening the contributor base. The progress made on these matters is reflected in the preamble as well as in paragraphs 2 to 15 and the annex of the consolidated draft decision. SBI 7 also requested the Secretariat to make available to the Conference of the Parties the non-exhaustive list of areas of convergence and divergence identified by the Friends of the Co-Chairs of the Contract Group on Resource Mobilization at SBI-7. This non-exhaustive list is also made available as an information document. Finally, I would like to point out that due to an error during the compilation phase, one subparagraph was omitted from the elements of a draft decision contained in the SBI-6 recommendation. This is paragraph 5D in recommendation 6.1. It would now become paragraph 19D of the consolidated draft decision. So please do take note of that. Our apologies for this error, which will be corrected in the future iterations of the draft decision. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. I note that, while the subsidiary body made good progress on some elements, many elements of the draft decision remain bracketed due to their contentious nature. In addition, due to time constraints, SBI 7 could not finalise its discussion on some elements. I conclude that further discussion is necessary for parties to find a way forward. Therefore, I propose to establish a contact group with a mandate to clean the draft decision and to report back to the Working Group 1 on progress made, focusing on the options on broadening the contributors base, the annex on the additional criteria for the institutional structure to operate a financial mechanism, The paragraphs on the three studies arising from the sixth meeting of the subsidiary body on implementation and the amendments proposed by the secretariat to these paragraphs. And lastly, the remaining brackets in the body of the draft decision. The contact group on resource mobilization will be co-chaired by Ms. Imane Meliane of Tunisia and Ms. Carolina Caceres of Canada. With the support of the secretariat and in consultation with the co-chairs of the contact groups, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce the relevant text from the draft compilation of decisions in pre-session document COP/17/2. The first meeting of the contact group on resource mobilization is scheduled That's right. For tomorrow, 20th of October in the afternoon. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the room allocated to the contact group. I see no objections. Thank you very much. Sorry about this. Now we'll move to sub-item 8B on financial mechanism. I invite the Secretariat to introduce the documents for this sub-item. Secretariat, be on the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For item 8B, the COP has before it recommendations 6/2, and the 7/3 of the subsidiary body of the implementation. And the final report of the Chief Council. Coop slash 17, slash 5, slash add one. Elements of further guidance are also expected from in session on negotiations during this conference, as well as from. There are two protocols, MOP 12 and MOP 6. The combination of draft decisions pertaining to financial mechanism contained in document COP/17/2 has reorganized the two recommendations from the Subsidiary Body on Implementation and known the following thematic areas. consideration of a report of the GEF Council, Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, guidance to the GEF, including further guidance and the preparation of a four-year outcome-oriented framework of biodiversity program priorities for GEF 9, preparation of funding needs assessment for GEF 9, preparation of the seventh quadrennial review of effectiveness of refinancing mechanism, and collaboration with other financial institutions. Annex 1 provides a placeholder for elements of further guidance. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. I now invite the representative of the Global Environment Facility to introduce the final report of the Council of the Global Environment Facility to COP17. Microphone to GEF representative, Mr. Jurgis Sapinianskas.

Chair, distinguished colleagues, the GEF is pleased to introduce its report to the 17th Conference of the Parties. To better inform the global review, the report covers the period from July 2022 to June 2026, which corresponds to the entire GEF 8 period. Across its family of funds, the GEF approved 4.64 billion US dollars for projects and programs contributing to the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, following the OECD Rio Marker methodology. This GEF funding leveraged an additional $29.69 billion in co-financing, including $2.41 billion from the private sector. 144 countries are benefiting from this GEF support for the framework, with small island developing states and least developed countries together receiving a share of 41.6%. As requested by the Subsidiary Body of Implementation, the report provides detailed information, country by country, on the status of GEF support to the development of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, national reports, and biodiversity finance plans. The report further provides updates on the innovative governance arrangements, processes, and programming of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, the GBFF. The GBFF program, 362 million across 87 countries, meeting or exceeding all three of its portfolio targets, with notably 31.8% allocated to support actions by Indigenous peoples and local communities for biodiversity. Chair, the report also details how the GBFF has responded to the guidance Parties provided at COP 16. The GEF has concluded its GEF 9 replenishment process in June 2026. 21 countries initially pledged 3.9 billion US dollars to the GEF Trust Fund for the period from July 2026 to June 2030. Additional pledges have been announced since then. 35% is allocated to the biodiversity focal area, which remains the largest focal area in GEF 9. In addition, 70% of GEF 9 programming is to contribute to CBD objectives. The GEF 9 programming directions and policy recommendations have been designed to fully respond to CBD COP guidance, including through a comprehensive package of 21 reforms. Finally, the report presents the results of the portfolio under implementation and of GEF 8's reforms. This past and ongoing reforms led to a decrease by 30% in the average time from first concept submission to disbursement for full-size projects, enabling countries to have faster access to GEF support than ever before. Among the achieved results, the subset of projects under implementation that have reported results over the past four years have created 192 million hectares of new protected areas, and improved the management of protected areas over another 235 million hectares. That is about the size of the entire European Union as a direct contribution to target three. In summary, the GEF has demonstrated improved programming efficiency, portfolio performance, responsiveness to COP guidance, progress with reforms, and commitment to additional reforms. Please allow me in closing to thank the secretariat for the close collaboration. And we affirm that GEF is ready to support parties in their final sprint to 2030. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sapianskas, from the GEF secretariat. I note that while this subsidiary body made good progress on some elements, many elements of the draft decision remain bracketed. due to their contentious nature. In addition, due to time constraints, SBI could not finalize its discussion of some elements. I conclude that further discussion is necessary for parties to adopt a decision in consensus. Therefore, I propose to establish a contact group on the financial mechanism with the mandate to address the outstanding issues from the sixth and the seventh meetings of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, as well as additional issues arising out of in-sessional negotiations from other subject areas during this conference. The contact group will be co-chaired by Ms. Inka Gnitke of Germany and Ms. Ye Wang of China. With the support of the secretariat and in consultation with the co-chairs of the contact groups, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce without change the relevant text from the draft compilation of decisions in pre-session document COP/17/2. The first meeting of the contact group on the financial mechanism is scheduled on Wednesday, 21st of October in the afternoon. I see no objection. Thank you very much. So before we now go to the next item, I wanted to just briefly tell you, as I now have established two contact groups, Allow me to present the principles that will guide all meetings of contact groups. Contact group sessions will generally last up to three hours, but they don't have to. We can also have shorter sessions. They can meet from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., and from 7 p.m. 30 p.m. So these are the general slots provided. No more than two contact groups from each working group will be held in parallel. However, no contact groups will be held in parallel to a plenary session. Contact groups are open to participation by all parties. Other governments and observers will be permitted to participate unless otherwise decided by the co-chairs of the contact groups. The usual practice and rules will apply to the participation of observers. They may speak at the discretion of the co-chairs. In accordance with the guidelines on conduct expected of participants in CBD processes, neither parties nor observers may make audio or video recordings in contact groups. Still photographs are also not generally permitted in contact groups. Exceptionally, still photographs of text projected on the screen may be allowed in contact groups for use during the contact group discussions only. As has been the practice, ENB may take still photographs in contact groups as well. As a reminder, please check the monitors or the online schedule for the allocation of rooms of each contact group. In addition, I would like to share further guidance for facilitating the discussions in contact groups that you may wish to consider. One, clean text coming from the subsidiary bodies should not be renegotiated. The role of the contact groups is to resolve bracketed text. Two, wherever possible, existing approved language from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Previous decisions or other agreed texts should be used rather than introducing new unknown language. Three, new text should generally be avoided unless it is necessary to resolve a particular issue. Four, in line with decision 16/25, and the understanding reached in Cali, efforts should be made to keep decisions concise. And five, and I will stop after five, I promise you. Existing mandates, decisions, intercessional processes, and approved roadmaps should be respected. This guidance is intended to be applied to all contact groups under Working Groups 1 and 2 to ensure a consistent approach throughout. Thank you. Dear colleagues, we have now concluded item 8. We will now turn our attention to COP17 item 9, planning, monitoring, reporting and review.

I can take the floor.

Saudi Arabia, the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Just to clarify on the working arrangements, could you please repeat and elaborate on the point that you mentioned with regards to the introduction of texts. This is a party-driven process, and parties have the prerogative to propose new texts at any decision. The decisions that were forwarded from the SBI and SEPSA are recommendations, and the COP may consider whatever they like and also introduce new texts within their prerogative. So, if you may please clarify this point, it would be much appreciated. And we would like to note on the record that parties may propose whatever language they want, and that it is when they're proactive.

To introduce new language wherever they deem appropriate.

And this is not specific to any agenda item, but should be applied as a blanket, uniformly across all decisions.

And we just want to make this point clear.

Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia. Your point is duly noted. I will repeat the points for the benefit of the room. One. Clean text coming from the subsidiary bodies should not be renegotiated. The role of the contact groups is to resolve bracketed text. Two, wherever possible, existing approved language from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, previous decisions or other agreed texts should be used rather than introducing new language. Three, new text should generally be avoided unless it is necessary to resolve a particular issue. Four, in line with Decision 16/25 and the understanding reached in Cali, efforts should be made to keep decisions concise. Five, existing mandates, decisions, intercessional processes and approved roadmap should be respected. This guidance was also brought forward in the Bureau and is for you to take with you in the deliberation of the contact groups. And they have also been made available, of course, to the contact group chairs. Thank you. but Saudi Arabia, your views duly noted. Dear colleagues, we will now turn to planning, monitoring, reporting and review. As you will recall, SBI 7 and Sub-Sta 28 decided to split the global review and the planning, monitoring, reporting and review mechanism into separate draft decisions for the consideration of CARB. Consequently, under this agenda item, there is one draft decision on the global review and another on planning, monitoring, reporting and review. Those two draft decisions are both based on SBI recommendation 7/1. Note that the draft elements of a decision contained in sub-staggered recommendation 2008/1 were fully incorporated into SBI 7/1. The recommendation also built upon discussion at Sub-St 27, SBI 6 and SB 8J1. I will first introduce the draft decision, which will be considered under item 9A on the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the framework. The draft decision is based on SBI 7/1, section A. I would like to invite the Secretariat to provide an update on this item. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to inform the parties that the final text of the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Framework, which has been named the State of Biodiversity Action Report, is available online as an information document. It's CBD/COP/17/INF/7, so it's information document 7. Although it's posted as an information document, it has been made available in all languages so that it can be useful for you. Additionally, the formatted version of the Global Report was launched by the Secretary General of the United Nations on the 15th of October and is available at the website cbd.int/gbf/implementation/globalreview. I also have copies of the summary if anyone is interested, you can come and find us. There are a number of information documents which have been also made available in relation to this agenda item. One is the Kunming Dialogue Co-Chair Summary, which was presented actually by Minister Huang of China this morning in the plenary, and also the report of the meeting. The report of the meeting was posted today at the link that's in that information document. Other relevant information documents include 4 and 22, which contain regional analyses of the progress and implementation of the framework for the Caribbean, and another one for Central and Eastern Europe. These reports help to address the gaps in data for particular regions noted by some parties when the global report was considered by CEPPS. There's also a Pacific report that's underway, but wasn't ready in time. Furthermore, information document three, which relates to 9B, but I'm mentioning it here now so that I don't have to take the floor again, is an analysis of the linkages between the Nature Positive Initiative State of Metrics indicators or State of Metrics, State of Nature Metrics, sorry, and the GPF monitoring framework indicators. And this is for 9B.

Thank you, Secretariat. The global review decision has a number of brackets. However, I would like to highlight the extensive work and collaborative spirit at Subs 28 and SPI 7, which resulted in a text in the compilation of draft decisions. I plan to establish a contact group on this item. which will focus our efforts on addressing the bracketed text in the combined draft decision and not reopen text that was cleaned during previous negotiations. I count on your continued cooperation and willingness to work efficiently through the remaining text and advance a clean text back to the working group for consideration. I have asked Ms. Sanne Kruith of the Netherlands and Ms. Savendra Michael of Fiji to co-chair this contact group. With the support of the secretariat, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce the relevant text from the draft decision in document COP/17/2. The first meeting of the contact group of the global review will take place this evening. on 19th of October. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the contact groups. Colleagues, I would now like to address item 9B, which relates to the monitoring framework. For this sub-item, SBI recommendations 7/1/b on planning, monitoring, reporting and review mechanisms, including the monitoring framework, will be used as the basis for this negotiation. The draft decision incorporated the relevant text from Sub-Sta 28/1 on the same topic. It is included in the compilation of draft decisions. The current draft text has some brackets. However, there was good progress on this topic at SBI 7 and SBI, sorry, Sub 28, and I hope we can continue this good progress in the contact group. I have invited Mr. Phil Raymond of the United Kingdom and Ms. Nkatseni Chidara of South Africa to co-chair this contact group. With the support of the secretariat, I will reproduce the draft decision under this item and share it as an on-paper as the basis for the negotiation in the contact group. The contact group on planning, monitoring, reporting and review will meet on Wednesday, 21st October in the afternoon. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the contact groups. With that, unless there are any questions, we will move to the next item on our agenda. I see no request for the floor. Thank you very much. We will now turn our attention to COP17 item 10, implementation of article 8A and related provisions. This agenda item was considered by the subsidiary body on Article 8j at its first meeting. The subsidiary body considered its modus operandi, implementation of the programme of work, including its task 1.1 and 1.2 on proposed guidelines on conservation, restoration, indigenous and traditional territories, spatial planning and environmental impact assessments, and task 5.4 on the process to update and review the voluntary glossary within the context of article 8j, in-depth dialogue and the recommendations of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and adopted recommendation 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6. The resulting recommendations are presented in the compilation of draft decisions, document COP/17/2. Texts of sub-items 10 and 10, and that's the small letter i, contain outstanding issues requiring further negotiations to find convergence on the best way forward. I propose to establish a contact group to consider sub-item 10a on the modus operandi of the subsidiary body on Article 8j, and sub-item 10b and on small letter i on the guidelines on the task 1.1 and 1.2 of the programme of work on Article 8j. The mandate of the contact group is limited to the consideration of sub-items 10 and 10. The contact group is not mandated to reconsider or revise the terminology "indigenous peoples and local communities" as addressed in decision 12/12. Discussions should remain focused on the outstanding issues within the scope of these two sub-items. The contact group will be co-chaired by Ms. Chikade Egbuvalu of Nigeria and Ms. Jennifer Tauli-Corpus, representing Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. The first meeting of the Contact Group will take place this evening, 19th of October. With the support of the Secretariat and in consultation with the Co-Chairs of the Contact Group, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the Contact Group. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the Contact Group. Now, turning to the remaining sub-items. Sub-item 10

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First and foremost, I'd like to express my confidence that your brother will see a wonderful photograph of this room and will be very impressed. As for Point D, as we noted at the plenary today, we don't agree with considering point D as an individual item on the agenda. Likewise, we don't see it as an individual decision, as that is a separate CRP or part of a CRP under item 10. We see this as part of the decision and discussion under item 13, which we will consider here in this working group. Thus, we see the text of a possible decision as part of the decision on item 13, we would like to raise this again. And I'd like to add that we're not against the substantive part of the discussion, but we don't see it as a self-standing decision. We feel it should be discussed under cooperation with other bodies, with international organizations. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation, also for the comment to my brother. I will let him know. And I thank you for your point of view. It's duly noted. Thank you. So let's turn our attention to sub-item 12A on capacity building and development and technical and scientific cooperation. This sub-item has one consolidated draft decision reproduced from recommendations 6/5 and 7/9 of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. The draft decision contains two sections: section 1 on capacity building and development, and section 2 on technical and scientific cooperation and technology transfer. Distinguished delegates, there are a number of elements of the draft decision that are still in square brackets, especially in section 2 on technical and scientific cooperation. In view of this, I propose to establish a contact group on this sub-item with the mandate to discuss the entire draft decision with a view to reaching consensus on all issues currently in brackets and submit a clean CRP for consideration by the working group. The contact group will be co-chaired by Ms. Holly Kelly-Weil of the United Kingdom and Ms. Martha Mphatsa-Khalemba of Malawi. Also, as requested by the subsidiary body in recommendation 7/9, paragraph 3, the Secretariat has prepared a revised draft budget for the Global Coordination Entity, which is contained in table 2 of annex 2 of the draft decision. for the consideration of the COP as part of its deliberations on budgetary matters. I therefore propose to transmit table 2 of annex 2 to the budget committee for its consideration. And that committee is led by Ms. Gillian Guthrie from Jamaica. With the support of the secretariat, I will produce a non-paper to be used as the basis for discussions by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce text that is presented in the compilation of draft decisions for item 12A. All the brackets will be maintained. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the contact group. I see no objection. Thank you very much. Now we will turn our attention to sub-item 12B on the clearinghouse mechanism and knowledge management. The draft decision is based on SBI recommendation 7/10. For this sub-item, there are just a few sets of square brackets in the draft decision. I will therefore propose that I proceed to prepare a conference room paper with the support of the secretariat for consideration by the working group. I may conduct informal consultation with parties as necessary. I see no objection. Thank you very much. Let's now move to sub-item 12C on communication, education and public awareness, also known as CEPA. The draft decision on this item is based on SBR recommendations 7/12. There was agreement in Nairobi on most of the paras, and thus only a few brackets remain. I suggest that I prepare a conference room paper with the support of the Secretariat for consideration by the working group. I may conduct informal consultations with parties as necessary. I see no objection. Thank you very much. Distinguished delegates, we will now turn our attention to COP17, item 13 of the COP17 agenda. Cooperation with international organizations and bodies established under other conventions. Please note that some issues under cooperation will be dealt with more specifically in other agenda items. This agenda item was considered by SBI 6, which addressed the progress report on the implementation of Decision 16/35 on cooperation with other conventions and international organizations, and adopted recommendation 6/6 on the same topic. The draft decision is presented in the compilation of draft decisions. document COP/17/2. In addition, you have before you document CBD/COP/17/9, which provides short updates on progress made in the implementation of decision 16/35 since SBI 6 and related information. Further discussion is required to find convergence on some issues. I therefore propose to establish a contact group to address the brackets that remain in recommendation 6/6. The contact group will be co-chaired by Ms. Marina von Weizsberg of Finland and Ann Nakafero of Uganda. With the support of the secretariat and in consultation with the co-chairs of the contact groups, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce without change the relevant text from the draft compilation of decisions in pre-session document COP/17/2. Please check the monitors on the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the contact group. I see no objection. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like what we said under item 10D, we consider that the revision of item 10D should be considered under this item of the agenda, and prepared -- the document this year you're going to prepare should contain elements of that part of 10D. Thank you.

Thank you, Russian Federation. That is duly noted. Thank you. So I see no objection. Thank you very much. Let's now move to item 14 of the COP17 agenda, mainstreaming of biodiversity and engagement with subnational governments. This agenda item was considered by SBI 7 under two sub-items: a) mainstreaming biodiversity within and across sectors, and b) engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to enhance the implementation of the KMGBF. The subsidiary body adopted recommendation 7/11 and 7/8, respectively. The corresponding draft decisions are presented in the compilation of draft decisions, document COP/17/2. For sub-item 14, further discussion is required to find convergence on the outstanding issues. I therefore propose to establish a contact group on mainstreaming biodiversity within and across sectors, with a mandate to reach consensus and present agreed text for consideration by the working group. The contact group will be co-chaired by Mr. Eahidul Kabir of Bangladesh and Mr. Scott Wilson of Canada. With the support of the secretariat and in consultation with the co-chairs of the contact group, I will prepare a non-paper using the adopted recommendation from SBI 7 as the basis for discussion by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce without change the relevant text from the draft compilation of decisions in the pre-decision document COP/17/2. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the contact group. For sub-item 14, on the engagement with subnational governments, cities and other local authorities to enhance the implementation of the KMGBF, I note that a number of issues remain outstanding. To facilitate further consideration of this sub-item, I propose to prepare, with the support of the secretariat, a conference room paper based on recommendation 7/8, of the subsidiary body of implementation for consideration by working group. The conference room paper will reproduce without change the draft decision contained in the recommendation providing the basis for further negotiations. I see no objection. Thank you very much. We will now turn our Sorry about that. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Chair, thank you very much, and good afternoon to everyone. I would like to request a clarification from you. We did not have enough time to react to the proposal that was put forward by the Russian Federation about 10D. We believe that in the plenary meeting of the COP, the agenda and the agenda was adopted, and we consider that 10 D should remain where it is in the agenda and as was adopted during the plenary meeting. Perhaps you could clarify for me what is going to happen to 10 D. Thank you.

Thank you, Gozma. So I only took note of the proposal from the Russian Federation. So that's basically the state of play. So there's not more going on on that issue right now. But I took note of their viewpoint. and it will be discussed further in the relevant process, provided that the Russian Federation brings it up. So it's registered, it's on file. Thank you. So we will now turn our attention to COP17, item 15 of the COP17 agenda, Gender Plan of Action. This agenda item was considered by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its sixth session and pertains to the mid-term review of the Gender Plan of Action and adopted recommendation 6/4. The document contains no brackets, as it was fully negotiated during SBI 6 and reflects a common understanding among Parties. On the basis of recommendation 6/4, I will prepare a conference room paper with the support of the secretariat for consideration by the working group. The conference room paper will reproduce without change the relevant text from the compilation of draft decisions in document COP/17/2. I see no objection. Thank you very much. We will now turn our attention to COP 17 agenda item 19, review of the effectiveness of processes under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its protocols. The Conference of the Parties and the meetings of the parties to the protocols will consider this item jointly with COP-MOP 12, item 12, and COP-MOP 6, item 14, on the basis of recommendation 6/8 of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. That recommendation contains three draft decisions, which are presented in the respective compilations of draft decisions for the three meetings, namely documents COP/17/2, CP/MOP/12/2 and NP/MOP/6/2. Also available under this agenda item is an information document with triple symbols, COP/17/INF/15, CP/MOP/12/INF/7, and NP/MOP/6/INF//2. containing a compilation of views from parties on the modalities for a possible party-driven process to further improve the effectiveness of the processes and meetings under the convention and its protocols. The submissions from parties were provided pursuant to a request made by SPI to the executive secretary in recommendation 6/8. The SBI recommendation to the Conference of the Parties includes a recommendation on the establishment of a party-driven process on effectiveness, which remain in square brackets. I note that there are also other key elements of all three draft decisions that are all in square brackets. I therefore propose to establish a contact group to resolve all the bracketed text. Mr. Patrick Luna of Brazil and Ms. Ida Hellmark of Norway have kindly agreed to serve as co-chairs for the contact group. That's interesting because those are the first that kindly agreed. Otherwise, they didn't kindly agree. But it's good. With the support of the secretariat and in consultation with the co-chairs of the contact groups, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the contact group. The non-paper will reproduce without change the relevant text from the draft compilation of decisions in pre-decision document COP/17/2. Please check the monitors or the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of the contact group. I see no objection. Thank you very much. Distinguished delegates, we will now turn our attention to COP17 item 20, multi-year programme of work of the Conference of the Parties. Colleagues, as noted in the scenario note contained in document CBD/CP/17/1/Add.2, this agenda item will require a full first reading, as it was not discussed at one of the subsidiary bodies. The draft decision is contained in CBD/CoP/17/8. I would like to invite the Secretariat to introduce the item. After this, we will proceed with the statements under the item. First, the early submissions and then those which will be made in session. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Multi-Year Programme of Work, or MYPW, as it's often called, for 2023 to 2030 was considered at COP15. The COP adopted Decision 15/33, which produced a preliminary list of issues to be considered at COP16, 17, 18, and 19. The COP requested the Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau, to complete the list of issues to be considered by COP16 in light of the decisions adopted at COP15. The COP did not consider the list at COP 16, but instead the COP requested the Executive Secretary, under the guidance of the Bureau, to prepare the list of issues for consideration at the 17th meeting. This is what happened in Decision 16/36. For the present COP, COP17, the Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau, produced the draft decision, including the list of issues for consideration at COP18 and 19. This is contained in document 17/8. The draft decision in the compilation of draft decisions presents a streamlined list of issues to be considered at COP18 and 19, building upon the decisions in 1533 and 1638. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat, and thank you also for giving me a break to drink some water. Yes, highly appreciated. The Secretariat issued notification 2026-072, inviting and encouraging parties and observers to participate in this modality on a voluntary and informal basis. The deadline was set at 8:00 p.m. local time in Yerevan on 18th of October 2026. The statements submitted early were published online as they were received and are available on the official conference page. Information document CBD/CP/17/INF/24 lists the nine submissions received from Parties and the 11 statements from observers on item 20 by the deadline. The lists of Parties and observers indicated in the information document are also being displayed on the screen. Note that the list of observers only includes observers that have registered on site. Statements submitted during the early submission process were made on a voluntary and informal basis. However, as this was intended to be a time-saving measure, parties and observers that submitted early statements may wish to refrain from requesting the floor, except where necessary to make clarifications. Colleagues, Are there any objections from any parties or observers listed in the information document to your statements being formally entered on record as statements officially submitted for this agenda item in this meeting? Please raise your hand if you have any objection. I see no objections. Regarding the statements submitted by observers, I will go through the list presented on the screen one by one. The list only includes observers that have registered on site. As I read the list, I will ask the observer organization to raise their hand so that we can confirm that you are in the room. I will then ask parties to kindly press the microphone button if they support the statement made by the observer. When you press the microphone button, please press it only once so that the green light stays on until we have finished so that we may properly record your support. I will read out the first three supporting parties from the speakers list. I do not intend to open the floor at this point. In accordance with the modalities, statements submitted by organizations representing Indigenous Peoples and local communities have been identified as such on the list. So, observers... So observer one, Conservation Biology Institute, please raise your hand. So I think there was some confusion about the list, but so we'll adapt. Friends of the Earth International. Yes, I see your hand. Good. Do I see support from a party?

Egypt.

Egypt. Okay. So number two, Green Armenia Environmental Educational NGO. Please raise your hand if you're present. No, I don't think they're present. We go to the next. Heinrich Boell Foundation on behalf of CPD Alliance. Please raise your hand. Yes, I see you. Do I have any party support for that submission? Zimbabwe, thank you. Next, International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Are you in the room? I think not. We go to next. International Livestock Research Institute. Are you in the room? I don't think so. Kutai Chamber of Commerce and Industry, are you in the room? I think no. Pastoralist Goals Foundation, are you in the room? Pastoralist Goals Foundation. I think not. Rainforest Action Network, are you in the room? I see a hand. Thank you. Do we have party support? I see Brazil. Thank you. And Egypt as well. UK Business and Biodiversity Forum, are you in the room? UK Business and Biodiversity Forum? I see no hands. United Nations Children's Fund? Are you in the room? United Nations Children's Fund? I think not. And the last one is Wild Legacy CIC. Wild Legacy CIC, are you in the room? No. All right. I will now open the floor for interventions on COP 17, item 20, beginning with parties speaking on behalf of a regional group. I would like to remind you that if you did not participate in the modalities for early submissions, or statements, you may wish to request the floor and submit your written statements within one hour after the close of the session. Please be concise and focus your intervention on the key points, especially those that you would like to have reflected in the draft recommendations. I will be limiting interventions to four minutes for parties speaking on behalf of regions, two minutes for individual parties, three minutes for indigenous peoples and local communities and major stakeholder groups, and one minute for non-parties and other observers, time permitting. Microphones will turn off automatically when the speaking limit has been reached. Following interventions by observers, I will give a brief chance for parties that may wish to support any specific proposal made by these organizations. Please request the floor now, only if you are speaking on behalf of a regional group. So I see no requests from the parties speaking on behalf of a regional group. So we will -- so I will then open the floor for parties, followed by observers. So, we have Argentina, followed by South Africa, and then the Russian Federation. So, you have two minutes. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to express Our thanks to Armenia for its hospitality and the Secretary for their efforts to organize this meeting. And I'd like to offer two comments. Argentina expresses its gratitude to the Chair for the proposal, the multi-year program until 2030, and we acknowledge how important it is to have something which is predictable. for these two decades. This was requested four years ago in COP 15. We see that there is priority attached to especially what is the mobilization of resources, the financial mechanism, the development of capacities and technical and scientific cooperation. We'd like to express the fact that there are a few challenges. First of all, we note that there is no plan to work within a post-2030 strategic plan. So we only have three years before COP19, so therefore we would like to request that this be included specifically in the agenda, recalling the work experience that we had which was quite extensive for the global framework, which more than three years, certainly. Next, we're concerned about extending the agenda for items of business that belong in other areas. especially in a context where we have restricted resources, because it's important to maintain our focus on the three objectives of the Convention. We will be sending our detailed comments in writing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Argentina. Next on my list is South Africa, Russian Federation and Kenya. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa thanks the Secretariat for preparing this document and welcomes the issues proposed for consideration at COP18 and COP19 as set out in the annex. South Africa recalls the decision 1533 on the multi-year programme of work of the Conference of the Parties, which provides that the COP may consider a follow-up to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. To give effect to this mandate, South Africa proposes that the present draft decision establish a clear, inclusive and party-driven process leading to that consideration. This could include inviting parties to submit views on the process for considering the post-2030 framework and requesting the Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau, to compile those views for consideration. by the SBI at a meeting to be held before COP18. On the basis of the SBI recommendation, COP18 could then decide on the scope and modalities and timeline of the process without prejudging its outcome. We therefore propose that this process be clearly reflected in the operative text of the decision, and that process for the preparation of the follow-up to the framework be included among the topics for consideration at COP18 in the annex. Further, with regard to the annex, South Africa also knows that decision 15/4 identifies cooperation with other conventions and international cooperation among the decisions supporting implementation of the framework. In respect of cooperation being considered at this mission, this outlines a task for the executive secretary with progress to be reported to the meetings of the SBI and even the SB on AG and other provisions of the convention. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa, and also thank you for perfect timing. So next on my list is Russian Federation, Kenya, and Guatemala. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, distinguished chair. We thank the secretariat for the work they've done. We feel that this document needs to be considered in context. First, the requirements of the subsidiary bodies and the draft decision that we will consider at COP17 clearly set out the tasks and plans that we have. The agenda for COP18 and 19 in part will be based on this. Second, achieving the KMGBF in 2030, COP19, and the need to think about the strategic plan of the Convention after 2030. The third and most important point, increasing the efficiency of the work of the Convention and its meetings. Thus, we feel it's not appropriate to keep this form of the breakdown of the plans for COP19. We feel at this point it doesn't make sense to once again consider matters of management of wildlife, health, subnational governments, and a number of other areas of work. At the same time, we support continuing the strategic review of the Programme of Work for COP18. All of the work for COP19 must be based on two areas only, assessing the results of the implementation of the KMGBF and preparation of a new strategic plan in some form. In the current form, the KMGBF will cease to exist at a certain point and will no longer be subject to consideration. We will send writing in writing our concrete proposals. Thank you very much for your attention, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. Next on my list is Kenya, Guatemala, and then Peru. Kenya, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Being the first time that Kenya takes the floor, we thank the government and people of Armenia for the warm welcome and the Secretariat and Bureau for a well-organized meeting. Kenya also thanks the Secretariat for preparing this report. Based on the report, Kenya submits the following: First, on means of implementation. We ask that finance, capacity building, technology transfer and the Cali Fund appear as standing items, each with defined reporting points. Progress on means of implementation should be reviewed alongside biodiversity outcomes so that Parties can see whether the resources and support needed for delivery are reaching those who need them. On the calendar, Kenya supports a calendar that leaves time for national implementation and domestic consultation between negotiating cycles. Parties cannot implement consult stakeholders and prepare national submissions if meetings follow one another too closely. Thirdly, on sequencing of the review processes, we ask that the global review, the monitoring framework and national reporting cycles be sequenced to avoid overlapping deadlines and to feed one another. Parties should not have to meet competing reporting obligations at the same time, and information produced for one process should inform the next. On responsiveness, the program should reflect the priorities identified in the global review, including regional priorities. And lastly, on the discipline on the agenda, Kenya will not support adding new standing agenda items without clear justification and resources, as each new item adds to the burden on the delegations, the secretariat, and the budget. Priority should go to delivering on commitments already made. Kenya stands ready to work constructively with all parties towards a program that is practical, resourced, and focused on implementation. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Kenya. And also, you actually spent less time as was to your disposal. Thank you for that. So next on my list is Guatemala, followed by Peru and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Secretariat and Armenia for organizing this important meeting. Guatemala welcomes the preparation of the MIPAO, and we support its adoption as a tool to strategically and coherently guide the implementation of the KMGBF. That said, we consider that the program could be strengthened by giving greater visibility to a few essential points. in order to achieve its targets and goals. Thus, we propose including within the scientific and technical needs that support the implementation of the KMGBF, ecosystem restoration and ecological connectivity. recognizing their importance to restore degraded ecosystems, improve resilience, and contribute in an integrated manner to achieving the framework. Thus, we'd like to be clearer in terms of the relationship between biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem resilience, with greater focus on the connection between these areas. Finally, we consider that the MAIPOW should continue to strengthening the participation of the private sector and its contribution to implementing and financing biodiversity, including include mainstreaming biodiversity in their decisions and activities. These inclusions will contribute to maintaining an integrated my power that is focused on implementation and which can respond to emerging challenges towards 2030. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Guatemala, also for being brief. So the order is the following, Peru, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and then India. Peru, you are the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I hear an echo, says the speaker. Mr. Chair, thank you for giving us the floor. We thank the Secretariat for preparing this report. Peru supports and will participate in the debate on this item with a spirit of compromise, and we will propose, make our proposals for the draft decision. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Peru. You were very, very brief. So next on my list is DRC, followed by India and then Gabon. DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. For this item, DRC feels that in terms of the discussion around discussion around the process leading to 2030 should be leading to this point, rather than focusing on planning, monitoring and reporting. In addition, we have understood from a number of delegations that they are talking about new text in the contact groups. We would like to have clarification on that and some guidelines regarding adding text. within the contact groups. As things are organized and how this work is organized, several people, several points will be sent directly to contact groups, and they will not be subject to a first reading in the working groups, and they will not be subject to early submission of statements. For these points, The contact groups become the only place where parties can make a text submission to the COP. Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure states that proposals and amendments should be presented by parties, and the parties can make text proposals within the contact groups. We understand this, the guidance provided to this point in the protocols as a way to work more efficiently rather than a binding mandate for how we should work. And it shouldn't present parties from making text proposals to texts that are under negotiation. Thank you.

Thank you, DRC. Regarding the guidance, this is, as truly noted, guidance for the benefit of us all, because we have to work efficiently together, because we don't have much time. So that's where the guidance comes from, as approved by the Bureau as well, and they apply up here. They're valid across both of the working groups and also the contact groups. But these are, of course, guidelines. That's what they are. But, you know, we have to work efficiently in the next couple of weeks to reach our goal, which is consensus. That's why we put these guidelines in place. So I ask you, please, to work together. in an efficient manner so we can reach our goal. Now, the next parties on my list is India, Gabon, and then Uganda. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. India appreciates the work of the Secretariat in preparing the proposed multi-year programme of work of the Conference of the Parties up to 2030. India supports the adoption of a strategic and implementation-oriented programme of work aligned with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The programme should facilitate effective implementation of the Convention and its protocols while ensuring continuity in the follow-up to decisions already adopted by the Conference of the Parties. We emphasize the importance of clearly defined priorities, realistic timelines and appropriate sequencing of activities. Effective coordination among the three subsidiary bodies, avoidance of duplication, and efficient utilization of resources should remain key considerations in finalizing the program. India considers resource mobilization, capacity building, technology transfer, technical and scientific cooperation, and effective monitoring and reporting essential for achieving the goals and targets of the KMGBF. Particular attention should be given to the needs and priorities of developing countries, including adequate means of implementation to translate global commitments into measurable national outcomes. India notes the inclusion of digital sequence information on genetic resources in the proposed programme of work for COP18 and COP19. The review of the multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of DSI, including the Cali Fund, should be transparent, evidence-based and inclusive. It should consider implementation experience and the perspectives of provider and user countries. India further emphasizes the need to retain flexibility to address emerging priorities without compromising attention to previously agreed commitments. On this basis, India supports the proposed draft decision and the adoption of the multi-year programme. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. Next on my list is Gabon, and then Uganda as last speaker from parties. Gabon, you have the floor.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair. for giving us the floor. Mr. Chair, Gabon aligns itself with the other delegations to congratulate Armenia on organizing this conference, and we thank the Secretariat as well for all the work that they've done. We feel that we need to avoid wasting energy and resources. That's why we feel that COP19 should focus on two fundamental elements. The first is assessing the implementation of the KMGBF, the current framework, within which we will include the national implementation of NBSAPs. The second point for COP19 should be focused on developing a new framework. or after the one that we're currently implementing. That is our position, Mr. Chair. In addition, some elements that have to do with our discussions, resource mobilization and financial mechanisms, the Cali Fund. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Gabon. Uganda, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief. Uganda supports the elements of the draft decision, including the adoption of the annex. Chair, we find that the issues identified in the annex will enhance implementation of the Convention and its protocols, as well as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. However, Chair, adequate financial resources, capacity building, technology transfer, and scientific cooperation is needed for the multi-year programme of work to be implemented. Thank you.

Thank you, Uganda. And as a party bonus, we have Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Since this is the first time Brazil is taking the floor, of course, we would like to thank the people and government of the Yemenia for welcoming us and the Secretariat for organising the meeting. BRZU believes that the preparations of the multi-year programme of work must remain sufficiently flexible, both to reflect the decisions adopted by Parties at COP17 and to allow us to periodically assess the effectiveness of our work and make adjustments where necessary. The programme of work should be a result of this COP and not prejudge its outcomes, particularly as discussions on the global review, resource mobilization, implementation support, Article 8A and scientific and technical work make result in new mandates or adjusting existing ones. This flexibility is essential if the programme is to remain a useful strategic tool, responsive to the evolving needs of the Convention and the implementation of the KMGBF. At the same time, we must be realistic about our capacity to deliver. The decisions adopted at COP17 will have implications on the workload for the Secretariat and the three subsidiary bodies. These implications must be carefully considered with appropriate prioritization, sequencing, and the provision of adequate resources. The objective should not be to accumulate mandates, but to ensure that the work we agree upon is feasible, effective, and contributes meaningfully to the implementation. Regularly reviewing the effectiveness of our work programme will help us identify what is working, address gaps, and ensure that our collective efforts remain focused on delivering results. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sorry. Mic is a good idea. I will now turn on to other governments and observers. So the floor is open. Please sign up. I see none. So then I will close the list of speakers. The list of speakers is now closed. Sorry. So the list of speakers is closed. Sorry about that period of silence here. We had to consult a little bit. So on the basis of what we heard, we'll produce a CRP. Thank you. So And now I want to remind you to upload your statements within one hour, please, so that we have it all on file. Now we'll turn our attention to digital sequence information on genetic resources, which is item 11 of the COP 17 agenda and item 15 of the Nagoya COP MOP 6 agenda. Both bodies are invited to consider this item jointly. For this extensive item, several documents were presented to the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, whose discussion resulted in recommendation 7/4. Additional documents were sent directly to the Conference of the Parties and are therefore new. I would like to invite the Secretariat to introduce the item. After this, we will proceed with the statements under the new elements of this item. First, the early submissions and then those which will be made in session. Secretary, you are before.

Thank you very much, Chair, and good afternoon to all. Several documents are presented to the Conference of the Parties concerning the report of the Steering Committee of the Multilateral Mechanism, including the Cali Fund, company thresholds and contribution rates for the Cali Fund and the allocation methodology. To support those elements, three addendum documents are at your disposal. The first addendum document, CBD/COP/17/6/Add.1, is the report of the Steering Committee, which the co-chair from amongst Parties, Ms. Annetta Nicholas from Antigua and Barbuda, will present shortly. Next, Document CBD/COP/17/6/Add.2 presents the outcomes of the work of the ad hoc technical expert group on allocation methodology on the disbursement of funds from the Kelly Fund, which was chaired by Mr. Henry de Novion of Brazil and Ms. Ida Hellmark of Norway. This report will also be presented to you shortly. Document CBD/17/6/AD3 presents one combined study for both requests from decision CBD/16/2. subparagraph 6 on contribution rates, including implications for revenue generation and economic competitiveness, and subparagraph 6 on national and international standards for the identification of small, medium, and large entities. The full study is available in Information Document 18. In addition, Document CBD/COP/17/6 presents summaries of these three documents, followed by the resulting elements of a draft decision. Finally, three documents were considered at the seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, resulting in recommendation 7/4. The elements of a recommendation in document 17/6 and the SBI recommendation 7/4 were combined into an overall draft decision in document CBD/COP/17/2 under item 11. It should be noted that paragraphs 1 to 3 of SBI recommendation 7/4 were not integrated in the draft decision documents, These were a note, a request to the Executive Secretary for the intercessional period, and one recommendation to the Conference of the Parties for the negotiations, rather than a direct draft decision text. Concerning paragraph 2, the request to the Executive Secretary to facilitate an online discussion on the issue in paragraph 1, namely on the operational aspects of the Cali Fund for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, the Secretariat organized an online discussion, which was announced in notification 2026-072, which took place on Friday, the 9th of October, 2026. and for which materials and a frequently asked question page are made available to all on the CVD website very shortly. I would now like to give the floor to the co-chair of the Steering Committee to present the report of the Committee. Microphone to Antigua and Barbuda, please.

Good afternoon, colleagues. On behalf of the co-chairs, it is my pleasure to provide an update on the work of the Steering Committee of the Multilateral Mechanism for the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits from the Use of Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources, including the Cali Fund. Detailed information on our work is contained in the report of the Steering Committee, which is contained in document CBD/COP/16/17/6/AD1. The committee met four times over the biennium, twice online, once in person in Bonn, Germany, and once in person in Cape Town, South Africa, and worked during and between those meetings on setting up and operationalizing the multilateral mechanism, including the Cali Fund. The committee worked on all aspects of setting up and running a multilateral mechanism and a global fund for benefit sharing, from operational documents to communication and engagement with stakeholders, to the pragmatic approaches that will help make the fund successful, transparent, and effective. The work of this committee, while supported by experienced UN partners and administrative agent, is a new type of work for all our members, and the collective progress achieved over the last 18 months cannot be understated. As a result, the report tackles many questions and aspects of the work of the committee, with some of them still being a work in progress. The report contains a section on the governance and financial overview of the Cali Fund to date, with lessons learned on several topics related to the Steering Committee and its current lack of resources. It also presents the activities of the Steering Committee with some advice and recommendation to the Conference of the Parties, in particular on the rule for the terms of office of its members, resource requirements, the allocation methodology for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and seeks the support of the Conference of the Parties on the work on the certificates and on the structured approach, the implementation of the review methodology, the work on non-monetary benefit sharing, and lastly, the support of the Conference of the Parties in capitalizing the Cali Fund. Thank you.

Thank you, co-chair. I would now like to give the floor to the co-chair of the ad hoc technical expert group on the allocation methodology for the Cali Fund to present its report. Microphone to Norway, please.

Thank you, dear colleagues. On behalf of my co-chair and I, I am delighted to present the report of the ad hoc technical expert group on allocation methodology. The annex of decision 16/2, paragraph 19, established an expert group to work on the criteria in enclosure 2 and according to the terms of reference in enclosure 3. The group met twice. once virtually in January 2026, and once in person in Montreal in May. During the first meeting, the group heard from 12 different experts on four topics. Intersessionally, subgroups worked on various aspects of the methodology for a total of 23 online discussion sessions and numerous bilaterals. At its second meeting, the group adopted its report. The outcomes contain the design principle holistically applied to support the development of the methodology, the methodology itself, and recommendations for future work. The methodology itself contains the three criteria as provided by the COP at its 16th meeting, as well as a fourth criterion on traditional knowledge and other indicators related to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. All data sources were evaluated for geographical coverage on a global basis, bias, and the presence of a custodian. Finally, for criterion C, on capacity needs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, taking into account the circumstances of developing country Parties, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states, parties with economies in transition, and indigenous peoples and local communities, offers two options for the Conference of the Parties to consider. Models were run and data presented for synthetic countries to support the discussion. These options are exclusive of each other, so only one should be adopted by this Conference for implementation. My co-chair and I would like to thank all the members of the expert group for their time, their remarkable dedication during this complex but rewarding work. Thank you.

Thank you, co-chair. Lastly, at the seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation in Nairobi, a Friends of the Co-Chairs group was established with the mandate to work on the review methodology of effectiveness of the multilateral mechanism, including the Cali Fund, as presented in document CBD/SBI/7/5/Add.2. The group met twice, but did not have time to finish their work. As a result, the co-facilitator requested the Secretariat to organize an online discussion to continue the discussion in an informal manner so as to gain time ahead of this meeting of the Conference of the Parties. As a result, the Secretariat published notification 2026-78 and held a discussion open to all on 7 October 2026. I invite the co-chair of the Friends Group, the co-facilitator of the Friends Group, to report on its intercessional work. Microphone to Australia, please.

Thank you, Secretariat. At the subsidiary body meeting in Nairobi, the group went into in-depth in the tables one and two of the elements of the review, as well as discussed the first of four assumptions of the methodology. The informal session organised by the Secretariat went through the three remaining assumptions, the section on methodological approach, consultations and quality assurance, as well as that on governance, roles and responsibilities of the review. All remaining text of the document was therefore open for comments and discussions. This session was informal, and so the resulting advances cannot be captured here, but we are happy to report that very few items were subject to substantial discussion or divergence. It is our hope that some of the points raised online can be raised here for efficient discussions on this methodology, as the COP will have to review the effectiveness of the multilateral mechanism, including the CARLI Fund, at its 18th meeting. I thank all who participated, my co-facilitator, and Phatsokhle Mbera of Malawi, and the Secretariat for their assistance and support. Thank you, Secretary.

Thank you, co-facilitator, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretary. So, dear colleagues, as detailed in the scenario note, document COP/17/1/Add.2, we will proceed with the first reading of this agenda item only for the elements which were not considered at the seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. As such, and to be efficient, I will open the floor for the elements of the draft decision as presented in section 5 of document COP/17/6. As detailed in notification 2026/072, the modalities for early submission of statements also apply to this item. Information document CBD/CP/17/INF/24 lists the 22 submissions received from Parties and the 13 statements from observers on item 11 by the deadline. Are there any objections from any parties or observers listed in the information document to your statements being formally entered on record as statements officially submitted for this agenda item in this meeting? Please raise your hand if you object. I see no objections. Regarding the statements submitted by observers, I will go through the list presented on the screen one by one. The list only includes observers that have registered on site. As I read the list, I will ask the observer organization to raise their hand so that we can confirm that you're in the room. I will then ask parties to kindly press the microphone button if they support the statement made by that observer. So, first, African Wildlife Foundation, are you in the room? I don't think so. Next on the list is CGR. CGR, are you in the room? I see a hand. Thank you. This duly noted. Do I see support from the statement from CDR? I see Brazil. Thank you. I see Colombia. That will do. And then next is Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. Are you in the room, Doualos? I see a hand. Thank you. Any support for the statement from Doualos? I see Brazil. Thank you. And Tunisia. Okay, next on the list, 4, is Eco Maxe Cuerotero, AC, on behalf of CBD Women. Are you in the room? Yes, I see you, good. Do we have any support from the statement? I see Brazil and DRC and Tunisia. Five, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, are you in the room? Yes, good, I see your hand. Good. Do I see any support from the statement from Federal University of Juiz de Fora? I see Brazil. Good. I see the Japan Bioindustry Association. Are you in the room? Yes, I see your hand. Thank you. Do I see some party support? Australia. That's good. That will do. Seven, International Chamber of Commerce. Are you in the room? I see a hand. Thank you. Any support? Yes, I see support from UK and others. Eight, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. Are you in the room? Yes, I see you're in the room. Are there any support? I see Panama. That will do. We go to next, number 9, International Livestock Research Institute. Are you in the room? I do not think so. International Livestock Research Institute, are you in the room? No. We go to next. Leibniz Institute, are you in the room? Yes. I see. Do we see any support? Yes, I see several parties. I won't name them, therefore. 11, Secretariat of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, are you in the room? Yes. I see your hand. Do we see any support from parties? Yes, I see support from parties. United Kingdom and Panama. 12, United Nations Development Program. Sorry, are you in the room? Yes, you are in the room. Do I see some support from parties? I do see support from Panama and Egypt. 13, WWF, are you in the room? Yes, I see your hand far in the back. Yes, but I see it. Yeah, okay. Do I see any support? Yes. Gabon, UK, Panama, Zimbabwe. Yeah, okay, good. Then we are through the list. Just to confirm, United Nations Environment Programme, are you in the room? Yes, I see your hand. And just, yes, I see support from parties, so good. Just to check. So this list only includes observers that have registered on site, right? But I said that already. Yes. I will now open the floor for interventions, beginning with parties speaking on behalf of a regional group. Do we have any parties speaking on behalf of a regional group? So if you do, then please sign up. I see European Union, followed by Egypt. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member states. This intervention does not replace our written submission. The UN member states remain committed to the full and timely operationalization of the multilateral mechanism, including its Cali Fund, and welcome the initial contributions made today, including one from a EU-based company. Against the background of growing environmental and international challenges, our priority now is to implement Decision 66/2 effectively, credibly, fairly and equitably, while continuing to improve and fine-tune elements that are not fully addressed by the decision itself. Here in Yerevan, it is important, therefore, to focus our discussions on those aspects that are crucial for the effective implementation of the mechanism. These include enhancing legal certainty and clarity, in particular through further work on certificates, as well as making the contributions more proportional and predictable. At this stage, we can support the confirmation of the rates as indicative, thereby allowing contributions to reflect companies' diverse circumstances. However, we wish to highlight that the success of the mechanism will not depend on rates alone, but on other aspects, such as legal certainties and appropriate incentives for companies. In this regard, certificates play a key role. It is important to gain further practical experience and evidence on the functioning of the multilateral mechanism and its Cali Fund ahead of COP18. Therefore, we welcome the proposal for a structured approach to test the system and build evidence for the COP We see this as an opportunity to help calibrating and improving the system while in use. On the allocation methodology, we can support adopting it on an interim basis for allocation to both governments and IPLCs, provided that additional work, including to address unbalances deriving from the current methodology, will be done. The EU and its Member States stand ready to engage constructively and cooperate with all parties on this agenda item at COP17, including on all outstanding issues and concerns, such as the MoU. Thank you.

Thank you, EU, and also congratulations on mastering the opera word. So, next on my list is Egypt, followed by Fiji and then South Africa. Egypt, you have the floor. floor to Egypt, please. So microphone to Egypt, please.

Okay, thank you. Should we reset the timing? Egypt has the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African group. We appreciate the progress achieved since COP16 towards the operationalization of the MLM, including the Cali Fund. COP17 must now translate institutional progress into effective implementation while preserving the balance established by Decision 16/2. For Africa, success must be measured by actual, fair, equitable and predictable benefit sharing, not merely operational procedures. The African Group wish to emphasize six priorities. First, on monetary benefit sharing, the Cali Fund must not depend exclusively on discretionary contribution by commercial users. We seek stronger provision on national legislative, administrative, and policy measures to implement decision 16/2. Existing indicative contribution rates and thresholds should be retained, while any additional modalities require prior technical assessment without prejudicing its adoption. Second, on certificate of compliance, we cannot support broader legal effects for exemption from further monetary benefit sharing before their scope, verification, relationship with national legislation are clarified. Legal certainty must not precede effective benefit sharing safeguards for undermine states sovereignty, national ABS legislation, and mutually agreed terms. Third, on governance of the mechanism, including the Cali Fund. It must remain under the COP authority, and we propose an independent, regionally balanced expert process to assess the Memorandum of Understanding and other relevant governance documents against Decision 16/2, reporting through SBI to COP18. We also support staggered Steering Committee renewal beginning COP17, preserving institutional continuity and regional and constituency nomination rights. Fourth, on benefit allocation, we support an interim methodology enabling timely distribution, subject to further review. Geographical origin must not be permanently excluded, and distributional implications for African countries must be assessed. We affirm equitable benefit sharing with IPLCs through appropriate arrangements consistent with Decision 16/2 and aligned with national laws and mechanisms and circumstances. Fifth, on the effectiveness review must be comprehensive and independent, examining actual monetary and non-monetary benefit contribution, national implementation measure, institutional performance and database accountability. It must not presume that the mechanism is purely voluntarily. Elements that cannot yet be assessed should be classified as yet not evaluable rather than excluded. Sixth, on data governance. Africa supports advancing a CBD governed database platform or equivalent infrastructure to strengthen transparency, governance, accountability, provenance, and the functionality of the mechanism. Its feasibility should be assessed alongside other measures without predetermining reliance on existing external databases. While ensuring scientific openness, we are demanding relies on while ensuring scientific openness, interoperability, responsible data sharing and respect for national legislation. We will submit our concrete text proposal affecting this priority, including amendment to the draft decision and relevant annex in writing. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Egypt. And I also call command the commend you not commend you for for the excellent Mastery of the oper opera opera work good uh so uh next on my list is Fiji Fiji you on the floor.

Chair Fiji has the honor to speak on behalf of the 14 Pacific Island uh developing States Our land is small, our ocean is not. Together, the 14 PCCs have exclusive economic zones of nearly 20 million square kilometers. Most of the genetic resources that originate from our countries are marine, and most were collected within those zones. Our proposals follow from that. First, sovereignty. In paragraph 37, Pacific states support the reference to the sovereign rights of parties over genetic resources. and proposed to make it clear that it covers marine genetic resources within national jurisdiction, consistent with the article 4 and 15 of the convention. Since 17th January this year, the BBNJ agreement has governed marine genetic resources beyond national jurisdiction, and most pieces have ratified this. For a marine sample where it was collected now, it means which benefit sharing regime applies. We therefore propose in paragraph 37 that the country of origin information indicate for marine samples whether the sample was collected within or beyond national jurisdiction. Decision 16/2 already asked database for country of origin. This is the marine detail that makes this usable. For the same reason, the RECCA tool in Annex 3 should cover compliance with national laws on marine scientific research in our maritime zones. Second, allocation on criterion C and annex 2, Pacific States refer the inverted United Nations scales of assessment with the bandits approach. Pacific States ground this on decision 16.2 and closure 2, under which criterion C measures capacity needs, taking into account the circumstances of the developing country parties, in particular least developed countries and small island developing states. Third, the review. Decision 16/2 requires the review to consider funds mobilized in total disaggregated by contributors and recipients. The Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office already holds those data. We ask that the review methodology report them by recipient party, include least developed countries and small island developing states from the first review. Nominations to the steering committee should take into account the representation of small island developing states. Support for members from our countries should include online participation across time zones as decision 16/24 provides for online meetings. In paragraph 38, capacity building and technology transfer should reach these countries in particular as this conference called for in decision 15/19, paragraph 13. On paragraphs 2 to 14, Pacific States can support exploring additional modalities, provided nothing prejudges national access and benefit sharing measures. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Fiji, speaking on behalf of PCCS. South Africa, you have the floor if you're talking on behalf of a regional group.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa is delivering this statement on behalf of the like-minded megadiverse countries, which are home to over 70% of the world's biological diversity. DSI is overwhelmingly derived from our genetic resources and traditional knowledge. We note with concern that contributions to the Cali Fund remain far below its true potential. Businesses that benefit from the use of DSI have a responsibility to contribute, and parties in particular where users are located have an important role to play in adopting domestic measures to secure such contributions. The LMC emphasizes six points. One, the Cali Fund must be judged not by its tangible collections, but by the benefits verifiably delivered to recipients. We support measures that ensure comprehensive commercial participation, preventing exemptions that narrow the funds' agreed scope. Two, sovereign rights over genetic resources are foundational. The multilateral mechanism must complement national access and benefit sharing laws, mutually agreed terms and agreements within IPLCs. Contribution certificates may give users predictability, but must neither authorize access to genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge, nor discharge obligations under national law or mutually agreed terms. 3. Databases should accurately record the country of origin, information on legal access to the genetic resource from which DSIs derive, where applicable and as appropriate, and be transparent about use while remaining open to research. We support a feasibility assessment of options, including platform under the authority of the conference before COP 18. Four, benefits must effectively reach the countries and IPLCs. The indicator for geographic origin must reflect where genetic resources come from, not where the data are sequenced or deposited. The commitment to allocate at least half of the fund to IPLCs must be realized without delay with the full participation of women and youth. Fifth, the ARTEC formula should be revised at COP17 before adoption, and if adopted, only on an interim basis, with further refinement before COP18, and without delaying displacement. Allocations must reflect the richness and distribution of biodiversity and the origin of genetic resources so that mega-diverse countries receive their fair share. National measures recognizing KALIFUND certificate consistent with national law could encourage private sector contribution, but as mega diverse countries, our willingness to adopt such measures will depend on confidence in fair benefit sharing. An inequitable allocation formula risked undermining this confidence and private sector participation. Lastly, the authority of this mechanism rests firmly with the parties, and we therefore believe that members of the steering committee representing parties should be nominated through the regions and elected by the COP itself. Under Decision 16.2, the Conference of the Parties remains the governing body of the mechanism. We also support a review and an amendment of the MOU and its annexes to further align it with the characteristic of a benefit-sharing fund and Decision 16.2. The NMMC remains committed to working in good faith with all parties. The Cali Fund will be judged not by its establishment, but by what it delivers. And here in Yerevan, this is where that judgment begins. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. So I now open the floor for parties. The floor is now open for parties. So, Brazil, you have the floor, followed by Ghana and Argentina. Brazil.

Mr. Chair, Brazil aligns itself with the statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of the LMMC. Brazil has also submitted its full statement as an early submission and takes this opportunity to highlight a few key messages. Two years after the adoption of the modalities of the MLM, in spite of the efforts undertaken, the Cali Fund is undercapitalized and progress in non-monetary benefits is limited. While a full review of the MLM is foreseen for COP18, COP17 should address these early implementation challenges and strengthen confidence in the MLM and its Cali Fund. Brazil identified its two priorities to broaden contributions. First, the current sectoral approach imposes similar expectations on companies with very different levels of DSI use. We therefore propose initiating work on a complementary pathway based on products, allowing contributions to better reflect actual DSI use with appropriate safeguards. The MLM does not replace national systems. Brazil's recent adoption of the 3.0 version of its access registration system reinforces our capacity to implement the full extent of our law, including extraterritorially. So we must work on the relationship between the Calypson certificates and national legislation. Certificates must be linked to contributions consistent with indicative rates. Otherwise, their value as incentive will be undermined, and megabiodiverse countries will be unable to recognize them in their national systems. Brazil supports operationalizing the allocation formula on an interim basis and combined with a clear mandate for refinement. The formula must reflect the fund's nature as a benefit-sharing mechanism, accounting for biodiversity richness, geographical origin, conservation needs, capacity gaps, and contributions of IPOCs. The formula must keep providing confidence that they will receive a fair share of their benefits. Otherwise, the incentive to adopt national measures will be undermined. We must also advance non-monetary benefits, particularly capacity building, technology transfer, and lasting scientific capabilities in developing countries. Thank you.

Thank you, Brasil. Next on my list is Ghana, followed by Argentina and Malawi. Ghana, you are on the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And since we are also taking the floor for the first time, we wish to congratulate the government of Armenia for the hospitality and for hosting this conference. That said, Chair, we support the statement made by Egypt on behalf of Africa. Africa fought hard for the multilateral mechanism to be established. Though the mechanism exists, money does not. Contributions remain far below expectations, and those making profits from digital sequencing information have not yet paid their fair share into the fund. On that note, we wish to make the following points. First, that larger users of digital sequencing information make contributions as set out in Decision 16.2. Second, ensure fair and direct access. The allocation methodology must be simple and equitable, prioritizing developing countries in particular, least developed countries, and small island developing states, and preserving the allocation in decision 16/2 for itself, identify the needs of indigenous people and local communities, including women and the youth. Third, establish strong data governance. Openness of data must not mean openness without accountability. Database that holds distributed digital sequencing information should apply data governance principles. And finally, we want to emphasize the need for capacity building, especially for Africa. Africa needs sequencing infrastructure, bioinformatics skills, data storage, and access to technology so that our scientists are generators and not users of data, not only providers of samples. The Cali Fund and capacity building under Decision 16.3 should support this. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ghana, also for perfect timing. Next on my list is Argentina, Malawi, and then Colombia. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Argentina welcomes the progress made in terms of the multilateral mechanism and recognizes the importance of continuing to work to ensure that it implements in a way that effectively contributes to the goals of the Convention. At this stage, we need to assess the progress made and identify existing challenges so that future decisions are based on efficient evidence and proper consideration of circumstances and priorities of parties. Thus, the multilateral mechanism should not just have to do with the monetary contributions received, but also ensure that they are implemented properly in order to achieve target three of the convention. Such an evaluation should be able to identify the factors that explain current rates of contributions, identify any deficiencies in the development of the mechanism, And Argentina also stresses that participation in benefits should not depend exclusively on the goodwill of private entities to contribute to the fund. We need to recognize the role of parties when it comes to their national legislation without undermining or replacing national legislation for ABS. When it comes to distribution, of benefits, we feel that geographic origin of DSI from which derived from genetic resources should be applied. That is why we support the implementation of the operational indicator based on country of origin as agreed by the parties in decision 16-2, based on availability and progressive improvement. Thus, it's also necessary to improve the methodology before definitively implementing certain as the indicators. Also, when it comes to territories, and traditional knowledge. We need to be careful in terms of availability and comparability of the data, and we will send our text proposals in writing. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Argentina. Next on my list, Malawi, Colombia, followed by the Philippines. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Malawi supports the statement made by Egypt on behalf of Africa. On contribution rates, Malawi supports reaffirming the indicative rates of 1% of profits and 0.1% of revenue of private entities as presented in the draft decision. The outcomes of the study on contribution rates already highlight that meaningful participation and governance is more important for revenue generation than changes to contribution thresholds. And for us, ensuring participation of private entities in this mechanism is where most of our effort should be placed. Malawi therefore supports a targeted capitalization strategy and urges commercial users to contribute fairly to the fund. On the Cali Fund certificate, Malawi recognizes its potential to encourage contributions and provide predictability. However, the legal effect and scope of the certificate, particularly exemptions from further monetary benefit sharing, require further clarification. We therefore propose revisiting paragraph 11 and support further work under paragraph 12. On the allocation methodology, Malawi is ready to adopt an allocation methodology at this COP. We support further work on the methodology whilst it is still in use. Regarding the criterion on the geographic origin, Malawi emphasizes that its further development must remain consistent with Decisions 15/9 and 16/2. It should not introduce elements that are impractical or inconsistent with the agreed multilateral approach. Finally, we look forward to engaging constructively in discussions under this agenda item with an expectation that at this COP will signal to the world that the mechanism has moved from negotiation to a sanctioning mechanism.

Thank you, Malawi. Next on my list, Colombia, Philippines, followed by the Russian Federation. Colombia, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. Columbia supports the statement made by South Africa on behalf of the mega diverse countries. COP 17 is the COP with implementation, thus it is an opportunity to operationalize the mechanism and the Cali Fund. So we invite all parties and other stakeholders to work in good faith and participate in the negotiations on this item so that we can really get the fund underway, respecting the mandates of Decision 16/2. The allocation formula should ensure fair and equitable distribution of benefits, and the formula proposed by the ATEC should be adopted at this COP, at least provisionally, and it should then be further refined at COP18. Allocation of funds from the Karli Fund should correctly reflect the wealth and geographic distribution of biodiversity, as well as the origin of genetic resources, such that mega-diverse countries can have proper participation, fair participation in benefits. For us, it's important to talk about incentives for parties and for the private sector. National measures that recognize fund certificates could incentivize contributions from the private sector. However, The parties' willingness to adopt such measures will depend on how much confidence there is in the fair distribution of benefits. If the formula is not equitable, it will undermine trust and it will weaken the possibility of having contributions and the fund. My delegation also wants to recognize the importance and value of maintaining the SI free from certain restrictions when it is in public databases. urge these measures being taken having to do with DSI. Ensure that there is free access in line with UNESCO's open science recommendations. At the same time, for my delegation, it is important for public DSI.

Thank you, Colombia. Next on my list, Philippines, followed by the Russian Federation and DRC. Philippines, you're on the floor.

Thank you, Chair. As one of the megabiodiverse countries with high endemism, the Philippines is intent on developing, in cooperation with other parties, an effective multilateral mechanism for access and benefit sharing from utilization of DSI on genetic resources. as well as traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. We highlight the importance of the elements of a clearly defined contributor base and clearly defined covered uses. We also highlight the importance of operationalization of criteria for funding allocation in the formula. In this light, we are concerned that contrary to our collective mission at COP16, the JAF decision does not enable us to establish or determine thresholds and contribution rates at COP17. Our priority issues include, first, consideration of interaction with national and other international access and benefit sharing mechanisms. Second, equity considerations and mandatory approaches for additional modalities. Third, consideration of non-monetary benefits, including in the review methodology and the enabling role of the Cali Fund for the facilitation of sharing of non-monetary benefits. And fourth, tools and models, including data bases, whose governance should be at all levels, ensuring parties' responsibilities are fulfilled, including with respect to rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, and supporting scientific research to achieve the objectives of the CBD. The Philippines stands ready to engage constructively on these matters. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Philippines. Next on my list is Russian Federation, followed by DRC and Panama. Russian Federation, the floor is yours.

Distinguished Chair, dear colleagues, we appreciate the work done to implement decisions 15.9 and 16.2 of the Conference of Parties, including on the creation of the allocation methodology developed by the ad hoc technical working group. Together with this, a number of questions lead to considerable concern. First of all, we're talking about creating legal certainty when it comes to implementing the mechanism for contributions to the Kali Fund. As currently, making these contributions is in no way linked to direct use of DSI, nor is it linked to having rights over DSI, nor is it linked to the origin of the creation of DSI. Considering the voluntary nature of contributions to the Khaleej Fund, we see particular significance in establishing legal certainty when it comes to the basis for these contributions and creating mechanisms and incentives to make contributions for commercial organizations, in particular, such as, one, further elaboration of matters related to grounds for certification of payers into the Cali Fund and significance of whether these certificates are held or not at the international and national levels. And two, developing a product-oriented approach in addition to the sector approach to identify organizations which could be considered as payers of voluntary contributions. If we don't resolve these questions, the situation as it stands now, namely lack of real, non-symbolic contributions to the Collie Fund, will remain unchanged. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Russian Federation. Next on my list is Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by Panama and Zimbabwe. Democratic Republic of the Congo, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor. The DRC supports the statement made by Egypt when Egypt spoke on behalf of the Africa Group. DRC is in favor of any initiative or provision that aims at favoring the implementation and operationalization of the system and the equitable sharing of benefits stemming from the DSI, if any resources, including the Cali Fund, and guarantees the sharing of benefits whilst remembering being sticking to the structure of the governance of the Cali fund. We support any initiative of the parties and other actors aimed at promoting the involvement of the private sector and its contribution to the fund and non state parties to support the work of the Multilateral Fund. We also include the parties to strengthen their relative national implementations. We finally believe that concrete action should be taken in order to make public and accessible the information about DSI in a transparent and responsible way, in accordance with the sovereign rights of all states and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. And also, thank you very much.

Thank you very much, DRC. So we now have Panama, followed by Zimbabwe and United Arab Emirates. I will be closing the speakers list shortly because we don't have much time left for this session. So Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Panama lines up with the statement made by Brazil, South Africa, Ghana, and Costa Rica. In Cali, we decided to move forward with a mechanism which was not based on lists. And this is something that Panama was strongly against at the time. And now we can see the result. We didn't have an efficient mechanism. And yet, we don't seem to be willing to open up spaces to make the necessary changes. Let's be honest, many developing countries where much of this biodiversity is located, are still not ready. We don't have appropriate national systems. We don't have the scientific capacity to use this information. In Cali, we also asked for more resources for technology transfer and for the scientific community. These calls went unheard. We were promised that this topic would be discussed in the intercessional period. and that the scientists of our public research centers would have the same benefits for development. Today, we're asking for this commitment to be fulfilled. Making progress will require considerable economic effort, and this is where financial resources should be concentrated, rather than in expert groups on synthetic biology or risk assessment. We also need supervisory mechanisms for the platforms that give access to genetic sequencing in order to ensure compliance with national regulatory frameworks and traceability. Although the allocation formula that's been proposed is not perfect, we can support it in a provisional manner. Mr. Chair, the mechanism is based on a mutually beneficial agreement between users and supplying countries. To maintain this balance, developing countries need support to participate fully.

Thank you, Panama. Next on the list, Zimbabwe, United Arab Emirates, and India. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Chair, since Zimbabwe takes the floor for the fifth time, we wish to thank government and people of India and the Secretary for the exceptional hospitality excellent organization of COP 17. Chair, Zimbabwe aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. In this regard, Zimbabwe wishes to emphasize the following priorities. One, we support a balanced study of potential additional modalities of mechanism for possible consideration by COP 18. Two, We support maintaining the indicative contribution rates and thresholds established under Decision 16/2, while strengthening national measures and transparency in reporting on their implementation. Three, we underscore the need for further study of the legal implications of certificates of compliance, particularly the implications for fair and equitable benefit sharing. Four, we support an interim allocation methodology to facilitate progress while allowing further work on key authentic elements. Five, we support a balanced and comprehensive review of the mechanism to assess its effectiveness in delivering fair and equitable benefit sharing. Six, we emphasize that capacity building for national competent authorities is essential to strengthen national capacities for effective governance of digital sequence information. Lastly, we stress the importance of transparent and accountable databases, including clear arrangements for submission, accessibility, and use of digital sequence information in genetic resources. There's need, therefore, to ensure that the implementation of the multilateral mechanism improves. The international process is yet regrettably not led to substantive findings on which COP17 can rely on to take additional decisions relating to the operations of the mechanism. Chair, we will submit our text proposals for particular paragraphs to the Secretariat. I thank you.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. So the last intervention this evening is for United Arab Emirates to hold. And then after I'll read out the speakers list and then tell you how we'll proceed. Thank you. United Arab Emirates, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. First and foremost, my delegation would like to sincerely thank the government of the Republic of Armenia and the people of Armenia for having welcomed this conference. Our thanks also go to the Secretary for having prepared it. We believe that this multilateral mechanism is taking its first steps, and We support paragraph 3 for setting up a study. We support the content of paragraph 4 as well, namely that there should be an efficiency examination. We don't think that an open contact group is necessary. We do not think. We also support the establishment of a study that would deal with the direct and indirect use of DSI. and we have to have legal certainty to avoid us having too many obligations to too many instruments. Now, as to the databases, well, they must be voluntary, and that appears in paragraph 37, and the use of these databases must be consistent with national legislations. It's also important to protect data, which must be confidential, certain types of data. And finally, we have to review this methodology. We believe the data must be available in all of the languages of the United Nations, six languages, and also protected for business purposes. Thank you.

Thank you, United Arab Emirates. So the Our time is almost over, so I'll read the remaining parties that have asked for the floor. India, China, Zambia, South Africa, Malaysia, Cameroon, Burundi, Uganda, Guatemala, Turkey, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Senegal, Ethiopia. The party list is now closed. So, dear colleagues, we have exhausted our interpretation time for this afternoon. I would like to thank you for your cooperation and efficiency in delivering your statements. Before adjourning this session, as two of our contact groups start this evening, let me remind you of a few logistical points. The contact groups will work in English, and accordingly, non-papers considered are in English only. As per usual practice, the outcomes of the work of the contact groups will be provided as conference room papers in all languages. for review and approval by this working group. As per usual practice, statements cannot be uploaded during contact groups. All interventions are to be made in the room. Also, in accordance with the guidelines on conduct expected of participants in CBD processes, discussion during contact group cannot be recorded, photographed, or shared through social media. Your cooperation in upholding these simple proceedings will be appreciated. Secretary, do you have any announcements?

Thank you very much, Chair. As you announced, so for the, there is two contact groups meeting this evening. So one on PMMR and second on Article 8. Please see the screens for the room numbers where they will be meeting from 7:30 to 10:30. And secondly, I think global review, my apologies. And the second is that we will start tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. with the remaining list. So please enjoy your evening. Wish you a nice evening. See you tomorrow. Thanks.

Thank you, Secretariat. I wish all of you a good evening, and we'll continue our next session, working group one, tomorrow morning in this same room, and then we'll continue on agenda item 11. This meeting is adjourned.