2026 Biodiversity Capacity-Building and Development Forum, COP 17

Hello, good morning everyone. Hello, good morning everyone once again. This is just a mic test. And once more. Good morning, colleagues. So we'll be starting shortly. All right, so maybe those sitting in the back rows, let's have a family round table. We all sit around here. That's my suggestion. So welcome to this Capacity Building and Development Forum. It's the second one that we are organizing since it was established at COP15. The first one was in Cali, and we are happy to have the second forum in Yerevan. My name is Eric Tamale. I head the Capacity Development and National Implementation Support Unit at the CBI Secretariat. And we are happy to co-organize this forum with a number of institutions, including the UN Environment Programme, UNDP, the NBSAP Accelerator Partnership, and of course, the Technical Scientific Cooperation Support Centers, especially those that are responsible for this region. It is European TSC and Central Asia TSCs, and of course, our host, the government of Armenia. So we are happy that you responded to the invite, and thank you very much for coming. In terms of the program, we'll have the formal, we'll not have a formal opening. I'm just going to give a remarks, introduce the workshop. We were supposed to have the opening, but all the people who were supposed to open this forum, there are four other events going on at the same time. So the minister and the executive secretary are now doing their rounds. So we opted that they will come and do the closing for us instead of than waiting for them, and they come at 10:30. So we thought it's better that we start our business and they will come and close. And I'm sure you all had a chance to read the background to this forum, this particular session of the Capacity Building Forum. And we are looking at what the global report has pointed out. And I'm sure you've had a chance to browse through the global report on the collective progress in implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The report points out different messages. One is, yes, there's enthusiasm across the globe. A number of stakeholders are coming on board to try to implement this framework, but at the same time, the pace at which we are moving is still slow. And if we continue at this pace, we might not be able to achieve the ambitious targets we set for ourselves. So, yes, momentum is building, but still it's not fast enough for us to be able to achieve the targets. And when it comes to the means of implementation, it's the same story. The means are still inadequate, and they are not evenly available to all parts of the world. So, and a number of capacity gaps are identified in the report. and some of the challenges that some of the countries are still facing. So this particular forum was organized to try to reflect on some of those findings, especially with respect to capacity gaps, technology gaps, and come up with some ideas. What can we do in the remaining four years to change the situation, build capacity, not only individual capacities, but also the institutional capacities and the enabling environment capacities. So looking at the three levels. And we'll be hearing during the course of this forum, we'll start off with some stories of change. We have had good experiences and real impact on the ground. So we'll hear from them, what is it? What is the secret sauce? How did they do it? And based on those stories to inspire us, we will be inviting all of you to share what you know, what has worked for you, what hasn't worked for you, so we learn from that. And then in the afternoon, we'll get an opportunity to dig even deeper through the roundtable sessions that we'll have. We are happy to have Melissa from UNF WCMC, who has kindly agreed to be our lead facilitator for the entire forum. So, melissa, I'm going to introduce her now. She will be leading us in the plenary sessions, but we have roundtables that will be led by the co-organizers. And we have, for roundtable one, we will have the NBSAP Accelerator Partnership, my colleague here, Gemedo, leading together with UNDP. Then we'll have the roundtable on strengthening, I didn't mention the roundtable, the first roundtable is on strengthening national implementation pathways. led by Accelerator Partnership. Then the second roundtable will be on strengthening inclusive governance and shared implementation, led by UNF WCMC and IFAD. And the third roundtable will be on enhancing technical and scientific cooperation and technology transfer. That will be led by the TSC centers for this region, IUCN, ICARO, and European TSC. And last but not least, Roundtable 4 on strengthening the enabling environment capacity for biodiversity action, which will be led by UNDP and the NBA-SAPX data partnership. So that's the structure. And we'll have four, the roundtables will take place in four rooms. We've just situated four rooms. So in the afternoon, you move to those rooms. And these lead co-organizers for this will tell you, give you instructions on how those roundtables are going to run. Then we'll come back here for the last plenary. We'll have the report backs and also general discussion on the key messages. These key messages, we are going to put them together. They are going to be presented at the high level segment on the 28th. So we are going to present our key messages to the ministers on the 28th. So we'll need to have crisp messages that we want, we'll discuss, make sure we're all comfortable with those messages. And then the rapporteurs will clean up the statement. It's going to be crispy, three minutes. We've been told not more than three minutes. So we need to condense all those good ideas in three minutes, at least for the main messages. But we'll have the summary report that will be made available to COP. And a bigger report that will be compiled later and made available on our website. So that's by the way of how this is going to run and how we are going to share the outcomes of this forum. Any questions so far before I hand over to Melissa? Or any suggestions on how we can make this event better? And feel free, this is really informal. It's not a negotiation session. Please feel free. It's a family of capacity building providers. So let's share freely and feel free to put up your hand any time so that we can benefit. I took off my tie, and I'm going to take off my coat, my jacket, so that we can re-interact freely. So I'll hand over to Melissa now. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you very much, Irie. As Irie said, my name is Melissa de ****. I'm the Deputy Director of UNEP-WCMC, and I will be your facilitator for at least the morning session today, after which Irie will again take over. So, I just want to reiterate a couple of things before we get going with our keynote address. This is very much about learning the lessons, sharing experiences. looking for opportunities and solutions to find ways of improving effectiveness, capacity, and technical and scientific cooperation. As Iri said, this is meant to be informal. We will have sessions where people do presentations, but we really want this to be a discussion where people feel free to engage and really delve into the details of what's being said. So, to get started, I would like to invite Mr. Ruben Katchatryan, Director for the Foundation for the Preservation of Wildlife and Cultural Assets, and also an IUCN Regional Councillor representing Armenia. Thank you, Ruben.

Thank you. Excellencies, distinguished representatives of Convention on Biological Diversity, colleagues, partners, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honor to address this forum here in Yerevan, Armenia, at the particularly important moment for global biodiversity conservation. The theme of our gathering, from Ambition to Action, reflects one of the most pressing challenges facing the international community nowadays. The adoption of the Kunming-Monreal Global Biodiversity Framework Marked as a historic achievement in global environmental governance, for the first time, we have a comprehensive and shared framework that brings together biodiversity, conservation, ecosystem restoration, sustainable use, and the participation of society in achieving common global objectives. Yes, as we are approaching 2030, the gap between our collective ambition and the pace of implementation remains a serious concern, as mentioned by my dear colleague. The global assessment of progress under the framework demonstrates that while countries have made considerable efforts to establish national targets and revise their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, progress towards implementation remains insufficient and uneven. This raises a fundamental question. How do we ensure that national biodiversity commitments are translated into measurable, sustained, and effective conservation outcomes? I believe that one of the answers lies in how we approach capacity development, institutional cooperation, and the role of different actors in national biodiversity governance. National biodiversity strategies and action plans are among the most important instruments for translating the global biodiversity framework into national action. However, their effectiveness depends not only on the ambition of their targets, but also on the institutions, partnerships, knowledge, and resources available to implement them. In many countries, biodiversity planning continues to be largely government driven. While the participation of non-governmental organizations, scientific institutions, local communities, and other stakeholders is often limited to consultation at relatively advanced stages of the process. This approach risks overlooking valuable expertise, existing conservation investments, and practical experience accumulated outside government institutions. If we expect NBSAPs to become effective national implementation frameworks, we must rethink how they are developed and who participates in shaping them. Civil society organizations should not be viewed simply as stakeholders to be consulted once national priorities have already been established. They should be recognized as strategic implementation partners whose expertise and practical contributions can strengthen national biodiversity planning from the very beginning. And this is I'm sharing from my own experience in Armenia. This means involving conservation organizations, research institutions, local communities, and other relevant actors in the early stage of MBOSAP development and revision, including the identification of biodiversity priorities, assessment of national capacities, formulations of targets, and design of implementation mechanisms. Such engagement must continue throughout implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. This is not simply a matter of broader participation, it is a matter of making national biodiversity strategies more realistic, evidence-based, inclusive, and achievable. Across the world, non-governmental organizations have accumulated decades of experience in biodiversity monitoring, protected and conserved area management, species recovery, ecosystem restoration, community engagement, and the development of innovative conservation approaches. Many have established long-term programs, developed technical expertise, mobilized international financing, and created partnerships with local communities. These are capacities that already exist within our countries, yet they are not always sufficiently recognized or integrated into national biodiversity implementation systems. When governments develop national strategies without systematically assessing and incorporating these existing capacities, they risk duplicating efforts, overlooking successful conservation models, and missing opportunities to accelerate implementation. The challenge is therefore not only to develop new capacities, it is also to identify, connect, recognize, and effectively use the capacities that already exist across society. This is particularly important for implementing the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework, where success depends on coordinated action across multiple sectors and institutions. For example, achieving target three on protected and conserved areas requires cooperation not only with state institution, but also with organizations that communities managing or supporting conservation outside traditional state protected area system. Similarly, achieving target two on ecosystem restoration, target four on species recovery, and target 10 on sustainable management of productive landscape requires the participation of actors already implementing practical conservation measures on the ground. Their experience should inform national priorities and their contributions should be appropriately reflected in national implementation and reporting systems. Allow me to briefly refer to our experience in Armenia. In 2010, my foundation for the preservation of wildlife and cultural assets established the Caucasus Wildlife Refuge, introducing the privately protected conservation model that was new to the South Caucasus. Over the past 16 years, this initiative has expanded to protect more than 30,000 hectares of important habitats, supporting threatened species, ecological connectivity, habitat restoration, and community-based conservation. Through this work, we have developed scientific monitoring capacities, implemented conservation management approaches, mobilized international partnerships, and supported local communities in addressing human-wildlife conflict. But the broader significance of this experience goes beyond one organization or one conservation area. It demonstrates that non-state actors can contribute sustainably to national biodiversity objectives through long-term conservation commitments and practical implementation. Similar examples exist in many countries represented at this forum. The important question is how national governments can create the conditions for these contributions to become an integral part of national biodiversity strategies. This requires appropriate policy and legal frameworks, institutional corporations, mechanisms for recognizing conservation contributions, and opportunities for civil society organizations to participate meaningfully in decision making processes. The Global Biodiversity Framework recognizes the importance of capacity building, technical and scientific cooperation, technology transfer, and access to innovation, particularly through Target 20. However, capacity development should not be understood solely as a strengthening the technical capabilities of government institutions. It must be approached as broader national responsibility that involves all actors contributing to biodiversity conservation. Governments have central role in establishing national priorities, creating enabling conditions, and ensuring accountability. Scientific institutions, from their side, provide knowledge, research, and analytical capacities. And civil society organizations contribute field-based expertise, innovation, implementation experience, and connections with local communities. Local communities themselves hold valuable knowledge and are essential partners in sustainable biodiversity management.

International organizations and technical cooperation mechanisms can support the exchange of expertise, mobilization of resources, and transfer of technologies. The effectiveness of national implementation depends on how well these capacities are connected and coordinated. This is where the whole of government and whole of society approaches must move beyond policy language and become practical governance arrangements. We need institutionalized mechanisms that bring relevant actors together, not only for consultation, but also for joining planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Greater investment in national scientific capacities and stronger connections between research, policy development, and conservation practice. Field-based scientific evidence should directly inform national biodiversity priorities and decision making, while the practical needs of conservation implementation should help shape research and capacity development program. Another major challenge is the dependence of biodiversity conservation on short-term project-based financing. While individual projects can generate important achievements, the global biodiversity framework cannot be implemented through these connected interventions alone. Effective conservation requires institutional continuity, predictable resource, long-term monitoring and sustained cooperation. This is particularly relevant for ecosystem restoration, species recovery, and management of protected and conserved areas, where meaningful results often requires decades rather than few years. Governments and international partners should therefore consider how national biodiversity implementation mechanisms can better support long-term conservation programs including those implemented by civil society organizations and local communities. National biodiversity financing and capacity development plans should recognize the contributions of non-state actors and identify opportunities to strengthen the scale up successful initiatives. This would help countries move from isolated projects toward coordinated national conservation programs with shared objectives and measurable results. Distinguished colleagues, as we discuss how accelerate implementation of Kunming-Wongari Global Biodiversity Framework, I believe several changes deserve particular attention. First, governments should establish meaningful and structured engagement with civil society organizations, scientific institutions, and local communities from the early stage of MB sub-development and revision. Second, national biodiversity planning should systematically identify existing conservation capacities, initiatives, and investments, and determine how this can contribute to national targets. Third, countries should establish practical mechanisms for shared implementation, including clear institutional responsibilities, cooperation frameworks, and opportunities for non-state actors to contribute to monitoring and national reporting. Fourth, capacity development and technical cooperation should respond to actual needs of implementing institutions and organizations, rather than being designed as isolated activities. And finally, national governments and international partners should work together to create enabling policy, legal, and financial conditions that allow successful conservation initiatives to be sustained and expanded. These changes would not diminish the responsibility of governments, of course. On the contrary, they would strengthen government's ability to coordinate national biodiversity action and deliver on international commitments. The role of government should be not only to define biodiversity priorities, but also to enable and coordinate the contributions of all those capable of helping achieve them. My dear colleagues, the Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework has given us a common vision for the future of nature and humanity. But achieving this vision requires more than national commitments and ambitious targets. It requires a fundamental strengthening of how we cooperate, how we develop capacities, and how we organize biodiversity implementation at the national level. We must recognize that the governments cannot deliver the global biodiversity framework alone, nor can civil society, scientific institutions, or local communities achieve lasting conservation results without supportive national policies and institutional cooperation. Our collective success depends on bringing these contributions together. National biodiversity strategies and action plans must therefore evolve from government-led planning documents into genuinely inclusive national frameworks for coordinated action. The whole of society approach must begin when strategies are being designed, not only when governments are looking for partners to implement them. And capacity development must strengthen not only individual institutions, but the relationships and system that allow them to work effectively together. As we move toward 2030, we have an opportunity to transform the way biodiversity conservation is planned, financed, and implemented. Let us ensure that the ambitions of the Global Biodiversity Framework are supported by strong national institutions, empowered conservation partners, scientific knowledge, and meaningful participation across society. Because ultimately, the success of the global biodiversity framework will depend not only on what governments commit to achieve, but on how effectively they mobilize the knowledge, capacities, and commitments of the society to achieve it. Thank you very much, and wish you all and us a very successful forum. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for that. I think it really sets the scene very well for the discussions today. So if you don't mind, I'm just going to pick up on a couple of the points you raised, which is firstly, the KMGBF is not just about ambition. Effectiveness depends on partnerships and institutional capacity, and that collaboration with TSCCs and other partners, for example, civil society, scientific community, and local communities. is imperative from the outset to develop and deliver on national strategies and to monitor action. Importantly, capacity building is not just about governments. It's about all the other partners to enable them to participate. And lastly, capacity building and knowledge exchange and technological and scientific exchange should be based on needs of the countries and not top down, but really driven by the context of the countries. So thank you very much for that.

Thank you.

So we'll now move to our next session, which is on stories of change. In this, we will hear from five country representatives who will share their experiences on international cooperation, the use of technologies for spatial planning, the role of youth, finance mechanisms and institutional strengthening, and readiness to foster biodiversity finance. After each session, which will take about 5, 10 minutes, We will have an opportunity to engage with the participants, to hear their perspectives and engage on the specific topics. And then at the end of the session, after each of the five speakers, we will have an opportunity to talk more generally. So to get us started, I'd like to invite Ms. Gayane Shaznarayan, apologies, Deputy Director, Hydrometeorology and Monitoring Center for Armenia. Thank you very much. And could you please come to the front? Thank you.

Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank you for this opportunity. And today, I am pleased to share Armenia's experience of international cooperation in strengthening scientific and institutional capacities for the sustainable management and restoration of Lake Sevan. But I would like to ask to have my presentation on screen because I prepare presentation and already provide to. Okay, thank you very much. Our experience shows how international scientific partnership can help countries strengthen their own capacity to understand ecosystems, monitor environmental changes, and use scientific knowledge in decision making. Next slide, please. Lake Sevan is a vital freshwater resource for Armenia and a complex ecosystem whose protection requires reliable scientific evidence and the ability to anticipate environmental changes. Although hydrological observation date back to the 19th century and systematic water quality monitoring began decades ago, limited funding during the 90s and 2000s affects the continuity and frequency of monitoring and research. As a result, observation were often insufficient to provide a comprehensive understanding of Lake Sevan's ecological condition and seasonal dynamics. Understanding the lake's complex processes and predicting future changes required advanced scientific methods and modeling tools that were difficult to develop with the resource available nationality. These challenges highlighted the need of international scientific corporation, which became an important catalyst for change. Next slide. In 2018, Armenia and German partners launched the Sevan Mod one research project followed by the Sevan 2 in 2020. The projects focused on developing science-based management tools for Lake Sevan and brought together the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany, Armenian scientific institutions, and Hydrometeorology and Monitoring Center. Over more than six years, this partnership has strengthened scientific collaboration, knowledge exchange, and institutional capacity. The projects improve our understanding of Lake Sevan's ecological processes and supported the development and application of hydrodynamic and water quality modeling tools. These tools help assess water temperature and thermal stratification, investigate nutrient dynamics, and explore possible future changes under climate change. The project also applied two-dimensional model and explored the potential of remote sensing for assessing changes in lake. However, the significance of these achievements goes beyond the models themselves. The corporation has given Armenian experts and institutions additional tools, knowledge, and experience to investigate complex environmental processes and assess possible future scenarios. Project data and Results have also been shared with Armenian authorities, helping connect scientific research with national environmental management. For me, one of the most important outcomes of this cooperation is the stronger connection between scientific research and national action. With state funding, monthly hydrochemical monitoring of Lake Sevan is maintained by the Hydrometeorological Monitoring Center under Armenia's Ministry of Environment. Hydrobiological monitoring is carried out by Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydroecology of National Academy of Science of Armenia. commissioned by our center. Importantly, national support has extended beyond monitoring. A number of scientific research projects on Lake Sevan have also been launched with state funding, helping build on previous findings and address remaining knowledge gaps. Cooperation with UFZ has not ended with SEVANMOD 1 and SEVANMOD 2. Scientific collaboration continues with Armenian research institutions and our center. Joint research and scientific publications are ongoing, and new projects are being planned. The knowledge, data, modeling approaches, and partnership developed through SEVANMOD Project have also provided valuable foundation for further initiatives, including U47 project. Under this initiative, corporation with UFZ is contributing to hydrological modeling of Lake Sevan Basin, including assessment of water balance and potential future river inflows under climate change. This demonstrates how the international scientific corporation, combined with national commitment and public investment, can help sustain research and strengthen the scientific basis for environmental management beyond the lifetime of individual projects. Next slide. The experience of Lake Sevan demonstrates that international cooperation should not be measured only by the number of projects implemented, publications produced, or experts trained. Its lasting value lies in whether it strengthens national institutions, supports continuous monitoring, sustains scientific partnerships, and enables countries to use scientific knowledge in their own decision-making. As we work towards the goals of Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, capacity development should be not as a temporary project component, but as long-term investment in our ability to protect and restore ecosystem. The key lesson from Lake Sevan is simple. The real success of international cooperation is when scientific knowledge leads to lasting national capacity, sustained public investment, and continued action. Our responsibility is to build on The progress already achieved address the remaining knowledge gaps and ensure that scientific capacity continues to grow in support of Lake Sevan and future generation. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for that. That was a really lovely example of how collaboration on research results in improved and sustained national capacity. I would like now to turn to the floor and to the participants and ask them if this resonates with them. Are there examples from their own countries or their own contexts where they've engaged in this way and it's resulted in sustained national capacities? I understand it is early in the morning, so I'm going to ask Eri to perhaps lead us.

Thank you very much for this story. I think all of us have been hearing over the years where research institutions and academia are kind of a bit removed from our processes, and they produce lots of good good material, lots of publications, and I heard you say the measure of success for them is how many scientific articles are published in a journal. That's how some of them measure their success. And I think your story demonstrates that needs to change. We need to look at all these resources. And it's quite a lot, actually. When you visit universities and the knowledge they are sitting on that is underutilized, it's just mind boggling. It's just like, why can't we harvest this? The countries that are saying they don't have the capacity, they don't have the expertise, go to their universities and their research institutions and see. the capacities and expertise sitting within your own countries, and it's not being tapped. And this story for me brings to bear that we need to do more. And we can ask how they did it and try to change that. And instead of looking for capacities elsewhere, let's first mobilize what we have within our countries and maximize the knowledge, maximize the expertise, and the skills that they have. So thank you for bringing this story to bear. And I think we can have more discussion on how we can do better. Thank you.

Thank you. What I also personally enjoyed about that was that it was very much led by in-country partners based on your priorities. It wasn't external partners coming in and saying, this is our priority, this is what we want to build your capacity on or do research on. It was based around your own priorities, and that, i think, is an incredibly valuable lesson for in-country partners, but also external. Thank you for that.

Thank you for all the information. I agree that this initiative, this input from international scientific institute was just catalyzed the processes in national basis. And after that, all scientific institutes and also monitoring centers start to act themselves. without expecting further support from international organizations. Thank you.

Do you mind introducing yourself before you begin? Thank you.

Yes. My name is Oliver Avramski. I'm regional director of IOM for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. But I will speak from my experience preceding my role in ICN and going beyond the current role I have, actually, indeed, my career started through this international cooperation with scientific institutions. And I see a repeated lesson learned is that one of the important benefits this international cooperation brought to national scientific and research institutions is the capacity to translate their science into policy recommendations. I don't know whether this was the case for the former Soviet or Yugoslavia, where I worked context. But indeed, there was a strong detachment between science and policy making. And the problem was on both sides. Again, many of these institutes didn't have or still don't have anyone who is capable or versatile in understanding policy making process and how what scientists find or discover can be translated into a language that is understood by decision makers. And indeed, I think that is still relevant in many cases. Thank you.

Thank you for that. I think that's definitely one of the challenges. Eri said that we don't always look towards the academic institutions and there's all this knowledge, but often the scientific, the peer reviewed information needs to be translated into the policy and we need to make that linkage. And I think there's many people in the room here whose job it is to make that linkage, which is fantastic. Any further? Yes, please, Hamedo.

Thank you very much. Thank you for that excellent presentation. I would like to know more on how many nationals, young researchers took part in that, and whether that capacity still in a sustainable capacity planning and also engagement with the international researchers, besides excellent scientific publication is continuous, and also how you use the outcome of that collaboration research for influencing decision making and also planning national biodiversity strategy induction plan. Thank you.

Thank you for good question, because for us it was very important to involve young scientists, and also the goal of Armenian government was now also is to involve young scientists in scientific projects. And at that time and now also, I can say only young researchers involved in this scientific work, because They need, these scientific projects need mobility to go to learn and study abroad, to work in foreign institute in USA, then transfer this knowledge to national institutes. And three institutes were involved in this scientific project. And I can't exact number, tell exact number, but approximately five, six young scientists work in this scientific project. And also our center, in our center, in our laboratory, mostly young people work. And related to the transfer this knowledge to this information, this data to the government, the decision makers, I show In my slide, several activities, forums, conferences, and meetings took place during these years. This helped to increase awareness of this not only scientific work, but results. by presentation, by short papers providing detailed information about Lake Sevan and also report transfer to the decision makers and deputy minister Marian always meet with scientific community in different formats, in conferences, in separate meetings, and this information transfer to decision makers. It was really very awareness raising activities took place during these six years, and the issue raised a lot of information and decision makers aware about Lake Sevan because that year also blooming took place in Lake Sevan, and all, not only scientific, but government was worried about the blooming of Lake Sevan, and that's why importance of protecting Lake Sevan and managing these processes were very important, and that's why the connection between scientific scientists was very close in touch.

Yeah, thanks very much for that story of change. I think it really surfaces one of the biggest challenges that we have in this space, in the environmental space. And I just want to make a comment on the disconnect between science and decision making and policy making. The experience that we've had in South Africa is, you know, having had over 20 years of, you know, biodiversity assessments and generating information and data that's important for decision making and policy advice, has been that scientists are good for producing science, and policymakers and decision makers, you know, need the basis to make those decisions. Now, if you put scientists and policymakers in the same room, you may still have a broken telephone. And the reason is that scientists are often not the best to communicate to policymakers and decision makers. That skill to translate science into policy advice is a very specialized skill. Oftentimes, you need a different catalyst, a different set of skills to translate this information. Oftentimes, we produce so much evidence in terms of which of our ecosystems are at risk, our water sources and the challenges they face. And yet, we're still not able to unlock the necessary resources that we need. It's because we are not able, as scientists, oftentimes, to make the case for these resources. If you want to speak to a politician about the importance of water, you may have to rate the message around the value that the politician will draw linked to electorate. If you want to unlock resources from business, We have to wrap around the message or make the case for biodiversity around what value biodiversity brings in terms of their business value chain. So it's a huge challenge that we all face, and we need to accept that that skill set may lie actually between the evidence generators and the policy makers. So we need that catalyst.

Thank you for that. Over to the person in the pink next to you, and then over to you afterwards.

Hello, thank you very much, madam Chair and parties. I am Alicia Mastretta-Yanes from the Coalition of Conservation Genetics. I would like to introduce the Coalition for Conservation Genetics, representing a global community of scientists working to maintain and restore genetic diversity. We helped to develop the headline indicator A4, some of you might actually remember this t-shirt from COP15, the headline indicator A4 on genetic diversity, and therefore we feel responsible for creating long-term capacity and not only producing papers. We welcome opportunities to assist Parties by providing guidance, tools, capacity building, and technical support for increasing resilience for climate change and conserving genetic diversity. But also, we welcome you, the policymakers, to translate our science into policy, into value for policy and society. So it's a pleasure to be here, and we stand ready to collaborate with parties, the SCCs, and the Armenian presidency for COP15. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I'm Philip McGowan from, I'm with IUCN Species Survival Commission's Multilateral Engagement Task Force, but I also represent a conservation consortium of universities in the UK called CASCADE. And so we've heard a lot about academia on the one hand. And policy on the other hand. I think there are emerging signs of optimism that these 2 sides, these 2 sides that are seen as very different can come together. I should say I also sit on CBD's informal advisory group for technical and scientific cooperation representing the UK. So. Cascade and hopefully actually being published, Arie has mentioned publications are one of the driving forces, but there are more and more institutions that are looking at the global biodiversity framework and this science policy boundary to see how academia can identify relevant policy questions and try and address them. And hopefully we've got a publication coming out in the next few days that will do an analysis of the last complete set of NBSAPs in Africa, so it's pre-COP15. But it does show that those government driven NBSAPs have identified a whole range of partners that they want to work with, and academia, whatever measure you take, comes out second in many of those. So the governments are identifying that they want to work with academia, and that's across all African countries. I'm sure that pattern would be replicated if you looked across all NBSAPs. So there is that willingness to engage. And then coming back more practically to some of these challenges, thinking of our context in the UK, we've got now this consortium cascade, which is 35 UK higher education institutions. I've got very strong relationships now with different parts of UK government. The aspiration is there to work together. We are hearing from them exactly what their policy needs are that will be better advised by scientific evidence. The challenge is actually finding the right mechanisms, because when you take a step back, you've got two very slow moving worlds. The world of government has got its own methods and processes for procuring advice, for incorporating that advice, and then academia, universities can also be very slow to change. So finding a way to actually make that change, accelerate that change, the aspiration is there, there's no doubt about it, in depth in the UK and other, we work quite a lot with small island developing states where they don't have universities and academics. So we know what the challenges are, how do we actually unlock those, their practical mechanisms to work together?

That's a very, very good question. Thank you for that. I'm going to take one more question, and then we're going to move on to the next case study.

Thank you. I'm Valerie Doudtmeijer. I'm the Director for Global Knowledge Management and Learning at IUCN, and also a member of the IAC on Technical and Scientific Cooperation. I wanted to build on Phil's point, because I think what you said, Phil, about these two worlds moving very slowly is very, very right. I mean, universities, and I spent 14 years of my career working in university, have made the finding that they need to be more practical for their students and researchers, but it's not changing. So I think we should reflect upon how we can incentivize universities to systematically engage with the policy processes, and not at a very high level, but the policy processes on the ground, because the kind of skills that the colleague from South Africa was mentioning, it's very difficult to build them exposed. So it should be embedded in the curriculum that these young researchers go through. So for me, it's really about finding a way to Because universities are always looking for new courses, new opportunities to be taught to students, so how do we make those available to universities so that young researchers and students learn about these communication skills, negotiation skills, and all the other type of practical skills and soft skills that are necessary to bridge the science policing gap? Thank you.

No, absolutely. And just on that, a personal story, we have somebody from our science team here who's a very rigorous, brilliant scientist, and she is completely engaged in the policy process. This is her first COP, and she's absolutely loving it. So seeing that gives me a lot of hope. Thank you very much. Thank you, Gaia, for your presentation. Very interesting discussions resulted from that. Thank you. I'd now like to hand over to Dr. Farai Tererai from the South African National Biodiversity Institute. He's the Director of Biodiversity Assessments, and he'll be talking about technologies for spatial planning in Southern Africa. Thanks, Farai.

Thanks, Melissa, and good morning, colleagues. I had wanted to, I had two options, either to speak through slides or to just tell a story. So I have decided that I'm just going to tell a story, the story of change for South Africa in terms of spatial planning. I'm going to take a slightly different approach. I'm going to take you through what I call the ecosystem of spatial planning. And earlier in my intervention, I indicated that South Africa has had over 20 years of conducting biodiversity assessments, and that is generating data that forms the foundations of spatial planning. And one of the mottos that we believe in is that good data will lead to good evidence, which will lead to good decisions, and of course, good actions. And I'm going to speak through this process in terms of data and the technologies that we've applied to get to good actions. That is really where we start to talk about spatial planning. Now, South Africa is one of the 17 megadiverse countries of the world. And of course, we have very unique biodiversity. We have exceptional endemism in terms of species. We have very unique ecosystems, many of them only found in South Africa. And the country has realized that this biodiversity really forms the basis of our economy, and of course, social well-being. And for that reason, South Africa has developed a science-based planning and biodiversity management approach. We are an early adopter of systematic conservation planning, and we have developed a suite of spatial planning tools and that identify priorities and guide land and sea use in terms of sustainable management of these resources on which our economy so much depends on. So we have developed critical biodiversity maps and associated biodiversity sector plans across the terrestrial realm, the freshwater realm, and the marine realm. By applying the principles of spatial efficiency, complementarity, biodiversity representation, and ecological persistence, these tools help direct conservation and sustainable development interventions towards areas of greatest ecological significance. The integration of spatial planning and statutory decision making, and in particular, the data that I've been talking about, From ecosystem species data, when I was talking about our data system, we have been conducting these assessments and reporting them through what we call the National Biodiversity Assessment. So the National Biodiversity Assessment really speaks to the state, it's like our barometer of the state of biodiversity within our country. From foundational data, where we look at modeling and different approaches to generating these species data, so, and all the way to, you know, ecosystem types, ecosystem condition, red list of ecosystem, key biodiversity areas, critical biodiversity areas, red listing of ecosystems and species, and so on. And all of that forming the foundations of spatial planning. Now, this information has started even influencing decision making in terms of even development. So some of these tools that I've spoken to have gone as far as informing our development priorities through the EIA screening tool that we have developed. And this has really strengthened South Africa's ability to mainstream biodiversity into mainstream biodiversity into our development processes. Our constitution assess this right for everyone to a safe environment that is, and of course places an obligation for this environment to be protected. And for that reason, there's been several legislative measures that underpin our approach to conservation. Now, to achieve this constitutional imperative, This requires inclusive governance, effective sectoral collaboration, and evidence-based decision making that reconciles environmental sustainability and economic development. So we have also developed an extensive suite of legislative and spatial planning instruments that support sustainable development and protect our natural capital. These tools include the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, which really establishes the framework for spatial planning and land use management across different levels of government, from national, provincial, and municipal spheres. We have the spatial development frameworks, which really guides spatial development priorities, land use patterns, and infrastructure development. We don't only look at the terrestrial realm, we also look at marine spatial planning. And within that, we have an approach to marine spatial planning that supports coordinated management of competing and complementary uses of the South African marine environment. We have departmental and sectoral plans, we have biodiversity conservation prioritization instruments, such as the key biodiversity areas, the essential or biologically significant marine areas, protected areas expansion strategy, and of course, other effective area-based conservation measures. However, I should mention that these instruments are largely designed to address specific sectors and policy mandates and subnational planning requirements. And individually, when you consider them separately or individually, they do not resolve the challenge of aligning competing national priorities and identifying locations where coordinated interventions can deliver the greatest combined environmental, social, and economic benefits. And for that reason, that then necessitates the need for a strategic national approach. And that national approach really complements existing planning frameworks, strengthens policy coherence, and supports integrated decision making across sectors and scales. And this is where we have employed the United Nations Biodiversity Lab, the ELSA tool that enables integrated spatial planning, bringing together biodiversity, climate change, food security, land use, and development priorities within a common spatial framework. And it enables decision makers to identify priorities and opportunities for synergies, anticipate trade-offs, and informs direct investment towards areas where we get the biggest return on our investment. And of course, this is completely acknowledging the fact that we often limited in terms of our resources. And so we can only, for us to get the greatest return on our limited investments, we've got to prioritize. So South Africa developed its first ELSAMAP, and the ELSAMAP is Essential Life Support Action Areas, which is an integrated spatial tool which helps us to identify areas where nature-based solutions can effectively safeguard our critical biodiversity, sustain essential ecosystem services, and strengthen our climate resilience, as well as support inclusive and sustainable economic growth. So our first ELSAMAP was developed between 2021 and 2022, and we have updated that in the light of, in 2025, in the light of several developments that have come, that have emerged. The initial implement, we initially implemented this through a collaboration between the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment in South Africa. the South African National Biodiversity Institute, an organization that I work for, the Biofin, the United Nations Development Program, the UNEP-WCMC. And so, of course, we used the integrated spatial tool on the UN Biodiversity Lab to bring all of these into one spatial planning framework. So this initiative sought to establish national science-based spatial framework that integrates, you know, objectives from different policy commitments. And of course, is very much aligned to the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. I'm not going to go into the how. The guidance I received was that we're not supposed to necessarily go into the how. So I'm going to speak to what the resulting framework then helped us to do. The resulting framework helped us to identify areas where we needed to avoid loss of biodiversity, where we needed to reduce and to protect our resources, where we needed to adapt. So, and of course, all of these outputs are linked to, they have relevance to Target 2, which seeks to protect 30% of our degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine environments, and of course, Target 3 as well, that links to our terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine environment. The essential life support action areas can help us inform identification and alignment of areas for restoration, conservation, and other nature-based interventions. And I want to conclude this way. South Africa's experience demonstrates the strategic importance of moving beyond sectoral priorities towards integrated, spatially informed approaches sustainable development, and of course, building on the country's established conservation planning expertise, the ELSA provides a complementary framework for aligning biodiversity objectives, climate resilience, ecosystem restoration, water and food security, and inclusive economic development. The initiative also has value for collaboration. It also demonstrates the value of collaboration between government, scientific institutions, the conversation we're having earlier, international development partners, and translating complex environmental data into actionable policy intelligence. And last but not the least, the ELSA application and institutional integration can help strengthen national planning coherence improve the targeting of financial and technical resources, support implementation of South Africa's commitments to the GBF and other multilateral environmental objectives. I must indicate that South Africa, as a result of having seen the value of this innovation through the UN Biodiversity Lab, the Integrated Spatial Planning Tool, we have started working with other countries. to ensure that we move together as a block, that is some of the countries in the SADC region. We have held, in collaboration with the UN Biodiversity Lab, we've held several workshops to ensure that we start rolling out this approach of spatial planning to other countries because we know that our biodiversity knows no boundaries, it does not stop at boundaries, and so it's important that in our planning, we work together. There's so much that we cannot achieve without working with other countries. If you think of the management of invasive alien species, for example, there's not a way that you can only manage invasives within your country, because pathways of introduction cut across borders. And so we have really started building capacity, in particular through our role as the technical support center for the SADC region. And I want to stop at this point.

Farai, thank you very much for that. Considering that the global report indicated a gap in action on target one around inclusive biodiversity, biodiversity inclusive spatial planning, it's really promising to hear of the work that you're doing in South Africa, but also with the broader region. And I'm going to take 10 minutes, 10 to 15 minutes of discussion, and then we're going to break for coffee. With that, who would like to get us started? Medo.

Thank you very much for that presentation. My question is very specific. Building on the built capacity and the integrated spatial planning tool, and considering Samba as TSC mandated to build capacity of its member countries, can that will be used in other countries, and what does it take to build the capacity of UN members in this specific area, which is one of the critical gaps in many countries? Thank you.

So yes, the UN Biodiversity Lab has application across many countries that are implementing the GBF. I must indicate that for you to get to that point, there is requisite data that you need to generate. We have had a long history as a technical support center of working across the region. In fact, we even have a regional engagement strategy. We have had several projects to generate the requisite data that's required for spatial planning, working with other countries. We've got a project that is French funded, it's called the Spatial Biodiversity Assessment, Planning and Prioritization Project with Namibia, Mozambique, and Malawi. Of course, with South Africa, we have worked with these countries within this project to generate all those maps of ecosystem types, ecosystem condition, protection level data, red listing of ecosystems, all data that's requisite for application in terms of spatial planning. So we are indeed working, and of course, through our technical support center, one of the greatest needs that was identified is actually the spatial planning gap within our region. We've done a needs assessment, and yes, we are working with other countries. All these workshops that I've been referring to earlier, we're starting to roll out this to our partner countries. And of course, the workshops have not only been limited to our region, we have worked with other TSCs as well to ensure that we start rolling this out.

Thank you Farai. Any other questions? Natasha.

Thanks Farai, Natasha from UNICEF WCNC.

Given that Sambi plays this role as a TSC, I was just wondering if you could reflect on the successes.

That you’ve had as a TSC, sharing this sort of work across the region, in particular in relation to the use of the tools that you've described here, and what the reception has been and the lessons learned with other countries of the tool that's some work that you've been doing. Thank you.

So a couple of lessons that we have learned in using this tool. So the one, I think, links to, the first one links to the requisite data that we spoke about, that I spoke about earlier, that for us to get there, there needs to be some preparatory work that we do. The other is that, you know, with the application of the UN Biodiversity Lab, there are basically two processes. So the first process is a data-driven process where you come up with an output, but the other is actually a validation process with your experts. very, very important. Otherwise, you produce a data-driven process that does not actually relate to reality. And so in terms of your tweaking, in terms of the weighting of your input data, you need experts to come on board and to assist with this. The third lesson is really around the importance of partnership. A lot of the data that's used as input data into the UN Biodiversity Lab, it actually comes from different sectors. A lot of it may not squarely be coming within the environmental sector. So there needs to be coordination of all the sectors that provide requisite data for input into that, but also international cooperation and collaboration. I must say that the collaboration we've had through the UN Biodiversity Lab has really helped. It has really helped us to have a properly well-oiled machine for spatial planning, which is the integrated tool that we have developed. And the impact, we're starting to feel already in terms of the applications of that, in terms of its applications to our protected areas expansion strategy and several other applications for development that we are putting the tool to use.

Thank you very much for that.

Iri, did you have a comment?

I think my question was similar to what Natasha just asked, because, and thank you so much for this PACHA story. I think somehow also has a relationship to the first story we had, where you are moving from science and having evidence and then making sure that there's institutional capacity built to sustain this to be going forward. And I think that is very critical. And maybe you can elaborate more. I think you've kind of touched a little bit, but in terms of the long-term sustainability and the institutionalization of all this you've described, what are the plans South Africa has, but also as a TSC center, in getting this across the region? Thank you.

Thanks very much, Eri. As a technical support center, we have not only endeavored to ensure that the parties or the countries that we work with have data. That's an end of pipe. What we're really endeavoring to do is to ensure that there's capacity in those countries to produce that information and data. And so technical exchanges are hugely important, and that's what we're focusing on. Of course, we're working with real data, real information to ensure that by the time we go through the process, a country has an output, but the capacity building is actually the most important. Otherwise, it will become a sinkhole for money and capacity support. We need to ensure that these countries, we're building capacity for them to be able to, on an ongoing basis, as they get data and information, they then continuously and iteratively improve those outputs.

Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments? Or is everybody hankering for their coffee? Okay, thank you. I'll close this session now. Could I ask everyone to be back in the room at quarter two? We will begin at quarter two. Thank you very much. Sir, is the coffee outside? The coffee is outside.

Inside.

Oh, the coffee's inside, sorry.

Hello, everybody. We're going to get started now. Great if everybody could collect their sandwiches, their food, their coffees, grab a seat. I know the conversations are very stimulating, but super if we could all gather our seats again. You rock. Thank you. Sorry, my colleague just bought me coffee. Thank you very much. Are we all ready to get going? All fed, watered? Excellent. Thank you very much. So I would now like to introduce, we're going to continue with our Stories of Change session, and we've got another three to do, to discuss before 12 o'clock. Round about 12 o'clock, we'll then take a lunch break. But the first story of change after the coffee break is from Mr. Andres Factos, CBD National Focal Point for the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition of Ecuador. He will talk about the transformative role of youth in advancing Ecuador's efforts. Thank you very much. Over to Andres.

Thank you. First of all, I would like to say thank you for the invitation to share our experience in Ecuador. It's a pleasure, a great honor to be here today to reflect the vital role of the youth people in featuring Ecuador's global biodiversity commitments, and as exemplified by inspiring work through a special program to action with youth people. When we talk about protecting our planet, we tend to look to the future. However, real change is happening right now, driven by youth people aged 18 to 35 who are turning local ideas into practical solutions to environmental problems. In that sense, in its third year, the Semilla Joven initiative received 60 applications and successfully supported youth lead projects in Ecuador, seven UNESCO biosphere reserves. Thanks to a combination to the seed grant, technical support from partners such as MBZAP Accelerator Partnership, UNESCO, San Francisco University, and Condesan, his NGO. These initiatives will benefit almost 600 people directly. The fascinating thing about this model is that it shows there is no single blueprint for conservation. Through the seven biodiversity reserves, we see seven distinct paths towards change. This range from the dry forest and the Andean Chocó to the Galapagos Islands, the Cajas Massif, Podocarpus El Condor, Sumaco and the Amazon in Yasuni. Youth people are spreading innovative initiatives range from the protection of agrobiodiversity and corridors to participatory governance, citizen science, the revival and ancestral botany, and the preservation of Kichwa language, for example. Why does this model work? The Semilla Coven experience offers a very clear strategic lessons. Firstly, it directly links with local actions to national and global priorities, such as the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Secondly, it breaks down the main barrier that youth people face, the gap between having an innovative idea and having the financial resources to implement it. Finally, it demonstrates that funding, when accompanied by technical support, can be a powerful tool for driving a real change. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that presentation. Appreciated. I have a question, but first, before I ask my question, I would like to open to the floor. and ask if anybody has any experiences of their own about integrating youth into this work, or specific questions to UNRWA. Okay, I'm going to quickly take the opportunity while others are thinking. So, you spoke about the Youth Seed Fund and the importance and good work that's being done. But I would like to take a step back and understand why did Ecuador, what prompted Ecuador to realize that it was important to integrate youth? What was, you know, the bolt of lightning that you thought, yes, youth are critical to our biodiversity ambitions? Thank you.

From our ministry, it is important to share some some precautions about the global biodiversity framework, especially in the national situation. Youth, IPLCs, the gender issues, nowadays not a real implementation in some areas, for example, in the financial issues. So, this initiative is looking for the best way to arrive with this support, with these groups, especially with the youth people, because Ecuador has a new vision about the international views about the implementation of the global commitments and national commitments.

Thank you very much for that. Do we have any youth representatives in the room? Or people that. I was going to say, or people that identify as youth. I would like to draw everyone's attention. Oh, sorry, I didn't see you at the back. Please go ahead.

Thank you so much for this great example. I'm here representing the city women's caucus, also part of the IAC, and I think that these kind of projects are really essential to recognize the enormous synergies that we need to develop with all the right holders, including indigenous peoples, women, and youth. And my question is related to, well, first, I would love to hear one example of these projects. And what kind of challenge does the youth and the women already identified? And also echoing the participation of our colleague earlier about a capacity building that is not only about scientific and technology cooperation, but also developing this soft, how can I say, soft capacities as sometimes we are tackling, because it's not easy as a young researcher to start in this so competitive world. And also that those projects needs to have enough funding for this. If we need to talk about succeed projects, when we can implement them after that one project. So it is not like having one project for four years for the PhD, and then what else? So yeah, I'm more than happy to hear about one project of success. Thank you so much, Ecuador, for bringing these initiatives.

Thank you for your question. It's a very worry from our government, the participation of the youth people. Uh, the main, the main gap, uh, to implement, uh, um, in, in, uh, by intern, uh, sorry. these actions about, for example, the conservation issues or sustainable use is the financial gaps. So for that reason, we try to support initiatives like UNESCO. For example, the Fondo Semilla in the first and second the first and second scenarios we implement these issues. So when you ask me about another successful project, for example, in the south of Ecuador, implement agro-biodiversity practices in order to preserve the agrobiodiversity species. So it's a mix of the conservation issues and productivity, productivity issues. in order to achieve the sustainable use of biodiversity in Ecuador. So another gap into the implementation of these projects is the capacity building. So in that sense, with this new relationship with UNESCO, we think to, we applied some actions about the capacity building gaps in order to strengthen these projects around the territorial in Ecuador.

Thank you very much, and very, very pertinent question, and very relevant to the second roundtable that we'll be having this afternoon, which is about inclusive governance and how to institutionalize these things. So as you say, it's not just a four-year project and then it comes to an end. So I do urge you to join that. Eri.

Thank you very much for this story. It was quite inspiring. I think when I read the write-up on the story, you talked about empowering the youth to take up leadership roles at least within the local networks. Maybe you could talk a little more about that and how that is unfolding and how the youth are being empowered to take up these leadership roles at the local level, but how can we bring it even up higher into the chain. Thank you.

Thank you. This action is not only a single support in this year for the ministry. Our ministry tries to move forward to implement the global biodiversity commitments, especially with section C about the taking into account another groups that not apply some commitments in this moment. So we work with a big network in Ecuador right now. For example, in Ecuador, we have the group youth No, Global Youth Biodiversity Network, Chapter Ecuador. It's a big source of participation of these youth people. We together works to apply some strategies to empower the conservation, the sustainable use issues.

I'm just going to turn to Han first, who had his hand up, and then I'll come to you. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Just based on the question from my co-IAC member, I just wanted to give another example how we do it in the Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences, because we've got a global taxonomy initiative project with African countries. And up there, young researchers come to our institute, first of all, to use the collections. But then they also get training on how to make policy briefs, which is quite important because they don't learn it at universities in their countries. So they learn how to do it. And in the end of a three-year program, they are going back. And then they have to write, obligatory, a project to go back to the research area to discuss with the local administrations what are the results of their research. For example, we had a good example of fisheries where the policy brief was presented to the administrations, and the administration made a local law to ensure that no more mosquito nets were used for fishing, which was really a bad influence for the fish population up there. So that is also something that people, they don't learn it in university, so you have to find it also another way. And that's why your project is also quite interesting. But yeah, you also need to have a follow up, because if you do something, you need to go back, you need to share your experience as a researcher as well with the local population, else quite often you look like an alien species that comes in. take some things, and people don't understand what you take, but you have to go back as well to show what you've done with what you took from your research. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm just going to turn to the lady at the back, and then I'll come to you. Thank you.

Hello, good morning. I'm Nica Rivera from the Asian Farmers Association. We are an alliance of 13 million small-scale women, men, and youth, family farmers, fishers, indigenous peoples, forest users, pastoralists. So that's our membership. And just to contribute into this discussion because The agenda of youth and young farmers is specifically important to the Asian Farmers Association, and it's one of the areas of priority for us, for biodiversity discussions. not necessarily clear in terms of the connection of a lot of the initiatives that farmers are doing with biodiversity. It's not so clear cut, but we know that it is very important on agrobiodiversity, agroecology. So I think that's one area that needs to be clear as well, the contribution of agriculture, the understanding of small-scale farmers on how they contribute already, their initiatives that they are doing on the ground, and how it contributes to agroecology. and to conserve biodiversity. But most importantly for us, very important is to have direct support and financing to our young farmers. So we have this specific project or program that we do. It's called the Young Farmers Enterprise Challenge Fund. It's a seed fund. It's actually a grant that we give to our national farmer organizations, and they release the grant to their young farmer committee members who submit their proposals and business development that contributes to these agroecological initiatives. And I think what is important in this aspect is the ability of young people to be able to decide on the projects, the agroecological initiatives that they want to pursue. to be able to have that experience to manage their own funds and manage their own business, because in a lot of spaces, young people don't have that capacity or ability to even manage their own business. How do you expect them to manage larger financing if even in smaller financing, they don't have that opportunity to do it? So it's like for us, it's a practice opportunity for our young farmers to manage their own businesses, as well as have that support coming from their national farmer organizations to be able to link up their initiatives into market access, because at the end of the day, if our farmers won't be able to get financing or income from all of these agroecological initiatives, it's hard for them to sustain. That's what is specific to us, very important, is the direct climate financing that comes to these initiatives, because our farmers are always saying that they are already doing these initiatives on their farms, but to be able to scale up, the financing is still a large gap. So I hope now that's something that we also reflect as we go to the NBSAPs, the localization of the biodiversity plans, because that financing gap and the connection to youth through youth, rural women is still not so straightforward.

Thank you very much for that. Sorry, I'm just, Farai, if you don't mind, I'm going to give somebody at the back an opportunity. Thank you.

Okay. Yes, thank you very much. So my name is Anne-Claire Goiran. I'm working for the Pacific community based in New Caledonia. And I just want to raise there an example of youth commitment. You may know that for the IC, International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Climate Justice and Climate Change, the story really began with mobilization of youth group of students from Vanuatu, and they brought the climate change response from the local university in Vanuatu to the most important court of justice. And I think it's a great example of the youth power and the fact that they can really reach this kind of international commitment that is so useful for our country to rely on this kind of decision to advocate for additional responsibility for the main countries who are meeting GISG. And I think that it's quite important that all universities or regional organizations can support this use, not only by giving funding, but by giving them enough confidence for them to bring that until the highest level. Thank you.

Absolutely. That was a phenomenal example of the youth taking it to the ICJ. I'm going to take the last two questions, and then I'm going to wrap up and move to the next one. Sorry, Farai, again, I'm going to oversee you and ask over here and over there, starting with yourself.

Thank you so much. My name is Velma Calamundri and I'm here as a representative of the Coalition for Conservation Genetics, the custodians of the headline indicator for genetic diversity. I just wanted to share maybe a reflection of existing platforms that allow young researchers and young practitioners to build the leadership skills, sorry, and the soft skills and different knowledge skill sets. There is a funding scheme under the European Union, under the Horizon Europe program, which is called Cost Actions. It's a pan-European, but also beyond, a scheming program which allows funding for the networking. So it does not fund research, but it funds networking. And what the focus is on inclusion of the especially female scientists, young researchers, and researchers and practitioners coming from what's called inclusiveness target countries, which are, let's say, countries which are research less intensive. There are a number of tools to use for the networking, such as the funding to travel, to go for the study missions. different participation in conferences and so on, so forth. And I think it's a wonderful platform because one hand, it allows young people to come into contact with already experienced researchers, practitioners, but also different types of stakeholders, because it invites also decision makers, private sector, which is sometimes for the people who are only beginning their career, it's very hard to come into contact and put themselves on the map. So sometimes I think young people only need a first chance just to put their foot in the door, and then they will dazzle us with their knowledge. So I just wanted to mention this because it might be relevant for the number of the parties of the CBD, because this scheme, this funding scheme includes the whole, almost whole of Europe, but also near neighboring countries. such as Armenia. Thank you so much.

Thank you for alerting us to that. That sounds like a really fantastic program. Thank you. And our final question.

Just to share, one of the programs our East and Southern Africa office has developed, we are on top of capacity building around biodiversity. They provide entrepreneurial skills training. Which I think is really critical because we all discussed this, how do we mobilize private sector resources to implement the GBF? And when you think about that, everybody has in mind the big multinationals, but what we forget is that the vast majority of the world economy is actually SMEs. And so I think it's really critical if we want to engage the private sector to move away from this thinking that it's only the big companies we should. but really empower also the youth to develop entrepreneurial models that help deliver on the DBF. Thank you.

I think what the session has really shown is that there's a recognition of the essential role that youth can play, but what they need is that opportunity and mentorship and seed funding to enable them to really fly. Thank you for that, Andres. Thank you so much for your intervention. Much appreciated. I'm now going to move on to the next story of change, which is from Mr. Khaled Al Sharabi, the NBSAP project manager for the Environment and Protection Agency of Yemen. He'll be speaking about institutional strengthening and financing mechanisms to support biodiversity action. Thank you. If you could join us at the front, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Yes. First of all, thank you for inviting me to show the experience of Yemen. Before starting, I would like to talk about Yemen context. It's totally different maybe other than other countries in terms of politics. We struggled in war since 10 years, and this affected or impacted adversely on Yemen in terms of economy, and affect also in the it leads to resulted into fragmented governments, and we have currently two states. And in terms of economy, Yemen before it depend, for example, 70% on the GDP depends on oil, which is 70%. And millions of Yemenis depends on the natural resources. And because of the war, everything is affected too much. And this is a beginning in order to just understand the context of Yemen. Because of the war, the government was unable to support biodiversity or environment in general, and dependent significantly on the international support. GEF, for example, they supported the government, and I will talk about this project, then I will talk about the financing mechanism established by the government. The first financing mechanism, which is international mechanism, we, because of this fund, We could rebuild some institutions in one of the best islands in Yemen, which is Socotra. And we were able to rehabilitate the facilities in Socotra, also restore native ecosystems, support local livelihoods for the communities there in Socotra, and protect marine biodiversity. In this project, for example, 2000 dragon's blood tree seedlings planted, and 70% of the turtles nests were hatching, and the capacity for the Environment Protection Agency in Socotra was built. And because of the government see that there is a need for depending on their resources, and One of the factors that support the Ministry of Environment and Water was actually the international commitments, which is, for example, the international commitments and also the instruments. And BISA supported the Ministry of Environment to convince the cabinet in order to establish fund. and despite of the war, that we still in the war. And they, we establish, or the government establish this public fund. And because of this fund, just imagine that before this fund, we were unable even to pay for the international subscriptions. And because of this fund, the first action was that we meet our commitments for the international contributions. And now the government are developing a project with $3 million to support capacity building and also some activities in environment in some areas. The lessons learned from this story is the coordination between the government or the government authorities is very important in order to establish funds or to implement any activities or projects. And also, it's very important to focus on the public authorities or that environmental authorities, because it's the first line for protecting the environment, it is the government. And also, local communities engagement is very important. partnership with international organizations and also to raise awareness of the importance of the international commitments and the instruments that are produced because of this partnership is very important also to convince the government to make an action. Finally, which is the diversity of to have diverse diversified resources is very important. We shouldn't focus as LCD to focus just only on international fund. We need to depend on ourself in order to build ourself. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Alshurabi. Before I start with my question, are there any other questions from the floor? Okay. While you think, I'm going to ask, when you talk about building capacity in Sukhatri, as well as the fund that enables capacity building, what does that capacity building actually look like? How is it provided? Who provides the capacity building to Do you do an assessment to understand what capacity is needed? I mean, if you don't mind taking us through the process.

Yes. First of all, as I mentioned, that rehabilitation was implemented for the facilities of Environmental Protection Authority in Socotra. This is the first action. The second action also, the engagement of the communities. We raise the awareness of the communities of the importance of the turtles. and also the dragon's blood trees. And we also trained them on how to steward the eggs of the turtles, and also to monitor the progress of planting also the trees. All this process, we went through, and we focused on the communities and all the communities itself will be much more interesting in their areas. And also, Sukhapa is a tourist island. Because of tourism fees and those beneficiaries or the people working, the community members, they received some incentives in order to continue in the environmental protection.

Thank you very much. Further questions from the floor? Yes, please, at the back.

Thank you so much for these good examples and good efforts. So we are talking constantly about capacity building. And I think that we also need to focus on the retention of the capacity that is already existing with the communities, especially, because you were mentioning how important is the involvement of local communities. So I would like to ask what kind of knowledge that the communities already held? help during these programs? So I'd like to hear about that. Thank you so much. How these financial resources also reach the community? How do you see the difference in the community involvement after these financial resources arriving to them? Thank you.

Can you repeat the question again? Sorry, can you repeat?

Can you repeat the question, please?

Yes, for sure. So we're talking about capacity building here. But also I think that it's important to talk about the retention of the capacities that already exist in the communities. So I would like to know what kind of capacities that the community already held were retained during these kind of projects. What kind of good examples can you bring us to the table? Thank you so much.

Okay, good example is what I mentioned in Socotra that the implementation went through the local communities itself. The example is that the awareness First of all, we raised the awareness of the communities. And the community members themselves, they work on steward to care of the turtles and also the planting of the trees. And I think that's an example of what's a project.

Thank you very much. With no further questions now, I'm going to thank Mr. Alshurabi and then we'll move on to the next story of change. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So now I would like to invite Ms. Nozrin Rasulova, biodiversity analyst, and Ms. Farangis Umedzoda, BioFin Coordinator, National Biodiversity and Biosafety Center, who will talk about implementation readiness to foster biodiversity finance in Tajikistan. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. So first of all, I really would like to thank the organizers for this meeting. And I think that the thesis for Tajikistan really sounds relevant for my country. Implementation readiness to foster biodiversity finance in Tajikistan. So today we're really talking about the country readiness to strengthen its existing finance mechanism or readiness to transform some of them. We're talking about readiness to integrate new approaches, innovative approach that can increase the share of biodiversity financing in the process of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. And I would like to get back to some points that have been raised by the speakers before about policy and legislative. So from a personal perspective, this is very significant to have this political and legal environment that can enable our further measures and activities to have Biodiversity to finance biodiversity in a most feasible way. So in in my intervention, I would like to tell about a number of political and strategic documents that help to shape. the biodiversity finance policy in the country. So first of all, I would like to outline the national strategy on development. So this is today the main strategic document for our country. And in this strategic document, it set the priority to develop the main economic sectors, such as energy, transport, industry, and agriculture. And we recognize that these areas have very significant impact on biodiversity. But at the same time, this strategy also outlined the clear course on integrating resource-saving and ecologically friendly technologies in order to decrease the negative impact on biodiversity. The next very significant document is ecological code. So in Tajikistan, this is the first time in the country when such a document has been adopted by the government. And today, this is the key ecological and legal instrument that shaped the practical measures and activities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. So now we're talking about requirements to implement the ecosystem payment. We're talking about strengthening the system of ecological expertise, about integrating the new standards for strategic ecological assessment and evaluation of impact on biodiversity. And it is strongly tied to the huge economic entities in Tajikistan. So, sure, for sure, the updated National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy is one of the main strategic document in the terms of biodiversity conservation. So now we have recently updated and adopted the National Strategy on Biodiversity Conservation. And it's fully aligned with the goals and targets of the Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework. At the same time, with the strong integration of national priorities and opportunities. And in this context, we're talking about two national targets, 18 and 19, that are focused on finance mobilization and on transformation of negative subsidies. About investment policy in the country. So we now, Tajikistan now on the way of intensive work in industry development. But at the same time, the policy, investment policy of the country focused on implementation of ecologically sustainable projects, on attracting partnerships and in developing of entities which activities are in line with ESG standards. One more document. This is a national greening program. And this program focus, outline the commitment of very wide actors in the country who are responsible to make a contribution in implanting more than 2 billion trees up to 2040. So I think, by other words, every state municipality, private sector, international and national organization have their precise quality and quantity indicators to implement the targets of this national greening program. When we're talking about biodiversity findings, we should also, we have to outline the global initiative on biodiversity finance, BioFin. And in the first time in Tajikistan, we have joined to this global initiatives. And I think that from our personal perspective, this is very timely and relevant partnership that help us to strengthen cooperation between Committee for Environmental Protection and one of the main state agents at Ministry, Ministry of Finance. So today, we are in the process of very close collaboration with this ministry. We have very active work on disaggregation of budget costs related to biodiversity. to other environmental lines. So to this moment, Biofin national and regional team, in partnership with Committee for Environmental Protection, has completed the budget revision and policy institutional analysis. And these results allowed us to find out the existing gaps and limitation in the state budgeting system. And what is very important that the findings of this work has been incorporated in the updated national biodiversity in the dedicated sections. And we are also in the process of developing relevant and actual financing mechanisms that have been the core part of our future financed biodiversity action plan. And I would like to outline in this process a very significant work of our colleagues from regional BioFin group.

To continue the same context, additional milestones. So recently in 2024, in Tajikistan, the first private bank issued the green bond. International Finance Corporation invested about 10 million dollars in this bond. And the main target of this is to expand the access of business sector to greening financing. And this is very feasible and significant step in the process of developing the national market of sustainable greening financing in Tajikistan. At the same time, the Committee for Environmental Protection obtained accreditation of Green Climate Fund. And it also allowed us to expand the cooperation with this fund and in a significant way to increase the number of climatic projects. At the same time, in the context of biodiversity, now we have opportunity to foster integration of biodiversity component in the huge regional and national climate projects. Definitely, this progress can be achieved just in strong consolidation of two main factors. First, when the country has a clear and strong intention to transform institutional mechanism and to integrate new approach in the finance system, when the country is ready and open to have collaboration and cooperation with international organization, international parties, so these two factors really forced it to this transformative change in terms of biodiversity financing. And in conclusion, I would like to stress that Tajikistan has really strong intention to timely and effectively implement its national targets on biodiversity to meet its commitments under the global biodiversity frameworks. At the same time, we are open to regional and international cooperation. We're ready to improve the national financing mechanism and to integrate new standards, international standards, and tools which are relevant and applicable for Tajikistan. And I'm sure that this position will help to the country to move forward in terms of finance, biodiversity financing. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for your presentation. Any questions from the floor before I ask my question?

We have a joint presentation. Sorry, I'm sitting here quite comfortable. I'm going to be super brief because building up already what Inosani has said, I just want to share a story of our interaction with the Ministry of Finance. So we have solid policy foundation in our country, and we were making first steps to attract and bring into our platform the Ministry of Finance. And when the last year we established our steering committee, we invited the former deputy minister, who is also the steering committee member, to our regional dialogue. The BIOFIN has wonderful platform to invite all the countries and share the experiences between the peers. And I was genuinely impressed by her reflection, she said, Oh, I never thought that subsidy can be negative or harmful. Like, okay, like she has an extensive experience, she does her job exceptionally well, but she started thinking from a different angle and in perspective. And I thought, why would she, like, because government, they introduce incentives, subsidies with only positive intention in mind. to improve the people's life, to make the farmers, I don't know, their lives also easier, to make the essential services more affordable. Nobody just wakes up in the morning saying, "Oh, such a wonderful day. Let's introduce a subsidy that harms or destroys our biodiversity." So that's the thing that reflects one of the lessons learned during the one year, one and a half year I moved to BioPharm. Telling that at the capacity building, it's not only about having the sessions, panel discussions, because people will just forget, they clap and then go and then forget. This is just making sure that the meaningful capacity building happens when person with exceptionally and extensive experience start seeing all these like kind of elements from a different perspective and an angle. And that was the insight that I wanted to share, because on the implementation readiness, Nozalin quite like she already shared all the examples in what we are doing in Tajikistan. I would just like briefly mention three points. Like, beside having the capacity buildings in institutional readiness that Nazanin mentioned, we, for this, the second part, the second element is also a technical readiness. Because when I joined the BIFIN, I also saw the biodiversity like solely environmental topic. There is nothing to be with the fiscal instruments or fiscal policies. But while we were advancing with the policy institutional review, biodiversity expenditure review, we were impressed because we could find some biodiversity in tax exemptions, in water tariffs, in tourism incentives. And that was the moment also when we decided, okay, we know we have the well-written documents, but it's only the half of the job. Another half of this job is to be able to translate it into human language and convince the decision makers, like, okay, it's not only the biodiversity, it's not only snow leopards problem. Just to let them know, okay, the farmers, your soul depends on the biodiversity. To let them know by businesses, okay, everything you attract also depends on the biodiversity, or representative to hydropower plants. your plant that depends on water resources. So here, I think we come to the conclusion that communication and being able to translate these difficult technical wording into simple, humanized interaction is one of the, maybe it's like the best insight I've had working for the BioFen. So thank you for Listening?

Thank you very much for that, and that also resonates with the first discussion this morning about how you take scientific language and translate it for policy makers, and here we have exactly the same situation. Not only do we need to translate financial language for biodiversity policy makers, but we have to translate biodiversity knowledge for finance people. So thank you very much for that. Questions from the floor?

Thank you very much for that experience. I would like to get more clarification on the motivation and the lesson we can learn from that private sector engagement, the private bank investing 10 billion. What was the motivation and what lesson can we learn? Is that part of corporate social responsibility or there is a mechanism in place to encourage other, the private sector to finance in the greening sector? Thank you.

Thank you very much for your question. So I will return to my point regarding the legal environment, policy environment that can meet other actors to be part of this process of biodiversity conservation. So again, we have national strategies on economy development. We have a strategy on green development. And they are principles and provision that private sector commit different actors to make their contribution to the process of conservation of biodiversity and to development of green financing. So in the case of issuing green bonds by the private bank, it also stress they are readiness to be a part of this system. And they're also the first bank in the country who issues such bonds. And there is not some strong experience in this dimension, and that's why we have a partnership with international partners who can follow us and guide us in this story. So, Developing the green business is one of the national priority, and we are making some steps in this direction, and then we will see in the future how it will work in the practical. So what is important that these credits and banks, they focus not only the huge scale of business, but also at a small and medium business also. So it means that at the different level, we will see this green integration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there another question? If not, oh, sorry, Irie, please.

Yeah. Thank you very much. I like the real interaction with the ministries and how they didn't realize that what they were doing was actually harmful on one side. And this is common in some of the sectors in our countries, really not with bad intentions. They're really working with good intentions, but they are simply unaware that what they are doing is harming. And it's a wake-up call for all of us to try to engage. The more we engage, I think, the more we'll get the positive side of helping them to transform what they are doing into more positive actions. that will save biodiversity. So continuing these engagements, I think, is really very critical. In this case, I think it's also the whole question of mainstreaming. We've been struggling with this over the years, and we can't stop, because our success will really actually depend mostly on how successful we are able to mainstream biodiversity into the other sectors and the other sectors appreciating the need for them to do their part. So I think let's continue this engagement, and it's really critical. For me, that story just pricked me already. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you for that. The gentleman sitting behind the Zambia flag.

Sorry. Good morning, everyone. So I'm Ronald Rodriguez from the International Collective in Support of Fish Workers. It's both a question and a kind of sentiment as well. So, of course, as our colleagues here from the youth and women said that there should be some kind of focus on the local communities, indigenous peoples, women, and youth. I mean, based on my experience as well, dealing with the capacity building of our communities and our local government units, and even national level, is that sometimes there's a need to maybe capacitate as well our local government units and our national officials in terms of creativity. Because, I mean, we've been dealing with this problem of biodiversity loss. Certainly, there's a need for more creative thinking, because my experience is that oftentimes, especially in my country, they always go back to this mandate. Our government has a mandate. We have to follow certain structures, especially in the financing side. So you have to be more careful, because we're not just dealing with a piece of paper that later on maybe we can change, but lots of pieces of paper that can move resources. And I'm wondering, other than the informal gathering you have, are there other ways in which we can encourage creativity in such a way that it respects those mandates, those structures, such that maybe we can work together with communities like our, for example, small-scale fishers? We have creative fishers, but then if we don't have creative legislators, we don't have creative decision makers in the government, Then all of this financing goes to the business as usual. That does not really help our communities do what they should be doing, or at least enhance what they're supposed to be doing. So just any other ways that you might suggest or you've seen where we can learn from? Thank you.

Thank you so much. You know, I have more than 15 years of working in a state agency in the committee. I mean, I'm sometimes too political individual. And to be honest, there is not always opportunity to be creative in the policy, in legislature, because it's some kind of document that had have to be stricted, and have to be maybe to some sort of limited. But in my last intervention during a gender event, I have also said that we have to be maybe not creative, but flexible in decision making. And Tajikistan was a part of global initiative on gender biodiversity. So I don't remember the full title, but the focus was on transformative action in biodiversity and gender systems. And we have some precise achievements and outcome that we were accepted to get. But during the project, we really achieved additional results and very sensitive results. Besides the roadmap that we have developed, we also incorporated biodiversity component to the national financing gender system. So the Committee for Women and Family Affairs, every year they issue the president grants for local communities to support business activities led by the woman. So what we have, and to be honest, the component of biodiversity was not so was that incorporated in their strategy. But we did it, doing this project as an accepted achievement. We dealt with the committee for women affairs very closely, and they updated strategy for providing grants to women now includes the biodiversity components. So which means that we're talking about supporting the business initiatives leading by women with a strong strong focus on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. So this is some kind of example from our creative approach and flexible approach in decision making.

Thank you very much. So you started off the presentation saying that there's a very essential role for the government in terms of setting the enabling framework. And then you differentiated, not differentiated, but articulated that it's not just government writ large, but it's different elements of government. And then we also spoke about the business sector and the local communities. So what is very clear is that while government has that crucial role, it can't be done without all of the stakeholders. And I think that is a very important takeaway. Did I cover that correctly?

If I may add. Tajikistan currently, beside having the solid foundation, I mean, for the legal base, legal foundation, there's also strong political will to further attract and further attract the interest of the users, different stakeholders in private sector. Like, for example, the clearest example would be from the recent development of the AI and to be sent to the space for the disaster risk management, like space-based monitoring. This was developed by youngsters, and they actually pushed forward, and the government accepted it. So our government is open for any innovative solutions, innovative ideas. So that's really heartwarming, and we can see that. And it's also inspiring.

Absolutely. I think that's fabulous to have such an open-minded government. OK. So thank you very much for your presentations. Really interesting. I'm now going to move on to the last section of the session today, where we would like just to ask participants The presenters, in terms of the findings of the global review with regards to capacity building, scientific and technological exchange, what are your reflections based on the stories of change you've heard today and also your own experience? What do we need to do differently? What are the examples that you will take from the case studies, the stories of change? What are the examples that you want to share in terms of taking this work forward? I mean, speaking frankly, we've been doing capacity building for a number of years. What do we need to do differently to really ensure that the capacity building leads to effective implementation of the KMGBF? Yes, please.

I raised this, Lee Morris, I work for the Wildlife Trust in the UK, which is a UK NGO federation. I raised this point yesterday, so I'd love to get other thoughts. If you're running a small conservation NGO with people who are trying to deliver science or policy on the ground at the coalface, there are two sides to what you operate. One side is delivering the conservation outputs. And the other side is just running your charity, doing your HR, your marketing, your fundraising, your financial systems, risk management, and all the things that a small charity needs to do. I have some experience working internationally, but I'm not claiming to be the font of everything. But my own experience is that most of the capacity building that's delivered at the coalface is very much focused on conservation output, so use of technology, helping people use eDNA, helping use new technology, working on specific species, conservation or habitat restoration. And those things are really, really important, but my sense is that if capacity building could focus as well towards the core operative needs of those charities at the coalface, then that would do two things. Firstly, it would just raise the core capacities of all those conservation NGOs working around the world. And also, it would mean that any time an international partner work with that organization on a project, the project would have more chance of success and more chance of sustaining. So I'd like to get thoughts about just raising those core operational business capacities of the organizations delivering at the coalface?

Thank you very much for that comment, and I can see Natasha is burning to respond.

Hello, I'm Natasha Ali from UNEP-WCMC. I'm fully recognising that two speakers from the global north speaking here, so I very much welcome to hear other views, but I completely agree that a lot of the work that conservation agencies do when we're building capacity sits around that sort of what we consider to be the core conservation outcomes, as you say. And actually, what we're finding is the abilities for the organisations to which we are responding to respond promptly to us on simple things like contracting and funds transfer and setting up recruitment processes to support the individuals that are going to be imposed. are absolutely key to ensuring that what we leave behind is a sustainable, whatever it is, in our case, a sustainable national monitoring system, which is going to rely on having a database, a system, individuals to run it, etc. And actually, we've started to do exactly what you're doing, is building up institutional capacity. human capacity rather than focusing on the other stuff, which a lot of our partners can also do. But it's very difficult for a donor to be interested in that kind of thing because it's long term and it doesn't perhaps have the glossy outcome and value that many conservation outputs do. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any other further comments or reflection, please?

Thank you so much for giving me the floor again. I just wanted to share results of the exercise that we did within the coalition and also the general cost action that we are running right now, that I mentioned, within the funding scheme. We did the review of the MBSEF's and seven national reports that were submitted at a time, and we assessed the needs that parties there related towards the reporting of the A4 indicator. So we wanted to see which parties did report and which not, and among those that are not, what were the reasons. So there are a list of needs, but I would like only to reflect on one, and that is the-- which is often, very often mentioned, that is the lack of the coordination among agencies. And what we saw in our communication with the researchers in different countries in Europe and beyond is that it is not necessarily always the case that data do not exist at the national level. It's just that they are decentralized, and the policymakers who are in charge of reporting and implementing GPF targets and goals are completely unaware of the data that exists and that they can actually mobilize. So what we think would be very beneficial is to ensure that there are frameworks and channels that will ensure the communication between intrastate actors, researchers, practitioners, data holders, national agencies who are in charge of reporting. And I can give only one example to end with. Within our coalition and the General Action, we did also the exercise of assessing and also preparing for the report on the A4 indicator, and Estonia actually picked up the results that we get and actually report it on the headline indicator using the data that we produced in the EIT. So I think it's a very nice success story of the government listening to its own research community and picking up the results that are already there on the ground. Thank you.

Thank you for that. What I've heard a lot in the side events today on monitoring is about the fragmentation of data sources, so that's really interesting. The lady next to you.

Hello, again, Alicia Mastretta Yanez from the Coalition of Conservation Genetics. Just to complement what my colleague just said, the review that we did, as she mentioned, we have a policy brief here that explains the results. This was made based on reading the seven national reports. We also have an ongoing study where we want to hear from parties directly involved in the reporting, what were the specific challenges that they face during the report of the A4 indicator, which relates to genetic diversity. So we will be delighted if there are any parties here that were directly involved in the report or that have colleagues that were. It's a survey that takes 15 minutes, and we designed it with social scientists, hoping to be able to really get into understanding better the needs from the parties so that we can adapt our guideline materials and tools to be useful for what they should be. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So it's very difficult to sum up across the very diverse case study, stories of change that we've heard today, which I certainly have found incredibly fascinating. But I I'm going to try. So, the first thing that I've heard is that this isn't just about parties. We need to work with the whole of society. And also, not to use the word parties as if they're all homogenous, because we have the biodiversity agencies, we have the finance agencies, we have the development agencies, and they all need to talk together. So just within government, we need an inter-agency coordination mechanism. Then we need some sort of interstate actor coordination mechanism to make sure everybody's engaging. And then, of course, we also need the engagement with international actors, actors outside, peer exchanges with other countries. But very importantly, the capacity building, the technological exchange, needs to be based on countries' priorities, not external priorities. Ultimately, what we need to do is find some sort of mechanism that we're all speaking the same language. The biodiversity people can understand finance, finance can understand biodiversity, youth, the academia, policy, we all need to be able to speak the same language. That's a huge ask, but certainly from the room, there have been incredibly good examples of how that's already happening, and I hope that you've all been able to take some of that away and we'll be able to take that into the round tables. But before I close for lunch, I would just like to pass to Eri to see if he's got any concluding remarks in terms of the outcomes of this morning. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think it's been a rich, we had rich stories, and I think the exchange also we had started enriching those stories. And as Melissa said, we need to carry forward this into the roundtables and come up with the concrete messages we are going to distill out of this. We don't want to go, "We had a good conversation, but then what did we learn? And what are we going to do better next?" So I think keep that in mind. Yes, the stories have been inspiring, but what are we picking from them today going forward? And also, have a chance to glance through the Global Report. The Global Report raised quite an number of important points, and some of them have been touched on. Issues like the fact that these short-term interventions are really doing us a disservice. We need to think long term and think about how this is going to be sustained over time and strengthening institutions to carry that forward, as opposed to having two-year projects close, shelve it, chase another project. Do it, finish it, share of it. I mean, this is what we've been doing over the years. And I think the global report pointed to this, that I think this is doing a disservice to us. And the engagement of different stakeholders, the youth, we had a good story. We had some stories for gender. We didn't get a chance to put them on as one of the stories, but we had two stories that we need to bring into the afternoon discussions. So let's take forward everything we've had today, but let's think about what is the change that we want to see going forward from today and from the Global Report. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you very much, Iri, for those remarks. I would now like to encourage everybody to continue discussions over lunch and to come back ready for the next session, which is-- it'll be smaller working groups around the key issues that Irie will introduce later. So there is lunch provided, additional lunch provided. I understand that the lunch that was provided earlier was used, but we have further food. But please come back at 1:00. We'll start promptly at 1:00, so look forward to having you all there. Thank you all very much. Thank you to our presenters, and thank you all for your interventions. Oh, sorry, and Eri would like to.

Yes. So we'll all reconvene back here, but we are going to have four breakouts. So we'll have a quick introduction of the roundtables, and then we'll break. We'll be going to rooms G, contact group two, four, and six. So those rooms have been provided for us, and one group will stay here. And you'll have a team of facilitators in those roundtables. But let's all reconvene here, and then we'll move to those rooms for further discussions. Thank you.

Johani.

Hello, colleagues. We are going to start the session. Please take your seats. All right, so as I mentioned this morning, we are going to have four round tables, and we are going to meet between now and 3:30, and then come back to this room for report back and a plenary discussion summarizing the main points that will come out of our discussions. Roundtable 1, which will focus on strengthening national implementation pathways, will stay in this room. Roundtable number 2, which is on strengthening inclusive governance and shared implementation, will go to room C. Just one minute. Make sure I get it right. So we'll go to room G2, the one just where we left, the cottage room, room 2. Then Contact group, no, not contact group, round table three, used to contact groups, round table three on enhancing taken consent cooperation will go to contact group room four. And then the last one, strengthening enabling environment, will go to room six, contact group six. So the other rooms are actually along here, except six. I understand six is somehow we have to go to the other side of the building. I think my colleague will go with those of you so you can find it easily, or she can describe where it is.

Yes, hi. Good afternoon, everyone. So six is just across the courtyard. As you go down this hallway, you will take a right, and then there's a courtyard, and that's where the room six is. But those who are going there, I'll accompany you so that you can find it easily.

Okay. So, okay, so the first roundtable will stay here. The roundtable two will go to the next contact group room, number two. The third roundtable will go to contact group room four, which is just down the corridor. And the last one will go to room six. We are going to divide up, first of all, by show of hands. We want to see how many are interested in being in round table one. Can you try to count? Okay, four, very few, five, seven, no, eight, nine. Okay, round table two. Okay, yeah, that's about six. Roundtable three. Oh, majority. Okay. Yeah, still balanced. Roundtable four. Okay. I think it's okay. I was worried about having one group too big. So I think we'll all let you go to your roundtables of choice. And can I see the moderators? Do we have all the moderators here? I want to so that you know who is who. So round table one, Gemedo is leading that. When you see him, he's going to be here. Round table two is Natasha and Marie. Marie, can you stand? So those two. Round table three is led by Oliver. And round table four is led Roundtable four, who's leading the roundtable four? Oh, yes, Marion. So please follow them. And you have, you'll stay until, you stay until. No, no, no, not 3:15. Yes. So 3:15, that gives you almost Yeah, that's good time. So two hours, and then you come back here for presentation to the plenary. So good luck. Okay, just one quick announcement. Please try to use your mics because.

You must. You must use the mic.

Okay. I shouldn't say try, you must use your mics because we are trying to, the rapporteurs need to be able to hear and take notes, and it's important that you speak to the mic. So please use your mics when you get to your rooms. Thank you. We'll see you back at 3:15. Thank you.

Colleagues in group one, please come closer for our fireside traditional talk about the strengthening mechanism. Let's use the first table and be closer to each other.

Yes.

Yes. Okay. To begin with, we have to elect a rapporteur. I will be representing us in presenting the findings of the group. I have already asked for that, and those of you who are at the back, please come closer. Okay, very good afternoon to you all, and it's a privilege for having such a vibrant team, and I hope our group will perform well and come up with something we can use now and in the future. With that in mind, and hoping that We will be having a very productive discussion. Anybody who is willing to volunteer to serve as rapporteur for the group? Thank you very much, and would you mind introducing yourself?

Hi, my name is Ana. I just arrived from the airport, so that's why I'm late. And I work in CreaF, which is a research center in Spain, and we are scientific advisors to the government.

So, let's start, because we need to use our time efficiently. As you have seen from the concept note, the purpose of this roundtable will be to explore how countries can turn their national biodiversity strategies and action plans into practical action, and participants in the group are expected to discuss how Two set priorities, decide what needs to be happen first, organize delivery, and develop related projects or guidance for developing projects, secure lasting support, and expand. approach that works. And the discussion should move from identifying problems, because we have multiples of problems listed in many documents. Now, in this group, we expect proposing workable solutions and also practical country examples that help explain what worked, what made it possible, and how others could adapt that approach. This is very useful and it is better for easily taking them up. The delivery planning, institutional capacity, resource and support, and the learning and the skill, and most importantly, they are All identified capacity gaps, challenges are interconnected, and that understanding is also very important. And so there is a need to build institutional capacity, coordination mechanism, and under that, which existing mechanism could resolve a concrete implementation bottleneck is one of the provoking questions I would like to raise for you to discuss. And what could make a priority request ready for technical and financial support? What support would help a national institution deliver its next milestone? And success factors in general. from the stories of change, what worked, under which condition, and what needs to be considered for further adaptation. So at the end of the discussion, we are expected to come up with five priority gaps, agree which barriers need attention first and why, practical solutions with examples, tools, approaches, conditions that help countries make progress, actionable recommendations, identify how they can be applied, and follow up and measurable results. So in the final conclusion, we have to report back those concrete examples and share with other group. With that, the floor is open for comments, discussions.

Just to get the ball moving, I'm Alicia Mastretta Yanes, originally from Mexico, currently working at Q UK, the coalition for conservation genetics. As we mentioned earlier in the plenary, we are the custodians of the headline indicator F4, which we helped to develop from the scientific perspective. When we proposed the indicator at COP15, we asked, just before the COP15, we asked parties in a webinar if they were interested to give it a go, literally, just to try, and to join online meetings to start discussing how to assess the indicator. And that ended up being like the first pilot study of nine countries across the world, including Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, France, Sweden, Japan, and others. So we developed the methodology by work doing this, and now we are interested to know if it will make sense to do something similar with other countries, basically to have webinars where we explain how this indicator, which focuses on genetic diversity, works. And we directly can work with the people in the government institution or academic institution that has access to the data. work that will work? Will this make sense in other settings? That's one of the questions we want to take out of this workshop. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's very useful input. Any other? As I said, this is a family fireside discussion, and traditional, as I came from traditional community, no one is kept silent. So everybody should contribute. There's no wrong, no right answer. Everybody's contribution. Yes.

Yeah, so maybe I'll give it a go. Again, my name is Nika Rivera. I'm from the Philippines, from the Asian Farmers Association. Based on some of our experiences engaging with the NBSAP, I think one of the barriers that we first experienced amongst our farmer associations and organizations is really understanding the whole framework as it is. the KMGBF, when we go to our communities, our members, it's something that is not so much easy to understand for farmers associations. So the first barrier that we had to go through was to really create that language that is easily understandable by our members, our fishers, pastoralists, farmers. And after that, The next important engagement that we had to do was to connect with our governments in terms of the NBSAP implementation. When we knew about all of these, this KMGBF, the NBSAPs, it was already, the ball is already rolling. We came in a little bit late in this whole process, but indicators were already set. targets were already set within the NBSAPs, and it's hard, honestly, to insert ourselves in those processes because there are already a lot of stakeholders that are engaged, that has more information and understanding about what the KMGBF and the NBSAP indicators, at least for the Philippines, is. So that was something that we had to organize ourselves to improve our understanding and to be able to catch up in those discussions. But I think What is important is also for governments to understand and realize that different stakeholders have different capacities in understanding all of this information. And if you really want something that is inclusive, we say this whole of society approach, it has to be, you know, it really has to be embedded in the mechanism on how you engage with the stakeholders. You cannot just pursue or continue these discussions in these technical terms and expect that we can engage meaningfully in these processes. So I think that's number one. But eventually, it was from the inspiration from our IP sisters and brothers, The IP BSAP, it's the Indigenous Peoples Biodiversity Plan. It's one of the first sectoral BSAP that was made in the Philippines. It was not driven by the government, but it was driven by our sectors.

the IP sector, and then they talked to us, they said, you should be able to set your own indicators to plan the activities that make sense for you, because a lot of the activities that we are doing that we count as biodiversity work is not reflected or not counted in our national government activities. So we went into that space of really understanding KMGBF and then setting our own indicators, mapping out the activities that we are already doing in terms of biodiversity work, and submitting it to our national government. So we were quite lucky that because IPBESAP was already there, our focal point is more receptive to accepting sectoral. But I think the next hurdle for us is to really localize the NBSAP or the Agri-BISAP in our case, because it's only at the national level, and we want to capture other biodiversity initiatives that are being done even at the community level, and of course, to bridge that financing gap, because only if we are able to insert our initiatives in that NBSAP, we are able to also access financing to be able to scale up the work that we're already doing.

Thank you very much. That's very comprehensive. We need to use our concrete examples. As I said, it should not be like very unique. All contributions are valid. I'm encouraging everybody to contribute to that. Just to remind us, where does implementation most often stalled in your respective countries? What practical challenge would you like this discussion consider and share experiences? What experience or promising approach can you put forward for this group discussion? And what made implementation successful? in your country or in your projects. Those are the kinds of inputs we would like to hear from you. And no one will leave this room without speaking, so you better go. Yeah.

Thank you very much. So I'm not representing a country. I'm working for a regional organization in the Pacific. the Pacific community. So we are serving 21 Pacific countries or territories, including 14 countries who are negotiating currently with us at the CBD. So we are the technical and scientific support for this country. So my role is more on the climate change and biodiversity nexus, and more looking at the climate change. I just want to maybe raise two points. So it's for climate change, but I think it can really apply for biodiversity. In our country, I think we face one major issue, which is the fact that people who are trained and skilled, one time they leave the country to work in regional or international organization where they are usually much well paid, or more well paid. So the fact that these national skills are leaving the country is a big issue for the countries. So we are a part in this process because we are 1,000 people at SPC. It's a big organization, and most of the positions are Pacific Islanders. So something that we did with the support of the Rocky Mountain Institute in the climate change space, we, so SPC is training national young experts from the countries during It can be two weeks, three months, six months, it depends on the people. And then these people are moving back to their country. These positions are still paid by the Rocky Mountains through SPC. And they are embedded in the government, in the ministry that the country would like them to be part of. And so these people are more more specifically in charge of climate change finance mobilization. And so because they have been trained by our organization, being embedded in a ministry in the country for between one year and three years contract is a really good way to increase skills of the country and also to to be able to mobilize additional resources for the country. So I think, I am not too sure if this kind of mechanism is existing in the biodiversity space. But this kind of mechanisms can be maybe replicate for biodiversity finance advisor, for example. And so we have good feedback and report on this process. And I think it's working quite well. The only thing, i think, which is not working so well is the fact that their contract is usually more one year than three years. And when you are trying to mobilize, for example, GCF funding or adaptation funding, it takes so long. It's so long to mobilize these resources that one year is not enough to begin the process and be able to implement the first step of the project when the funding arrives. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I can really hear what you're saying about loss of skilled people, because my own background, I used to work in industry. I should say who I am. David O'Brien, Coalition for Conservation Genetics. I work with Alicia here. So I used to work in industry, and now I work making indicators, which is not as profitable, I think it's fair to say. But one of the things that the coalition would like to do is help people in situ to complete the A4 indicator in particular, to give countries the skills so that they can produce their own indicator, rather than us go out there to talk through the process online, develop skills in the countries themselves, and thereby build capacity in these countries. I think that's probably the simplest thing that we can do, but I do appreciate that sometimes people will get these skills and then move on. But if we're able to train a lot of people, because it's online, we don't have to go in person, I'm hoping that enough people will remain in indicator production and in reporting that can still continue to work on NBSEPs and national reports going forward.

Thank you very much. Let me come to this side.

My name is Liam O'Connor. I am here with the University of Oxford from a team actually who kind of works on this sort of idea of identifying national priorities and scaling them through implementation. I think our work as of now is pretty detached from the CVD or NB-SAP process, and that's something we were really considering getting involved with, and I think is why I'm here today. But we take an approach in creating a methodology to evaluate country context from the academic perspective, and then try to combine global models with some national models working with experts that we know, trying to predict how certain actions might lead to certain, I guess, effects in country. And I guess I have a question for everyone here. That's seen as something that would be useful in this process. I know we're talking about implementation, so maybe the science and this actual level of prioritization kind of is it maybe a step back, but we see it as a way to help countries use whatever resources they have on the most effective maybe actions that they've outlined in their NBSAPs, and then go to an expert elicitation process that uses like Delphi protocol to kind of bring together the whole society to see all this science and this modeling and bring that to governments and show that which actions in their NBSAPs might be the most effective in their country. So any thoughts on that? But that's just some work we're doing, and we're hoping to kind of work with the CVD process as well and not try to be a separate process for identifying these priority actions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Joel Omolo. I'm the Environmental Policy Officer at World Federation for Animals. So I'm also here on the capacity building side of things. But when we're talking about the NBSAP, WFA, we just actually launched guidance on biodiversity and health. So that's my main focus. How do we get biodiversity and health integrated into NBSAPs? And I think you also mentioned, I can't remember your name, but you mentioned about indicators. For us as well, it's to, we see that there is a problem, particularly with target five and the indicators that provided there. So even with our guidance, we are recommending a couple of indicators that can be used at national level to integrate biodiversity and health. Because again, the issue of biodiversity and health means that the scope kind of goes beyond Ministry of Environment, you're going into ministries of agriculture, health. So how then do you help a country with that cross-sectoral coordination and partnership? So that's an area that myself and my organization are focusing on right now. And I'm hoping that with this discussions today, we can see whether there's some experiences that we can share, like maybe if anyone who's worked on biodiversity and health, and at the NBISAP level, like how have you done that? I'd be very interested to know how that was done. Yeah, thanks.

Thank you. Any immediate response to that question, if you have something to share? OK, we continue our discussion. Next.

Thank you very much. My name is Nantimba Rangu. I serve as policy and strategy specialist at ChemiChemi Foundation. And basically for us, we are looking at how MB-SAPS can support communities to implement Target 3. We are looking into monitoring, localization, and also the indicators. How well can the indigenous peoples and local communities be able to understand what Target 3 means and in place in their language? Thank you.

Next.

You're making it intentional, every person to speak. Thank you. So my name is Maria and I'm from Tanzania. This is my very first CBD participation, so capacity building for me is really capacity building. So actually, i am representing African Climate Justice Movement and what we are trying to position ourselves is how we can be able to share the experiences. And I'm glad I've been listening to a lot of lessons this morning. Some of them resonates to what the women at the grassroots communities are doing, the case of my sister there she spoke about. But I think for us, interestingly, in this specific moment is how the integration and participation in all these processes from the government and developing partner at the national level really speaks to the commitments that has been put forward, but also it is inclusive enough to have that meaningful participation because of what I realized these few days that I've attended here, the upper level discussions really not cutting across to the communities, that's one. But again, I do not see the positioning of local government authorities, which are working closely with these communities, and the integration of these processes with academia, of which again we are working with. So I guess I'll be listening and I'll be stepping in where I have to step in to share what I can share.

Thank you very much. We have mentioned many bottlenecks, and in the global review, it is clearly identified that we are not meeting the expectations, we are lagging behind. So the next question is, what prevents countries from turning their NBSAP priorities into a coordinated and achievable action? Just from our perspective.

Hi, hello. So I'm gonna stop taking notes for a minute. So I just wanted to share, I mean, it was super interesting to hear all of the different experiences from all of these different countries and organizations you're working in. And I was just thinking constantly about this project I've been working for the last three years. It's an EU Horizon project, it's called the RESPIN Project. Maybe some of you know it. We work with different actors and different stakeholders to understand, on one side, where are the barriers to knowledge uptake and to integration of action, and what are the potential solutions for science policy interface. as well as capacity building within it. So on one side, my colleagues work with knowledge producers, so scientific communities, with researchers, and with anyone who possesses knowledge, also local communities. And then I work with knowledge users, so mainly politicians, private sector, and everyone who is in need of this knowledge to make decisions and inform their action plans, right? And we've developed a lot of guides, depending on the different stakeholder type. We have two courses. the second one about to launch, and we have a lot of material that I think would be very useful and maybe can help answer a lot of these questions on how to integrate or how to use this information or how to access the spaces or how to receive training on how to understand what is happening here and be able to participate actively in the process. So I encourage you all to look at it. I haven't been able to meet my colleagues, so I don't have a cute QR code for you to scan yet, but if you're interested, I'm happy to share more knowledge. And of course, this project is part of the sister projects from the EU Commission that also work on the Convention. There's COP for CBD, there's BioAgora, there's BiodiversaPlus, and they all work in the margins of science policy interface.

Thank you for those inputs. Yeah.

I forgot. I want to show that we do something similarly without only focusing on the genetic indicator. We went through the MPSAPs of all the countries that have submitted it us for a few months ago, and we reviewed the seven national reports too. asking specifically what countries have said about reporting the A4 indicator. And we found that they mentioned monitoring systems, funding, and expertise, and lack of coordination among agencies. Many of them actually mentioned lack of data. But we know that the data is already there, just that it's not easy to know that it exists and that can be used for something that it was not created originally for. Something that I particularly like with ZoomIn in Latin America, because I'm from Mexico, really, that's the only reason. No, because we could have a lot of people reading in Spanish. And it was striking for me that In the NBSAPs, there are a lot of mentions to genetic diversity in the forms of indigenous people and local communities managing seeds or managing their own forests, but also in terms of breeding and conservation of wildlife. So the mentions were there in the strategies. And whenever there is a strategy for, for instance, the management of a wildcat or the jaguar or their coral reefs, genetic diversity is indirectly included there. But there was no connection between the species reports and the management reports that are being done at lower local levels with the reporting at a higher level. So it's just sometimes pointing to how data that was collected. data or even just reports, documents that already exist, sometimes in the same minister of environment, but because they had a different title that was not doesn't say the word genetic in it, then we don't realize that the information is actually useful for one of the targets. So my question is, how do we help to make those connections? Sometimes it's just pointing out to this exists, this is useful for it, but how do you get to the right person within the ministry or whoever is in charge of developing the MBSAPs to tell them then? That's my question, really. Thank you.

Thank you.

Maybe to also answer the question, it's something that we're trying to do in December, actually, with the support of FAO. It's the first time that we will try to convene all the necessary agencies specifically for the Target 22, for the land indicators that we are monitoring. Basically because we were expecting for the Philippines to report in the NBSAP a lot of the land indicators that are already there. There are already evidences and data that is available, but when we saw the report that was submitted, there was not much information that was given, but a lot of annexes was provided, but it was not captured in the actual template of the reporting for the NVSAP. I think one missing thing was that there was not much appreciation or understanding coming from the different agencies that are involved. So we have this main focal agency who's trying to collect all the data to do the reporting, but to be able to connect with the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples, who's doing all the mapping of all the traditional territories, that's a missing link. And to be able to also point, which specific information or data is needed to report to that specific target indicator, that is still a missing link. So for this workshop that we're trying to do, we will try to create a roadmap. And in that roadmap, not just the indicators, but really spell out who are the agencies, what are the specific data that is needed. It does not necessarily should be really aligned in terms of the language and terminology with the targets, but if it's making sense or is contributing to the target, we will be able to pinpoint that this is the document that is needed to be able to reflect in the target reporting. But I think one also issue is that There is double reporting in a lot of these instances because basically these agencies are not talking to each other. So I think that's really important, and as civil society, as local communities, we're also trying to bridge that gap because there's still a lack of understanding in terms of the contributions of local community, for example, in Target 3, in Target 22, the work that we're already doing on conserving biodiversity, all of these ICCAs, the Kibai Biodiversity areas, those are the only ones that is recognized. But the territories that we have been conserving for a long time already, they are not being reflected. So to be able to use that mapping, the community maps that we have, and to put that in the roadmap to say that you also use this document to count it for the reporting, I think that diminishes also the issue of double reporting for all the target indicators.

Thank you very much. Yes, sir.

Hi, thank you very much. My name's also Liam, and I'm from the University of Oxford as well. I just kind of wanted to touch on a point there that you made as well about the issue of different agencies that are required to be involved for implementing the actions of the MBSAPs not being in the same room, not talking to each other. I think that's a big discussion that we talk about a lot these days and the lack of sort of coordination between different agencies involved and the correct stakeholder groups. But one thing that I kind of reflect on from my research, which touches on this a lot, particularly around nature-based solutions as one of these actions, is that perhaps sometimes formal coordination mechanisms are maybe not always the best response as well, because we see that a lot of the reason for different institutions, different municipal departments, different national ministries not talking with each other is because they adhere to quite strict mandates, performance indicators, et cetera, earmarked budgets in particular that keep them from connecting or working on integrated projects with other actors because that's not within their remit. And so sometimes I think rather than more institutional coordination mechanisms that sort of mandate for different departments to talk to each other, which could end up sort of reinforcing this kind of silo mentality, perhaps more what we can look into is Having higher level institutions like maybe national governments, if we're talking about connecting national ministries, or local governments, if we're talking about municipal departments, but opening protected spaces, essentially, where we can bring these different actors into the room and give them a little bit of freedom, a bit of leeway from their mandates, from their performance indicators, and allow them to start discussing about potential projects that they could work on together that address climate, biodiversity, health, issues together, rather than feeling like they might get penalized because they're working on something that doesn't fit their specific mandate. So just kind of throwing that out there where I think maybe the role of some higher level institutions is just allowing a bit of breathing space for different actors to come together and work on these things. together, because at the end of the day, these different agencies, they can work it out if they're allowed to kind of sit there and talk with each other. So that's just a bit of a reflection from me. And with that, I'm afraid me and my colleague have to run now, but it was a pleasure to join you guys, and good luck with the rest of this. Thank you.

Can you please come and write your names in the notes before you leave? Thank you.

Yes.

Just before you leave, I appreciate that there's another space that is open, but I think it's also important to consider the political dynamics of all these agencies. So sometimes you cannot put them in one room. So it works to have that system in a formal setting because they're compelled to. But for those people and agencies that you can put together in a more relaxed setup, that can also work, but it has to work together. Because at the end of the day, whatever you discuss about in a very relaxed space, if it's not approved by the government or your head of state or agency, it won't pass through as the commitment of the government. So those spaces are both important, but I think I agree with you because it's also hard to get some information if we're just talking in a more very tight space that you're expected to say things that you're expected to say within your mandate.

Thank you. Well, yeah.

I just want to come back to the comment around health, biodiversity, and climate change. So what we have recently developed, in my organization, we really want to have a clear idea of what are the what are all the activities which are related to climate change in terms of amount of expenses, amount of findings, outputs. So what we did, we did this climate finance tagging of all the budget, all the expenses throughout the organization. And we also tried to tag every activities done by each technical division in their business plan, in their report. And then, so I'm not a male advisor, but I have a very skilled male advisor working with me. And what she did, she did this kind of aggregated indicators, extract from all activities which can be at divisional level, at project level, at program level. And then I think that together can give us a clear idea of what we are doing in the climate change space. So I think the same thing can be done also for biodiversity. I know that Fiji, one of our member, recently did this kind of biodiversity tagging in all their national budget, just to have a clear idea of what is the budget dedicated to biodiversity in the country, which is also a way to assess the gaps and which can maybe be added in the next NBSAPs. And I have also another comment, if I may. So in the Pacific, the technical center for CBD is a stripe. So it's a regional organization focused on biodiversity and environment. So what they are doing, because our country is very small, we have more than 5 members where the population is less than 20,000 people, so you can imagine that the skills there are We do not have enough skill to cover all this reporting process. So the regional organization usually can support countries in terms of submission of national report or designing of strategies. But currently, CBD set up this regional center without giving them any funding, any money. And so I know that Stripe is currently trying to negotiate with CBD to find a way to be, they can support the countries for specific targets as provided by CBD, but they need to have some funding to do that properly, otherwise it's not possible. So I think this center is a very good idea, but without any resource, it's useless. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, we are exploring the bottlenecks that have been affecting national governments to turn their aims up into practical and measurable results. So with that background, again, I would like to raise some specific questions so that you can feel comfortable to respond to them, like how national biodiversity focal points and institutions have been selecting their targets or identifying their priorities, what needs to be happen first to make the implementation effective, and which barriers affect several priorities and should therefore be picked up and considered as top priority, what support would help countries move forward and most quickly? Those are the questions. And then in the other session of our discussion, we will be working on what would be the solution to address those. So far, we have been raising the barriers as well as suggesting way out solutions. That's perfectly fine. And now let's focus on the major barriers that need to be addressed, and then we'll be coming back to the solutions in the other session.

Thank you. So for a lot of people, I mean, Alicia and I work with genetics, and it sounds very abstract, but what we've found with reporting is that If you can translate that to real world action, and you can put those real world action in the reporting, it can get traction with politicians. And the other side, and it's something that, forgive me, I don't recall your second name, but Nancy said earlier, is that a lot of this information comes from local communities. In our case, it's the communities in which we live, but when we produce that report, to showcase some of these examples and to thank the people who are not only the custodians of biodiversity, but also the people who have helped us to produce the report. I think that goes a long way. And to make that relationship, that friendship, and that sense of being neighbors working together, that it's not governments' NBSAP, it's all of our NBSAP.

Thank you. Any other inputs on the barriers? If not, we are not limited to any session, so we can proceed to the next session, exploring the solutions and lessons learned.

I think from the discussions, the lessons learned, number one, there's need for co-design, co-creation, whereby all industries, not just environment specialists, are involved when MBS hubs are being developed. It's good to maybe invite local community, sorry, the business community and the local governments. so that they are also able to have their input on what they believe needs to be good and best for the region. Thank you.

Thank you. So on the solution aspect, we can look into different options as a solution, for example, policy, legal framework, and political will, making national priorities deliverable. So the general question for you is, how can countries turn biodiversity commitment into priority that government leaders and the sectors are ready to deliver? Like, where have policies, laws, regulations, self-implementation, where they created conflicting requirements, competing priorities, how can we address those? for implementing our NBSF? How can countries identify and resolve these contradictions when preparing their NBSFs and also when implementing? And how can biodiversity priorities become part of decision in agriculture, in mining, in fishery, in infrastructure, because those are areas where we struggle. And what evidence or practical arguments have helped secure political support beyond the environmental ministries? How can countries engage political leaders, political parties, or business and manage competing interests and so on? I'm just raising a few questions to provoke the discussion. Yes.

Okay, so to answer this question, In the study that I've been conducting that I was mentioning before, we identified nine different barriers and nine different potential solutions to them. So the first one is regarding scale and applicability. So like if we manage to contextualize the information to the local level and also to make it accessible for people, Then we have on communication, so this is regarding format and language, because on one side it's not only about the language being translated to local language, but also the reports often have very technical kind of language. kind of words and knowledge that is difficult for some people to understand. So being able to translate this into something understandable by the community is relevant. And then also the format, because sometimes reports are very long and sometimes politicians don't have the time to absorb all of this knowledge and information. Then we have Also the lack of technical knowledge, but we also have institutional barriers that have been mentioned here, and also institutional solutions, like what the colleagues from Oxford were mentioning about creating these spaces of exchange between different stakeholders as well, that they are formalized, and then at the same time to have knowledge brokers or hybrid positions that are able to connect different pieces of the puzzle and they lay in between. So, yeah, so we've been working on many different solutions also regarding, for example, given a specific mandate or a specific structure to things so that the informal becomes formal. So, yeah, so there's different things that relate to all of these different questions. I don't think there's one specific solution, but many different ones that can help different contexts.

Philip, again.

Thank you. For us, what's really important is policy coherence, because there's a lot of commitments that are happening at the global level. You have Rio Trio, just understanding UNFCCC, UNCCD, UN CBD is our gargantuan task already, no? But to be able to localize. of those policies, those frameworks, into the national policies and even the local policies is very important. Sometimes it gets confined in one specific agency. So you have a focal for CBD, you have a focal for CCD, which are not necessarily the same agencies. So they have that expertise, but it does not translate to other agencies to understand what the CBD commitment means. And it's not just confined within the agency, it has also to be reflected in the actual policies, the national laws. So there's need some kind of policy review that has to happen every time these governments make these commitments at the global level. What is the actual action that you're doing at your local, in your countries? Do you review, for example, the national land use plan to be able to reflect all these biodiversity commitments? Do you even have a mapping, national map law to be able to capture all of these biodiversity targets, because if it's not translated into national laws, it will never get funding, financing, and budget at the national government, and it will never get translated into something that is measurable. So policy coherence is number one, and the commitment of the government to be able to translate all those global commitments that they have, the political will to make it into an actual measurable outcome.

Thank you very much.

I would like to share what I think is a success story. This is an example. Anyone here from Argentina? Just checking. Hello. So one of the networks of the Coalition for Conservation Genetics is the Latin American and Caribbean Network for Forest Genetic Resources. These are people working at universities or forestry or agricultural institutions within countries of Latin America, but not necessarily have been trained or know very well the global biodiversity framework and how policy works. But it's a network of scientists and academics on practitioners that already work in the field and that already have a lot of contacts. So we started to work together, just giving talks in these meetings of a network that already happened to explain the Global Biodiversity Framework targets and how they relate to the work that this network was doing already when working with forestry and with local communities for local forestry management. And fast forward one year. We were able to start the recognition of an other area-based OACMs, you know, the long name, Other Area-Based Effective Conservation Measurements, in Argentina. Oh, hello. By doing two things. First, telling them that they will be the first ones to ever do it. And they were like, oh, yeah, that sounds good. And second, this was working with a very local government, like not even the national level or the state level. It was-- sorry, I forgot the Argentinian name for this, but like a municipality level. Municipality is correct? So they really like this approach, being told that they could be the first ones in the country and one of the first in Latin America to get that recognition for doing the activities that they already do. which was basically to conserve the forest and to include, in the case of what we were doing, a genetic vision, basically just learning how they were managing the seeds from the trees when they were doing restoration to include conservation outcomes. And this is working very well. And my understanding, if the Argentinian colleague corrects me, is that this OECM is now on its way to recognition by having explicitly incorporated genetic diversity. And that was done just from a network of scientists that were already working with local communities at the country level. And because it was a network of-- it is a network of researchers of Latin America, We are trying to do the same in other countries, so there are colleagues from Guatemala who are following exactly the same approach, and it seems to be working. So I hope that's a very nice success story that could be of use if we find a way to escalate it further. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Those are very useful inputs. challenge as well as the solutions have been mentioned in this example, but again, we will be coming back to the solutions. Any other barrier that we can share with the team?

The other barrier, if I'm looking at the context of even my own country, so now I'm putting on my patriot hat, is there is, and I think we're just discussing it right now with a fellow colleague here, the knowledge gap. But I would also come down to public participation when it comes to NBSAPs, because at the end of the day, this strategy has to be implemented with the people in the country. So if they feel that this thing just came out of nowhere, and this some global commitment that they're now being, quote unquote, forced to do, then it's going to be very hard for that policy to permeate within the country. So even as coming back to even what you were discussing about the science policy interface, When the negotiations are happening at this level, at the CBD, then at the national level, there should have been some public participation that basically fed into what a negotiator brings now to the table at the CBD. So once there's an agreement here, there's going to be a sense of ownership when now we take that commitment back to the national level. So that's where I see there's a barrier where we need more public participation that is to and fro between national, the CBD process, international commitments, and right back to the national level.

Thank you very much. Building on what Michael from the Philippines said, for example, the issue of coordination is an issue. And how can institutions work together to deliver a national plan? that is inclusive and addressing all environmental challenges, climate, biodiversity, the synergy aspect, and which coordination arrangement can we mention as a best example, as a lesson learned, and what worked well and how, if you have any experience in that in terms of institutions, mandates, and coherence. and organizing coordination and delivery mechanism.

So, back in April, we had a regional workshop in Latin America, in Colombia, and we had the national focal points for IPCC and IPBES from Uruguay. And I think that they've been doing very good work in coordinating both the Department of Climate and the Department of Biodiversity, and making sure that the when they are discussed, they always have people from the climate and other relevant ministries in the discussion, and when they develop the NDCs, which is the climate equivalent, they also have people from biodiversity and relevant ministries sitting at the table discussing the national plan. And I think this is, in my opinion, a success story and a good case to look at.

Thank you. Any other input? Or may I again come with another question, expanding into another aspect like the finance and the fiscal integration, sustaining the delivery and expanding successes? How can countries secure and arrange the support needed to deliver their priorities over time? And also, this is another aspect of the need to coordinate. coordinate implementation as well as secure means of implementation? Any contribution to that?

Just on the financing issue, I think, of course, the government has these mechanisms to be able to tap on a lot of financing. There's GEF, there's GCF, other areas. There are discussions on biodiversity credits, carbon financing, if it's something that they're exploring. But I think one important thing to be able to where to put the money is to also put the money in engaging in the stakeholders, to local communities, indigenous peoples, to smallholder farmer organizations. into engaging them in all of these NBSAP indicator building processes, and also to understand KMGBF and NBSAP and all these indicators that they're targeting. Because if we aren't able to go to that, If we have a seat at the table, so a lot of times they're saying local communities, we have a seat at the table, but our problem is that there's no meaningful engagement. Even if we sit at the table, we cannot understand a lot of these technical terminologies. And even if we do understand, there's no space to be able to really influence. It's different, participating is different from being able to influence the decisions. And I think that's also important within the mechanisms that is being set up by the governments, is to really have meaningful participation for local communities, indigenous people, smallholder farmers, to influence those decisions, those indicator setting, and also to count the initiatives and recognize the initiatives that we are already doing on the ground, and not discount them as something supplementary, but something that is really contributing to the biodiversity.

Thank you. Thank you for those inputs.

Thank you. So I also think and believe that because the efforts at the national level, and I think the gentleman from Oxford spoke about the silos and coordination part, also relates on how much resources and where these resources are being invested too, but again, given government priorities. So I look into both Rio Conventions and then I see how much efforts and inputs are sort of directed at national level. And I also look into when we had the national determining contribution, for instance, how much coordination was put into that effort, but I do not really see the same from where I'm coming from, same efforts, engagement, coordination, lessons learning and pertaining that into the CBD and these instruments which I'm hearing here. But what I wish to see also happens with the international organizations, but also the bilateral and the local authorities, how the coordination can be improved at the national level on all these efforts, I think complementing what my colleagues spoke from Pelu, how can this not be seen as supplementary, but also complementarity efforts speaks to the coordination of the ministries, specifically the financing ministry, which now where I'm coming from, there's designated budget for climate change, but where is the designated budget for issues that relating to biodiversity, for instance? Where is the designated funding that comes to desertification, for instance? So the priorities that we speak about in the coordination, they do not really sort of rhyming and speaking in a context that for us who are working in the communities and grassroots, of course, given the technicalities and the technologies that are used, sometimes it's seemingly as if nothing is happening at the community level, but it's a lot that is happening. And if there'll be proper coordination and resource allocation in this translation of scientific language, scientific researches, scientific spaces that people can come and learn together, I believe it will be assisting and guiding in a lot of these discussions on the bottlenecks and the way forwards.

Any further input? Yes.

Just coming back to coordination, I was also looking at One Health plans as an instrument that can then feed into the NBSAP. So again, since I focus a lot on biodiversity and health. through a One Health framework, of course, with the One Health approach. And given in my own country, when they have the One Health workshops, they will usually invite people from Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health, Public Health, Wildlife Authorities. So they're all in one room and they're having the same discussion, meaning that whatever they agree on within the One Health framework context, the person from the Wildlife Authority, people from Ministry of Environment, can take that now back to their biodiversity planning. And by then, they'll have already coordinated within a One Health framework. So One Health in many ways then provides a really good space to bring all these ministries and authorities together, have the same discussion, and then take that back to their ministries. So I would say that for A lot of the work we're doing on NBSAPs, again, bias because of working on biodiversity and health, I would also say that One Health frameworks are a very important solution to ensure that biodiversity and health commitments that are part of the GBF framework make their way into the NBSAPs in a coordinated manner.

Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, in terms of implementation of NBs and having enough resources to implement the activities. I just want to share with you an example from maybe one of the most little island of the world, which name is Niue, so it's in the Pacific. There are 2,000 people living there, and they designed a trust fund. So this trust fund is a Niue Oceanwide Trust Fund, and it's really a way for them to to shift from donor dependent and project based implementation. And so this new way trust fund is really based on, so they are selling the, what is the name exactly? Let me find that. The ocean conservation commitment. So you just buy a piece of this trust fund, and they only use a part of this global envelope to develop their activities. And the amount of this trust fund, so they really try to assess conservation need over the next 30 years. And so they have a an amount for this, to conserve sustainability of the ocean around Niue. And they cut that by maybe 2,000 pieces, and each piece is an ocean commitment. And this ocean commitment can be bought by individual, by industries, by philanthropic, by everybody, and they keep this money in the trust fund and only use a part of it every year. And it's a very successful initiative, and I think it's also a way for countries, especially the most remote ones, to be sure that they have long-term funding to implement their NDCs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Sustainable financial mechanism is critical, and the trust fund option is one of the solutions. But you are requested, you are kindly requested to give us input.

Actually, for me, the input is learning, apologies. I am Camila Kose, I'm from the Forest Stewardship Council. We have presence in many different countries, and our colleagues from our network are really interested into seeing how they can support the implementation. So part of me being here today, for which I'm very thankful, and already all the colleague left, learned some great examples of how colleagues working for the forest stewards, for the people who are working in the forest, can support and can leverage these types of mechanisms to support ambition. So that's kind of what we're bringing here. We don't have cases, but we're trying to understand how our network partners can support and how we as the international secretariat can support them, because the challenge that they will have is that they will want to support the NBSAPs acceleration and implementation, but don't have the resources to do it at local level, so they will expect the international secretariat to support, but there's knowledge that only they have that can support and access to four stewards that only they can provide. So we're trying to understand how can we infrastructure that support internally to help them being able to participate. That's my input.

Thank you. Now, as a way of summarizing what we have already discussed, now I would like to raise another round of questions. Well, we have identified major barriers and then solutions. Now, in this round, what worked, under what conditions, and what can other countries learn or adapt? in their national circumstances. I repeat, we have already listed the barriers and also have been indicating, mentioning, explaining the solutions. Now, one step back, then what worked, under what condition, and what could others learn?

Thank you. So, as I said earlier, genetic diversity sounds quite abstract to people, and particularly when you're working with farmers, foresters, local community, it sounds quite alien. So some colleagues from the University of Benghazi in Libya, and from NatureScot in Scotland, where I live, and of course my colleague Alicia Mastretta Llanes, got together to develop a tool that anybody, a farmer, a village, a community, a forester, can use, that uses simple terms to help them understand how to protect genetic diversity in their land or the community's land. We piloted it in Scotland, Mexico, Libya,

And following on from that, it led to projects started and owned by the farmers themselves to improve the resilience of the land through genetic diversity. And to date, it's been, the pilot only started two years ago. It's already led to several, I hope, successful projects. And it just came from talking to and listening to and getting ideas back. And so far, I think, God willing, it's been successful.

Thank you very much. Those are very useful inputs. Any other? Actually, we all should contribute to this. And I will be starting from this side.

Let me keep thinking about it for a bit.

So I'll go on over to the next. While colleagues are still thinking about it, so for us, what worked, it's really translating all of these indicators into something that is tangible in the work that we're doing in our farms, in our forests. So, for example, for the targets on agrobiodiversity, So, when it's translated into certain indicators, it's something that is hard for us to understand, no? But being able to input, what are we doing already? For example, the integrated diversified organic farming systems that we're doing in our farms. It's not counted in a lot of the indicators of our NBSAPs, but because we are able to translate, oh, for this indicator, this fits the work we're doing, the actual initiative that helps us a lot to connect and to understand that we are already contributing to biodiversity target. So I think that's one thing. Another that worked for us is to really put all of these knowledge and information and bring it down to the ground, even to our individual farmer members. It's a big task for us to be able to understand what is happening in all of these spaces, bring it down at the regional level, at the national farmers' organization, and even in the local farmer organizations, how they understand it. The language is very important because I think we are also trying to work with a lot of tools that are available, and we appreciate the existence of those tools, but it also takes a different kind of language to be able to relate to farmers and local communities for them to understand that what you're doing is already within this framework, with this KMGBF. And there will be some kind of ownership that they are already part of this process if they understand it within the initiatives that they're doing.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss. We have discussed with Jewel, and we think there's need to cross-learn between different countries, whereby if they are harmonized like success stories, it's good for countries to share, and best practices documented. so that people are able to know this is what is workable, this is what can be improved, and also to find less means of implementation if a success story has to be co-designed. Thank you.

Thank you. I see no further contribution. Or shall I remind you the question? Following our discussion, I think we would like to identify priorities and the bottlenecks, how those bottlenecks have been addressed, and the success stories that can be shared. With that, then, I think our rapporteur can help us where we stand, I think for the reporting back, we need to identify the agreed top priorities, potential solutions or practical solutions, tools, approaches, and then concrete examples where we can mention like the work our colleagues have been mentioning, the first genetic conservation day, conservation genetics work, which can be, and then what are the key messages that we would like to communicate to other groups and also to the wider biodiversity community? Those are the areas we have to properly organize and use for reporting back, and we shall help each other. Back to you, Anne, if you have any. Yeah. Okay. So I will be using, in case you have any suggestion for key message, which can be very general, the floor is yours now. Based on what we have discussed, what would be the key message that we want to be shared with others? For me, for example, just to make the very best example, the One Health, what would we say as a key message? Agroforestry, which is very inclusive, the harmonization, the financial mechanism, the synergy among the MES, all those can have very, very good key message. I'm giving you time to coin your key message and communicate.

Okay, so I'm going to give a quick summary of everything that was said. Basically, the key themes on the barriers and the solutions, and then I'll say some kind of top five priorities. So for the key themes, the first one was on coordination and silos, which was, I think, the most repeated one in the session. So the barriers were talking about how agencies don't talk to each other because maybe of missing mandates or budgets or the lack of shared indicators. And this also leads to double reporting and also that useful data is being unrecognized or carries a different label. Then a solution offered was on policy coherence across different levels and embedding the MBISAP commitments in existing laws and mandates. The second most identified priority was the gap between the framework and the communities, so how do we land everything that is happening in these spaces back down to the national level? And to this it says that the framework is sometimes difficult to understand, and these high-level discussions don't reach the communities or the local governments, and that there's also this barrier of language. translation. And solutions offered were about translating and contextualizing the indicators so that communities can also map what they already have, and also the position of knowledge brokers, as for example, like the example of Argentina that was mentioned. And also the different examples on the genetic resources that were success stories of how to work with the communities at the local level. And also to use simple tools such as, yeah, that they can use and that they can understand with language that they can understand. And then the third one was about training and the short capacity. So how, for example, I'm going back to what the colleague of the Pacific community working with them said about this one to three-year contracts and how they are very useful to try and make the people stay and work in this, but at the same time, they are too short to really mobilize the resources. And maybe scale this up and to train more people, right? Like you, David, were mentioning, to train more people, maybe not all of them will stay, but at least some of them will, right? That would be a potential solution. Then we have, of course, meaningful participation and ownership. So having a seat at the table doesn't necessarily mean that what you are doing is influencing what is happening. So being able to give capacity, but also ownership of this public participation and the mechanisms to really be able to influence and understand what is going on and participate in decision making. Then we have finance, which of course is always a big barrier everywhere, right? And resources, and then there was mentioned as a potential solution this idea of trust funds or different models of conservation that can work. Also this legal anchoring of commitments to different national budgets as different solutions. And then, yeah, this was roughly all of the different themes. And as suggested priorities, I have outlined five, let's say the top five of them. So the first one being institutional coordination with mandates and budgets attached to it. The second one being a data mapping roadmap that can be followed. regardless of the government or who is sitting in the decision-making chair. Then the third one being long-term institution-based capacity programs, so something that is long-term and that is also based on who the target audience is. Fourth would be localization and translation of targets and indicators to be able to scale these tools that already work so that the communities can also help with it. And the fifth one would be best practice exchange between countries, because I think that there's been many solutions and many different success stories being set today, and it would be a shame to miss this as a good thing forward, right, so that we can all learn from each other.

Thank you.

That's a really excellent summary, and we will be focusing on national implementation pathways, setting priorities, sequencing actions, developing coordinated delivery plans. The integration and meaningful implementation part will be considered by group two, so we'll not be focusing on that. That's very good summary. If we missed anything from the discussion we had, you are most welcome to comment on those or improve the language or the phrasing. Are we happy with that? I thank you very much, Anne, for your.

I also want to ask every one of you to come approach me later, because I sometimes didn't get the name or the organization correctly, so that it can be reflected properly in the notes.

That's truly excellent summary. Thank you very much. And I will be giving you the template. By the way, I didn't share the template we are going to use for reporting back, but you correctly captured that. Thank you very much, and I'm so generous to give you few minutes to relax before the tea break and then the plenary session. Have a nice time. Thank you.

Please go get coffee. I'm hoping to start at 3:30. We're just going to rally up everyone else.

Hi all, we're hoping to report back shortly. We're just waiting for some people to gather and come back. Hello, everybody. Can I just do a quick stock take of who's in the room? Who here was of the round table number one? Excellent.

Two representatives of round table number one. Round table number two. Oh, a whole bunch of people. Round table number three. Excellent. Round table number four. Excellent. Wonderful. And I think we had, oh no, that was it. We're all here. I'm going to give everyone just a couple of minutes to settle because I know Marion has just walked in. I'll just wait one or two minutes and then we're going to get started. Just as a word of preparation, I am going to do this numerically, so great if roundtable number one is prepared to feedback.

And as we wait, if you can call on your colleagues to come back for five. We don't want a small group when the minister and they ask you to come, and the executive secretary. If some of your colleagues are hanging around, maybe you could just invite them to come back for the final closing ceremony. Thank you.

Sure.

Two more minutes. I feel like I'm counting down. Okay, wonderful. Thank you all very much for coming back. Abhinav is going to be taking notes for us. And what I would like to do is I'm going to ask for each group to report back, and then we're going to have a discussion on the key outcomes and agree what the key outcomes are to report back to the minister and to Astrid and Inka. for the closing plenary. So, I would like people to report back briefly, succinctly, but obviously covering the high level issues. Then we will take a discussion on each of the groups, and then I will summarize and we'll determine what we're going to report back later. Thank you. With that, I'd like to hand over to group number one.

Yeah, thank you. Group number one will be represented by Anne.

Oh, okay. Okay. I was told we were going to.

And sorry, please introduce your, the group. Thank you. Not the group, the name, what you were covering.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you. So good afternoon, everyone. My name is Anna. And I was a rapporteur of group one, which was on strengthening the national implementation pathways. And we talked a lot about the NBSAPs and what are the barriers, where are the solutions, and how all of the different people we had in the room had potential case studies of success stories, et cetera, et cetera. So, yeah. So our discussion was actually really, really fruitful. We had a lot of insights by everyone. Everyone was really participative. And overall, we first started discussing a bit more of the barriers. And some of the key themes that came out were, for example, coordination and silos was one of the most repeated one as one of the main barriers. And to this, people talked a lot about how different agencies don't talk to each other, how there's missing mandates or budgets, or that this also makes it difficult for having shared indicators, et cetera. But then there were also solutions proposed to this, right? So there was a lot of emphasis on policy coherence across all of these different levels, and this policy coherence to be embedded in the MBSAP commitments and the existing laws and mandates that exist already in the country. Then the second barrier and solutions we talked about was this gap between the framework and the communities. So how sometimes what we do in these spaces is difficult to understand back at the national level, and how these very high-level discussions don't really reach the community level and the local governments. And then there is also this extra difficulty of language, which not only is language as in like Spanish, English, Arabic, Chinese, but also these very difficult technical words that are used in these spaces and how do we make this understandable for the community. To this, the solutions offered were about translating and contextualizing, for example, the indicators, so that communities can map them with what they already do and what they already have, right? So then we also had knowledge brokers as a potential solution, and also the use of simple tools that the local communities know how to understand and how to use with information they have. Then the third barrier solution we explored was this short-term capacity. So it was identified that a lot of people who is trained and given capacity building, often they have very short-term positions, or this knowledge goes away because now they are trained and they explore opportunities at the international level or in other countries. So this kind of like brain drain and how to make people really stay, and a solution was how the more people were trained, right? more chances we have of them staying, so maybe not everyone will stay, but some of them will. So this maximizing kind of strategy. Then we also talked about meaningful participation and ownership. So how having someone sitting at the table doesn't necessarily mean that they are influencing the process they are participating in, and how often we We bring in civil society, but we don't give them the tools to truly understand or have an impact in what is being said at the table. And a solution, again, is to create these mechanisms to train, but also to give a real space to these people to influence decisions. Then we talked a bit about finance, right? Finance is the overarching topic everyone has issues with. and how it just needs to be scaled up and resources are needed for everything to happen, right? And then there were some positive case studies of how using trust funds or different models worked in anchoring this commitments for budget into the local level. And then We had five main suggested priorities, I would say. So it would be about institutional coordination, mandates, and budgets. Then we have one about data and mapping to have a clear road map that can be followed. Then we had a suggested priority of having a long-term institution-based capacity program for people. Then we talked about localization and translation of the targets and indicators, so they are contextualized and understood. And finally, to have this best practice exchange between countries, because at the end, we concluded that we all came from different contexts, we all had a lot to add into the table, and having these spaces to exchange best practices is really, really important.

Sorry, as I was writing, I lost the last point. What was the last one?

The last point was on sharing different experiences and best practices between countries.

Excellent, that's really very helpful. So my question to the floor is, who has something they want to supplement? Are there other priorities? Do we agree with priorities? Do you think we should have other priorities? Any input from the floor would be very helpful. Okay, so everybody looks like they're in broad agreement. Oh, no, there's somebody about to speak.

I was just thinking maybe you can re-repeat the fight because it was a bit fast. So maybe if you re-repeat it, people can react because I only have three on my computer. So I just wanted to maybe.

So if you can repeat the five priorities again.

Yes, so the first one is on institutional coordination with clear Mondays and budgets attached.

And a question, what does that look like? What does that cross-institutional coordination look like?

So, drawing back to what participants said, I think that a lot of what they said was clearly about what is lacking, right? But then they also proposed solutions in terms of policy coherence across different levels, so making sure that also resources are not wasted, right? And having this coordination amongst different actors, not only amongst different levels, but also amongst different actors, and how all of this can also be embedded in the MBSAP process. And yes, and that they also mentioned that commitments, they already exist. And laws already exist, and it's about adapting them to the new outcomes of the NPSAPs and new targets and new indicators, et cetera. OK, number two, in terms of suggested priorities, was about a data mapping roadmap. So identifying data that already exists and mapping it and kind of linking it to the indicators and the targets that are set by the international community. So this was a proposal that my colleague, Kanika, back there said, so maybe she can also explain a bit more about it if anyone wants to know. But yeah, but it was also to reduce double reporting, for example, right? And also because the communities then, they understand that there's something tangible that they already have. It's not about creating new concepts or overburdening them. So this was the second one. And the third one was about long-term institution-based capacity programs.

Did you say long-term institutional capacity brokers?

Programs.

Programs, thank you.

Yes, capacity building programs. So there were two things identified regarding this. The first one was that in a lot of countries, there's a lot of brain drain. So young population that is trained then leaves the country, right? So then they don't have skilled people. And then the second thing that was identified is that Sometimes, the people who is given capacity, for example, at the governmental level, they only have mandates to work for one, three years, and that is very short to be able to mobilize and secure resources or to do an actual change in the policy, right? Because processes are very slow. So this was the third priority that was identified as something to look into of this long-term vision. And the fourth one was about the translation of targeted indicators, so to create these tools that can contextualize and scale down what has worked here. And then it was given, for example, an example of a tool developed by the colleagues. I think they are sitting I don't see them, but they work on genetic diversity, and they are testing it with communities in Latin America. And then the fifth one was about this best practice exchange between different countries and all of this. I mean, this one was also mainly because we had so many different inputs from different colleagues about what's happening in their context, and it feels important, right, that would work some place to be able to share it.

Did everyone catch that? Because what I'm hoping ERI is doing at the moment is finding out a way to project something onto the screen so we can type these up as it's being done. But did everyone catch what was said now about those five priorities? Oh, yeah.

Hi. I just-- is it OK to go ahead and respond to these? Yes? OK. This is Rosalind Helfand with the California Global Biodiversity Alliance, a multi-stakeholder coalition, inclusive of local and subnational government. And so my response is, I think these are really great. I love the five priorities. I think they're very, very strong. And I'd love to see those go forward. Just two quick comments or questions. On number one, are you thinking about some specific language to tie the coordination of actors to specifically the reporting process and also to the synergies effort across conventions so that you're connecting that engagement of local actors and connecting them to the cross-MEA efforts that are happening? And my second question is under the number four, under the tools for translation of targets and indicators, do you think it would be beneficial to specifically mention communication or communication tools under that? Because that's a classically deeply underfunded area for capacity that ties into this. Thanks.

Thank you. So regarding the first question, I mean, I'm only the rapporteur, so I feel like anyone in the room who was in group one, please feel free to answer to this. But yeah, so I myself work on the synergies of the Rio Convention, so I truly understand this question. Unfortunately, it was not something that was deeply discussed. in the meeting we had. And regarding the second one, I absolutely agree with you. This is also something that didn't bring up, but I do have a research and I work on this in formats where what we produce are often very long and have very technical knowledge. So things like fact sheets or visuals or even workshop presentations that are more like in person. They work. So definitely this is something that could be added to this fourth point of translation of targets, because it's not only about what is said, but it's the form that it takes as well. Right.

Thanks. The person at the back and then the gentleman over here.

Sorry, just to ask if you can repeat the question, the first question.

My first question? My first question was regarding priority one, focusing on the coordination of actors and whether it would make sense in the language to connect that to the reporting processes and synergies efforts across conventions. If you're doing all the work to coordinate so many actors, why not have it benefit the work that they're already, government's already having to do across the MEAs so that you get multiple benefits from one coordination effort?

Yeah, so maybe just to respond, I'm also part of group one. So I think it was discussed a little bit, but not so much. But I would say language, I would see it in two ways. So that first, that's the actual language, so maybe English, whatever language it is. I think that it's very beneficial to be able to contextualized in a lot of the different NBSAPs. But I would say in the language of communication, per se, that it's not really understandable in terms of the indicators. I'm coming from the Asian Farmers Association. We are a farmers organization, a regional farmers organization. And when we look at the KMGBF, it's not as straightforward as it is. When, of course, it's a very long process to be able to understand the framework in itself. And then you go down to the level of the indicators, the target indicators, the headline indicators, and then you also use it within the NBSAPs, which was set by the government. And these kinds of indicators are also not so much understandable by a lot of local communities. So I would say in that aspect, is to be able to bridge also the language of how communities appreciate the target indicators and the initiatives that we are doing. So being able to bridge the initiatives, how we see it, for example, we do a lot of integrated diversified organic farming system. Where on all of these targets does it fit? And is it also included within the target indicators of the government? Because if it's not, even if we're doing a lot of these initiatives already, it's not going to be counted in the biodiversity targets because it's not being recognized as indicator in the national level. So I would look at language more on that way, being able to really understand how it's practically being implemented at the local community level.

Yeah, thank you. I think I was referring more to the overall intent behind the coordination process, but yes, thank you very much.

Great, thank you very much. Do you not have a question? Sorry, I can't hear you.

With basically the synergies in the convention and I was just about to mention and which was already asked. So it's okay.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there any more comments that people would like to make about roundtable two, roundtable one?

Well, just to complement, we also discussed about the importance of institutional coordination, and we discussed the case of Mexico and Colombia, how we have participatory approaches to bring together, like to have a cross-sectoral cooperation. And I think it's very important what was mentioned that We need to understand that certain landscapes, seascapes, or ecosystems are used for multiple purposes. So we need to bring together all the actors that influence that area, like positive or negative, like in both senses. And so we need to have, like, maybe at the ecosystem, regional, or watershed level, to bring all the actors together and to have long-term planning. Having all these actors bringing their own projects and funds together, to have a pool of initiatives that can have a positive effect in the area, but considering the multi-use of the ecosystems, because sometimes we have like a forest, and yes, we need to have areas for conservation, but we also need to have areas for production, so to have local livelihoods. So we need to take into account all that and to reduce, like to have negative or subsidies that come to the area, like sometimes you have subsidies for agriculture, but you use pesticides, and so you are trying to conserve one area, but in the other one there you have contamination. So we need to bring all the actors together and to have more long-term planning that is positive for the environment in terms of that, and also to bring the local communities at the decision table, because in many cases they are like the right holders of the land. So just in the case of the first one. And in terms of, we also talk about.

Sorry, can I just quickly interject? Are you doing a report back on table two at the moment?

No, no, no, no.

It's like complementing.

Okay, thank you.

No, complementing because we also discuss the importance of institutional, I mean, cross-sectoral, like, cooperation. Or maybe we should do, like, every group can.

So that's what I'm thinking, is that maybe we should do a report back on table two, and then you can refer to the complementarities. Are you doing the report back?

No, she's doing it.

Oh, perfect. Excellent, over to you. And table two was strengthening inclusive governance and shared implementation. Thank you very much.

No, thank you. And yes, my name is Pamela. I'm here representing the City Women's Caucus. And we started this group very optimistic. traveling to the time we are in 2030 and everything is perfect, and what do we needed to do to achieve that kind of perfection? So that was our first question. And for that, we managed to bring some answers, actually. So the first is that we need to institutionalize the whole of society into the government. So it's like how we're bringing the civil entire of society to the decision-making processes. So the good point is that we have some case stories at the table. We have Mexico, we have Philippines, we have Colombia, and with tangible examples on how they were bringing the peoples, for example, with the development of the MBSAPs, how they bring all these different kinds of systems of knowledge, and they incorporate to them, how important is the land tenure rights, for example, because it's a fundamental aspect in inclusive biodiversity governance, and we need to recognize the different communities' governance systems and the rights that they have for land. We also talk about the long-term projects and how do we need to make sure that they stay there, even after a change in administration, even if we don't have enough funds, how can we guarantee the funding for those kind of projects? And actually, it's more about talking mechanisms. How can we implement different mechanisms instead of talking about projects? So we need to kind of do the shift in our minds about that. We talk about also accountability, and they need to have, yes, accountability, but also be flexible. That's because if we talk too much about accountability, then we may put in risk the implementation of some projects. So like too many rules there, maybe they are not helping the projects. But we also need to be flexible because we need to recognize the different ways that the communities have to report. and to implement and to monitor. So it's important to include it. That's why we need some flexibility, and also flexibility to adapt to the different country context and the different sociocultural environment that when we are working with communities. So we need to be flexible on that, and also flexible on adapting different indicators that the countries may have to report. board, for example. What else? So on financing, it cannot be only the government or government agencies that talks about financing. So we need to incorporate other stakeholders, for example, the private sector at the table. Sometimes we think that the that we need to talk on allies, and it's not, we need to be all involved. I mean, if you are polluting, then you need to be also at the table. Maybe we can solve these issues. That's another point. What else? capacity building. So it's not about technical capacity, we also focus on soft skills. And the importance of this, because sometimes failure is not just about money or the lack of technical capacity, it's about having the expertise to facilitate and to build trust and to build people together. And that's something that the governments also need to develop that. Sometimes the lack of this kind of soft skills brings the projects and the mechanisms to failure. And yes, I think that in the majority, that was what we are talking about in this group. And yeah, more than happy if my colleagues wanted to complement on this. Thank you.

That's fantastic. So if I might give feedback on the collective inputs that the two of you gave, when you were speaking about bringing in everybody to be able to identify who was all working in a landscape, that sounded very much to me like an integrated landscape spatial planning approach, which you would then get everybody around the table to discuss that, and that could be linked very nicely to the cross-sectoral stakeholder institutional coordination. And just on your question, your point on capacity building, when you refer to soft skills, is that also the convening skills, or what about the financial management skills, or, you know, almost the three layers, the technical, how do you actually monitor biodiversity, for example, or how do you do spatial planning, then the soft skills of convening and engaging with people, and then the operational skills on how do you manage these things? Did that come up too?

Yes, yes, yes. We also are talking about timing, like how, when do we need to deliver certain kind of things? We need, that also comes like this kind of skills that are required, but my colleagues can complement, feel free.

Would anyone from the group like to bring them, come in?

Yeah. be good to have some of the last mile, first mile, Estef, you want to complement a bit on the capacity and from the ground up and up top.

Thank you so much. I'm Esther from the Asian Farmers Association, and I think the capacity building that is needed by all sides, all the stakeholders, government, even farmers' organizations, and soft skills have to be included in this capacity building, like, for example, how to do negotiations, how to present the proposals or the recommendations, especially on the farmer's side. Also, how to Understanding that for the farmers, for example, understanding the government bureaucracy, and for the government, understanding farmers' realities and farmers' organizations, dynamics, and structures, and limitations. So also so many soft skills that are needed in the capacity within the government and farmers' organizations and community-led organizations. So negotiations, policy, even listening skills. summarizing, synthesizing the discussions, things like this. On financing, also very important to have financial literacy and financial management capacities, especially for community-led organizations and farmers' organizations, because many of the donors are always asking, can farmers' organizations handle money? And we also, and we can say that we are very very inspired by what our colleague from Mexico said, that yes, they can, and that they have been trusting community-led organizations to also deliver and handle projects for them.

Thank you very much for your intervention. Would anybody else from the audience or the participants like to engage? Okay. Yes, please go ahead.

Yeah, no, just as an overarching thing, I think something that we all converge is that community, this first mile we talk about, they can implement and lead the project on the ground. I think that was a cross-cutting thing. So, but we need to build the mechanism, the institutions, the procedures to give the space. and the capacity in the long run, not just to participate, but to actually implement and have the ability to get the funding all this way to this level. So Mexico and Colombia, a long-term experience, that works well, but we can also progressively in other setting do that. And the banks, I guess, have to have the mechanism as well for that, just as an overarching, no? I mean, that's what it is.

Yeah, and maybe just to complement, like, sorry, I didn't introduce myself before. I'm Paola Fajardo. I'm doing my PhD at the University of Oxford, but I have worked for five years for the National Forestry Commission in Mexico, working with local communities and indigenous peoples and across agencies and involving also scientists and NGOs. So, yeah, so I was sharing from my experience that is possible to bring to the table, like indigenous peoples community, at the decision level, so to bring them to the table to design projects and long-term programs, because at the end, they are the ones in the territory, the ones implementing the projects, the ones that will monitoring them, so it's important that At the government level, we take into consideration who will be implementing the projects, and in many cases, they are the right holders and the land owners of where the project will be implemented. So it's important to take into account their opinions, their needs, in terms of capacity development, because sometimes we have some projects, but it doesn't align with their needs or their social or cultural conditions at at the local level, so we need to be conscious also of the cultural differences, but also consider different knowledge systems, because sometimes we think we came from outside and we have the knowledge and we will tell them what to do, and many times they have the solutions, and they have known the area for many long time, so we need to take to account their own vision of, because they know the causes, the cause of the degradation or what are the positive and negative impacts So they need to be decision makers in terms of program management. Thank you.

Thank you for that. I must agree wholeheartedly with that. I'd like to now move to the next roundtable, which was table three, enhancing technical and scientific cooperation and technology transfer. Who is going to be reporting back on that? Excellent. Thank you very much.

I've just sent it to you by e-mail, so apologies for that. So we had a very good present discussion led by Olivier. Thank you to everyone who attended. We had about 14 representatives from parties to non-parties and TSCCs, and we had a really nice conversation scattered covering a few of the different topics. And what I'll try to do is give you a quick overview. synthesis of the different questions we discussed, so apologies to anyone in the room and I overlook anything. So the first question was really about addressing the different barriers that we might have, and the kind of overview of the conversation was that what we need to do is make a strong effort to connect and match the country's technical needs with expertise and institutions in the area that they're working in, using existing networks in particular that we may have to kind of facilitate that conversation, especially, you know, sharing resources, sharing even lab equipment, but sharing a kind of a knowledge base as well, harmonize our work so that we're facilitating the development and application of common methodologies, common concepts, indicators, guidelines. And then enable that through peer learning, knowledge exchanges, help desks, etc., that we're kind of facilitating the cooperation. So we're really going from implementation to enablement of different people. And a kind of an overarching message about that question was that the TCCs really should be about connecting existing knowledge, people, and resources so that we're having better action on the ground. The next question we had was the South-South cooperation and partnerships in general. And again, it's some similar language being used. Make sure we connect and coordinate what we're doing, bring countries and experts together and institutions instead of trying to do everything by yourself. See how we can learn from what's working. Make sure, again, that we're harmonizing what we're doing, promoting common concepts across the different regions and learning from each other. but also appreciating the differences in different countries and regions about how you might need to articulate things in a slightly different way and understand the concepts in those regions as well, so you're not just putting one regional perspective and saying this is the only way of doing it. A lot of it then was about building lasting capacity as well, so not just focusing on a project by project, but building kind of a legacy in what we're doing with that, and that, you know, comes down to building a lot of ownership of, say, data sets that you're doing or data infrastructure. And I suppose the biggest take-home message from that was really about building trust and demonstrating value. We had a few conversations about using existing regional cooperation mechanisms, using existing relationships countries might have or institutions might have, and building upon those. And not just focus on short-term assistance, but really build a legacy of trust and equity in what we're doing. We also realize as well that across the world, the topic centers exist in slightly different tiers of countries. So at a European level, we have the European Union. Other areas have ASEAN network. There might be the Arab League. And they have these regional cooperation mechanisms in place. In other areas, there is nothing like that. So you're not always operating off a level playing field. So again, you just need to adapt what you're doing, but have some common principles. We then discussed the question on data and knowledge, and how do you keep it where it is? So there's a lot of conversations about, you know, data often is collected but not really integrated into the society or not given to the local people, or sometimes it's, you know, people are trained to collect data but not analyze the data. So again, it was similar language about, you know, connecting. the development of technology to make sure it's needed and it's contextualized for the regions as well. One example was sometimes you might be using a technology for capturing biodiversity data, that might work very well in, say, Europe, but when you bring it to some African country where the climate is so different, it may actually not physically work there. And then about the fixing of that and the facilitation of how to actually incorporate it into other datasets. Really about promoting sustainable infrastructure and shared standards, avoiding duplication, but really kind of build common understandings, build capacity both for collection and for analysis, so that you're having a full data cycle from data to information to knowledge is being integrated in the countries and the regions that we're talking about, and kind of using technology to help on that. and then translating knowledge into action in those areas. One kind of takeaway from that was effective technological cooperation isn't just about new tools or collecting more data, it's about making sure it's appropriate and sustainable and capable of answering the questions it was designed to do. We then ran out of time because we had such good conversations, but then Olivier asked, I think, a really nice question from the different groups of people there. He said, If you're not a TACC, what is it that you want from the TACCs? And then he said to the TACCs, what do you want from the parties? So I'll give you kind of a synthesis of that. So the stakeholders at the parties, they said some really interesting things, but a lot of it was understand the needs of countries and build relationships and actually get to know them on a personal level and really understand what their capacity, their priorities, what their existing capacities are. Be very solution focused in saying, you know, how can we connect a need to a solution? Talk among each other, work it out. And then very much facilitating access to knowledge and expertise, so being really a bridge, I think someone mentioned that, just saying, you know, we don't necessarily expect you to know everything yourself, but you probably know people who might know this, so connect across. and tailor that support for the context that's needed. Being an accessible platform corporation, there was a really good point that I think it was Phil, I don't know if he's here, he mentioned that at the moment, there's one party, you can contact the CBD, or there's 196 entities that you talk to, which is kind of difficult for a lot of people. And he said, well, with the TCCs, there's a smaller number, so it's more accessible to engage with it. So it's a nice way to conduit for that. and really translate needs into concrete requests, work with the parties. So then, as a TCC, the more selfish aspect of this was really have active engagement and ownership from the parties, so that these cooperation centers were established by parties through the CBD, and we said, well, you asked for us, use us, please. So then it was a case of be clear and specific in what your requests are, we're very happy to help. within reason, we don't know everything, but we can help, and the more concrete a request is, the better it is. We wanted to build stronger partnerships ourselves, so that could have overlapped with the need of the stakeholders. and then recognize the different regional context that we operate under as well. So if we're communicating and transferring knowledge between these coordination centers, it's not a one size fits all, it's about offering a solution or an idea and see, does it work in one country or one region? It may or may not, but co-operate that. And then I think just, again, a very selfish one was realistic expectations and responsibilities. What is it that the these coordination centres could actually deliver, you know, there's a lot of, i would like you to do this, but maybe we may not have the resourcing or capacity to do it, but we would try. And I think overall, it was a really interesting conversation about what we want to try and get out of this process, and the words trust, accessibility, being proactive and engaging, and building a strong relationship with your countries that you're working with and parties, but also among each other. along. I think one other concept that came out at the very end was how are we engaging with wider society through the different parties, and who could be getting requests from in these coordination centres? Because the GBF is a whole of society ambition, and are we really working with whole of society? Are countries engaging with their societies in their countries and so forth? So a lot of very nice conversations and discussions were had. So I think everyone in there really spoke, and it was very nice, and Olivia did a great job of moving us along nicely in our contributions. So I think it was a pleasure to be part of it. But thank you.

Thank you so much, and what a great feedback. I'm going to paraphrase something, so I hope I didn't get it wrong, but something that really stuck with me was your point about effective technological transfer is not just about tools and technology, but about the appropriateness of the tools and technology. And that's something that's really coming through in the discussions, is that it's got to be demand-driven. It's got to be relevant to the local context. Thank you for that. Is there somebody who would like to intervene or make comments or say how any of this came up in their discussions? Yes, Diego.

Yes, anything discussed related to how we are going to finance the TSEs, because this implies a lot of people working. directly, physically, in so-and-so institutions that don't receive too much money. Did you talk a little bit about that?

No, we didn't talk about the financing. On one hand, we felt we didn't want to limit the conversation and kind of what the potential could be. We discussed it, and I think we're typical said, oh, we could have a week long discussion of how we finance things, and there's probably a need for it. But I think we want to, but maybe Olivia, you want to give a recollection?

Yeah, thank you, Brian. Indeed, at the end of the session, I had this idea, wow, nobody mentioned financing. And that was really positive, I would say. So we have so many other things to solve before we come to financing. And they don't need financing. So we need to understand how we do it, what we do it, before we proceed. At least that's my opinion. Dmitry, as one responsible for operationalizing the TSC, has a bitter smile on his face. But indeed, to me, this proved that our discussion really focused on the essence. What is the issue and how TSCs, not only TSCs, but all of the society, all of government, can address the topics we discussed. Thank you.

I have to say, that's a very refreshing response about the question of financing. It's really great to hear. Okay, hand, do you have your hand up?

No, I just want to add to what Olivier just said and Brian as well. That was not our mandate, first of all. And of course, we shouldn't forget, the TACCs, of course, they need some staff time, but it's also a knowledge broker. It's not that the TACCs have to do everything themselves. They have to find partners, they have to find other things, but they're not supposed to do everything themselves, according to how we see it. We have our networks, we have our partners. things like that, and they can come in. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Diego.

I completely agree with what you are saying. My point is about more who's going to pay the bills, you know, the water, the electricity, that TSEs are spending in order to achieve this kind of stuff, because TSEs don't have that money. That's my point. But I completely agree that definitely it's a networking work, and this is part of the TSC's mandate, but definitely something to solve, not now, not today, but yeah, something to think about it.

Thank you so much. The last point, and then I'd like to move on to the next.

Thank you. Just a quick to share experience at the I had the experience working with the Mesoamerican Integration and Development Project. So it's an environmental initiative among 10 countries in Mesoamerica. And so what we have is like a long-term or short-term capacity building. capacity development program among these countries. So every country will bring their own expertise to the table. Like, I mean, from the forestry sector, we are very good at managing fire, like forest fires. So we have online capacity development programs. So we offer this to the table, and then every country will advertise this kind of capacity building specialized courses. So an example, like we operate at 10 different countries, and then we have 200 people. So it's offered to all the society. So it could be students, it could be technicians, it could be professors. So I think it's a way of using the resources we already have at the country level. and the expertise the countries have. So sometimes it's not about the money. I mean, of course, we need money for having long-term programs and empower these initiatives, but sometimes it's about connecting people, building networks, and sharing the knowledge and the expertise already the countries have. So maybe it's like more having these kind of exercises at the country level or even at the university level, like what is the expertise of your university and what you can bring to the table into this kind of project.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much. What I'd like to do is now move to the last roundtable, and then after that, I'm going to confer with my facilitator to confirm I'm not off track here, but then I'd like to have a discussion for 20 minutes about what we're going to report to the minister of Armenia, the COP17 president, who will be here in the closing plenary. So that's just the order of the next half an hour, if that's okay. So table four was strengthening the enabling environment capacity for biodiversity action. Who will be reporting? Ah, Marion, thank you.

Thanks, everyone. And well, since I have the floor, I just wanted to mention, just back on the table three, I am surprised that there was no mention of financing on the roundtable on TSCCs, to be honest. So I'm Marion from UNDP, sorry. It is maybe reflecting some disconnect that we're hearing from the countries that are are directing their technical needs directly to the TSCCs, and the TSCCs that have technical expertise. So yes, in some case, maybe a TSC can be a connector to a technical entity that can provide support, but even just that coordination does require resources. But also, in some cases, the TSCC themselves have very good expertise. And so the more we add, you know, You know, connectors, and so there is the funding, and then implementing agency maybe, and then TSCC, and then someone at the more time it takes, right? So maybe we can also envision that the TSCC themselves should, we should maybe prioritize the funding. And with this, I will turn to my table, but maybe Halid, do you want to go? Sorry, I mean.

Sorry, if this is about financing, I would request that we come back to it a little later. I would like to do table four and finish table four and then do the outcomes that we're going to report back on. Thank you. Marion. Actually, no, Marion, please, I'd like you to go and say all four. Thank you.

Well, actually, our table talked about finance.

But then, please do that next.

So our table, the table four was on strengthening the enabling environment capacity for biodiversity action. So I think it was a great table to maybe conclude that discussion, covering and focusing a bit more on those enabling components. So we had CBDC, SIDA, and BISA-AP, we had Asian, ASEAN, sorry, TSCC, CGI, RGOBON, JBEF, and UNDP, very different And we divided the discussion in three topics. So the first one was on policy, legal, and legal framework, and political will. I'm not going to spend too much time necessarily on the key challenges because I think they're well known and have been repeated over and over. Maybe focusing more so on the proposed solution when it comes to policy and legal framework, also being more efficient with the time. But we agreed that maybe effectiveness doesn't require necessarily complicated thinking and things as simple as developing standardized templates and documentation, interoperable systems, now that we can provide to the countries or actors that are working on a specific topic just to speed up the work. Maybe we don't need a brilliant idea, but just having a document that can be contextualized nationally, that can be a solution. Surely strengthening institutional mechanism, easy to say, and that there is a lot of political changes within the countries. So maybe in some cases, having a steering committee that is mostly technical, but I can sustain over time, regardless of the administration of a given country at a given time could be a solution. Recognizing and incentivize staff to share knowledge, and maybe putting them in a more Mentoring position, being a bit innovative here so that there is an interest in sharing, you know, knowledge, institutional knowledge, and continue to train basically, become a trainer yourself when you have been a trainee before. Establish regional community of practice, alumni networks, knowledge champions. Again, we don't have answers necessarily on what it looks like, but the regional aspect really came back strongly in our discussion. And again, this table feels like a continuation of the table number three, where this enabling conditions might be maybe stronger and strengthen at the regional level where countries have the ability to share some expertise, some experts even, and some solution. And then, obviously, strengthen the capacity building activity that I think the table wanted to talk extensively about this and strengthen the mandates for coordination to connect the data with national policy decision. That's a bigger one. The second topic was really on institution mandates and policy coherence. Again, I mean, you can see on the screen, those have been, can we scroll down a little bit? The challenges have been, I think, mentioned over and over in the previous discussion by the parties in particular. In terms of proposed solution, we really focusing on cross-sector cooperation, strengthening dialogue between biodiversity finance, economic, other sectoral actors, but also the private sector that came back several time in our discussion as being important. Do we have the perfect format for that? No. Do we think it is important? Yes, absolutely, especially in the situation of funding that is getting a little more complicated sometimes. So the private sector has a role there. Another aspect, again, regional mechanism to facilitate exchanges on this policy coherence, but also connect stakeholders. And again, this idea of a steering committee maybe that is in biodiversity and climate in a given region maybe can start talking to each other. Should it be through a TSCC? Question mark, maybe. And focusing on translating, I think a person talked about language before, but translating the global biodiversity commitment and jargon and scientific aspect into something that is more understandable between biodiversity and climate, for instance, but also between experts or even parties when negotiating the discussion, and then the private sector, we're not speaking the same language. And so it is obviously hard to understand each other. And I'm not talking about English versus Spanish, I'm talking about technical framing for each of us. Expand capacity building beyond just biodiversity sectors. I think a great deal of efforts are being made to include finance ministries. We're seeing this COP, businesses, political decision makers, and all other relevant stakeholders, and really showing the tangible benefits of doing an effort in in having more policy coherence. Again, the format and the shape might vary from a region to a region, from a country to a country, but capturing what a good practice looks like that can be shared in a way that is relevant for a country and a region, that maybe deserves a little bit more time. I'm going quickly because I know we have another discussion, but the third topic was actually on financing and fiscal integration. And again, if we go to proposed solution, The predictable long-term financing, I think, is nothing new for the audience today, but really insisting on that. But also we took an approach a little bit different. So there is a lot that we can do as actor in the room, but maybe there is also something that donors can do as changing slightly how we use indicators. So right now we have a lot of quantitative indicators, such as how many workshops did we do, how many participants, how many women, but it is really hard to have qualitative information, and this is not necessarily captured in frameworks. So maybe when donors, funders approach or decide to allocate resources, there could be, from this perspective, also some framework, some key indicators that could reflect what is needed in terms of quality that could then guide the actors. Aligning funding with national priorities, obviously, with an emphasis on existing matchmaking mechanism. There are several of them. We had our colleague from the Accelerator Partnership. There are others, but really using what exists already because it's putting the countries directly, their request directly in touch with the person that have the resources, whether technical or financial. Again, better recognize regional and cooperation support, and exploring the opportunities to connect biodiversity financing with the climate sector.

And broader development priorities, I know there is some discussion around involving funds to finance some activities. Could it be that we also connect with the private sector, with philanthropy, with foundation? Could it be that these actors actually target TSCCs? So some unresolved questions, but I think a very productive discussion. And I am sorry to have sped up, but back over to you, Melissa.

Thank you very much for that, and thank you for going so quickly. I'm sorry that you had to do that. Are there any additional inputs or questions for Marion on table 4 about the inputs they provided? I think what I find particularly interesting is that it sort of wrapped up a lot of the discussions that had come out, not only of the stories of change this morning, but also the other three table discussions. So I found that a very nice wrap-up. Are there any comments before I explain what we're going to do next? Yes, please.

Can I comment on the financing now, or should I wait?

You can. If you don't mind, I'm going to take a minute to confirm with Eri what we're doing next, but I am listening. But please do go ahead.

I just want to maybe somewhere include in the wrap-up that having Jeff announced this enabling activity 9, because, and I said the same thing in our room, these TSCs were not created by themselves. It was a demand of the countries, and they aligned with us. So the countries should be encouraged to engage with TSCCs through this financing. It should be highly encouraged to the countries. This is their moment of freeze. that the demand which they have been asking us, they have the financing available now to deliver those KMGBF targets, and they can definitely engage with the TSCCs with the packages they will be getting and engaging into this front.

May I ask a question of clarification? And if you don't want to answer, you don't have to. If I'm to paraphrase, are you saying that countries should be encouraged to use some of the money they get via the GEF funding to give to the TSCCs.

Yeah, use it for enabling, absolutely, to building their capacity.

Sorry, say that again.

For building their capacity, because in the past, when the demand came, it was, where are the resources?

Yes.

So now they have the resources, they can engage the TSCCs.

Got it. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Sorry, I do need to take just two minutes to talk to Irie about how we're going to wrap up. So what we're going to do next, Abhinav has very kindly collated all of the information that you've provided, taken the headline points, taken into consideration what has been said. and then he's going to display it on the screen, and then we're going to agree on what gets reported back, not only to the Minister, but also to the high-level segment in a couple of days' time. Thank you.

Sorry, may I just like to add, like, something that we discussed in our group that didn't come to in the final summary and that I didn't hear, is that we need to have safeguards in place, like, safeguards at different levels, safeguards at the cultural level, at the financial level, at the ecosystem level. So it's something that we need also to take into account. And also in terms of capacity, we need to be conscious that capacity development takes time. So it shouldn't be considered the short term, like how many training courses you have, what is like how people implemented this knowledge. So we have to have long-term monitoring frameworks, like every five years, or how you implemented the knowledge that was shared or the technology that was transferred. So to think more at the long-term monitoring. Thank you.