(1st Session) 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-27)

Let's start our meeting. I want to deliver my statement. Distinguished delegates, it is with great pleasure and honor that I welcome you to the 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Let me begin by expressing my sincere thanks to the Government of Panama, His Excellency Mr. José Raúl Molino, President of the Republic of Panama, and His Excellency Mr. Juan Carlos Navarro, Minister of Environment. of Panama and recently elected President of the Council of Ministers of Environment of Latin America. I also wish to acknowledge financial provided by Canada, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland for enabling the participation of delegates from 92 parties. My gratitude also goes to my colleagues in the Sub-Sub Bureau for their excellent guidance, as well as the Executive Secretary, Mrs. Astrid Schumacher, and colleagues at the Secretariat for their delicate support and hard work in preparing for this meeting. In particular, I wish to express my great appreciation to the Secretariat for timely preparation of all the working documents for this meeting, which effectively facilitated the preparation by Parties. We gather here at a critical moment in our collective journey to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. adopted with such ambition and determination by the Parties of this Convention. The Subsidiary Body is called upon to provide rigorous scientific and technical advice to support the collective work of the Parties. A key item before us is the global review of collective progress in implementing the Framework The Conference of the Parties in Decision 16/32 established procedures for this review and mandated the preparation of a global report. An ad hoc scientific and technical advisory group has been tasked to provide input, and at this session, CEBTA will consider the scientific and technical foundation of that work. The advice we formulate here will directly shape the first global review and strengthen the evidence base underpinning the framework. The decision that will be taken at COP17 will depend on our deliberation here at Substat 27. It is therefore incumbent on us to ensure that our recommendations are evidence-based, policy-relevant, and practical for us by parties. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the two co-chairs of the ASTAG for their leadership and guidance in serving this important task, and to all ASTAG members for their continued dedication and hard work in this regard. Colleagues, our agenda covers a wide range and pressing issues: the interlinkages between biodiversity and climate change; a review of funding of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; assessment and their implications for the work of the Convention. The strategic review of the Convention's programmes of work, including the programme of work on forests biodiversity, will also further the work related to the risk assessment and management of living modified organisms, review updates on work related to invasive alien species, the International Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Soil Biodiversity and Health. These items reflect various scientific and technical dimensions of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This meeting also introduced pilot modalities for the early submission of statements for agenda items on biodiversity and agriculture, and biodiversity and health, as adopted by the SABSAR Bureau on 18 September 2025. This innovation aims to pilot the announcement of the efficiency of the SABSAR and facilitate more forecasted deliberation. Before I close, I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the IBES Secretariat for successfully organizing the workshop on 18 October on the recent assessment adopted by IBES and forthcoming assessment. In addition, I wish to warmly welcome the new Executive Secretary of IBES, Mr. Lutando Siba. and look forward to continued engagement and progress. In closing, let me emphasize that our task is to ensure that our deliberations are technically sound, practical, and implementable. We must craft recommendations that provide clarity to parties, support national action, and strengthen our collective resolve to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. As we get to work this week, our aim must be to transmit a package of clean draft recommendations to the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties that will support the urgency of this work. I look forward to our discussion over the coming days, and I count on constructive contribution that each of you will bring to this meeting. In this regard, I encourage you all to be clear, succinct, and focused in your intervention, and to proactively seek solution and compromise. Together, let us ensure that SADC-27 provides strong and practical advice that support the full and effective implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework, and lays the foundation for ambitious science-based decision at COP17 in Armenia. Finally, I would like to thank you for trusting me as a Chair of this meeting. I look forward to working with you and with all of us a productive and successful meeting. Thank you for your kind attention. Gracias. Merci pour votre aimable attention.

Thank you for your attention.

I now invite the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Mrs. Astrid Schumann, to address the meeting. Executive Secretary, the floor is yours.

Distinguished delegates, dear friends, it's such a pleasure to see all of you here, and on behalf of my colleagues in the Secretariat sitting next to me, behind me, left and right of the podium, We warmly welcome to the 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. First and foremost, of course, I wish to express our sincere gratitude to His Excellency Mr. José Raúl Mulino, President of the Republic of Panama, and His Excellency Mr. Juan Carlos Navarro, Minister of Environment of Panama, and the people of Panama for their generous hospitality in hosting us in this beautiful city. And special thanks also to Panama, and I understand Minister Gloria Gueñón is with us as well. It's an honor to have you here. Thank you for making the time. I believe I speak for all of us when I say that the commitment of our host to facilitating our discussions, but also their leadership on biodiversity protection, is deeply appreciated, and I think it should inspire our work. I also wish to thank the governments of Canada, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland for their generous financial support, which has enabled the participation of delegates from 92 parties. Not all delegates who applied for funding could be supported at this time, and that is a matter of concern. Inclusivity and broadest possible representation matter for our global endeavor. We thus call on all countries in a position to do so, including new donors, to do their utmost as we move towards 2026 with three meetings of subsidiary bodies, in addition, of course, to COP17, COPMOP12, and COPMOP7. Dear delegates, I don't need to tell you that we are convening at a critical time. We are now almost three years into implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. These years clearly have not been easy. While recognition of the framework is steadily growing, determination is not always keeping pace. Deadlines have been missed and resource mobilization remains a challenge. So our task this week is to ensure that the ambition of the framework is matched by rigorous and actionable scientific and technical advice to drive drive and accelerate implementation. I cannot underline enough how important your work is on that. Our work is science-based, gives us strength, and gives us the power to win the debate over all of those that want us to believe that biodiversity is just a little nice to have, rather than the fundamental underpinning of our lives, livelihoods, well-being, health, and so many other things, including, of course, our largest and biggest ally in fighting climate change. So, when we have a big task ahead of us, what it really is, is about making sure that the framework is matched by vigorous and actionable scientific and technical advice to drive and accelerate implementation. So let me say that again. And to achieve that, we must be exceptionally efficient. So I want to acknowledge that there is considerable workload lying ahead of all of us. and also the constraints faced by our community, especially small delegations. I think we owe to them to make the most of our time available here in Panama and to be exceptionally efficient. In this context, I want to express my appreciation for the efforts made to engage with pilot modalities for the early submission of statements. It is my sincere hope that this experience will contribute to identifying more efficient and inclusive ways to move forward. The success of our meeting will depend on our collective commitment to focused, constructive, and pragmatic engagement. Now, as we have a heavy agenda ahead, I would like to highlight two central themes that will define the path to COP17 in Yerevan. For the global view of collective progress, the substance work to provide the scientific and technical basis for the Global Report on Collective Progress is vital. It is how we will measure our trajectory, identify gaps, and maintain the confidence of the international community in our collective ability to achieve the 2050 vision. Since the adoption of the framework, Parties and stakeholders have been working diligently to translate global ambition into national plans and national action. And I am pleased to note that progress has been made. 55 Parties have submitted updated or revised National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans incorporating national targets. To date, a total of 3,300 national targets were submitted by 140 Parties to align with the global biodiversity framework. These efforts demonstrate the resolve of governments to make the framework a living instrument, guiding policies and actions that address the drivers of biodiversity loss restore ecosystems, and ensure that biodiversity continues to provide benefits essential for people and the planet. But, dear friends, the numbers also indicate that we are not on track. So as we strive to become more impactful, we must acknowledge that biodiversity loss and climate change are the defining challenge of our era and must be tackled in tandem. We have discussed that a lot already in Karli. We need to continue this discussion, and we must accelerate the discussion on how we can create synergies and integrated action. And again, I'm very happy that we will have this discussion here in Panama, and I'm sure Minister Navarro will explain to us how Panama is leading the way on that issue. On the climate and biodiversity crisis, two sides of the same coin, the framework already provides the mandate. SAPSSA must now provide the evidence-based guidance to ensure that biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, restoration and sustainable use, and climate mitigation and adaptation are mutually reinforcing, not conflicting efforts. We cannot solve one crisis without addressing the other. In these and many other areas, the work of IPBES is tremendously important, and the implementation of its latest assessments must be reviewed carefully. Beyond these core items, your expertise is equally essential across the entire agenda. You must provide clear guidance on the scientific and technical needs to support KMGBF implementation, including through the crucial strategic review of all programs of work, including, of course, the expanded program of work on forest biodiversity, as well as the consideration of new areas of work under the Convention. You need to advance the critical work on the scientific and technical basis for risk assessment and risk management of living modified organisms, which underpins responsible innovation under the Convention and its Protocols. Your recommendations on invasive alien species will strengthen our ability to prevent and control one of the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss. And finally, your recommendations on biodiversity and soil biodiversity and biodiversity and health will help us to advance in areas which are key for the achievement of our framework. And so therefore, with this heavy agenda in front of us, let us commit to a week of constructive engagement, focused dialogue, always in the spirit of mutual respect. I sincerely thank you, again, speaking on behalf of all of my colleagues, for your dedication to the Convention and look forward to a highly productive SUBST 2027. Thank you so much.

I thank you, Mrs. Schumacher, for your opening remark. I would like to reiterate my thanks to you and your team for your hard work in preparing for this meeting. I would also take this opportunity to note that all official documents were posted in a timely manner, which has greatly facilitated the work of all delegations in preparing for this meeting. Thank you very much. I would now like to invite His Excellency Mr. Juan Carlos Navarro, Minister of Environment of Panama, to deliver his opening remark. Your Excellency, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Panama.

You are most welcome to Panama.

Ladies.

And gentlemen, we wish you the warmest welcome to Panama on behalf of the President, José Raúl Mulino, and on behalf of the Minister of Tourism with me today, and on behalf of the entire Environment Team. We are very proud to welcome you to this country, small in size, yet immense in biodiversity and in indigenous cultures. And it also has an immense will to act and to reach agreements and consensus at this meeting, which will enable us to save biodiversity and life itself on the planet. Over the next few days, Panama will be a meeting point between science, policy, and global cooperation. And life on Earth depends on it. We are sincerely grateful to the Secretary for attending, to the delegations of 196 countries for being here. In particular, my indigenous brothers and sisters from Panama and from the continent, and all of the delegates who are here today with us. But I want to be clear. We are not here to hide behind speeches or to postpone decisions. We are here because the planet demands action, action that is real, immediate and tangible action on the ground. Time has run out. Hundreds of thousands of species are disappearing forever across the globe, and the world expects from us solutions and concrete agreements that enable us to save nothing less than creation, creation and life on Earth. Science has been clear. Climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation are not separate crises. They are three dimensions of the same challenge, one that grows worse every day that we delay action. This is why we must act now. We need to act today, not tomorrow. And action must be immediate, visible, and above all, it must happen where nature and people meet on the ground. We have never had so much evidence, so much technology, nor such capacity to work together. The question is not whether we can do it. The question is whether we are willing to do it now. Secretary, Chair, I’m here to tell you on behalf of President Moreno that in Panama, we stand ready to work and move toward agreements now. Panama understands how serious the global situation is, and Panama is determined to lead, together with you, whatever procedures are necessary to reach agreements that will ensure the conservation of nature and preservation of life on Earth, which is to say biodiversity. Now, in Panama, we believe that protecting nature means protecting the very life of our people. In Panama, This is not just words. Protecting nature has to be based on actions, and we're taking concrete steps. Panama has protected more than 54% of our marine areas and more than 35% of our land area. We are transforming our protected areas into true natural reserves. We are leading major transformations of protected areas with real protection and real conservation. And we have clearly delimited protected areas with the full and effective participation of local communities. We are, in addition, moving forward to establish our pledge to nature. which incorporates our national goals under a single framework, including our goals on climate, biodiversity, plastics, land and marine conservation, and ocean conservation. All this under one single national commitment. Our main objective is to negotiate all of these COPs under one effort. I know that's ambitious, but time will not wait. There's no other way. We can't go through COP after COP while the planet is being destroyed. We have to change the rules of the game. We need to achieve decisions by majority and not have to have absolute consensus on everything. It seems to be impossible with 196 countries. This is the case for the General Assembly, which reaches decisions by majority, and I hope that will be a consideration for future COPs for the sake of biodiversity. As part of our pledge to nature, we are going to restore 100,000 hectares of ecosystems that have been degraded in the next 10 years. In addition, To lock in our efforts, we are creating the Panama Natural Fund. This trust fund will ensure permanent financing to conserve protected areas and restore degraded ecosystems, and also strengthen local communities with sustained funding. going into the future. We're not doing this for recognition or applause or photos. We are doing it because sustainability is not optional. President Molino is acting on the basis of one single criterion, and that is that sustainability is not an option. For Panama, sustainability is the only way to secure the future of all Panamanians. And We are doing this also because solutions are not built on speeches, they are built on the ground with people. This is why we want today's discussions and discussions over the next two weeks to be useful, practical, evidence-based, science-based, but above all, we want the discussions to be guided by common sense and to drive immediate action. Friends, We must ensure, under our collective and individual responsibility, that the scientific decisions translate into real policies, accessible funding, and measurable results. And that's why we're here. Panama hopes that this meeting will have a before and after, and it will be a turning point, that it will produce concrete outcomes, clear consensus, and solid bridges between science, policy, and territories. To all countries present, I say this: ambition must be matched with coherence. We cannot demand more conservation without providing the means to achieve it in our own countries. Nor can we expect others to do this for us. We have to do this ourselves, Chairman. This is up to us. Each and every one of us in our countries must do what we can to achieve results at the global level. For this reason, every nation has a responsibility to act within its own territory. with the resources and partnerships that it can mobilize with the local communities and indigenous peoples, with our NGOs, citizens, to achieve results that we can achieve in short measure. And we cannot delay because future generations depend on it. Global action, my friends, begins with national action. Megadiverse countries are not asking for charity. We are demanding fair partnerships, scientific collaboration, technology transfer, reliable funding, and respect for local knowledge and traditions. Every decision we take in this room must have a tangible and direct impact on people's lives. Conserving biodiversity is not just about protecting species, it's about protecting life itself, the life of our people, life on Earth. It's about protecting our economies, our cultures, and our rights, the rights of every human being. Friends, colleagues, we did not come here just to talk about nature. We have come to set a concrete immediate and effective agenda to stop the lethal threat of species extinction with real actions on the ground in each of our countries and at the global level. For this, we will need to show maturity, flexibility, intelligence, tolerance, humility, empathy. We should cede ground in our positions, because that's the only way that we will achieve consensus. Please, let's put our egos to one side and come to the table. Our conscience and the urgency of the situation requires us to reach agreement. So I'd like to conclude, Chairman, Madam Secretary. by saying that the future we want will be decided in spaces like this, but only if we have the will and determination to act and reach consensus. The world expects from us results, and no more excuses. I invite you to work with determination and with the unstoppable drive to act and secure agreements. This is what posterity demands of us. Let this meeting be remembered as the moment when science and policy came together forever to defend life on Earth. Welcome to Panama.

Thank you, Your Excellency.

We know that climate change might cause loss of biodiversity, and our actions must, our decisions must lead to actions, and that is the great message by His Excellency. Action, decision, consensus. Thank you, says the Chairman.

With that, we conclude the opening of the meeting. We'll begin item two, organizational matters, momentarily. Colleagues, we will now move to agenda item 2, organizational matters. Before we begin our work, I would like to invite the Secretariat to provide some logistical information. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, distinguished delegates. It is a pleasure to see you all again. First of all, please note that this meeting is being held in person only. There is no online participation available. All plenary sessions will, however, be streamed on UN Web TV in all six official UN languages. Let me now begin with information on how to use the microphones. To request the floor, press the button once, and the light will turn green. When the chair gives you the floor, the technician will activate your microphone. The light will turn red, and you can start speaking. Each microphone in the seats allocated to United Nations organizations and other intergovernmental organizations has been assigned to three organizations. We therefore ask you to identify your organization before commencing your intervention so that your statement can be properly attributed. I hope that it's better for the interpreters. Okay, I will start again on the use of the microphones. To request the floor, press the button once, and the light will turn green. When the chair gives you the floor, the technician will activate your microphone, the light will turn red, and you can start speaking. Each microphone in the seats allocated to the United Nations organizations and other intergovernmental organizations has been assigned to three organizations. We therefore ask for you to identify your organization before commencing your intervention so that your statement can be properly attributed. In the case of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and major groups, your microphones are numbered, and when you are given the floor, the number will be announced accordingly. We likewise ask you to identify your organization before commencing your intervention so that your statement can be properly attributed. Delegates are requested to keep within the assigned time when taking the floor and to speak at a reasonable speed to facilitate the work of the interpreters. I will explain shortly in detail the assigned time for the interventions. Secondly, regarding headsets. Delegates who are not seated at a table will need to pick up a headset on their way into plenary. Please remember to return the headset on your way out after each session so that headphones can be recharged before the next session. Those assigned a seat at a table do not need to pick up a headset, as one is already provided for you. Thirdly, regarding statements. Delegates are requested to upload their written statements using the online application on the meeting page, www.cbd.int/conferences/panama-2025/sabsta27. In case of any difficulty in using the online system, delegates may send their statements by e-mail to statements@cbd.int. at cbd.int. It greatly facilitates the work of the interpreters if you upload your statements prior to your being given the floor. However, statements will only be posted on the website after they have been delivered. In any case, statements must be submitted within one hour after the close of the session in which the agenda item was considered. In your submission, please make sure to include the name of your country or organization and the agenda item on the first page of the document that is uploaded. Uploading instructions were included in your priority pass e-mail, along with your dedicated link, which leads you directly to the upload page. Kindly note that for reasons of transparency, all statements will be made public. There is no option for private submissions. In the event that a party or observer has submitted more than one version of their statement, we will only consider the most recently uploaded version. In view of the heavy agenda for this meeting, The chair will be limiting interventions to five minutes on behalf of regions, three minutes for individual parties, four minutes for indigenous peoples and local communities and major stakeholder groups, and two minutes for non-parties and other observers as time allows. A clock is provided for you on the screen to help you manage your time. But please, for the sake of interpreters, do not speed up your reading. Next, regarding scheduling. In line with usual practice, a typical day will comprise a morning session from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM, an afternoon session from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM, and, as necessary, an evening session from 7:30 to 10:30 PM. This schedule, however, is subject to change. The most up-to-date information will be made available on the conference webpage and on the CBD events application, and will be displayed on the monitors around the venue. This scheduling takes into account decision 16/25 of the Conference of the Parties. which recognized the need to limit evening negotiation sessions to reasonable hours to preserve the health of delegates. Therefore, unless otherwise agreed, the schedule will be arranged so that the day does not extend beyond 13 hours from the start of the first open-ended meeting of the day. Regarding meeting rooms. All plenary sessions will take place in this room, where seating is fixed. Parties and observers should ensure that they are sitting at the correct nameplate so that when they request the floor, they will be identified correctly to the chair. Please note that contact group room one is located on this floor, and contact group room two is located upstairs. Seating is not assigned in these rooms. Regarding side events, side events will take place at 1:15 PM every day of the meeting, starting today. In addition, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings, side events will also be held at 6:15 PM. Please consult the online schedule, as well as the monitors and the CBD Events app for the event title, location, and time. In addition to the schedule for side events, the CBD Events app provides easy access to the meeting schedule and documents. It is available both for Apple and Android devices and can be downloaded at the link that you see on the screen. Next, regarding the share your content link on the meeting web portal. You will note a share your content tab located on the meeting web page. Using this link, parties and observers are invited to share publications, information materials, and event flyers that are relevant to the issues being addressed by the subsidiary body. I would now like to offer a few words about our meeting venue. The entrance to the venue is open daily from 7:00 AM to the end of the last session of the day. The on-site restaurant will be open from 7:30 AM to 10:00 PM. Please note, food is not allowed in the meeting rooms. Drinks may be brought in if they are in a container with a lid. To reduce our environmental footprint, we ask all delegates to refill their water bottles at the designated water stations. Still? Okay. Finally, dear delegates, as we come together again, I take this opportunity to remind participants of the code of conduct in place to prevent harassment at UN system events. Based on this code of conduct, all UN system events are guided by ethical and professional standards, and all participants are expected to behave with integrity and respect towards everyone involved here at SPSA 27. We look forward to your kind cooperation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. I would now like to propose the rapporteur of this meeting. After consultation with the Bureau, I propose Ms. Ruliana Sarsanti of Indonesia as rapporteur. I see no objection, so I invite Mrs. Susanti to take a seat at the podium.

Are you ready to take the floor?

Are you ready to take the floor?

Thank you, thank you, Mrs. Susanti. Before we go to the next item, I would like to suggest that In order to make efficient use of time and to allow more time for discussions, we refrain from making individual statements to thank or congratulate the Chair, the host country, or the Secretariat. Therefore, I would like to invite the rapporteur to make a statement of thanks on behalf of all participants to that this can be avoided in individual intervention. Mrs. Susanti, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

On behalf of all the participants.

At this meeting, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Chair of the Subsidiary Body and members of the Bureau for their hard work in preparing for SBSTAD 27.

And I wish you the best of success for this meeting. On behalf of all of us, I thank the Executive Secretary.

Of the Secretariat and her team for the high-quality meeting document and logistical arrangement. I also thank the governments of Panama for welcoming us to their country, and those parties that have provided generous funding to facilitate the participation of representatives from developing countries.

I have no doubt that our deliberations will be very productive.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of all the participants.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Susanti. Welcome again. Now, this brings us to the adoption of the agenda. and organization of work. The Executive Secretary, in consultation with the Bureau, prepared a provisional agenda for this 27th meeting of SUBSAR. The provisional agenda of SUBSAR 27 is contained in document SUBSAR/27/1. And the annotations to the provisional agenda are contained in substar/27/1/Add1/Rev1. I first submit the provisional agenda for adoption. I see no objection, so the agenda is adopted. Oh, sorry. I can recognize China. China, you have the floor.

I think I pressed the wrong button. I mean, China is right next to me.

Okay, Chile, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair. Sorry about that. This intervention is on behalf of Gurlac. We would like to begin by warmly thanking Panama for welcoming us to this beautiful country and city. a mega diverse and warm country, a really warm to some of us, actually. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for the logistics, preparation, and timely submission of negotiation documents, and for all the work to make this meeting possible. However, Grola wishes to express its deep concern regarding the limiting funding available for the participants of parties from eligible countries at SAFTA 27, while acknowledging the efforts made by the Secretariat to support as many delegates as possible. For us, this situation directly affects the agenda and the organization of work. In this regard, we would like to recall Decision 16/25, which recommends that during the meetings of the subsidiary bodies, the number of contact groups and friends of the chair session held in parallel be limited, as much as possible, to the number of delegates per developing country party, whose participation has been supported by the Secretariat. Funding a single delegate for both meeting of the subsidiary body places developing countries at a clear disadvantage. The resulting disparity in the negotiation capacity for the parties that it's create is not only reflected in the establishment of multiple parallel contact groups, but also, one second, but also in the number of consecutive meeting days and prolonged working hours. We are aware that the Bureau organized the agenda while fundraising was still ongoing, and those plans with the best case scenario in mind. We also acknowledge that financial contributions to support participation are voluntary. However, the reality is that developing countries are consistently placed in a possible situation as it is simple not feasible for one delegate to attend two meetings simultaneously. Saying as this is a recurrent issue, GRILA requests that a provision be introduced to ensure equality in participation, specifically when only one delegate per party is funded, the number of agenda items should be kept accordingly, allowing only establishment of a single contact group at any given time. We believe that addressing this issue is essential to guarantee a fair, inclusive, and balanced process across all regions. Finally, Mr. Chair, it looks like there is an internet problem in the room. We would like to raise that. I have heard from many countries that it's not possible to connect to the delegate network, so I just wanted to add that. Thank you very much for all the work and all support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chile. Then I will give the floor to Egypt. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Egypt strongly supports the statement given by Chile regarding the funding, limited funding, making it a problem where only one participant cannot follow all of the important issues, and that will affect our negotiation, and it will not be fair. At the same time, since we arrived here, we have a problem with the net. It is a problem with the internet, which make it more complicated. So we urge the responsible agencies to take care of this issue. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Egypt. I see Thank you very much. I take note about the delegation, and we back to the Bureau to discuss on that. And maybe I can give the floor now to Secretariat in term in about the internet. Secretariat, you can provide some information.

Thank you for the information that the delegates' internet is not working. Our colleagues are looking into it and doing their best to reestablish connectivity as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Secretariat. Now, i see no other objection. So the agenda is adopted with the proposed, the changes proposed, but it is not substantive. issue, it was just to raise some issue in terms of participation and internet. Now, we can now adopt the agenda. Regarding the organization of work, the Secretariat, in consultation with the Bureau, proposed the allocation of tasks for the meeting as described in Annex 1 of the annotated agenda contained in document SUB/27/1/ADD1/REV1 and adopted in section 4 and Annex 1 of the scenario note contained in document SUBSTAR/27/1/Add2. With this explanation, I submit the organization of work for approval. I see no objection, so the organization of work is approved. Now we will proceed to the election of officers. I give the floor to the Secretariat to explain how we will elect Bureau members. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, dear delegates. Pursuant to Rule 26, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure, the Conference of the Parties, at its sixteenth meeting, elected Mr. Jean-Bruno Mikissa of Gabon as Chair of the Subsidiary Body at its second plenary session on 25 October last year, for a term of office extending until the end of the seventeenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Following the elections at the 25th and 26th meetings of the Subsidiary Body, the Bureau of the 27th meeting of the Subsidiary Body currently comprises the following members: Mr. Jean-Bruno Mikissa of Gabon as Chair; for the African States, Mr. Kenneth Wissep of Namibia; and Mr. Mostafa Madbouy of Morocco. For Asia-Pacific States, Mr. Zahidul Kabir of Bangladesh and Ms. Rulianna Susanti of Indonesia. For Eastern European States, Mr. Tolland Bino of Albania and Mr. Jan Pesnik of Czechia. For Latin American and Caribbean States, Ms. Aria St. Louis of Grenada with Mr. Francis Ray Polanco of the Dominican Republic as Statute for matters pertaining to the Nagoya Protocol. Ms. Paulina Stowers Salinas of Chile with Ms. Ana Laura Mayor Villamarín of Uruguay as substitute for matters pertaining to the Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols. For the Western European and other States, Mr. Scott Wilson of Canada, with Ms. Jane Stratford of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as substitute for the Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols. And finally, Ms. Sanne Kruit of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Ms. Juliana Susanti of Indonesia has just been elected as rapporteur for the meeting. In order to have staggered terms of office within the Bureau, the Subsidiary Body will elect five new members to serve on the Bureau for a term commencing at the end of the present meeting and ending at the close of the 29th meeting. These new members will replace the outgoing members from Albania, Bangladesh, Canada, Grenada, and Namibia. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Secretariat. Just to remind that in recent weeks, through the respective members of the SABSAB Bureau, Regions were invited to coordinate within their respective regional groups to nominate new Bureau members, and to ensure that selected candidates have the full support of their government and institution to dedicate time and travel to represent their respective region in SABSAB Bureau. It was also pointed out that, as SABSTA is being tasked to serve the protocols, it is preferable if nominees to the SABSTA Bureau are from a party to all the three instruments. It means the Convention, the Cartagena Protocol, and the Nagoya Protocol. Alternatively, And as are provided for in the text of the protocols, if nominee is from a country that is not a party to one of the protocols, then the region should also nominate a substitute from a country that is a party to the concerned protocol. It was emphasized that all regions should work internally to provide nominations and indicated that we will take up this item on the first session of this morning. I now open the floor to the regions for their nomination. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our region is very proud to nominate Nicolas Wagner of Switzerland to the Sub-Committee.

Mr. Wagner is a senior policy advisor with the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment. He's been very active here at CBD meetings for several years, and he's currently the Swiss CBD national focal point. We think he would be a fine addition to the Bureau. Thank you.

Thank you, Canada. Now I will give the floor to Seychelles, then Bangladesh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. To all of you, our region is pleased and honored to nominate Mr. Karen Khachaturian from Armenian Ministry of the Environment as a new Bureau member. Our colleague has experience from international arena. He has been covering a broad range of issues related to CBD from NBS up to science policy interference. So our region is sure that we are providing the Sub-Sub-Bureau with high-quality candidate. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Seshah. Now I give the floor to Bangladesh, then followed by South Africa.

Thank you, Chair. From the Asia-Pacific region, subgroup 4 of the region. Discussion is still going on, so we are expecting them shortly. So I'll inform as soon as I receive the names from the subgroup. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to South Africa.

Thank you so much, Chair. I'm going to speak on behalf of the Africa Group. Kindly note that we are still in consultation and we will provide feedback tomorrow. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. I thank all the regions that have nominated their respective. We shall return to the election of new members of the Bureau tomorrow morning at 10:00, please. 10:00, please. I encourage members of the Bureau to continue consultation with their respective regional groups before then they can be ready with their nomination. And with that, we have concluded. Oh, sorry, Chile, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This is on behalf of GRULAC. We also are still in consultation, so we hope to have the information tomorrow at 10:00 AM. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chile. Tomorrow at 10:00, please. And with that, we have concluded agenda item 2 for this morning. Note that we will return to the election of officers at a later time. Distinguished delegates, we will now turn to the substantive agenda items of this meeting. As you all know, we have a very heavy agenda this Substantive. In the interest of ensuring that we manage our time effectively and address all agenda items with due attention, I may from time to time suggest to close the list of speakers as needed. I will seek your cooperation and indulgence in order to maintain a constructive and focused discussion throughout the meeting. We now continue with our agenda. We will now take up our first substantive agenda item, item 3, planning, monitoring, reporting and review, global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity This item focused on the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The procedures for the global review are outlined in COP Decision 16/32. In this decision, the COP established an ad hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group to oversee and guide the compilation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant scientific, technical, and technological information for consideration by the Sub-Committee on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice in preparing the scientific and technical aspects of the Global Report. I now invite the Secretariat to introduce the document for this item. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. On item 3, the Secretariat prepared document CBD/SEPPSTA/27/2, the Global Review of Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This document provides an update on the work of the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group. It presents a summary of the submission status of IMBSAPs, national targets, and national reports. which are inputs to the global report, and it presents a draft annotated outline for the global report and a draft recommendation. The document is supported by two information documents. The first is CBD/SAPSTAD/27/INF/4/Rev1. This presents a comprehensive analysis of the submission status of the INBSAPs and the national targets. There was a slight revision made after it was issued to one of the graphs, which is why there's a rev. And CBD/SEBSTAS/27/INF/5 provides the reflections of the Advisory Group on the draft annotated outline. It's important to note that the annotated outline for the Global Report underwent a peer review after its publication for this meeting, and the Advisory Group has issued some reflections on this item and the peer review process, including their proposals on how the annotated outline could be developed in order to reflect the peer review comments. This has been made available as Information Document 5. Note that the recommendation under this item is expected to provide guidance related to intersessional work. It does not include a draft COP decision, as the discussion will continue at SEPSTA 28.

Thank you. Thank you, Secretariat. I will now invite Mr. Ezekiel who are the co-chairs of this group, to provide a brief update on the work of the Advisory Group. Mr. Ezekiel, you have the floor. Mexico, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Dear colleagues, I am presenting this statement on behalf of the Ad Hoc Scientific Technical Advisory Group, #Co-Chairs. My other co-chair, Emily Nicholson from Australia, was not able to travel, but my colleague Alexander Shestakov, or Sasha, who is a fellow member, of the hashtag is here and has agreed to be another resource person for the hashtag during the week. The hashtag for the preparation of the global report on collective progress in implementation of the Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was established by COP through decision 16/32. This group was established last April and comprises 25 experts from across the world, 15 nominated by parties and 10 by observer organizations. The group has met five times to develop the annotated outline and revise it in response to peer review. The revision was the focus of the two last meetings of the group. The hashtag has carefully considered the comments in the peer review and developed a revised amendment annotated outline in information document 5. The information document includes the hashtags attempt to address the comments from the peer review in the annotated outline, and thus, it may be useful for parties to review this and see See it as a helpful starting point for the negotiations. The revised notated outline in the information document is accompanied by the summary of the peer review comments received, along with a narrative of the views of the advisory group on this, and how they may be taken into account during discussions with a full list on how each comment was addressed, available in an accompanying document, which is available under the tab "Other Documents" on the website for the fifth meeting of the hashtag. The comment received span a broad spectrum of issues, including editorial issues, comments on the structure of the outline, specific technical comments, and general observations. I will summarize the key changes in response to the peer review comments. under five themes, and I apologize, this is a bit long, but as information documents are not translated, I'm hoping this oral statement, which is interpreted, will be helpful. Number one, editorial and structural issues. The group attempted to address the editorial issues to the extent possible. We fully aligned the text with Decision 16/32, and as opposed to repeating large portions of the text and refer back to the original language. The advisory group also did some streamlining on the text, and we moved the goal by goal assessment and the summary. Second, sources of information. Several parties and observers comment on whether and how the global report should incorporate different sources. There were a number of comments relate to information on synergies with other multilateral environmental agreements, non-state actors, and ensuring inclusivity in the drafting of the report in order to bring diverse perspectives, including those of indigenous peoples, local communities, women, and youth. Our overarching principle here was consistency with decision 16/32, which aims for inclusivity, including processes and opportunities for different groups to engage. Number three, regional analysis. Some parties suggest that presenting regional dimensions of implementations could result in an over-complication of the report or result in a disproportionate focus or lack of focus on some regions. The Advisory Group notes that regional and regional dialogues have highlighted that many regions are facing specific challenges. The Advisory Group proposes that it may be relevant to highlight this in the report. This has been reflected by changing the language to focus on the specific barriers and challenges that have been highlighted by the parties from various regions. Number four, many comments focus on the provision of means of implementation and on finance. Many parties know that the capacity building should be better captured under the section on the provision of means of implementation. The advisory group has taken this comment on board. There were several comments on how or whether subsidies should be included in this section of the report on means of implementation, keeping in mind that subsidies will be captured under the summary of target 18. After discussion, the advisory group proposed that section on the provision of means of implementation will be mostly focused On the specific challenges and needs for developing countries and the provisions of means of implementations to developing countries, however, information on this topic from any target may be useful to highlight here. And five, comments on pathways and recommendations to identify and address challenges. Several comments relate on how or whether the global report should include scenario or pathway modeling. Some parties argue that this is exceeding the mandate in decision 1632, while others strongly support such analysis. Paragraph seven of the decision states that the global review will culminate in a decision or decisions including recommendations to identify and address challenges in collective progress in implementation, in particular for developing parties. To better reflect the decision of the Advisory Group, include a short section in the goal-by-goal assessment, part 2C, and a section in the conclusions and key messages in part 3, titled moving forward, challenges, barriers, and opportunities. A full analysis on progress towards 2050 goals and vision will require some consideration of future scenarios, but given the timing for the production of the global report, this analysis will be likely very limited. There were also comments on the balance between having a policy-relevant versus a policy-prescriptive report. We understand that the role of the Global Report and of the Advisory Group in overseeing its preparation is not to prescribe or even recommend specific policy directions. The language of the conclusions has been refined to reflect that the report will identify challenges, barriers, and opportunities, and summarize potential non-prescriptive options for addressing these barriers. Finally, there were several comments that relate to producing the final report, rather than the outline, such as sources of information, dealing with data gaps, et cetera. The Advisory Group will reflect on these comments on its work as we move forward. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mexico. Thank you, Benitez, Ezekiel, and all members of the ad hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group for your hard work and dedication. Before I open the floor, I would like to encourage you to keep your statement short and concise and to focus on the essential points. I will be limiting intervention to five minutes for parties asking on behalf on region, three minutes for individual parties, four minutes for IPC, and major stakeholders group, and two minutes for non-parties and other observers, time permitting. Please upload the full text to the Secretariat within one hour after the close of this session. Please note, however, that your key points, especially those that you would like to have reflected in the draft recommendation should be read out in the room. Following intervention by observer, I will give a brief chance for parties that may wish to comment or support any specific proposal made by this organization. This approach will also be followed during the review of conference room papers at a later stage. I now open the floor for intervention on item 3. Preferably, I will start with the parties speaking for a regional group, followed by parties Thank you. I can recognize Zimbabwe, then Canada, and UK. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Zimbabwe makes the statement on behalf of Africa. Africa appreciates the work done so far by the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group. Africa notes that the review of the collective progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal GPF will include summaries of regional and global trends based on headline and binary indicators, Africa emphasizes that the accuracy and comprehensiveness of this information are contingent upon the prompt submission of updated NP SARPs and seventh national reports, and we recognize that ongoing technical challenges with the online reporting platform may pose difficulties for some parties. Africa urges the Secretariat to strengthen technical and financial support to ensure timely and equitable reporting by all parties, thereby promoting a balanced and inclusive global review. Whilst that process, the outline and structure of the global review developed so far, is designed to produce a descriptive overview rather than a diagnostic evaluation, This type of approach has led to failure of the previous frameworks. It's risk cataloguing what is being done without sufficiently addressing why we have exceeded or failed. The guiding questions, for example, in part two, focus on the what, but not why or so what. especially regarding the single greatest barrier of implementation, which is finance. We find the guiding questions lack the depth needed to tackle the core obstacles to implementing the GPF. Simply listing challenges or barriers regarding the means of implementation is insufficient. A rigorous analysis must dissect the adequacy, accessibility, and effectiveness of financial flows. Chair, Africa calls for a deeper, robust financial resources analysis. This is not a new topic, but a necessary deepening of the existing questions. We will submit our text suggestions on the online platform. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Zimbabwe. Now I give the floor to Canada, followed by UK, then Norway.

Thank you, Chair. Canada strongly supports strengthening the accountability of Parties towards CBD's commitment, while also ensuring that review processes are efficient, streamlined, and avoid duplication, also to avoid undue burden placed on Parties. Canada notes with concern the slow progress made by parties in submitting their NBSAP and would like to propose additional language that encourages all parties that have not yet done so to revise and update their NBSAP in alignment with the KMGBF, as well as to submit their full national report by or before the February 2026 deadline. As we've reached the midpoint of our implementation of the KMGBF, The Global Review of Implementation is a key element of CBD’s accountability framework, and Canada believes that Parties should endorse the Annotated Outline to allow the drafting of the Global Report to start as soon as possible and with clear guidance. We have no particular concern with the approach of considering the Information Document as a basis of our negotiation. And we do have some proposed edits to the official document to share, and we would ask those to be incorporated into the information document version as appropriate. Our changes are in four areas. First, Canada believes it's important to ensure the outline of the global report accurately reflects the guidance provided by Parties in Decision 16/32, and we do have some proposal to remove or adjust the content in the outline. that we feel goes beyond this direction already provided by the party. Second, Canada feels that there are certain areas of the outline that would represent a duplication of information, and we feel it's important to have a clear plan on how to avoid duplication throughout the report. Third, Canada would like to propose some additional wording emphasizing the importance for the Global Report to provide, as its primary goal, an assessment for each target on whether we are collectively on track to achieve them. And fourth, Canada believe it's important to ensure the Global Report speaks to all areas of work of the CMGBF in a balanced way. In particular, when looking at the section of means of implementation, we have some proposed edits to seek to maintain this balance within the report. In addition, when discussing means of implementation, Canada believes that the content should remain on means of implementation as a whole, including our full subsidies, target 18, as well as capacity building and scientific and technical input, target 20. Finally, Canada believes that the proposed section 2 on geographical and temporal coverage and coverage of cross-cutting issues is outside the scope of the annotated outline and should therefore be deleted from Annex 1. We will submit our written comment to the Secretariat. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Canada. Now I would like to give the floor to UK, followed by Norway. When you take the floor, please provide if you are the group regional or the single parties, please. UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I'm making the statement on behalf of the UK. We are only five years away from 2030 and at a key juncture in reviewing our collective progress in implementing the GBF. To ensure a robust and comprehensive global review, we need an outline which enables the preparation of a robust, comprehensive, and balanced global report that is based on the best available evidence. But a good outline is meaningless without the data and information that will underpin the global report. Therefore, it is critical that we submit full national reports, including the headline and binary indicators, by the deadline. It is also important to complement these with information and data from other sources in line with decision 16/32. We propose amendments to reflect this in the draft recommendation. We thank the Secretariat and ASHTAC for their work on the annotated outline. The UK can agree to using the revised outline in the information document as a good basis for discussions. It addresses many of the issues that were raised during the peer review and suggests a clear structure that helps address duplications. We have submitted our proposed amendments on both versions of the outline and are ready to engage in the discussions based on either version. Our amendments are aimed at ensuring balance in the global report, avoiding duplication between the means of implementation section and the target by target assessment in section 2b, and providing a meaningful analysis to inform the global review at COP17. To achieve this, section 2d should include an analysis of challenges, successes, and means of implementation required by all parties for delivering the whole framework. but also include an analysis of the successes and specific challenges faced by developing countries, an assessment of all financial flows and cooperation and other supports available to them, and an assessment of gaps between the required means of implementation and availability. Our amendments also intend to clarify that any information on potential non-prescriptive options provided in the Global Report to address the identified challenges and gaps would only help inform the consideration of possible recommendations at COP17. ASHTAG is well placed to provide scientific input, not just on identifying the gaps and challenges, but also on the best available science on the most effective actions to address them. This will enable COP17 to make evidence-based decisions on the most effective actions for supporting Parties to achieve the goals and targets and for overcoming the challenges identified in their national reports. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, UK. Now I give the floor to Norway, followed by Japan.

Thank you, Chair. I'm making the statement on behalf of Norway. Norway appreciates the efforts of the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group, and we welcome the annotated outline of the global report on collective progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. COP17 in Njeruvan will serve as a critical milestone to assess whether we are collectively on track to meet the framework's goals and targets. The global report will be instrumental in informing the global review. It should synthesize all available data and other sources as outlined in decision 16/32, while maintaining national reports as the primary source of information. Norway reiterates the importance of the global report presenting a comprehensive overview of collective progress to date. This includes an assessment of each target, as well as challenges parties and other stakeholders face in achieving them. The information provided by the Global Report should support policy-relevant options for the global review and future action. Norway takes note of the outline revised prepared by the ASGAG as presented in IMP/5. In our view, the updated version of the outline better reflects Decision 16/32, and the draft could be a good basis for further discussions. Finally, Norway encourages Parties to ensure an inclusive and participatory process in the development of their national reports, and to submit the reports well before the deadline. What you do makes a difference, and at COP17 we must decide what kind of difference we want to make. We will submit our comments in writing. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to Japan, followed by South Africa, then Swaziland. Sorry, Swaziland. You have the floor. Japan.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak on behalf of Japan. Japan highly appreciates the efforts of ASHTAG and the Secretariat, and so we hope the global review process will accelerate the GBF implementation. The Global Report will be an important document to provide evidence base for the global review. So we expect that the global report will reflect the parties' challenges and progress. COP decisions, especially the decision 16/32, should not be reopened or renegotiated in this process. On this basis, we would like to make two comments on the draft outline. First, We support paragraph 5A included in the INF/5, which will analyze the relationship between the national targets and the global targets. Such analysis will clarify which targets are covered by each country's goals. We believe that this will identify which targets are inadequately covered, and in other words, which implies which targets need international support. Second, we believe that the global report should highlight not only challenges, but also effective measures and successful cases. The national reports would be major information sources, and in Japan, we will be happy to provide such information through various means if appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Japan. Now I give the floor to South Africa, followed by Switzerland, then New Zealand.

Thank you so much, Chair. South Africa support the statement made by Zimbabwe on behalf of the Africa Group. We commend the work that was done by the Secretariat, the hashtag in preparing the document and the draft recommendations. We also note the annotated outline of the global report contained in the annex, and we are ready to engage further in refining the outline during the contact group. South Africa further support paragraph 4, which encourage parties to submit their seventh national report before the deadline to facilitate the preparation of the global report. However, we wish to express concerns regarding the absence of an online version of the Seventh National Report and the inability to extract information from the online tool. These limitations make it difficult to coordinate inputs from multiple partners and to align reporting with other stakeholders. particularly given that the reporting tool automatically adopts the question based on the responses provided in previous sections, thus necessitating further consultation. In terms of paragraph 12 of document CBD/SA/27/2, South Africa would like to emphasize that the global review should be able to answer the following: whether collective efforts of national targets of NBSAP is delivering measurable progress towards the 2030 targets and the 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature. It should also be able to answer the extent to which the means of implementation are effective, available, accessible by developing countries to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It must also answer with a case study as an example, effectively demonstrating practical approaches, including those related to the consideration of Section C of the framework. This should include inclusive approach, particularly those involving IPLCs, women and girls, and other stakeholders to enhance the effective implementation of the JBF at all levels. Finally, South Africa supports the elements of the draft recommendation, and we will be submitting our textual inputs to the Secretariat. However, we have noted the limited internet connection in this room that might affect our ability to submit the document in time. Thank you.

Thank you, South Africa. Now I give the floor to Switzerland, followed by New Zealand, then Denmark.

Thank you, Chair, distinguished colleagues. Switzerland would like to stress the importance of ensuring that the Global Report provides a comprehensive and robust fact base on the state of implementation of the KMGBF. This will be critical to enable COP17 to adopt a well-founded recommendation on how best to address identified challenges and to advance progress towards achieving the goals and targets of the framework. Based on the pre-session document 27/2, Switzerland has several comments and proposed changes. First, regarding the draft recommendation. The quality of the Global Report depends, among other things, on the national reports received. We therefore suggest to urge Parties to submit their seventh national reports by the submission deadline. We also suggest to urge Parties that have not yet done so to revise or update their NBSAPs, as requested in decision 15/6, as soon as possible. Second, Mr. Chair, on the annotated outline for the global report as contained in the annex of document 27/2. In paragraph 5(e), We should specify that the summary includes information on the state of implementation of each target based on the headline indicator and binary indicators. On paragraph 7, regarding the summary of provision of means of implementation, in the proposed sub-paragraph (a), we need to ensure that it is based on all relevant information and all financial flows. In Decision 16/32, paragraph 18(g), we agreed that the sources go beyond information from the GEF and the GBFF. As a result, we should include information from other international public and private sources, such as multilateral and regional development banks, multilateral environmental funds, and relevant international organizations. On subparagraph 7 and, we are of the view that the current proposal goes beyond decision 16/32 and have proposals for amendments. On paragraph 8, regarding contributions of MEAs, we note that the scope has been expanded beyond MEAs to include also information regarding international organizations and processes. We suggest to include such information in a separate sub-paragraph and keep the primary focus of this structural element on contributions by MEAs. Finally, Mr. Chair, Switzerland thanks the ASHTAC for the revised annotated outline that is contained in Information Document 5. We see some improvements in this revised version, namely with regard to the structure of the outline. While we have submitted our proposed changes in document 27/2, we would be ready to also use the information document 5 as a basis for our deliberations on the annotated outline. We have submitted our proposed changes in writing, and I thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. Now I give the floor to New Zealand, followed by Denmark, then Hungary.

Thank you, Chair. New Zealand welcomes the draft recommendation and annotated outline of the Global Report on collective progress in implementing the KMGBF. The global review is a critical mechanism to reinforce collective ambition and implementation efforts. The review should provide a robust assessment of global progress towards the global goals and targets, and inform a strong COP decision on the outcomes. Accordingly, we consider the draft annotated outline to be well aligned with the intent of COP decision 16/32 and a strong foundation for our work here in Panama. However, New Zealand has some concerns with the current annex. In particular, we consider it critical that the Global Report should include an assessment of the state of global progress towards each global target, consistent with our COP16 decision. This assessment should be able to take into account all relevant sources, where relevant and applicable, including, but not limited to, national reports and indicator data. Several of our concerns, however, have been successfully addressed in the updated version of the outline posted by the hashtag. And so we would support working from the updated annex if this will enable us to advance our work more quickly. We do have a number of other small but important edits to ensure consistency with the COP decision, which we will submit in writing on both versions of the annex. In summary, these proposals address the target by target analysis. They would propose to include progress towards the 2030 mission. We think also where we enable breakdowns to highlight key trends, we could provide for the ability to analyze by direct and underlying drivers where applicable and relevant. And finally, we think it's important that the global report should include a key messages or forward-looking section that addresses the challenges, barriers, and opportunities, as this will enable the report to inform actionable, policy-relevant recommendations in the final Global Review COP decision. New Zealand will submit these proposed edits in writing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, New Zealand. Denmark, you have the floor, followed by Hungary, then France.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Denmark would like to express its appreciation to the CBD Secretariat and the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group for preparing the draft annotated outline of the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Denmark is ready to engage in the negotiations, either on the basis of the official document 27/2 or the new outline in the information document 5. Starting the discussion on the basis of the information document 5 could save us some time, as it already attempts to capture some of the views provided by parties. However, Denmark highly stresses not to reopen and renegotiate elements that were already negotiated and agreed upon, COP 15 and COP 16, as some elements seem to reappear in the information document 5. At this stage, Denmark will propose some amendments to the outline in document 27/2. For better communication and readability, we propose to add a concise summary of the global report's conclusions and key messages right before the introductory part. In paragraph 5b of part 2, section b, Denmark proposes to add reference to the "contributions from indigenous peoples and local communities, women and youth". In paragraph 5e of the same section, it should be clearly stated that the outline of the global report will provide an analysis of the state of collective implementation of each of the global biodiversity framework targets based on the headline and binary indicators. In Part 2B5E and Part 2F9C, Denmark also considers it crucial to retain references to the monitoring framework and indicators and ensure alignment with the relevant COP decisions. Paragraph 7A of Section D of Part 2 regarding the provision of means of implementation should include targets 18, 19, and 20 as well, We also propose to add other relevant information in addition to the reports of the GEF Council on the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund. In Denmark’s view, the title of section E of part 2 should be consistent with paragraph 18 of the note by the Secretariat, so it should refer to contributions of relevant multilateral environmental agreements and international organizations and processes. To better reflect this, in the title we propose an additional paragraph 8 bis of this section. On the sub-state recommendation, Denmark proposes an additional paragraph 3 bis to urge parties that have not yet done so to submit their NBSTAPs. On paragraph 6, Denmark proposes to use stronger language by approving the annotated outline. We will submit in writing. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Denmark. Now I give the floor to Hungary, followed by France, then Sweden. Hungary, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Hungary supports the statement made by Denmark. In general, we consider a solid and comprehensive global report essential for the global review process. And therefore, we welcome the upcoming exchange at this meeting, as it will enhance the validity of the coming report, as well as ownership among parties. Meanwhile, we would like to stress not to reopen and renegotiate elements that were already agreed and negotiated at previous COPs. For instance, we consider it particularly important to use the agreed language for all sources of information and the full list from COP decision 16/32 in order to avoid long discussions on this issue. Mr. Chair, while we are supportive of most parts of the annotated outline in document SUBSTA 20/11/2, we will submit some adjustments on this document to make it more aligned with the existing COP decision and helping to improve the communicability of the Global Report. An important element to highlight among our proposed amendments is that the outline of the Global Report should provide with analysis not only for the regional and global trends, but also of the state of implementing of each of the GBF targets based on the headline and binary indicators. Referring to the opening statement of Madam Executive Secretary, in which she highlighted the vital importance of substance advice for the Global Report, Hungary remains hopeful that by the end of this week we will be able to adopt, not only take off the annotated outline, and by this providing a solid basis for the Secretariat and the Advisory Group to continue their work on the Global Report. By this, we would like to confirm that Hungary is flexible to engage in the negotiations either on the basis of the official Substantive Document 2011/2, to which we submit our comments, or the new outline in the information document containing the reflections of the Advisory Group. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Hungary. Now I give the floor.

To France, followed by Sweden and the Netherlands. France, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. France supports the intervention of Denmark. We also would like to welcome the work of the ATAG as well as the Secretariat for having prepared this document for the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This report must become a basis for a robust discussion for the process of the global review, which will lead up to COP 17. The discussion that we will have this week must enhance the work of the parties as well as the non-state actors. The information document, which includes the PARE contributions, is also very important, and 15/6 and 1632 as decisions are very important regarding scientific sources. We have a number of amendments that we would like to draw to the attention of the plenary. For the global review, for us, we would like it to be clearly indicated that the report will provide an analysis of the state of the collective implementation for all of the targets of the framework on the base of binary and headline indicators. This is the main goal of this exercise. Regarding the means for implementation, this part should include at least 18, 19 and 20 targets of the framework. Regarding sub 27 recommendation, we support the proposal of Denmark to add three bis to require the states that have not yet done so to provide their national reports. We would also call for enhancement of the content of the reports and replace encourage with urge, in English, urges. Mr. Chair, I thank you, and we will send our comments in writing to the Secretariat.

Thank you, France.

I give the floor to Sweden, followed by Netherlands, then European Union. Sweden, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a statement on behalf of Sweden. Sweden supports the statement by Denmark, Hungary and France. Sweden supports a transparent process for a global review of collective policies and the implementation of the KMGBF that lead to conclusions and relevant recommendations on how we, the parties and the whole society, can achieve the 2030 action targets, our common vision until 2030, as well as the global goals and the 2050 vision. The global report should include conclusions and easily understandable key messages to inform a COP 17 decision, which should encourage parties to improve actions and efforts if needed. Sweden welcomes the work of the Ashtech and we are flexible to engage in the discussion based on the reflections in the annotated outline in the INF document 5. However, we underline the need for all sections in the INF document to be in line with the decision 15/6 and 16/32. Sweden is of the view that the global report should be based on data and information from the parties as key source, and best available peer-reviewed science as well as knowledge and information as agreed at COP16, including traditional knowledge, for example, from existing and upcoming local biodiversity outlook reports. We are further of the view that actors other than national governments have an important role to play in the implementation of the KMGBF. The global report should consider the commitments, especially those from IPBES women and youth. We encourage the CBD Secretariat to make available the online portal for reporting of commitments as soon as possible, and to actively invite all actors to report, for example, through targeted communication or targeted information material. Sweden will submit text suggestions on the in-session document, and we invite the Chair to consider them in future documents. That’s which version we deal with. Thank you.

Thank you, sweden. Netherlands, you have the floor, followed by European Union, then Mexico.

Thank you, Chair. Distinguished delegates, I'm making this statement on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The King of the Netherlands would like to thank the CBD Secretariat and the Ashtac for their hard work in the preparation of the draft annotated outline of the Global Report. The Netherlands would like to support the opening statement made by Denmark, and we are ready to proceed in negotiations on the basis of either the document Substat 27/2 or the new outline produced by the Ashtac in INF Doc 5. In response to the outline in document subset 27/2, there are several elements we would like to raise. The Netherlands is in favor of a robust system of monitoring and reporting. We underline the importance of the use of scenarios and models to aid the identification of current and future regional and global trends of the implementation of biodiversity action and for the outlook toward the 2030 mission and 2050 vision for biodiversity. The Netherlands furthermore stresses the need to refrain from renegotiating agreed texts or reopening discussions that have already taken place at COP15 and COP16. Then some specific suggestions. In paragraph 7 of the draft recommendations in document SUB27/2, a technical correction is needed to clarify that it is the Executive Secretary, with support from the ASG, who will prepare the Global Report. In paragraph 5f of the annex, the Netherlands proposes to delete "where possible" from the beginning of the sentence. The Netherlands is currently working on its national report for both the European and Caribbean Netherlands and aims to submit its national report before the deadline. We urge other Parties to do the same, to ensure the Global Review will be representative of the current state of biodiversity. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Netherlands. Now I give the floor to European Union, followed by Mexico, then Morocco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The European Union supports the statement by Denmark. We consider a solid global report to be essential for the global review process and therefore greatly appreciate the work on the global report outline by the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group and the Secretariat. The European Union, in cooperation with various partners, organized a regional dialogue in September to aid the preparation of the seventh national report. And although we recognize the challenges ahead, we have also been able to exchange some solutions. We're working very hard to submit the EU seventh national report ahead of the deadline and urge all parties to submit theirs in time for consideration in the global report. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union.

I now give the floor to Mexico, followed by Morocco and India.

Thank you, Chairman. Our delegation is grateful for the work done by the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group for preparation of the Global Report on Collective Progress in Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We take note of progress in submitting national biodiversity strategies and presentation of national goals, and we urge the parties to submit their seventh national reports before the end of February 2026. In our case, we are prioritizing the reports on actions and indicators, and we recommend that ASHTAG maintain technical rigor in breaking down the indicators to illustrate the ecosystem's trends. and groups of species in relation to indigenous peoples and local communities, women, youth, girls, and people with disabilities. Our delegation believes it is a viable outline, and we don't propose changes. We agree that we should consider information paper 5 for our discussions. With regard to the recommendation, we just have minor editorial comments, which we are submitting in writing. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias, Mexico. Thank you very much, Mexico.

Now I give the floor to Morocco, followed by India. and by Uruguay. Morocco, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Morocco supports the intervention by South Africa on behalf of Africa. Morocco expresses its appreciation for the work of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group for preparation of the Global Report on collective progress in implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework. We propose a few adjustments. to enhance the relevance and efficacy of this process. Firstly, to enhance this report with qualitative analyses to identify successes, challenges, and specific needs, particularly in terms of resources, technology transfer, and capacity building. To ensure an inclusive and balanced approach that reflects regional diversity and highlights the contributions of Indigenous peoples, local communities, and non-state actors. Regarding the annotated outline of the Global Report, we recommend that the introductory section specify the added value of the report in relation to the Global Biodiversity Outlook and highlight its link to Vision 2050 and Mission 2030. that the analysis for progress combine quantitative data and qualitative elements to better identify the successes and needs, particularly of the developing countries; that the report highlight the contributions of non-state actors, while at the same time avoiding double counting; and finally, that it highlight the synergies between biodiversity, climate, and sustainable development. Thank you.

Now I give the floor to India, followed.

By Uruguay, and the Russian Federation.

India.

Thank you, Chair. I am making statement on behalf of India. India welcomes the Secretariat's note on the global review of collective progress in the implementation of KMGBF. We appreciate the comprehensive approach adopted, including the compilation of national reports, biodiversity strategies and action plans, and national targets, as well as use of multiple complementary sources of information to inform the global report. India underscores the critical importance of timely and high-quality submissions of the seventh national report, which remain the primary source of information for assessing collective progress. We encourage all parties to provide their reports on or parts thereof in advance of the deadline, and support the active involvement of actors beyond national governments in reporting their commitments to ensure a complete and accurate assessment. We note the emphasis on scientific, technical, and traditional knowledge inputs, and stress that integrating data from diverse ecosystems indigenous peoples and local communities, and cross-cutting societal groups in essential to achieving an inclusive and holistic understanding of biodiversity trends and pressures. India highlights the need to consider the specific challenges faced by developing countries, least developed countries, and small island developing states in implementing the framework. India requests to include mega biodiverse countries in the analysis. Particularly, I would like to mention that in section part 3, para 11A, the mega biodiverse countries may please be included. Capacity building, technical support. and knowledge sharing remain critical for enabling all parties to achieve their national targets aligned with the global goals. In conclusion, India reaffirms its commitment to contribute constructively to the global review process, leveraging both national experience and international cooperation to ensure that global report reflects an accurate, inclusive, and actionable picture of progress towards 2050 vision for biodiversity. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, India. Uruguay, you have the floor, followed by Russian Federation, then Egypt. Uruguay, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Uruguay. Thanks, Secretariat, for all of the work and the work of the ASTAG in producing this document. We broadly support the annotated outline for the Global Report on collective progress to implementing the Kunming-Montreal Framework, which is in document 27/2. We believe that this is in line with the relevant COP decisions. However, we highlight the importance that the Global Review be based on the seven national reports to be submitted by the Parties, as well as other technical and scientific input that are peer reviewed and duly referenced. and we should also consider the disparity of knowledge and circumstances in different regions. We also point out that the global databases are not always adequate to substitute national data, so their use should be cautious, and we should avoid reaching conclusions that do not reflect the realities of the various parties. Thank you.

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

Egypt, then Guatemala.

Mr. Chair, I have a statement on behalf of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation is satisfied with the productive work done by the ASTAG. to prepare the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the framework program. We would like to thank the Secretariat for organizing the work of the advisory group and for preparing this document, CBD/27/2, and also the information documents CBD/27/5 and CBD/27/4. for revision one. We would like to note that a special advisory group, the ad hoc group, has done a great deal of work on the annotated outline of the global plan, which we see in the appendix to CBC Substa 16-5. Several delegations today have mentioned this appendix and that it should be used as the basis for our further work, as well as the basis for the future. And you, Chair, may create a group to work on this in the future. What we would like to note is the following points. It is essential to use national data as a basis for any global review on the global framework. The review of 2026, it seems to us, will be very hard without receiving NBSAPs and national reports in order to do a complete and in-depth review. In these conditions, the review should have a special section about the limitations to the preparation using global data. It would be possible only to use information from verified sources, above all, materials seen by the states beforehand and approved by them. In this connection, we believe that the first review should concentrate on analysis of the national targets and their correspondence to the targets. to discover the gaps and the challenges in preparing NB SOPS for the seventh reports, and using indicators and financial plans to put forward specific avenues for bridging these gaps. Without having enough data, national data that is representative enough, we cannot see how it is possible to give a proper picture of the state of biodiversity at this stage. Without serious preparation and without adopting a roadmap at COP17, And this must be based on a representative number of NBSAPs, seventh and eighth national reports, and IPBES materials in order to be full-fledged. Russian Federation supports the statement by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group. We have a number of proposals for the recommendations text and the text of the annotated plan as well, the annotated outline, and we will provide them in writing in the appendix to our statement. We are prepared to work actively in the contact group. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Russia Federation. Just I want to remind parties that time constraints, we have to respect our time allocated and be precise, concise, succinct, please. Now I give the floor to Egypt, followed by Guatemala, then Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, Egypt supports that being given by South Africa on behalf of Africa, as well as other countries. Secondly, we have already prepared MPSAP. But when it comes to implementation, we have to make it very clear that, at least in our side, that it took us almost a year to make people understand what's GBF. And then we have to look at the main challenge, which is the financial. So we have to spend almost another year to get the biodiversity finance plan to be able to make a proper MBSAP. Having said that, I challenge any country that they can provide information on how much it costs to cover one or two targets, especially target two, which deal with ecosystem restoration. We need billions, not millions. So the whole title here, it should be provisional. It is fine to make analysis only on the national targets. But when it comes to NBSAP, as Executive Secretary made it very clear, it's only 55 countries. We still have a long way to get things right. And the same thing applies for the national reports. And that's why I think, or Egypt thinks, that the whole title of this item should be provisional rather than anything else. To save the time, Mr. Shah, we will send our detailed comments from Egypt online, provided that internet exists, because we didn't have it for three hours now. We are trying. Thank you.

Thank you, Egypt. Now I give the floor to Guatemala, followed by Indonesia, then Finland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Guatemala recognizes the great progress made in the annotated outline on the Global Report on Collective Progress in the implementation of the GBF, and we have a few comments to ensure that this instrument reflects the needs and realities of countries such as ours. First of all, we believe it is essential to recognize the specific challenges before developing countries. and with limited institutional capacities to meet the deadlines for submitting national reports. This reality should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment, but as a structural limitation that requires understanding and specific support. Guatemala proposes

Kelly, inform me.

The global report include gap analysis on financing and financing needs to achieve the framework goals. This assessment is crucial for future decisions such as resource mobilization should go beyond general descriptions and provide concrete data that drive actions. We believe it is fundamental to include specific information on implementation gaps with regard to indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth, and other relevant stakeholders, these groups who require support through accessible financing mechanisms, capacity building, and crucially, full recognition of their rights and contributions. Guatemala. welcomes the inclusion of synergies across environmental agreements, including specifically the Rio, CITES, Ramsar Conventions and other relevant instruments. These synergies are fundamental in boosting the efficiency of implementation efforts. We propose that there be data transparency and an understanding as to when alternative sources are used. insofar as they improve scientific analysis. Finally, Guatemala believes it's crucial for the report to include specific recommendations on strengthening the means of implementation for developing countries, improved technology transfer mechanisms, mobilization of financial resources from all sources, strengthening of South-South and North-South cooperation, and recognition of the contributions of all relevant stakeholders. We will be submitting our comments in writing shortly.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much indeed, Guatemala.

Indonesia, you have the floor, followed by Finland, then Spain.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates. Indonesia extends its heartfelt gratitude to the Government and people of Panama for their warm hospitality and excellent arrangements in hosting this significant meeting. We also thank the Secretariat and the APTAC for its diligent preparations. Indonesia views the Global Review of Collective Progress as essential for ensuring transparency, accountability, and mutual learning in implementing the KMGBF. We advocate for a Party-driven Evidence-based review process, primarily based on national reports, supplemented by relevant UN and partner assessments. This process should be facilitative, non-intrusive, and non-punitive, minimizing additional reporting burdens, particularly for developing countries. We underscore the importance of equitable resource mobilization, enhanced technical cooperation, and capacity building to support all parties. Strengthening regional support centers for data harmonization and technical implementation is also critical. Nationally, Indonesia has integrated KMGBF targets into our NBSAP and national development plans, and we are committed to submitting our seventh national report on time. Indonesia reaffirms its dedication to a transparent and balanced global review process, fostering cooperation to advance the 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature. Thank you.

Thank you, Indonesia. Finland, you have the floor, followed by Spain, then Germany.

Thank you, Chair. Finland supports the intervention made by Denmark. We would like to thank the AfSTEC for its work and the outline that they have provided, which we support with some minor amendments. We would like to underscore that the primary objective of the Global Review is not only to assess progress, but also to drive action by showing where the greatest gaps in implementation of the GBF are. We recognize that the Global Report should be first and foremost based on national reports, but also reiterate the importance of considering other contributions, such as those by non-state actors including, but not limited to, indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society, and the private sector, as well as the international environmental agreements and organizations, as indicated in the section E of the outline. Since national reports are likely to contain disparate data, global syntheses made by international organizations are also needed to aggregate global trends. We would like to note that there is a need to continue to develop the methodology of indicators between the seventh and eighth reports, so that the data reported in the eighth reports prior to the global report will be more comparable and comprehensive. In order for the civil society and businesses to fully engage in implementing the KMGBF, the template for non-state actors should be made available as soon as possible. Lastly, we underline that the assessments that have already been made by the IPBES should be fully used in the global review. We will submit our textual propositions in writing. Thank you.

Thank you, Finland. Spain, you have the floor, followed by Germany, then Argentina.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Regarding item 3, Spain supports the contribution made by Denmark, and we are grateful for the documents prepared by the Secretariat, and we particularly appreciate the work done by the Ashtag. Well-grounded knowledge on advances in implementation of the global framework is fundamental to continue moving toward the achievement of the goals and targets set for 2030 and beyond. For this reason, We support the call to Parties for us to submit our seventh reports before February 28, 2026, and we also support the proposals made by other delegations to include a new paragraph 3 bis on presentation of NBSAPs. With regard to the attachment to document SUB/27/2, we believe there is a need to include in part one of the draft annotated outline a concise summary of the state of biodiversity and trends and factors driving its loss. And we propose to use that terminology, drivers of biodiversity loss, in 1A. 1BA. We also agree on the need for some caution, as stated by delegations, including Uruguay, as to the use of the information from global databases as a substitute for national information. Finally, Spain is grateful for the recently issued document, SUBST.27/INT.4/Rev.1, and we hope that the Secretariat will continue to pursue and further improve this assessment because it is one of the main sources of information for the Global Report. We have submitted to Secretariat our proposed amendments in writing. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. Spain.

Now I give the floor to Germany, followed by Argentina, then Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Germany supports the interventions by Denmark and the other EU member states that have spoken before us. We would like to express our thanks to the CBD Secretariat and the Ashtag for preparing the draft annotated outline of the Global Report on Collective Progress in implementing the framework, which we consider a good basis for our discussions. Germany is flexible to also engage on the basis of information document 5, which would allow us to streamline discussions by building on input by parties. However, we would like to stress that we should not reopen discussions from COP 15 and 16, and we would intervene later in this regard. Germany considers a solid and comprehensive global report essential for the global review process. We would therefore like to emphasize the importance of the timely submission of the seventh national reports. We are looking forward to the launch of the online form for the submission by actors other than national governments. We would like to strongly encourage the Executive Secretary to create awareness and provide information material to ensure sufficient inputs to the Global Report. In line with the interventions by Denmark and other EU member states, Germany will submit comments on the draft recommendation and the annex. These aim at making it more aligned with the COP decision and helping to improve the readability and communicability of the Global Report. We will hand in our amendments on subdocument 2 in writing. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Germany. Now I give the floor to Argentina, followed by Brazil, then Togo.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Argentina is grateful to the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technical Advisory Group for the preparation of the Global Report on collective progress on implementation of the Kunming-Montreal GBF and for preparation of the annotated outline for the Global Report. We have a number of comments on the outline text. Argentina is concerned about inputs by actors other than national governments for the following reasons: first, the data in the reports might not be the same quality and reliability; second, potential fragmentation and lack of coordination in implementing the NBSAP; And as a consequence of the last item, there could be inefficiencies, lack of coordination, overlap, loss of synergy, possible trade-offs, and unintended adverse impacts. Fourth, there could be possible weakening of the biodiversity governance architecture. Therefore, Argentina does not believe it's appropriate to give equal weight to and aggregate to data on commitments from actors other than national governments, presented by them, together with data duly incorporated by parties into the NBSAPs and national reports, in accordance with institutional procedures as proposed in paragraph 5B of the annex, the attachment. We also request that there be reference to the non-objection procedure set forth in Decision 1632, Annex 2, paragraph 3. Regarding paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Annex, Argentina believes that making proposals of that policy and program nature exceeds the mandate of ASCH and that paragraph should be deleted. We believe that there is no mandate for assessing the ambition and planning of the Parties, and we propose a modification to the text of paragraph 5A of the attachment. Finally, we request a deletion of references to an assessment based on ecosystems and biomass and by region, and other modifications. With regard to the draft recommendation, Argentina can accept it and encourages the Parties to submit their national, seventh national reports by the reporting deadline. And we request that operative paragraph 4 be adjusted. Finally, we believe that the invitation and modalities for actors other than national governments to submit commitments be properly, is properly stated in the decision, and we suggest that operative paragraph 5 be deleted. We are submitting this in writing. Thank you very much.

Gracias, Argentina.

Thank you, Argentina. Now I give the floor to Brazil, followed by Togo and the Republic of Korea.

Thank you, Chairman.

efforts made by the Secretariat and the hashtag, and we also recognize that some important changes have been made in the annex presenting the information document number five, but we remain concerned with crucial points that are in document 27/2 in its current annex. While the structure is generally robust, we stress the need to strengthen the analysis of barriers. barriers. We recommend the inclusion of a more detailed section on institutional, financial, and technological obstacles, with particular attention to LDCs and SIDS, as well as the effective integration of perspectives, knowledge, and practice of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. On more specific matters, We stress that the framework must remain facilitative, non-intrusive, and non-punitive, in line with Decisions 15/6 and 16/32. In this regard, we suggest replacing reference to ambition with progress and deleting reference to regional dimension or regional trends to preserve the global scope of the review. Clarification is also required on the meaning of analysis of the statutes and the scope of analysis in alignment to ensure there is no prescriptive assessment of individual parties. On means of implementations, we underline that this should not encompass target 18. As recognized in information document number five, this target refers to subsidies which will be addressed under summary target 18. We also recall that debates on subsidies must not be confused with obligations under Articles 16 to 20 of the Convention. Conversely, excluding target 20 would result in an unbalanced outcome. Given the limitations of national reports, we also propose the addition of a new sub-item for an analysis of potential implementation costs per target, based on relevant reports and peer-reviewed scientific literature. On paragraph 7 of the section 5, regarding the preparation of the global report, the hashtag must take into consideration not only the outline contained in the annex to the present decision, but also the information 5. Finally, we insist that some of the suggested elements of the conclusion and key message still appear to go beyond its mandate, such as reference to possible pathways and actions. We will submit our comments in writing to the Secretariat. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Brazil. I get the floor.

Now to Togo, followed by the Republic of Korea, and then Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Thank you, Chairman. Togo supports the statement made by Zimbabwe on behalf of the Africa Group. Togo welcomes the draft decision, CBD/SEBST/27/2, on planning, review and reporting on the state of strategies and national action plans, national targets Togo is concerned that the assessment conducted shows that a number of countries have submitted revised or updated NBSAPs in accordance with Decision 15/6. And I believe that the decision is intended to ensure that the revised NBSAPs are in line with the requirements for the Global Report. We believe that The assessment should cover the quality of the reports submitted and determine whether they are properly aligned to the goals of the framework. Thank you.

Thank you, Togo. Now I give the floor to the Republic of Korea, followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then Colombia.

Thank you, Chair. This statement is on behalf of the Republic of Korea. Republic of Korea would like to express our deep gratitude to the Secretary for presenting the roadmap for the global review of the coming Montreal Global Diversity Framework, and to the Ad Hoc Scientific and Technological Advisory Group for its hard work in preparing the annotated outline of the draft global progress report. A strong, transparent, and science-based review mechanism is an essential compass for achieving our common goals. This first global review is a critical opportunity to assess and accelerate our collective implementation efforts. The Republic of Korea stands ready to cooperate, consult, constructively with all parties to ensure the important process is successfully completed. The Republic of Korea generally supports the process, structure and process of the report as indicated in Annex of this document, and we believe it is helpful to include a summary for policy makers as a part of the report to show key messages of the global review. Additionally, we strongly endorse the principle that national reports are the primary source of information for the review process. However, we believe it is crucial to endorse the transparent transparency when other information is used for the credibility of the global report. For this perspective, we would like to propose adding a new paragraph 7b to the recommendation in paragraph 24. We will submit this amendment in writing. Thank you.

Thank you, Republic of Korea. Bosnia and Herzegovina, you have the floor, followed by Colombia, then DRC.

Thank you, Chair. Bosnia and Herzegovina welcomes the work of #N-Secretariat in preparing the annotated outline of the Global Report on collective progress in implementing the Montreal GDF and sub-state documents. We believe the outline provides a strong foundation for assessing global progress. However, in order to ensure a truly fair and comprehensive review, we wish to highlight two aspects that merit further consideration. First, the Global Review should take into account whether financial and technical support, where available, has been provided in a timely manner. Many developing countries, including those with limited institutional capacity, rely on such support to identify national targets, revise NBSs, and report on the national implementation. Without this information, it will be difficult to accurately interpret collective progress under the framework. Second, we wish to emphasize the value of national participatory processes in defining biodiversity targets and strategies. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the quality of this dialogue was significantly strengthened through the national ecosystem assessment process implemented with generous support of UNEP-WCNC and the BasNet Consortium, and financially supported by German ICI Initiative. Our national assessment greatly informed the identification of national goals and actions. We therefore highlight the importance of comprehensive, science-based, and inclusive discussions as an essential element of overall progress in implementing the GBF. In this regard, Bosnia and Herzegovina proposes additions to annotated outline of the Global Report. We suggest adding the following information to part 2, section A, annex to document 2072, speaking on the status of NBSAF's national targets and national report submissions. We wish to add summary of an analytical information on the timelines of financial and technical support provided, where applicable, is critical to an accurate assessment of progress in submissions. And second, summary information on the progress of inclusive, science-based and participatory national consultation processes as important element of global progress. We believe these additions will strengthen the analytical depth of the Global Report and ensure that collective progress is accurately assessed. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now I give the floor to Colombia, followed by DRC, then China.

Chairman, I am making this statement on behalf of Colombia, which supports 27/2 and highlights the urgency of accelerating implementation of the framework, and we highlight the importance for countries to concentrate their efforts in updating and implementing their national strategies prior to submission of the seventh report, and we propose to include this call in the oral report. We recommend that part one on on the outline B, incorporate traditional knowledge, recognizing its role in the implementation of the goals for biodiversity and the whole of society approach along the lines of what Denmark and Spain proposed in part 2B. It's necessary to emphasize the fact that national reports should be verifiable and comparable. and adapted to national contexts without losing relevance to global goals. In addition, Colombia highlights the importance of strengthening transparency and participation in the global review, promoting national reports that are verifiable and timely. 2D, we suggest that to the global report to recognize the value of regional technical cooperation and learning mechanisms peer-to-peer that strengthen the implementation of the framework. Finally, in part three, we highlight the need to strengthen technical and financial support for developing countries to be able to adopt and implement these national strategies and action plans in line with the global framework.

Thank you.

Now I give the floor to the Democratic Republic of Congo, followed by China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. The Democratic Republic of Congo supports the statement made by Zimbabwe on behalf of Africa. and also aligns itself with the recommendations made by South Africa. Our country welcomes document CBD, sub-stud/27/2 and the work of the ad hoc scientific and technical advisory group for the preparation of the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal framework. I would like to urge Subs 27 to encourage and facilitate the work of parties that have not yet done so to revise their NBSAPs in line with the Global Biodiversity Framework, in accordance with Decision 15/6, and to develop national biodiversity financing plans and national monitoring plans. to remind parties that the global review of collective progress in the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework should be an inclusive and gender-responsive process, ensuring the full and effective participation of women, young people, indigenous peoples, and local communities, as well as their organizations, and to take this into account in the preparation of their seventh national reports. This in order to contribute to the inclusion of evidence from multiple sources, in particular community-based monitoring. It is essential to continue to create opportunities for dialogue, discussion, open interaction, and sharing, including to facilitate informal technical dialogue between the parties, stakeholders, Indigenous peoples, and local communities, women, and youth. as per paragraph 24 of decision 1632. Our specific textual proposals are provided with our statement. Thank you.

Thank you, Democratic Republic of Congo. And now I will give the floor to China, which will likely be the last intervention of this morning session, after which I will give you the names that are on the list and then close the list for lunch. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will speak on behalf of China. The global review of the GBF is essential for ensuring a correct approach to its implementation. China thanks the Ad Hoc Advisory Group and the Secretariat for preparing document CBD/20/2, 17/2. We would like to share the following comments. First, we welcome the upcoming review. However, the focus of the global review is global review, instead of reopening negotiations on its targets and goals. Therefore, we believe it is necessary In paragraph 10b, we should add: "Any such possible pathways would not open discussions on new targets and targets in any form." Second, according to Decision 16/32, the Global Review should be focused on collective progress, with no focus on individual Parties and respective policy space. So we should add the discussions or really will not touch on responsible party or stakeholder levels. We should also, China suggests that in paragraph 5B, we should remove the on the the pressures, extra pressures, that phrase should be deleted. And also in 5B, we suggest that we inform that all information shall be in line with paragraph 5 of Annex II of Decision 16/32. We are ready to engage in constructive discussions with all parties.

Thank you.

Thank you, China. I'm just going to remind, I'm just going to read out the list of those who will be doing their interventions after the lunch break. And after that, the list will be closed, so I will read out the names.

We have Belgium, Jordan, Fiji, Cuba, Sudan, Laos, Yemen, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Ghana, Djibouti, Turkey, IPILCs, Women One, Youth One, then IUCN. I close the list. After that, we can't register another party or group of parties. Colleagues, until then, I wish you a pleasant lunch break. Before we leave the room, I would like to invite you to participate in the side event on science organized by the Substantive Bureau members. Now, the meeting is adjourned.