Workshop on the global report on collective progress in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

All right, everyone. I think we're going to start here in just a couple of minutes. So if everyone could start to settle in.

Maybe just while everyone is getting their seats, I'll just make a few housekeeping announcements. So DSA distribution is starting as of 9:00 today. It goes from 9 until 12, and it's at CRT— Conference Room 2, so just outside in the hallway. So if you're looking for that, that's where you can go. Also, there's one restaurant that's open today for lunch. So if you leave this room and you follow the signs, you'll be able to find that restaurant.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

Good morning. Welcome to the Workshop on the Global Report on Collective Progress in the Implementation of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. It's nice to see you. I hope you had a good travel from your countries to here. Some of us will be here for 2 weeks for SOPS and SBI. And so let's start with this workshop. Today is going to be a series of workshops on different topics all day. In preparation for our negotiations next week. So I'm happy to be here in beautiful Giggiri today for this workshop. Since today we have 3 workshops, I am moderating this first one on the Global Report. You will also see me again in the workshop of IPBES this afternoon, and you cannot avoid it, so sorry in advance. The first step in submitting a national report is to submit national targets, as the reporting is done on the basis of national targets, and 170 parties have submitted national targets. Additionally, as of now, 101 parties have submitted also MBISAPs. If we were to print all these national documents, these will be more than 50,000 pages of text, so it's a lot of information. On top of what there are currently almost 5,000 commitments from actors other than government that have been registered in the online portal. What that means is that many of you in the room have contributed a significant amount of time to drafting these documents that are the starting point for the Global Report and subsequent global review at COP17. I would like to congratulate everyone for the impressive amount of work that has gone into developing these documents and also sharing them so that we have a strong basis for drafting the Global Report. It was not an easy task for the Secretariat to analyze this volume of documents or to review and respond to more than 3,000 comments from the peer review phase, and the amount of work that ASHTAC members have poured into supporting this process, which often goes above and beyond the daily job— their job has been truly tremendous. Truly impressive. We have seen today is a global report that has a strong methodological basis which has received technical guidance from experts, a report that is built on national reporting, has been guided by party-led process, and which provides both quantitative and qualitative assessment of where we stand collectively in implementing the framework. As co-chairs, I would like to congratulate the Secretariat for the impressive work and thank all the hashtag members for their contributions. With that, I would like to hand over to the Executive Secretary, Astrid Schumacher, for her opening remarks. Astrid, you have the floor.

Thank you, Ezekiel, and good morning, everybody, and welcome to Kenya and welcome to this day of workshops to get us in the right mood for a constructive SubStar discussion. And this first workshop, of course, is a super important one. And I want to start by something that's not in my speaking points, but echoing what Ezekiel said, and first of all, pay tribute to all of you parties for the amazing commitment you have shown through the national reports, through the peer review process, of course, also through the targets and NB-SOPs. And then, of course, that has meant for the work in the Secretariat, supported by a splendid team of consultants and the strong support from the ASHTAC, and special thanks also to the ASHTAC colleagues. There was a bit of a mismatch between the information they had and the time they had to digest it and put it into the report, and I think they've done that in an amazing way. And I would say, as Executive Secretary, I didn't have a hand in that. I could just sort of observe it, and I'm just— incredibly proud of the team and of Gillian, who's been leading the team, and of how that team with the hashtag has been able not just to digest it but pull it together into one, I believe, very readable document, and even keeping to the timelines that were set out. So this forms a very good basis for our deliberations, and of course our goal for today is to pave the way for constructive, constructive round of negotiations on the report. Here at SAPSTAR, beyond SAPSTAR, and then, of course, with COP17 in mind, and also bearing in mind we will have in Kunming another opportunity to look at it. So there's a lot of opportunity for all of us to engage on a very, very important report with very important consequences for the way we work in the Convention, the way we work in the Secretariat, and of course it has consequences for everything, for the decisions we adopt, even for the budget we have, prepared and proposed to you. But first of all, we need to have clarity on what the report actually says, how to understand it, and today basically is the day, the right time and place to ask any questions that you may have on the report, and the colleagues here will do their best to provide all the information you need to basically have maximum clarity as you go into the negotiations. And yes, you know that the Global Report will underpin the Global Review at COP17, and you also know, we know the Global Review is crucial for how we implement the framework and how we, and if we will reach our targets. It is also very, very crucial in terms of the public attention. You know that the Convention is increasingly attracting the interest of the media. That is only good and right, but here again, the report is in the center of the media's attention. So this morning, your first task, of course, is to stay awake. We're all aware that most of you have arrived basically between whatever yesterday evening and the early hours of this morning, had a few hours of sleep, and are probably struggling with jet lag. And hence, Julian and team have kindly provided for a coffee break in already 1 hour. So just know you have to just— Stay awake through the first hour, and then there'll be a dose of coffee for all of you. So we'll start this first hour with an overview of the content of the Global Report, and of course also reflecting the peer review, and again, the enormous engagement during the peer review that took place during the month of June. And also, we would like to discuss with you the role of SAPSTA and SBI in the process that will then culminate in COP27. Where we will do this collective stocktaking and hopefully forward thinking. As I've already hinted, the Global Review, as we see it, is the moment for parties to examine the findings of the report, but then, of course, also to agree on concrete and urgent steps to accelerate the implementation and to broaden the range of actors, because we all know governments can't do it alone. You all need the helping hand of civil society, of the business finance sector, of academia to push us forward and give us this boost of acceleration we need. All of that is quite a momentous undertaking. It's also a super exciting moment in the work and in the life of the Convention. I think we're all aware a lot is at stake. You all know that halting and reversing biodiversity loss is not just a sort of hobby horse for some scientists. It's an existential question. So that makes all of you having a lot of responsibility, and I know you all take it seriously, but I wish that we all use this responsibility to come together, to prove that environmental multilateralism still works, and to forge the solutions and acceleration that we need jointly and together, and to see how we can put nature on a path to recovery. So thank you so much for your continued commitment, and I wish us all a very informative session. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much to our Executive Secretary. Now we'll hand over to Gianbruno, Sub-Chair, for his opening remarks. Gianbruno?

Thank you, Co-Chair. Welcome again in Africa. home of biodiversity. Thank you, Kocheh. Dear colleagues, welcome to this first workshop of the day. One of the items that SAPSTAR will address is, as you are well aware, the Global Report of Collective Progress in Implementation of the global biodiversity frameworks. According to the COP decision on the global review, SABSTA has the responsibility to review the global report and to provide scientific, technical, and technological recommendations, including on traditional knowledge, to SBI. This work is supported by the hashtag, whose members and coaches I would like to thank here once again. Global Report will be a very important issue at SAPSTA— at SAPSTA next week. That will be the moment when we begin to use the content of the Global Report to draft recommendations that will be discussed during COP and will form the global review. It is a turning point in the major process that began at COP15 and will culminate in Yerevan at COP17. For all these reasons, our discussions during SAPSA are, of course, very important. And so is this workshop. I wish you a good workshop. Thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you very much to our Sub-Stat Chair. Now we move into presentation and preparation of the Global Report, and as I mentioned, although the main work of drafting the Global Report has taken place In the last few months. The work to prepare for the drafting started over a year ago with the hashtag coordination and the secretariat.

So I would—

we would like to provide a presentation which walks you through the process to prepare the report. For that, my co-chair, Emily Nicholson, will give a presentation on process to the draft report and how the hashtag supports this process. Thank you, Emily, you have the floor.

Great, the slides are up. Is it possible to see them here as well? No, it's okay, I'll just put them up here. Thank you everybody for making it to this workshop today as we give an overview of the process of the to provide guidance on documents and input to the drafting process and the methodological analysis. One of the first roles, first tasks of the ASHTAG was to provide an annotated outline of the global report, which was approved by SUBSA, and following that, the drafting commenced. We had our first, our only in-person meeting in mid-March in this year, and this was just 3 weeks after the national reports were submitted. And so we were getting a first taste of the, of the data that were— that was going to be part of the, the global report from the national reports. So we didn't have any initial analyses at that stage, just an overview of of a very quick overview of the information available. That in-person meeting was very important for establishing the process going forward. So we had a 4-day meeting which was filled with discussion and separating into working groups, and examples of some of the activities we did in that process was to review the submitted reports and data, to have lengthy discussion, extensive and sometimes fiery discussions about the methodologies for analysing the data and the information, both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and then came to a consensus agreement on how that should be taken forward. We also started to discuss some of the key emerging— the emerging key messages that were apparent from the data. And just began that process of thinking about what the— and discussing what the key messages of the report would be without wanting to preempt the full analysis of the national reports and targets and NBSAPs. And we also planned the different roles and timelines of the analysis and the development of the report and the different stages in which the ASHTAG would have input and guidance. And different tasks that we could take on in support of the Secretariat in the analyses. In the drafting process, there were several different roles that the ASHTAG played, as well as an overview role where we had regular meetings and, and brought information together and discussed as a group. We also reviewed and supported the drafting of the key sections of the report, noting that the timelines were often very short for those just because of the nature of the process was very, very rapid really. We also were involved in drafting and discussing the key messages and conclusions and the introductory sections of the report, advised on revisions to the methodologies as we— it became apparent that some of the methods that we had planned planned would perhaps have to be changed or simplified given the nature of the data that was submitted. We also supported or undertook data analysis and drafted some participants— drafted case studies really based on our— the different expertise of the hashtag members and where they are able to provide the most valuable input to the process and support the Secretariat in the work. The peer review process was very short as well. And so we were able to, with the Secretariat, discuss what that process would look like, what our input could be, how we could support redrafting of key sections such as the key messages, and commented on drafts through that period as well. And then in addition, had informal meetings to guide the process. Some of the output of the key— in addition to the global report itself, there are 2 information documents that are really important for understanding the analysis. One of that is Inf Doc 9 on the methodologies used in the analysis of all the information in the global report. Ranging from targets through to the indicators, and that provides a really detailed overview of the process, and I recommend that you go through, particularly if you have particular queries on some sections and how the data were analysed. And then the second infodoc, number 11, provides a much deeper analysis of the use of indicators in the national reports. Including headline indicators and the component and complementary indicators and national indicators, and also provides a really useful analysis of the barriers to reporting that many countries discussed in their national reports, which will be very useful for thinking about ways forward to strengthen the national report— the reports and therefore the global report in for 2029 and 2030. And these are now available on the Substack page. And then finally, just to give an overview of the peer review process, the, the hashtag guided the Secretariat or worked with the Secretariat on how to address the peer review comments. So there was a 4-week period for peer review, which would close on the 29th of June. You would remember that's actually only a few weeks ago, really. It was very, very recent. And so we had to address— well, the Secretariat had to address through this process peer review comments from 26 parties and 64 observers, and this came to a total of almost 3,500. separate review comments, which is a large amount of information to process. The comments were submitted on all sections of the report, many comments on the summary and conclusions, but also extensive comments on what is the largest part of the report, Section 2B, which is about the target-by-target analysis, which comprised 45% of the comments. And that's For those who have read through the report, it's a very large section of the report, so that's not unsurprising. Many of the comments, even though they might be focused on one section, had big implications, or often had implications for other sections of the report, and we've done our best to— the Secretariat has done their best to address all of these comments in the revision process, which is almost finalised, I believe.

Yes.

But it has been a tremendous amount of work to go through all those comments and respond to them. That was all that I was going to present today. If there's any issues of clarification, but otherwise I think we'll have discussion at the end. And I'll hand back to Hesekia. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Emily. So we will have more time for discussion at the end, but if there are any Any immediate questions to this presentation, then I can take them now. Seems it was very clear, either because it's really clear or you're still not awake enough. Okay, so let's move to the next part of the agenda. I would like to invite the Secretariat to present the current draft of the Global Report, including how it was evolved since the peer review. I understand— well, this will be presented by Tim Hirsch on the methodology that was used to prepare the report, and then Gillian Campbell will present how the report has evolved since the peer review. and what are the key messages that have come out. So I'll give the floor to the Secretariat.

Thank you very much, Ezekiel, co-chair. So my name is Tim Hirsch, and I'm speaking on behalf of the consultant team who've been working with Gillian's team at the Secretariat. So it's myself, Flavio Affinito, who's here, who was in charge of really the technical data analysis that goes into the report and the methodologies, and my colleague Usman Tariq, who is not here, who was responsible for the section on means of implementation. So I'm going to go through really an overview of what the report consists of, the structure, the main sources that have gone into each section, and a brief summary of the methodologies involved, but I would just add that, as Emily mentioned, for details of that methodology, there is Information Document 9, which goes into great detail, much more than I'll be able to do in this presentation. So just going through the structure of the report in sequence, at the beginning, there is a concise summary. The structure of this has slightly changed, as you will see from the, the first draft, where there was concern about a lot of redundancy initially between what was in the concise summary and then the conclusions at the end. So that's been rationalized somewhat. So now when you go into the summary section at the beginning of the report, you will see there is one overarching message and then a brief summary of the rest of key messages, but without going into detail at the beginning. And then within that summary section, we have what's described as the target scorecard, which shows in a graphic format the relative strengths and weaknesses across all of the targets in certain main parameters. So, first of all, the scope and the coverage of the national targets associated with each global target, a summary of the self-assessment of progress by parties themselves in the national reports based on their evaluation, your evaluation of the national targets aligned with each of the global targets, then an assessment of progress based on the status and, where available, the trends of all of the indicators combined for each target, as reported through the national reports. And then a final evaluation on the data availability, so the level of reporting that we can witness in this first round of reporting since the adoption of the Framework. So that's the concise summary at the beginning. Then, going into the first section of the report, Part 1, which is the introductory section, and that consists of 2 parts, so there's an overall general introduction introducing the framework and the rationale behind the goals and the targets and the other components of the framework, and also describing the process of planning, reporting and, and review that of course was part of the framework, and outlines the purpose of the, of the report, including going into details of the sources, the methodologies, and then also the limitations and some of the assumptions that had to be made. And I would also just add that again, in response to the peer review, we are adding more detail on the methodology within the main body of the report rather than just referring to what, in a sense, will be an annex, as you will see in the information document. So for that section, essentially, we are really summarizing what's already in previous COP decisions, summarizing the methodologies that Emily was describing that were agreed by the hashtag. And then a As a second component of this introductory section, there is a short summary of global status and trends of and in biodiversity. This is not a new— an attempt at new analysis. Essentially, this is summarizing the starting point of the in a sense, the baseline for the start of action under the framework. And for the sources of that, we are using, for example, the series of Global Biodiversity Outlooks and the various assessment reports from IPBES, starting from the first Global Assessment Report from 2019, but then also summarizing the various assessments that have been published since then. Then going to Part 2, which is the main body of the report, so overall looking at collective progress in implementation, that starts off in Section 2A with an overall summary of the status of submissions. So it's looking at, for example, the level of submissions of national reports, but also of NBSAPs and submissions of national targets, and how they are distributed across the different member state regions, also summarizing the support to parties that was available for preparation of those submissions, and then going into an analysis of the NBSAPs themselves. So using methodologies that were set out, in fact, in a previous SBI information document, it's looking at the extent to which, for example, different actors have been involved in preparation of the NBSAPs, and an overview analysis of the NBSAPs themselves, as well as an overview of the commitments that have been received through this new process from actors other than national governments, and for that, for example, There's an analysis of the types of actors that have submitted— made their submissions, the types of actions, and then the targets and goals that have been primarily addressed. Moving then into what, in terms of volume and length, is by far the largest part of the report, 2B, which is collective progress towards the targets. And for that, we go through, obviously, each of the 23 targets, and in each case, run through these different components that I will show here, and these actually go over 2 slides. So all of these are repeated and use similar methodologies. So there is, right at the beginning, a progress overview, so that's— essentially taking all of the other information and summarizing it into a short paragraph, which is an overall distilling of the main messages that we're getting with regard to each of the targets. Then, in the second subsections there, what we're calling the target elements and collective ambition from the national targets, So that's taking, in the case of each of the targets, the elements of those targets that were initially set out and analysed through the ARTEG, the expert group on indicators, that in the case of each of the targets split them up into those essential elements, each of which could be independently measured and assessed to give a full view of the extent of implementation. So based on those elements, there was an analysis of the extent to which the national targets associated with each of those targets addressed or covered the scope, the full scope of the target using those elements. So that's the first, and there's a table at the beginning of each of the target sections which looks at the proportion of parties that had addressed each of those elements collectively in their national reports. The second is obviously a very substantial part of the analysis, indicators of progress, so that goes through the different categories of indicators available in each— for each target and carries out the standard analysis using the methodology set out in that detailed information document. So in each case then, where there are headline indicators, there was— there's an analysis to the extent possible with the available data of the status and trends that— for each of the headline indicators. And then where there are binary indicators, a summary using the methodology set out previously by the ARTEG of the level of progress in implementation of some of the key policies and measures associated with each target, as provided in the answers to the— provided in national reports through the binary indicators. Then, in each case, within this indicator process analysis, there is what we call the trend analysis, which is taking together all of the available quantitative indicators for each target. So that's headline indicators, but also where used the component and the complementary indicators, and national indicators. Where they have been used and reported on, and where it's possible to do so, looking at the overall trend of each of those indicators. Is it going in the right direction as far as fulfilment of the target is concerned, or is it in the wrong direction, or somewhere in the middle? And all of that, taking those indicators together, is averaged into a single measure of of progress in what we have sometimes described as a direction of travel. So that's also one of the components that's within the indicator analysis. And then the final part of this kind of target scorecard for each target is self-assessment of progress, where we're looking at what the parties themselves have entered as far as the level of progress for each of their national targets, associating those national targets then with the global targets, and taking that as an overall average of self-assessment of progress for each of the framework targets. Then for the other components of this target-by-target analysis, which are more qualitative, descriptive text based on different parts of the, of the national reports that address these different aspects. So the first subsection is what we've described as actions, successes, and challenges. So there is a paragraph in each case which summarizes typically the types of action that are predominantly mentioned through a full textual analysis of the, of the national reports, which we have done with the assistance of artificial intelligence. And the detailed prompts and methodologies of that are in that, in that Information Document 9. But the, the, the text and the words is all written by human beings. And, and so that's the first section. There's then under the successes part We have identified and pulled out case studies reflecting successes and progress and experiences across the different targets, and in each case, we have, in the time between the first draft and now, been conferring with many national focal points on drafts of those short case studies. Which we will now be inserting in the final version of the report. And then also a summary of the main challenges, again, based on a full textual analysis from the national reports, summarized into what are some of the main challenges that have been identified in implementation of the target. In the next subsection, contributions of actors other than national governments. As requested or required in the annotated outline, we're actually splitting this into 2 sections. So the first part of that is taking the submissions that have been received and analyzed with— through the portal for actors other than national governments. There's a summary of what's been received that relates primarily to each of the targets, also pulling out some case studies there. And then in the second subsection there, as far as we can, we're giving a synthesis and appraisal of the description within national reports of the involvement of actors other than national governments. So again, that's based on a full textual analysis with the assistance of artificial intelligence, which has been— which ends up as an overall description, typically, of the types of groups that perform— that are cited as fulfilling certain roles within national reports in implementation of each target. And then the final subsection within this within this target-by-target analysis is what we've described as examples of linkages with other agreements, processes, and organizations. This, in fact, has been drawn from what I'll come to later, which is a section on the contribution of other— of multilateral environmental agreements and other organizations and processes, and taking some of the examples that we've got from those contributions and relating those to implementation of individual targets. And again, there are also some case studies associated with that. The next section, 2C, still within that overall Part 2 on collective progress and implementation, looks at at implementation from the point of view of the 4 2050 goals. As is made clear in the methods document and introduction, we are, I think, being very cautious in what we feel we can really say at this point in terms of progress towards the goals, but using certain methodologies, we do address that, largely by looking at the connection that parties have made themselves between implementation of their national targets and how they relate to progress and contributions towards the 4 goals. We do some mapping of those associations and from that draw some inferences and conclusions, at least on the implications of the current levels of progress. progress on the progress towards the goals themselves, without at this stage attempting to say in any way, you know, yes, we're on track, or no, we're not on track for the goals. But then also within the goals section, there are, of course, some of the headline indicators that do relate specifically to each of the goals, and so we report in the same way that we did for the targets on progress towards those indicators. And then within— again, within each of these goal sections, we pull out from analysis of the national reports some of the options and approaches that have been mentioned within the national reports for actions to address challenges in implementation. Implementation of national targets associated with each of the goals. Then there are 2 further sections within Part 2, so there's a separate section on the provision of means of implementation, which analyses the needs, provision, the means of implementation for other actors, and then offers some summary and key innovations, and that is based to a very large extent on the national reports, also the NBISAP's national targets. It makes use of data from the GEF and other sources that are cited within the report, and this works on developing a typology of means of implementation, screening the national submissions using that typology, and then aggregating and interpreting those results. And again, the details of that are provided in the methods document. And then the final section within the second part, Part 2, is looking at the broader sense of the contributions of relevant MEAs, international organizations, and processes. And for that For the content of that, we have been to a large extent, but not exclusively, reliant on submissions in response to a notification that went out last year, to which we had a really great response from many of the secretariats of other conventions and organizations, to demonstrate in many cases the way that through decisions or processes or programmes in other fora, in other processes, many of the targets and the goals of the framework have been taken into account. So it's looking at some of those linkages and synergies in areas of cooperation. And then finally, in the concluding section, so that's Part 3. It starts off with an overview, so that's pulling together what was assembled in the previous section, analyzing each of the targets, so it's bringing that scorecard, but then also the narrative descriptions of progress for each of the targets, but all put in one place, so that gives a kind of an overview of implementation. And then finally, the key messages, which I won't go into detail now— in detail now, because I think Julian's going to go through those, but it sets out these— what have ended up as 6 key messages addressing the gaps in collective progress, and also some of these non-prescriptive approaches for addressing each of them. And then there's a final reflection, not formal conclusions, on the process of planning, monitoring, reporting, and review, given the experience— this first experience of drawing up the national reports and the global report. So that's where I'll stop, and I'll hand over to Gillian. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tim. So we saw the methodologies used to prepare. And now with Gillian, we're going to see how the report has been evolved since the peer review phase that finished a few days ago.

Thanks.

And then this will be the end of the presentations. And after the coffee break, we can have question and answers. And I will try not to go into the coffee break by more than a couple of minutes. So just to summarize what you just heard from Tim, the logic of the analysis, Parties report on their targets, and then we are receiving— and then they map those targets to the global targets. And so that's how the analysis is then analyzed, is how do those targets relate to the global targets, what do they include, and where do parties say that they're on track for those targets. And then we also looked at these indicator trends, and then the progress towards the goals, as Tim just said, is when parties set their national targets, they say how do they contribute to both the targets and the goals. And so through that link we say, okay, if we are saying in the adoption of the framework that in order to achieve the goals you have to achieve the targets, which is the logic of the GBF, then if you are progressing towards those targets at whatever speed, if there's gaps in that, then there would also be be gaps in the goals because you need the targets to reach the goals. So that's sort of the logic that we've employed here, even though it's too early to see actual trends towards the goals. We also did try, of course, to look at Section C of the framework and other aspects of the framework. This was really difficult because this was not captured in a structured way in the national reports. And so we did try, but there's a discussion of how far we got to that in the, in the report. And as mentioned, I mean, we did use a lot of other sources of information, which are all detailed in the methods and in the original COP decision 1632, which outlined the sources of information for the global report. So where are we in terms of document post-peer review? I didn't put a slide on this, and I really should have, so I'm just going to quickly say that The concise summary and the conclusions are available online now as Addendum 3. This used to be in Annex 1 of the pre-session document. And the reason why it was moved out of that annex into an addendum was really just for the sake of the editing process and to make the translation easier, because the translation on that pre-session document had already happened.

So—

So in case you were wondering about this change, it was— it was just to keep our sort of processes easier. And that's why we moved that whole annex to an addendum. And it also includes both the concise summary and the conclusions now because of the— all the comments that we received where there was comments wanting to reduce the duplication. And so we reduced that duplication, but then—

I'm sorry.

In order to get the picture, you need both of these sections together. So additionally, the Addendum 1, which is the full global report, we are aiming to get this online very soon. We are aware that we wanted to have it online by now and it is not there. Hopefully it will be, you know, tomorrow. It is something that we're very much aiming for. It is just been a lot of comments to go through. And there's an information document, INF-13, which will describe the main changes, and it will point you towards the matrix. So for every comment that was made on the report, we have tried to describe how this was taken on board, and that is also going to be online. And all of these documents we're packaging together on the website for the global report. So it's the same one that's in Notification 47. And if you go to that website, you'll see all of these information documents. There's also the analysis of the MBISAPs and the national targets, which will be there. So you can see all the documents that have been mentioned so far in one place, which hopefully makes it easier. So what are the main changes to the document post-peer review? I think many people wanted to try to have the progress and the challenges and the gaps and opportunities sort of all together so that you could see that there was a lot of progress while you're seeing the gap at the same time, as opposed to having those messages separate, which I think people felt then it was a little bit confusing for the reader and gave a negative impression if the key message was more focused on the challenge. The key messages, as Tim mentioned, are focused now justly on the findings from the national reports and the information analyzed. As the people who were producing the document, including the hashtag, we did want an opportunity to reflect on some of the experiences in compiling the global report, so that's now in a text box on these sort of reflections related related to the PMRR process as opposed to being key messages. So that's a change that you'll see in this version. As I mentioned, the overlap between the concise summary and the conclusions has been drastically reduced, which would then mean that when we package this, we'll want to package those together for policymakers. It was the idea that the concise summary would sort of be the package, but now it really really needs to be the concise summary and conclusions together if this is something that we're sending to a— more of a higher-level audience. The methodology in the text was expanded. This was a comment that many people thought that in addition to having an information document on methods, we should also put a little bit more into the report itself, which we've tried to address. The figures and the descriptions we've tried to improve. However, I will mention that we have a graphic designer. And so many of the comments on the figures, like people didn't love the color choice, we have not addressed those because we are working with a design team. And I agree with many of these comments, but we are hoping that those will be fixed by somebody who is more professional and better at that than our team. And so— Other specific comments were made, which really a lot of them pointed us back to the national reports. And I think that this has been a really useful exercise because the comments that we received were excellent in terms of improving the quality of the report from our perspective. So where did we reach in terms of the key messages? So there's this one overarching message that is at the front. And this is that the framework has generated unprecedented global engagement and driven action, innovation, collaboration, and learning experiences across all 23 targets. However, unless collective implementation accelerates rapidly, the 2030 targets and mission will not be achieved. And while it is too early to detect changes in biodiversity outcomes, the current rate of progress presents a long-term risk because achieving the 2030 targets and mission is essential to putting the world on a path towards the 2050 goals and vision. So this is the key message in the, in the report, the overarching message. And this is then coupled with the scorecard, which many people wanted to see some numbers in this scorecard, so we have added them in. It's not very visually appealing right now, but again, graphic designer will hopefully help us make this look much better than it looks now. But for transparency, now you can see all of the numbers and how we assigned some things green and yellow. And you'll see that some of the greens are not that high, especially for column 2, which is the self-assessment. The highest self-assessment of progress was 50%, which is— That's not bad. Target 3. And so this is the mapping of the national targets to the global targets and the global goals at the same time. So this gives you an idea of how parties feel the targets are related and how their contribution towards their national targets will relate to the global goals. So for me, the message here here is that there is a lot of overlap in terms of what the goals depend on, and basically this logic of the framework which we had before COP15, which was that you have to achieve all of the targets in order to progress towards the goals, I think that this really does demonstrate that this is still what people think in their national targets, because you see this very complex matrix metrics of how the different targets contribute to the goals. So here are the key messages. The first key message is that the framework has garnered strong political will and commitment. However, there are gaps between the collective scope of the national targets and the scope of the global targets of the framework. Strengthening political will and commitment would enable these gaps in scope and ambition to be addressed and overcome. As we've mentioned, so there's in the there's more parties that have submitted national targets now, but in the global report at the time that we did the analysis, there was 162 parties, so 82% of parties that had aligned national targets. This is a lot more than in the Achi framework, where less than half of countries demonstrated alignment between their national targets and the global. And on average, the average party addressed 23 of the global targets in their national targets. So, again, this means that parties really took on board pretty much the entire framework in their national targets, which is a huge step forward. However, many of the target elements are only partially reflected in the national commitments, and There's uneven levels of what's reflected. There's gaps in terms of mainstreaming and finance and governance and policy coherence, participation, and rights issues in the national targets when you look across the different elements that relate to those topics. The second key message that we have is that implementation is underway across all targets, but less than half of parties reported that their national targets on track for any global target. This could be addressed through accelerated strategic and prioritized action tailored to national circumstances, particularly on issues related to addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. This key message— all the key messages did receive quite a lot of feedback in the peer review, so the wording is different than in the previous version, and hopefully this reflects many of your thoughts when you were submitting these comments. In terms of the findings, there's action across every target. So for every target, we're seeing different countries saying what they're doing for that target. There's a lot of different action and a lot of great practices that have been shared that are creating these implementation success stories. We've tried to pull some of these out as case studies, but we only pulled out a fraction as case studies because there are so many implementation success stories. And we're thinking that this would be a good opportunity after all of this to perhaps build an even bigger case study library so that we can demonstrate some of the successes that we're seeing. However, as I had already mentioned on the scorecard, less than 50% of parties report being on track and for— in these national targets that are aligned with any specific global target. And this is on a Likert scale, so parties are asked, are you on track to achieve this target? And as I said, and so less than 50% have said yes, that they are on track for a target, for any of the global targets. And the indicator trends are pretty mixed with still more negative trends than positive trends. For the outcome-level indicators, this could be due to time lags, but for many of the indicators that relate to policy or administrative processes, you would expect to start seeing trends happen more rapidly. There are major implementation gaps, particularly related to the drivers of biodiversity loss. The key message number 3 is that there have been some gains in domestic and international public finance, positive incentives for biodiversity, capacity building and development, technology transfer, technical and scientific cooperation. So it's quite a lot. However, less progress is reported in mobilizing and tracking private finance and reducing incentives, including subsidies harmful to biodiversity. Parties report that access to sufficient and timely means of implementation remains a barrier to implementation across the framework. I think the target pretty much says it, but one of the things that you will notice in the scorecard is that targets 15, 16, 18, and 19 are among the lowest rated in terms of the parties' own self-assessment of their progress towards those targets. Based on the data in the national reports, it is unlikely that the 2025 milestone will be met. We don't have data for 2020. 2025 yet in the global report. Most countries have not reported data beyond 2024 because, as you know, compiling finance data takes some time, and so the data is not up to date at this moment. And there could be information that's not reported against this $20 billion, but in the global report, we are only basing this on what we received in the national reports. Based on the amounts submitted in the national reports, the aggregate of them falls significantly short of this $20 billion per year, which is the 2025 milestone. There have been many successful practices in other aspects of means of implementation, and there's been less in terms of private finance and reforming harm subsidies. Key message 4: While many parties report actions to strengthen environmental governance, advancing the mainstreaming of biodiversity and its multiple values, and improving policy coherence, progress remains uneven and insufficient. The targets of the framework include aspects related to economic development plans and other sectors, including food systems, health, infrastructure, trade, fiscal policy, finance, and other national and priorities such as improving integration and mainstreaming of biodiversity across government in order to implement the framework and—

wait.

And to avoid or minimize tradeoffs, reduce duplication, and streamline domestic resource allocation. So in order to achieve the framework, as I can— I'm sure everyone is aware, mainstreaming is essential because it cannot be environment ministries alone implementing the framework. And on this, targets 1 and 14 are targets that are directly related to having whole-of-government policy. And these also show limited progress, particularly in terms of integrated spatial planning and mainstreaming biodiversity across government. And these are both components those different targets, and there are binary indicator questions related to these topics. So while there have— has been more engagement with agriculture, fisheries, and finance ministries, there's still a lack of sort of broader mainstreaming approaches. So the framework cannot be achieved without engaging actors other than national government. Again, this is the logic of the framework itself. The whole-of-society approach can be a very effective, inclusive, and cost-efficient pathway to strengthening implementation. The impacts on and reliance of different actors on biodiversity, the participation rights and resource needs of indigenous people and local communities, women, youth, and other actors, and the contributions that different actors are making or could make towards the framework are not yet being fully realized. addressed, accounted for, and supported are consistently reflected in planning, monitoring, and reporting. In the global report, there's more than 100 non-state actors that have made support— commitments in support of the framework. There are more online now, but again, we were only able to analyze the ones as of the date when we cut the analysis off. At that point in time, the portal that we were using was very new, and so that's part of the reason why we don't have as much information. But one of the other things that we have seen is that many of the NBISAPs and the national reports, while they may mention the engagement of other actors, it's more of a superficial mention, and so it's really difficult to see how the actors are actually contributing towards implementation at the national level based on the information in the national national reports. And this impacted our ability to really say what was happening with these actors, as it wasn't captured very much in terms of the— what was in the national reports. And what we do see then, in addition, is that governments reported challenges in terms of tracking these commitments, and in terms of identifying what the contribution of actors was at the national level, or coordinating that and trying to get everyone behind the the national targets and the MD-SAPs. We also see that progress in terms of rights and equitable governance and participation are some of the issues that are not well captured across the different targets. This is something that is not just about Target 22, but many of the targets actually refer to having participation, and so that's an element of many targets that didn't get captured very fully. Most parties have quantitative data for monitoring some of the targets. More than 90% of parties used at least one headline indicator. So I think this is a tremendous success in terms of improving the use of quantitative data. The strongest indicators that are reported on— well, the strongest one is Target 3. Target 4, that is associated with the Red List. And so the Red List and the protected areas are the 2 strongest indicators that parties reported on. But there was reporting on other targets as well. And many parties, as I said, have described improvements that they're making to the national monitoring systems. But as we know, these improvements take time and resources. And so reporting does remain uneven, and there are gaps in terms of data availability, indicators, infrastructure, technical capacity. And this is something that I think is a definite need. And many also reported that they didn't have time series data, and the disaggregations necessary for policymaking, such as by ecosystem type or demographic information, are often not available. So that concludes the key messages. And I am going to suggest that everyone mulls over this And then we come back and have questions after the coffee break. It should be now.

Yeah.

Oh, let's take 20 minutes.

Yeah.

So thank you very much to the Secretariat, and we'll come in 20 minutes. Could be 20 23. So by 11, we can recombine. One thing that happens to me, and as an advice, if you— well, there's a QR, but if you are looking your webpage with documents for SOPSTA 28, maybe A3, document 2, A3 will not appear. Refresh your page and then you will see it. So see you at 11. Enjoy coffee break.

Thank you.

Hello again. Please take your seats. It's been more than 23 minutes.

Yeah.

Welcome back.

Yoo-hoo!

Yoo-hoo!

Still people coming to the room.

Is it because we're at the university?

So welcome back.

We're going—

we are reconvening our session. The last part of part 3, we already heard the 2 presentations from the Secretariat, the methodological one with Tim Hirsch and the report as such and the key messages by Gillian Campbell. So this is now the time for Q&A. So I open the floor for questions. So please raise your hand and you can expose your microphone. question and to whom it's addressed. I hope it was clear on the presentation how the report was prepared and what the information so far is telling us on the 6 key messages, and how are we going to use this information, how we're going to deal with the documents in SOPSTA, and also same information for SBI. Next week is going to see on the technical information to provide technical advice to SBI, and SBI will also consider this in the review and the messages to COP. So what the COP is going to decide about the information and the review. So any questions to Secretariat on the Global Report?

Yes.

Remind to take a look on document AF3, which is the revised version on the conclusions and the improvements based on the peer review phase. So I have one request here. Victor, can you identify yourself, please?

Good morning.

I can break the ice. Yeah, thank you for the excellent presentation. summaries, I think, and the key messages, but I could ask the obvious question because you were talking about the— well, that it's likely that we will not meet the 2025 milestone of finance. So how big is the gap, or, you know, do you have any idea on how far we are behind?

Can you identify yourself, please?

Ah, sorry.

I'm Ari Pekka-Aalonen from Finland, and this question is to Gillian, I guess.

Any other questions? So maybe I can take 2 or 3 at once. If not so far, and thank you for breaking the ice, Finland. So I give the floor to Secretariat.

So this is a difficult question because, as we noted in the global report itself, we don't have complete data. And we, you know, we have reporting for most of the parties that would be providing overseas development assistance is typically what's been reported. And this is what parties reported, and they then didn't report other forms of development assistance necessarily in their national reports. And so there could be that there is additional funding that wasn't reported by parties, and there are some parties, like about 20% of parties, that didn't report on this at all. So that could make up some of the difference. However, what we see now is a very substantial gap. So it would need to be a substantial amount in order to bridge this gap. But additionally, we don't have data for 2025, as I mentioned. So it's really a difficult question, and I think that I would encourage you to read the Target 19 summary. You can then see exactly how that data has been aggregated.

Thank you.

Mustafa.

Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Good to see you after a long time. First of all, these are very interesting presentations that are typical. However, if we all remember that GBF took us almost 4 years to prepare it based on transformative changes and sustainable development. I haven't seen in the presentation anything at all regarding sustainable development because in each target, if they are not national targets, if they are not related the needs of the country in terms of sustainable development and transformative changes could be a problem. This is number one. Number 2, we need to consider the emerging issues that took place very recently, especially in our region, the issue of financing. We were told that $20 billion will be available or at least some of it will be available. And without financing, we cannot say we can implement many targets, especially Target 2 that related to the ecosystem restoration. We do not even know how much money is needed to restore 20 or 30% of the country. I was told several times during preparation of our national report, how much money you are going to invest and how much money you will gain. It was very, very, very difficult, especially if you deal with marine ecosystem or marine environment or even wetlands and drylands. It is very, very difficult. So we didn't know how much money is needed to implement what we agreed upon. Number 3, it is a timeframe. The timeframe As we know, we approved GBF in 2025. It took us almost a year to convince decision makers on GBF to understand what it's related to, what are the issues, blah, blah, blah, especially the new targets like the business communities, like women, like communities, and things like that. So if we say implementation will focus on national report, MBSAP, and national reporting, I would say yes, this could be a good way of assessing implementation. But when it comes to targets and the use of indicators, especially the overlap between different targets, I would say every target is related to another target. If you take women, women in special planning and ecosystem restoration, protected areas, blah, blah, blah, blah. The same thing goes for every others. So it was very, very difficult for us. When we make reporting, you have to report on each target in terms of progress, in terms of problems, in terms of other targets as well in terms of international committees or regional committees, and so that creates a problem in terms of the length of the national reports as well because in every target you have to report more or less the same. This target is related to Ramsar, related to World Heritage Sites and things like that, but overall structure and the conclusion are okay, but they need to be, as I said, transformative. Need something that we could say to the decision makers, we have to do what we were asked to prepare over that period of time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mustafa. Many points. in your comments, from development, from means of implementation, from time restrictions, the use of indicators, national targets, how to measure progress, how to identify challenges, and how to fill these gaps. So that's why we are here for the next 2 weeks. But I give the floor to the Secretary.

So I was going to make a Similar comment to Hezekiah. I think that many of the issues that you have just raised are not issues for the Global Report, but are issues for the Global Review decision, and that's the decision, of course, that will be negotiated by SBI. The report informs that decision, and we have highlighted the importance of sustainable development, particularly in this key message on mainstreaming, you know, because it's listing all of— how all these different sectors fit together. including economic and social development. I do think that those issues are in the report, and the challenges that you've mentioned came across strongly from many of the national reports and are in the global report as well. But this, what do you do about it, this is the discussion for SBI.

Thank you very much. Any other requests? Remember, next week will be with— under SABSTA lenses to see if technical information, to see the key messages, to see the results, the conclusions, to see where we are in the pathway to 2030 and 2050 vision, and if SABSTA endorse the outcome from the Global Report, and then SBI will see, based on this information, what can be the different decisions that can recommend to COP to take in order to fill these gaps and to move on. So I hope that with these presentations we saw, it's clear about the methodological elements, the methodological part in how the report was performed, and then what the information is saying and conclusions, the main conclusions and the key messages. So I see a hand below. Please, Uganda.

Yeah, thank you, and thank you for the presentation. I think it kind of gives us a reality check. Direction we are taking, and I think it is encouraging to see some progress being made. 4 years, as already Egypt has said, was a very engaging process for us to try to put in place the framework, and I know that we've had relatively short time to really do work after adopting that framework because 2022, that was when end of the year that was when it was adopted, and then shortly after that we had to show progress on already implementing the framework. So what has really caught my eye are many among the messages, but one here which says it is too early to detect change in biodiversity outcomes, and I think that speaks a lot because outcome is a long process. It's going to take time. So we shouldn't think that the outcome of biodiversity that we want is going to happen in 1 year, it's going to happen in 2 years. We should all be prepared for a long journey and hard work. Maybe most of us might have already even stopped being in these spaces here when other people have taken over there, but we need to sustain the process that has already started so that that desired outcome can be realized. We know the most immediate thing to do right now is to put biodiversity on the path to recovery. If we take off our effort in that direction, then opportunity will be missed. So that is what I really see as some something we should take home, that the outcome is not yet there, but the means to achieve that has been put in place and there's effort ongoing.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Francis. Certainly, it's part of the disclaimer that appears with the Global Report, saying it's too early, but we need to keep doing much more. And so how can we align necessary things to be done from here to 2030. Important lessons we are learning in this process. This first global review is a very interesting exercise that I hope for the second one we're going to be in a better position to see trends, to see clarity, to see what's happening with the parties' implementation, but also if there is a any concrete facts that we can measure in favor of biodiversity. Before giving the floor to the Secretary, I see 2 hands. I believe it's Japan and also in the back, so we can take 2, 3 comments. So go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and explanation of the report. Japan really appreciates their work so far. So I have 2 clarifications, questions. One thing is, could you share the breakdown of the commitments made by non-state actors? So NSAs, non-state actors, include international active NGOs and MEAs, as well as companies and the financial sectors in domestic— as a domestic player. So if information on the composition of this group is currently available, I would appreciate it if you could share it. And the other one is about objectives of collecting non-state actors' commitment for this global report. Could you share or could you elaborate on the rationale or objectives of— I mean, behind seeking commitments from non-state actors as a part of this global effort?

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And the other requests?

Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the presentations and for all the work that went into preparing the Global Report. We're still digesting the updated summary. Maya Hunt from New Zealand. I guess my question was, did you feel that you had sufficient information from parties' national reports to assess progress both towards the targets and especially the mission halt and reverse biodiversity loss. You know, it's really good to see the analysis by the target element level, and I guess that sort of element breakdown is one dimension. But there's also been some, you know, we've heard discussion of are all biomes equally represented? And I guess there's a question of, you know, are we still effectively addressing all the direct drivers of loss, the underlying drivers? you know, how does that look across sectors or across biomes? And there was sort of a, I guess, a, you know, a little bit of a signal to take those, for example, direct drivers into account in the structured outline for the report. I think that's what— in the concise summary. And of course, the GBF itself does refer in Section A to the direct drivers. But yeah, I guess my question is, would it be— can you see it would be easier to, if you had some slightly better information or different information, to make this analysis, you know, on how we're progressing against reversing and halting— halting and reversing loss? Just because I wonder whether we— that could be an area to consider in terms of how we continue to improve our use of the monitoring framework?

Thank you. Thank you. I'll go back to the Secretariat and I see 2 more requests. I think you have enough now.

Thanks for the questions. In terms of the commitments from actors other than national government, the template for this was agreed in Decision 1632, and so parties themselves are the ones that identified how this information would be collected. And it was collected in order to inform the global report, but also to provide an opportunity for these actors to showcase the work that they're doing, and also to provide a platform for collecting this information if parties themselves want to use it to try to connect with some of the actors that are working at the national level. And so I think the commitment portal has multiple purposes, but one of it was to try to understand what different actors are doing towards the implementation of the framework. And so this thing gives us some basis for saying that these actors are contributing in these ways. However, as we mentioned, the portal is still new, and so I don't think there's that much information there. And ideally, this information should be coming through the national reports in, in more detail. So that we would then be able to get that from the other side as well. I would then like to additionally mention on top of that, we had a separate process for collecting the case studies from IPLCs and use of traditional knowledge, and for collecting the synergies or the contribution that different MEAs are making or other international processes are making towards the implementation of the framework. These were in notification 2025/099 and 2025/100. And so if you go to those, you can see all of the inputs that were submitted through, through those notifications. And so the MEAs and the international organizations were actually collected not primarily through this commitment portal, but through this notification which asked for for inputs. And that was because that was highlighted as a source of information for the global report in the Decision 1632. So that Decision 1632 formed the basis. So hopefully that answers that question. And I think in terms of understanding the commitment from these different actors, the adoption of the framework recognized that governments couldn't implement the framework alone. And so if If governments can't do it alone and we're only measuring what governments are doing, then we're never going to have a complete picture. And so we're trying to figure out ways that we can get a more complete picture. And maybe we're not there yet. I will say I don't think we're there yet, but that's the idea is to try to find a way to get this picture. And one of the things that's particularly missing is that it is only commitments. Right now we're not going back to those actors to ask them what they've done towards that commitment. commitment, which we are thinking that we could do on an optional basis. But I think that that would be something important for the next review so that we know what they've actually done, not just what they said they were going to do. So then in terms of the comments from New Zealand, I think that there was a lot of information and that we have a strong basis for the report. I think that there was really great information in the national reports and in the national targets. However, when we say that participation was not as well covered, for instance, which is one of the statements we're making, we have also tried to say that it could be that it's just not described. So obviously we're basing the analysis on the national reports, and if an issue is not described by the party, Then in a sense, we don't know that it happened, and so we're kind of assuming that it didn't, and that may not be the case. So it could be that there's a lot of things that are happening that were just not well captured in the documents that we received, and that is something that I think is, you know, maybe a lesson learned for everyone, because if you are a party and would like to highlight something, then in order for us to consider it, we we would have to have it in writing. I think that in terms of having a stronger basis for the next report, the monitoring framework is really something that has created a major step change in terms of our ability to assess progress. However, as we mentioned in this report, it is still at the early phases, and so if we're really going to use the monitoring framework effectively, efficiently and effectively, then there is still work that needs to happen in order to improve it and to have it used, including the disaggregations so that we can answer some of these biome-type questions that you were asking. Because that would be the way that we would get a lot of that information in addition to the narratives. And so I think that the global report, in summary, does have a really strong analysis. However, it also tries to point out where we could do better for the next report.

Thank you very much. I have 4 requests on the floor. One is behind, next to UK, followed by Osama, Ruth, and Russia. So you have the floor.

Thank you very much. So Holly Kelly-Weil from the UK. Firstly, I would love to thank all of the ASHTAG members, the Secretariat, and the consultants for all their work on this report and for the immense work to amend the summary, taking on board all of the comments that were received. We know we sent many of them in. We had just one question for clarification at the moment, which is with regards to Target 19. We had noted in some of our comments the fact that there is OECD data available that we think can complement the evidence in national reports about how far we've come to achieving the 2025 target. And we're just not clear if that was incorporated into the revision. And so we'd appreciate any further information on how that was assessed and if that's part of the assessment that you've done here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Osama?

It's just that I wanted to highlight one of the major challenges that we faced in that global report doing, which is related to the process itself. While we acknowledge that synthesizing national reporting, the national report parties report against their national targets, which may vary in scope and alignment with the global target of the framework. And this required global assessment, required substantial mapping and methodological interpretation because, I mean, you have to be based on the national report and those report against national target which are sometimes not clearly aligned with the global target and then you will have to interpret things and it's related to the construct of the process. Perhaps parties would think about how to produce global— national reports that would easily fit into a global one because this may affect uncertainty in a given way that sometimes it's not Easy to clearly distinguish between limited implementation, limited reporting, and limited data availability while interpreting the results. So this is something that you need to consider while you craft the process of having standard format for the national reporting and how that will affect the global reporting if you want to compile data.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. That's describing the structure of the framework and what happened with MBISAP and what happened with national tax. There is no straight connection, so there is partial, and that's part of the thing, our reality. Anyway, still 2 requests, Ruth followed by Russia. And I'm wondering if next to Japan is still asking for the floor or is that an old— No, no, no.

request.

Is another one? Okay, okay, so let's follow Ruth and then Russia.

Hi everyone, I'm Ruth Spencer from Antigua. I'm a local community representative. I've been a part of the hashtag and my eyes have been opened to so much realities, because when you hear this big figure, this big amount of money, that is needed. I keep saying, at the national level, we have to use whatever knowledge connections we have, because there are many local community groups, and in response to the gentleman from Japan, we don't always have the funds. But we use the connections because the money is to pay for consultant services, equipment. Right in your country, you have partnerships that you can build to get the services, to get sometimes the equipment, but it requires the all of society. You have to go out.

Yes.

and bring awareness, educate people, and on the basis of that, they will support you. So I don't have to sit down and wait for a pot of money to come. I can use those connections to help me to meet the targets. And I just want to implore those of us who are working at the national level that it's very important to include these other stakeholders. We bring knowledge, that local knowledge of our situations, and it's possible. It's possible to meet these targets, but we need to get a new understanding, that transformative change where we see each other as equals, you know, going out to meet the partnerships and getting things done. It's possible. I believe it's possible.

Thank you.

Possible because I see it happening in my country. And we have to also work with governments. We have to offer our support, offer our knowledge to help them as well, because everybody is limited by human resources. But it is possible, and I want us to leave here today knowing that those targets, those ambitions that we crafted We have to work towards them. Put yourselves in the place. The change starts with us. Let's do what we can to move the process along.

Thank you very much. Before going back to Secretariat, Rasha, go ahead.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, thank you very much for, first of all, for organizing this workshop, which is really helpful and provides additional information and additional opportunity for us to discuss what have— has been made and what we are going actually to discuss next week. I think that the summary, the new edition of key messages, is really interesting. It would, of course, take some more time to digest everything which is inside, but it's a very good approach now. And to me personally, it looks great that there is whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach, and data and knowledge mentioned and stressed in the key messages. Basically, for us, this is the very important exercise. It's not a summary of statistical measurement what we have achieved as the first global review, but it's the first review of collected collective action, and that indicates that we are doing things together. We are on the way to implement the framework of what has been done, what was impossible. And for us, I think it's very important to stress that there are gaps, and those gaps will be bridged, and there are ways, and we are working on those ways to bridge the gaps now. It's impossible to assess progress of the implementation of the global framework after 2 years of implementation because we are speaking of bigger issues, of the processes that take time. And I would like— of course, I could elaborate more and agree with all other things that were raised here about the resources and involvement, but I would like to stress that we need to summarize, maybe, or agree how we further work on the indicators. To me, the worrying message is some ways this new add 3 saying that headline indicators are used on average from 7% to 78%. So 7% is nothing. 78% is a very good thing. And And this is for the parties. It would be interesting to look on how the actors other than national governments use the indicators. I believe it's different statistics. And also the analysis was made on the submissions at the very beginning of the process because of the deadlines and timing. We all understand that. But maybe it would be good to see whether the headline indicators were used by them.

Thank you.

At which range. And for the further steps, I believe we need to discuss that we were all excited when we adopted the framework with indicators, but most of those indicators are not used. So maybe we need to reduce the number or to reformulate those or use the key indicators of those that for the next review, given the fact that will be IPBES assessment, methodological assessment, for the next review we will be at a better position to use common approaches, available data, and headline indicators to really show the progress. Again, that's just sharing the views, and thank you very much for the opportunity and looking forward for the next weeks.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Rocha. There are some comments on indicators, which is more substance-related matters. So I'll give the floor to Secretariat to respond to the various questions.

Thank you. So I think I'll take the comments from Rocha and Ruth first, which is— Ruth's comments weren't really a question, but In terms of the commitments from actors other than national governments, yes, this is something that definitely does need a process, and we have no idea what indicators they're using because we didn't ask that. That wasn't part of— as I mentioned, there's no reporting from those different actors. It's only a commitment. So this is definitely something that is— it could be further considered. I would say the use of the indicators is also something that really does need the attention of SAPSTAT. There is an agenda item on this. Because of the timeline, you know, the national reports just concluded in February and we've done this major exercise, there hasn't been as much time to reflect specifically on what needs to happen with the monitoring framework, but you will see the use of indicators which is online as Information Document 11, I think, or 9. I can't remember which is which now.

11.

And there's also, of course, recommendations related to how this work could move forward that are included in the draft decision that's part of the SAPSTA recommendation. From the Secretariat side, you know, There probably does need to be a process. What that process looks like is something that certainly should be discussed here in the next week. So, in terms of the comment from Osama, I think this is exactly the point. So, with the previous framework, parties reported on the global targets, and there were issues with this as well, right? Because then there's this disconnect from what's actually happening at the national level. So, at COP15, parties decided to flip it around and to report on national targets, which is more logical in terms of making sure that the national report links with national policy. But it does make the analysis harder. So there's always going to be, you know, what's more important? Is the link with national policy more important, or is the link with the global report more important? Probably the link with national policy. is more important because that is where the action happens. And so then at the global report stage, we just have to do our best to figure out how all that national policy fits together. Now, for the UK's question, we have tried to treat Target 19 the same way that we have treated all of the other targets in the analysis. So we have added some references to the analysis from OECD. However, the focus of our analysis does remain on what's submitted in the national targets, the same as it is for every other target that has been included in the global report. As you can see from the, the annotated outline which was adopted by CEPSTA and the sources of information that were negotiated in Decision 1632, there's a huge focus on basing things primarily on national data. And so therefore that is also the focus of our analysis. So we have, though, tried to at least reference the OECD data, which does cover a broader range of flows referred to in Target 19A. But even with theirs, they only have data up to 2023, and it's about $17 billion. Then, you know, we don't have any information beyond that, so it would still be difficult to identify if that milestone had been met, but it is still significantly below the milestone. But if we base it on the parties' reporting, it's further than— it's further below that. And additionally, I think there was comments on using the OEC data for for D3, but we're not sure exactly how that information would compare to the national reports, and it's not disaggregated. And so again, we have referenced it, but it makes it difficult for us to include because of the structure of the global report. So I think that answers the questions.

Thank you, Secretariat. And I also like to remind you that we have documentation 2, Act 2, that talks about the monitoring framework, including some suggestions about the use of indicators and potential new indicators, bearing in mind that the setting we have already was once used to prepare 7 national reports. So we need to have continuity, more information, but there are some reflections also in that document in relation to our conversations. I hope this the exchange of views and this information has been helpful to have more clarity in how the report was performed and the outcomes. And can— how can all of us help our chair of SOPSTA when we discuss this on Monday to move on and to take decisions and advice from SOPSTA and to endorse this report to move on and to think about what is next, what SBI can do. I assume many elements that were put here on the table that I see can be part of the elements to consider in SBI deliberations. So I'm wondering if there are more requests for questions to Secretariat. Senka.

Thank you. Sorry for coming late with a question related to report. Good day to everyone. I have something which is really very interesting for us. Information coming from self-assessment and information coming from using indicators is different. How do you as a group, as ASHTAG and Secretariat together, how do you interpret this difference and how it is reflected now in key messages, how it will be taken up, and one, if I may say, honest question: in this moment, which kind of information we should believe more building key messages? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senka. Any other requests? Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you, sir, again. So my question should have been more clearer, but regarding the breakdown of the non-state actors' commitments, I wanted to ask about the breakdown of the submission by actor type, such as international NGOs and the private sector, which category accounted for the largest share of submissions and what were their respective proportion or how much or something like that? So if you don't have such concrete information, that's totally fine.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I'll give the floor back to Secretariat.

Sorry, I forgot to answer this question. We do have a breakdown in the introduction where we talk about the information sources. It's mostly from NGOs, but you can see— you can find the breakdown in that section of the global report. In terms of Senga's question, so the self-assessment is progress towards the national target, not towards the global target.

Okay.

And so I would say that that relates more to the scope. So if, for example, let's say that I'm from a make-believe country X, and I set a national target of protecting 2%. Now, if I protect 2%, I will say that I have fully achieved that target because that's what I set. Now, when we do the analysis, we would say that that 2% is not a very large contribution towards 30%. So if everybody were to contribute 2%, we would of course be very, very short of the 30%. But everyone would still say that they met their national target because the self-assessment is against the national target. So that's what the self-assessment is measuring. The self-assessment is directly related to the national targets and the scope of those national targets. Whereas the indicators are global. And so the indicators would be related to the actual percentage. And then you would compare it against the— you know, you would aggregate it and compare it against the 30. So these are sort of 2 different measures of similar things, but coming at different angles, I would say. And the indicators are going to give you a much more quantitative assessment vis-à-vis the global target. However, However, I think that, you know, the indicators are only going to capture some things, and a lot of things would be captured better through this national target scope and are you meeting it. Particularly if you're in the process of developing policy actions, then you might see it— you might see that there first. And because you could say that you're on track, so imagine that you say that you're going to protect 50%. And you've now protected 25, you could say I'm actually on track for this because by 2030 I know that I'm going to get it done. And so then the indicator would have more of a time lag, whereas your self-assessment is not saying that you've achieved it. You're saying I'm on track. I know that I'm going to get this done by 2030. So again, there there there are definitely two sides of this of the picture, which is why we've considered. So we considered both of those in coming up with this overall stoplight. So the overall stoplight column is based on those 2 things that I just described and an average of those, basically.

Thank you very much. I see 2 more requests, one from Francis Sockwell and from New Zealand. Oh, close to— yes, please identify. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. Carly Siege here from Conservation International, and I thank you so much for all of the work that got us to this point. It's been really cool to see and be a part of this community. I have 2 kind of connected questions on process and the sequence of discussions while we're here in Nairobi. First, what is the expectation for the discussion and negotiation on these updated Global Report key messages during Substa? And then regarding the global review decisions that we'll be discussing throughout both substat and SBI, most of the operative paragraphs are based on the global report key messages, which are now— have been updated following the peer review. So will there— the draft decision language be updated with that, with those new key messages, or adjusted after those key messages are then discussed and adjusted? Just a little more clarity on that. on the process would be super helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you for the questions. And now New Zealand.

Thank you. Sorry to come back. Yes, so just on this difference between assessing the progress of, say, of parties' actions towards their targets versus the progress against the indicators, I guess, I mean, I think to us it seems those are quite separate things, right, because our actions are— our actions lead to outputs, lead to outcomes, and the indicators we really wanted to track outcomes, right, objectively. But then I was wondering how you sort of approach this difference, especially in the analysis of gaps and shortfalls in the report, and sorry if I haven't sort of worked through that yet, but— Because I think there's been sort of some mention of there might be gaps or shortfalls against these, you know, these specific targets, but is that a shortfall in countries addressing them through their national targets, or is it a shortfall at the outcomes level, you know, like according to the indicators? And were you able to perhaps differentiate these different types of shortfalls in the final target analysis. And in particular, I'm really interested about that in relation to headline indicator, I guess it's 1.1. You know, like you could say parties made really— are making good progress on spatial planning, but because that indicator isn't— the method isn't really ready yet, maybe we don't actually have any results yet to show if we're making any progress against addressing land use change and habitat loss. So I'm just wondering if you were able to tease out those different types of gaps in the report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think it's also important to be aware that this is a global report of collective progress on what parties are doing. We're going to have later the global assessment on how biodiversity is. So it's also a combination of information. So we're seeing how parties are moving on in national targets, in MBISAPs, in reports, which indicators are using, how they measure national progress, how this contributes to the global targets and what measures are being taken to address the gaps. So these are the actions of parties and also is coming information from MEAs, from other non-state actors, but the main basis are the official information coming from national reports. So it's a combination, but later we also So when I see the reality check against biodiversity done by IPBES as well. Now I'll give the floor to the Secretary to respond.

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

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

Thank you.