Workshop on the recently completed IPBES assessment on business and biodiversity

in an inclusive way. Further, the potential positive and potential negative impacts should be assessed on a multidisciplinary science basis, be inclusive, and on a case-by-case basis. We can go on. I will not read all of it. And then the expert notes the potential of synthetic biology to exert both positive and negative impacts in the context of the 3 objectives of the CBD and the Framework. And thus, efforts to support capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge sharing in the context of synthetic biology, in line with the thematic action plan, should be accelerated to address development, assessment, governance, regulation, and unequal participation in the field of synthetic biology. And again, the experts recognized the importance of anticipatory approaches, including horizon scanning and monitoring mechanisms, in supporting the timely identification and assessment of both potential positive and potential negative impacts of future developments in symbiose. So I thank you all for your attention and I'm ready to work with you all in this beautiful Nairobi, and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for your response.

Thank you for your response.

Okay, thank you very much to the co-chair for giving you, I think, even a sense of the discussions. so that you have some context for the deliberations you will have this week. It was indeed a very fruitful discussion, and the atmosphere that the meeting had was really informed by the very capable hands of our co-chair, Valeria, and thank you very much. I don't know Are there any questions? And I see an old friend of synthetic biology. Yes, Osama.

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

Thank you.

itself, because, I mean, you got— it might be interpreted as giving a political endorsement to those examples that the expert group itself recognized are preliminary and illustrative and not based on agreed assessment and methodology.

Thank you.

Yes, Mustafa.

Thank you very much, Stu. I'm not an expert, to make it easy for you, on synthetic biology. Having said that, synthetic biology is a very complicated subject, not only complicated in terms of all the issues, but even when you look at the targets, GBF targets, there are more— even more than half of them that deal with synthetic biology. Based on all of this and the report of the thematic areas, it was said the role of CBD Secretariat. I would like to see the role of the focal points because focal points cannot be experts in all of the issues that are related to all of this.

Thank you.

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

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

I hope this is working. Yeah, and I don't know if it's still morning. It's afternoon now. So good afternoon, colleagues, everyone, and thanks to the Secretariat as well. So I just have— I think one is just one reflection and then maybe one question. Yeah, so I think to the ATEC, maybe just some words of comfort on the methodology. I think you will always find that when it comes to SimBio, that's always going to be a contentious area. I think Osama has spoken in terms of the expertise that you put around. You'll find that the methodology approaches are always going to be a challenging one. So it's going to be interesting to see how the discussions go, you know, in the next 2 days or so. Yeah, so on— yeah, maybe just if it can be answered maybe from the ARTEC.

Yeah.

I see horizon scanning is popping up again, and we know how this has always gone when it comes to Simbio. It gets done and then it gets thrown back, or the parties deliberate differently around it, but it always seems like it comes back as a requirement that needs to be done, either through the Secretariat Office or through the ARTEC, and we know that it takes a lot of time to do. Is this something that maybe the ARTEC deliberated a little bit on when it put down again as a recommendation, and maybe just to get a general sense of, you know, if it's something that will be looked at again, or through the thematic action plan, it's something that the parties will be encouraged to do themselves. Yeah, I don't know if that will be answered or if it can also just be a reflection point.

Thanks.

Thank you, Claude. Hendrik?

Hello.

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

Okay.

Rulan. Yeah.

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

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

Thank you very much. I'm Ava Srinivasanji with Third World Network.

I just have a question.

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

Thank you.

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

Okay, thank you, Secretariat. I will try to follow your advice and provide some— a general answer. If I miss some of your questions, please ask me again. I would like to start with the genome-edited plants that maybe help somehow to resolve some other questions. So what the HATEC have done is to consider the identification from the party. We didn't say— the party identified the Genomaid 80 plants as a potential or as a current benefit.

And that's what—

that's the claim of the parties. We didn't discuss against this. We accept and consider as a benefit. And on the other side, they say, okay, we try to understand the point of view of the parties who said this is a potential benefit, but what we underlined, that's as if this has not been going through an assessment and a methodological assessment.

That's the key.

We couldn't, as experts, say these are not benefit if the party— if the parties perceived this as a benefit. We didn't discuss about it. We check the list and try to provide example, take into account the benefit listing from the parties and the online forum or the potential negative impact and try to make the relation with the target of coming Global Biodiversity Framework. So we didn't do an assessment. There was no time and it was out of our mandate. About the first question of horizon scanning, yes, we— our work was to provide scientific advice, and all the experts in the HATEC agree on the fact that horizon scanning or similar methodology that allows the parties to identify identify, I would just say, developments that can be helpful or harmful to the CBD objective and the target of the Global Biodiversity Framework. So we call it horizon scanning. We can call it whatever you want, but we need a process to identify as early warning system and to check what's going on around the world on symbiose application. And about the 5 areas, we check along both the consideration documents that was the synthesis of the Secretariat that identified 12 areas. If you go through these areas, some are— somehow some of them are kind of repetition, like genome editing plants and genome editing microorganisms. And I think that, for example, these 2 kind of these have been and are going to be addressed also in other forums. So we try to identify some really— one area really related to future development, that is artificial intelligence, that has been identified in the previous target as well, and come out from the scientific studies, if I remember well. And the other one is—

Let's see.

Let me check. I don't want to make mistakes.

For example, where are they?

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

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

Thank you.

Businesses and communities in shaping our future. Biodiversity underpins almost every aspect of human development. It is key to the Sustainable Development Goals. The Paris Agreement on climate change and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. From food, clean water, health, and jobs to issues of peace and security, it has become imperative for decision makers to know more about how their choices affect and are affected by the environment. Yet natural resources are being depleted and degraded faster now than at any other point in human history. This is why. The work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is so important. IPBES brings together expertise from across disciplines, borders, and communities, providing the knowledge we need to develop policies that benefit people and our planet. From cabinet rooms to boardrooms, from households to individuals, we can make better decisions about biodiversity and ecosystem services. As IPBES takes the next steps in its mission to strengthen knowledge foundations For better policy through science, there is a role for every person at every level. Through renewed political commitment, greater levels of resources, the nomination of experts, the contribution of expertise, and simple word-of-mouth advocacy, we can help deepen IPBES's impact. The future we want can only be built on solid, sustainable foundations. With your support, IPBES will continue to bridge the divide between science and policy for people and nature.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're going to start in just a few minutes. It's just that we think that people are still coming back from lunch, and it seems that people may be a little bit delayed. So give us a couple of minutes, and then we'll get started.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, everybody. I hope you had a chance to rest a little bit or to eat something. So we continue in our series of workshops. It's my pleasure to welcome you all to this workshop of IPBES. I already told you in the morning that I'm happy that you arrived here in Nairobi to participate in this workshop. This time I am chairing this workshop also in my capacity as a bureau member of IPBES. I'm wearing many hats. You will remember that IPBES is the intergovernmental body established to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development. Most recently, in February 2026 in Manchester, the IPBES Plenary approved the summary for policymakers of the IPBES Methodological Assessment of the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature's Contributions to People, what we call Business and Biodiversity Assessment, and its chapters. This is, this is a summary for policymakers. The purpose of today's workshop is to provide an opportunity for SAPSTA participants to engage with IPBES experts on the findings of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment and to receive information on the ongoing work on the Monitoring Assessment, Spatial Planning and Connectivity Assessment, and also the Second Global Assessment. Now I give the floor to Astrid Schumacher, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, for her opening remarks.

Astrid?

Thank you, Ezekiel, and hello again. Good afternoon this time. In addition to food, I also hope you had some strong tea or coffee. This is always the graveyard session after lunch, the really difficult one to combine with jet lag to stay awake. But so I'm very happy that we have such an interesting subject for this particular session, which I think can excite us all. So thanks for joining this reflection on the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment. As you're aware, the purpose of this session is really to highlight the findings of the assessment with a view to then facilitate the deliberations at the imminent SAPSTAR meeting that will start very shortly. So together, I think we will also reflect how we can leverage the knowledge contained in the IPBES assessment for the implementation of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. And of course, there are also direct links to the global review decision that we need to take. But maybe to start off, let me just highlight one important fact that I think we can all easily agree on, and that is that IPBES work is absolutely essential for the implementation of the Convention, its Protocols, and of course also the KMGBF. And I think we can agree on that because we all know and feel it, that our attempts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss really must be grounded in science. And the more we experience political headwinds of all sorts, the weapon we have at our disposal is the weapon of science. We just have the good arguments, and we get the good arguments to a very large extent from IPBES. So that means also something for IPBES, and talking across here at Simone at the Secretariat, who's just taking pictures, it also means from our perspective that the IPBES science, which is of course compiled and distilled with biodiversity in mind, and that makes you so so unique. It also, of course, means from the perspective of the Convention that IPBES needs to heed or should heed the calls of the Convention, the invitations that we issue to IPBES to take up certain themes that you all as parties believe need further scientific underpinning. And I think we can also agree that the success of IPBES and the success of the Convention basically relies on taking the science and then translating it into actionable recommendations and the proper uptake at the policy level. For us in the Secretariat, in this sort of transition from science to policy, we try to be the honest brokers. We work very closely, and I believe successfully, with the IPBES Secretariat in order to have this mutually beneficial process that I just described. And I think this workshop obviously fits directly into this way of thinking. So, taking this very, very important assessment, which is— which we'll hear about in a moment, and trying to feed it through Substa into findings for the work of the Convention, and then for consideration by COP, that can really make a difference. So, for Substa, it's agenda item for, and that's where we should start building this consensus around the recommendations of the assessment that we will then hopefully agree at COP17. And I keep saying that this is so important, linking it to the Global Review, for a number of reasons, as we have discussed this morning, in particular, when we looked at the progress, or in some areas, the slow progress of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. One thing that speakers from the podium highlighted, and many of you in your interventions highlighted, was that it is not governments alone that can implement the framework. So the famous whole-of-society approach is there for a reason, because really all hands on deck are needed, and business action guided by the KMGBF is absolutely critical to have economies and people thrive, obviously within the limits of the planet and within harmony with nature. Now, if I can just use one figure to make that sort of crystal clear why that is so important, if we look at nature-negative investments and the work of UNEP in this area, many of you will have seen the Nature in the Red report that came out earlier this year, so the State of Biodiversity Finance 2026, based on figures from 2023, saying the business sector invested $4.9 trillion in 2026 into nature-negative activities. So that is a huge figure. If you compare that with global investments into nature-based solutions, there are $220 billion, out of which just above 10% come from business. So the scope, if we manage to turn that ship around, if we manage to follow the pathways that the IPBES assessment is setting out very clearly, if we manage to endorse them and translate them into policy recommendation and put the incentives in mind— and we hear a lot about enabling environments because the IPBES assessment speaks about it so much— then I think we can really have a good chance for the second half of our implementation to be faster and to be more impactful. So, more hands on deck, and so businesses, hopefully also underpinned by a reformed finance sector, pushing this transition forward. So, that is what makes our discussion today so important, what makes it important that we have a chance to hear from IPBES and from the lead authors exactly what they had in mind, what are these challenges, but what are also the pathways they're setting out, so we can basically find a way of letting this assessment guide an acceleration of action and the broadening of actors across the landscape of actors, with the focus of the business— on the business sector, of course. In this vein, I would also like to encourage you, and I'm sure you will hear that again later from ABESS, there are 2 side events at ABESS. is organizing, which I would encourage all of you to attend. The first one is, I believe, already on Monday, on the 27th. It focuses again on the Business and Biodiversity Assessment. And then the second one is on the 28th at 6:15, and that will spotlight the ongoing IPBES assessments and opportunities for engagements. So, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for a constructive discussion. in advance. I'm sure we will have one. And let's all bear in mind that working with business and getting business to work for nature and not against nature has the potential to change a lot the trajectory that we're currently on. And hence, yeah, let's try and find ways to enable business and encourage them to be good stewards of biodiversity. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much to the Executive Secretary for her opening remarks, and now I'll give the floor to the Chair of SOFSTA, Jean-Bruno. You have the floor.

Thank you, Ezekiel. Good afternoon, dear colleagues. I would like to welcome you for this last workshop of the day. On e-bass assessment. I know that SAPSTA is not officially open, but our discussion today can be considered part of SAPSTA because, as you know, beginning on Monday, delegates will discuss and negotiate scientific, technical, and technological issues and negotiate recommendations to parties. So, SubStar delegates need scientific data, knowledge, and analysis. Then, the work of IBEZ and their deliverables are crucial for us. As the chair of SubStar, I'm very happy that this workshop is happening. I would like to thank the Secretariat and the Bureau of IBEZ and the authors of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment for giving their time to make this workshop possible. It will be a great opportunity for us all to better understand this assessment and to prepare our discussion on item next week. I wish you all an excellent workshop. I encourage you to ask any questions you may have today so that you are fully prepared for our discussion during SAPSA. I wish you a good workshop.

Thank you.

Thank you very much to SAPSA Chair. We will now proceed to the presentation on the Business and Biodiversity Assessment. Today we have with us Matt Jones, one of the 3 co-chairs of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment, and Dr. Vanessa Rodriguez-Osuna, one of the coordinating lead authors of the assessment. Now, I give the floor to Matt and Vanessa for an overview presentation. Thank you, of the messages of the assessment, particularly relevant to the work on the CBD. So you have the floor.

Sorry, I didn't have enough— Good afternoon, distinguished audience. It is my pleasure to be with you today. I'm very excited to share key insights of our quite recently launched IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment.

If we go directly to—

Today we will walk you through 3 key items, starting with a background, giving you a background and context. Then we will follow up with key messages from the assessment and the narrative of the whole process. And finally, we will share with you some implications that are relevant to your work with some action points that are part of the assessment. And to start, I would like you to understand that this process was It's considered the first globally authoritative assessment on the interlinkages between businesses and biodiversity. It included nearly 80 experts working from 35 countries.

We held—

in this whole process, we had 2 official governmental reviews and 2 ILK workshops. And it was approved word by word from over 150 countries. It's considered the strongest scientific evidence to date on this topic. So really proud to be able to present some of those key insights. The great news is also we've had, even though it's recent, we have a great outreach from the media and uptake were, first of all, over 1,000 new articles in 70 countries, and not only the classical scientific media, but also uptake in key articles from outlets like Bloomberg, Responsible Investments, the World Economic Forum, which is not so typical for IPBES assessments. The summary for policymakers was downloaded 24,000 times, chapters 3,600 downloads, and it was recently available. And what is important here is the recognition that this assessment for business and financial institutions are already acknowledging the nature loss as a financial risk and are adopting key strategies in their work. The same is for— and we can see this across important institutions, from businesses and financial institutions, that are— the uptake is taking place in new guidance documents for biodiversity finance, Also corporate reporting, environmental social governance considerations into investor decision-making processes, capacity building processes as well, and pilot schemes for private sector engagements with focus on biodiversity. There is a lot of interest in the banking, investor, and insurance industry as well on these key findings. Same for policymakers, that we are really excited that the findings are already being used in key processes at national and regional level. And that's why for us, it's a privilege to be able to share this with you for your consideration as well. To start, I think it's It's important to mention in the assessment that we note that we have a serious problem, and the fact of the loss of biodiversity, it is one of the most serious threats that you all are aware of to businesses, but to the whole of society. And that's the recognition that many current economic systems are unsustainable and are driving nature's decline. And we have a serious misalignment. You were mentioning this already in your regards and your introduction. We have a misalignment in terms of financial flows where each year up to $7.3 trillion are supporting activities that drive biodiversity loss, while only $220 billion on nature restoration, conservation, and sustainable use activities. That means roughly for every dollar spent for activities that are positive for biodiversity, $30 go in activities that destroy it. But the good news is that these reports provide concrete methods to measure impacts and dependencies and provides also options for immediate action for businesses, for financial actors, for governments, and for other key actors like indigenous peoples and local communities and civil society, and also long-term systemic change responses, options that can create an enabling environment for businesses and financial institutions to contribute to a just and sustainable future. These response options to create an enabling environment are highly relevant to all long-term goals for 2050 of the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and also relevant to the 2030 Vision for Biodiversity and to each of the 23 targets for 2030. This business and biodiversity assessment has 10 key messages and 29 background messages. And it's relevant for specifically 4 types of actors: governments, financial actors, business and financial institutions, and civil society and indigenous peoples and local communities. And mentions the need for— to create an enabling environment by each actor working together. And the report provides different responses at different levels of decision-making depending on each context. And as I mentioned before, for immediate action but also long-term action. Where messages around 1 to 8, they are about understanding the relationship between between business and biodiversity, while in B1 to 13 it's about options for action, and C1 to C8 it's about measuring business impacts and dependencies. And without going into more detail, I would like to now hand over to one of the co-chairs of our assessment, Matt Jones, to walk us through the 10 key messages of the assessment.

Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you so much, everybody. It's a real pleasure to be here. It's a pleasure also to be in a room with some familiar faces from Manchester, where we went through what I am delighted to be able to talk through. Excuse me. It's a real pleasure to be talking about the content of the assessment and the narrative, and I'd like to connect that to the draft Item 4 that is there for, for Substa to help to inform hopefully what you go on to talk about over these next few days. It's also a real pleasure. This is the first time I've physically held the laid-out version of our Summary for Policymakers, so it's a happy day for me. I'm going to talk through the messages of the assessment, and I apologize for those of you in Manchester who we did this at length, but I feel it's really important because because it helps to set well what is then— we will say is relevant particularly to the draft decision that is there. And the first message I think is still incredibly profound, and we recognize and acknowledge that every single business everywhere on the planet both impacts and depends on biodiversity. Every business has a relationship with nature. Those relationships create risks and opportunities for those businesses and by extension for wider society and for biodiversity itself. But because of those relationships, every single business has the potential to do something. Every business has the chance, the potential to be an agent of positive change, and I think that connects incredibly well to what we heard from the executive Secretary about the whole-of-society approach that is embedded within the Kunming to Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. And having said that every single business has that relationship and they can act, there is a challenge, and that is that the current conditions, the situation that businesses find themselves operating within, the structures that we have created, those structures, those conditions are not working. They perpetuate systemic risk. They perpetuate risks to businesses themselves and by extension to our entire economy and therefore our whole society. They are not compatible with the just and sustainable future which is envisioned within the 2050 Vision, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris Agreement. But the good news from our assessment is that it is possible. It is possible through collective action, through collaboration, through individual action to create that enabling environment that we have heard about. And that enabling environment is something I will come back to in the third part of this presentation and describe in more detail the actions that we articulate— over 100 actions within our assessment across the 4 main groups of actors: governments, financial actors— so central banks and financial supervisors that govern the financial system— businesses and private financial institutions themselves, and other actors including indigenous peoples and local communities, including civil society more broadly. 100 actions that are available for those groups to take which will address the 5 components of what we describe as an enabling environment. We recognize that is made through policy and legal frameworks, through economic and financial frameworks, through the values, the norms, the culture, the expectation we place as society on business. What we do in terms of technology and that availability, but also what we do with capacity and knowledge— those are the components of an enabling environment that can be created That is what the evidence shows to us. And it is incredibly important, and it is important because we also identify within the assessment that all businesses have a responsibility to address their impacts and dependencies. That for me is incredibly important because they can act now. Yes, we must create that enabling environment, but there are already 25 actions we identify that businesses could take today. And the good news is they can take today based on the existing methods, the existing knowledge, the existing data. We know enough already. Businesses can already measure their impacts and dependencies well enough to take those 25 actions. They can do so directly, and they can do so with their influence with others. We put to bed, I think, this idea that we have not enough information for businesses to take action within our assessment. The evidence does not support that. The evidence shows that we know enough today, we have enough methods, that we can get started. Businesses can act now. And we further recognize that there has been a huge amount of development in this area, so it's not a surprise that we have enough existing information and methods and knowledge and data. There has been so much work done in relatively recent years since the publication of the IPBES Global Assessment, which told us that a million species faced extinction and that we weren't on track to meet our short-term goals, but that we could meet our long-term goals. That created such a body of overwhelming evidence where people went out and said this loss of biodiversity is a risk to business, business must act. And as a result, we have this huge diversity of methods, and that is important. We need different methods to measure and manage impacts and dependencies because business contexts differ, businesses are different, where they operate is different, the type of decision they take is different. This is not some Wild West. This is not a mess. We need a deliberate diversity, and I choose that knowing how well that ought to resonate with everyone in this room. But that's not to say that you can use anything for everything you would like. Appropriate methods can be identified, and we show through the assessment the evidence that can be used to help select the right method out of that big suite that is available, the right method in different contexts. And businesses can do that by thinking about 3 things. They can think about the coverage of the method. Does it address the right aspects of biodiversity? Does it touch on the right topics? Does it have the right ability to address the relevant nature's contributions to people? Does it have the right geographic coverage, the right temporal coverage? Coverage is so very important for methods. The next piece is around accuracy. We don't need everything always to be perfectly precise in order for a business to take decisions. Sometimes it's important only to see that the difference between 2 options is clear. It doesn't matter if the answer is exact, is perfect, is precise, as long as we can see a clear difference. That is true often when we take very high-level or macro decisions for businesses about how they make an investment portfolio work. In other situations, we need that precision on the ground, a direct intervention for a specific species in a specific ecosystem. Precision is important but is not always what is necessary. The right level of accuracy is what we are looking for. And then lastly, responsiveness. Again, we don't always need methods to be responsive. Sometimes we do. We need them to show change on the ground. If we're intervening for a species in a specific ecosystem, we need to see if the method can pick up a change as a result. That's important. If a business is selecting where to invest, it's less important to see that responsiveness. Through coverage, accuracy, and responsiveness, businesses can pick the right methods, and the methods do exist. But that is not to say that everything is perfect, and already businesses could do better if they engaged appropriately with the existing science and also with existing indigenous and local knowledge. There is so much that is out there that we identify not as knowledge gaps but as gaps in the application of knowledge— existing knowledge which is there which needs to be applied correctly. And of course, we do have gaps in knowledge. There are areas we do not yet know enough to be perfect, and we can and should do more. And this you will see recognized and reflected in the draft of the Substa decision. We identify the existing knowledge base does need in places to be strengthened, and we do need to address both those gaps in the application of knowledge and gaps where knowledge can be better. And we identify those in 5 broad areas. I will highlight one in particular. That is business-relevant data. I highlight this for personal reasons. I spent a lot of my early career talking to businesses, trying to persuade them to do something, and they said, oh well, we don't know enough about biodiversity. And that is simply not true. What we don't know enough is about business. In this context, we don't know enough about exactly where they are, exactly what they're doing, exactly how they're doing it. That is the key knowledge gap, and that is something that businesses and financial institutions and governments can absolutely help to close. And in doing so, in creating this enabling environment, we can incentivize the sorts of actions that businesses can take that are good for businesses and also good for biodiversity and society. Embedded within this is a really important truth, and that is that some things that are currently profitable for business but bad for nature, they need to stop being profitable. And that is what creating an enabling environment really means. It means changing some behaviors. It doesn't mean doing away with profit. It means making the right things profitable and the wrong things unprofitable, and that is what can be created with this shift. So that is a very quick talk through the 10 key messages of the assessment. But now I would like to use that and guide and direct you to how I think this maybe is relevant to the draft decision that is there for item 7. So here within my slide, if you'll forgive me, I have the italicized text. This I've taken directly out of the draft I've passed in one place in particular, there are sub-points under 2B, which I could not fit all of this onto a slide, and they pick out specific elements of an enabling environment. You can find those if you refer to item 4 of the draft decision and see the detail. But you'll see what we've tried to do is we've tried to see the places where the SPS the Summary for Policymakers, is particularly relevant to the components that are there. So firstly, we recognize that in that first part that talks about using the findings of the assessment, actually here in particular, I think it relates very, very well to what we have to say in key messages 5 to 7. So those pieces that I talked through around the methods, the methods that exist, and the appropriate use of methods. So that table that shows you what you can already do with what method, particularly relevant, I think, in this, in this first part. In the second part, under B, here there is a table within the summary for policymakers, and that table steps through those 100 actions. And I'll actually come to that in detail in a second and show you the government-specific actions in particular. But this, I think, is a particularly relevant component of this part of the text. Then we have the piece that's around knowledge gaps. So where you have C and D, the knowledge gaps have their own background message, the final background message of our assessment, and their own table that is attached to it. I think if you look through there, you will see a lot of detail on the knowledge gaps and the gaps in application of knowledge that we identify within the assessment. So I would draw your attention there, particularly to that final background message. And then where we start talking about strengthening engagement, this is absolutely the piece that we are talking about with the change to the enabling environment under Key Message 3, through collaboration, collective and individual action. And I would draw your attention again to that part of the SPM. Then lastly, there is this bit, item 4, sorry, in paragraph 3, which talks about encouraging businesses. And here we have a similar table which talks about the actions that businesses can take, and I will again come into this in some detail. So I think we can make this available, also these slides, but I hope you've had enough time with what is here with my little roadmap that I hope you will find useful in, in where in the Summary for Policymakers you might look as you think about these different aspects. Of the draft that is there. So I will talk through now this table, this important table in the summary for policymakers around the actions that government can take for an enabling environment. And I highlighted a few examples that I will draw your attention to, but I show the full text on screen so that you can see everything. I try to pick out examples that I think are particularly relevant to the text as it's currently there. and also things that I think are really useful to reflect on when thinking about the current draft decision text. So here we're looking at the policy and legal actions that can be taken by governments, and so that I don't read incorrectly, I will look across to the screen here. So the first is around setting and enforcing— it's very difficult in this room to actually read what is behind me without craning my neck and really hurting my myself. But A1 is talking about setting and enforcing the frameworks, this absolutely fundamental— this fundamental role that is played by government. And one of the things that I think is so crucial is for business in particular is that they see this happen and that they see this happen in a way that builds confidence that they can then go on to act. Next is We pick out around engaging in international regional policy coordination, integrating biodiversity considerations into trade policies and value chains. And a hugely important part for businesses is the way that they operate across borders. And if you think about Target 15, it talks in particular about the role of companies that operate at that— in that transnational space that is so incredibly important. And then lastly, we look at regulatory coherence across government agencies. One of the things that I found across my career speaking to businesses is how much they find incoherence within regulation to be a real barrier, and no matter what it says about the environment, no matter what it says about nature, if there is something different somewhere else that their business has to comply with as part of national legislation, for them this is a real challenge. So then I move on to the economics and finance, and here candidly I could have highlighted everything because the text talks about Target 18, and I think everything here is actually relevant to. Target 18, but I will pick up instead 3 of these points. I will pick up around— thank you, Simone, that's very helpful— using through government agencies and central banks the coordination that aligns incentives. The misalignment we heard speak of in the opening remarks, again from the Executive Secretary, talking about driving corporate and private sector investment into that are simply unhelpful. That huge number. And the difference between the number that goes into what is bad for nature and what is good for nature is a staggering ratio. And then we talk about designing and implementing economic instruments that incentivize conservation and sustainable use. So we talk first about what we do to make sure that money doesn't go into the wrong stuff, and then we talk about making sure that money does go into the right stuff. And then lastly, this A2.4, where we talk about the fundamental topic of Target 18, eliminating, phasing out, and reforming harmful subsidies. And that forms a key part of that report that was described, because it is not just a $4-point-something trillion number, it's a $7.3 trillion number when you include the public subsidies and the public financial flows that go into things that are harmful for nature. Tackling these 3 actions together, I think, is fundamental to Target 18. Then we move on to values and norms, and here I think government— while civil society and other actors play a huge role, government can play a leading role, particularly around promoting ethical and sustainable business practices through regulation, through sustainability reporting standards and incentives around adoption. And then around awareness and education initiatives that encourage the sort of cultural shifts that are necessary that support sustainable consumption and production. Moving on to technology and data, government can have a role developing and maintaining the sort of decision support systems that are necessary to make sure that those gaps in the application of knowledge are filled readily, collaborating with businesses and financial institutions to develop the right relevant, trusted, and streamlined infrastructure, again making sure that existing data gets to the right place, and then promoting the generation of practical, actionable information through standardized, transparent, interoperable approaches. What we know from businesses is incredibly important to their decision-making. Moving on to capacity and knowledge, I'll highlight a further 3 actions for you to give you an example. So research to address gaps in knowledge and its application at the intersection of business and biodiversity filling the gaps that we identify in our table at the end of our SPM, developing sector-specific landscape, seascape-level training programs that bring multiple sectors together, recognizing how businesses often work across sectors, and then weaving indigenous peoples and local community knowledge into capacity-building frameworks. This you'll also see reflected already in the existing subset text. But I want to pick up as well on this item 3, and this is one of the figures that we have within our assessment which talks about, yes, that enabling environment that needs to happen on the right-hand side of the screen, but the business action that can be taken, which needs to happen in an iterative fashion. So we need the enabling environment to be built, and as that happens, businesses can act more, and as that happens, they can influence a stronger enabling environment, and these are mutually positively reinforcing. And we think at the business level about their corporate decisions and actions, things that happen at the operational level within the center of that, things that happen through their value chain and the influence business has, and then things that happen within portfolios, particularly relevant for financial institutions or for very large conglomerates. And again, I will show you some of those actions that we identify that I think are particularly relevant or good examples that might be woven through the, the third paragraph of the subsidy decision. So thinking at that corporate level, here we have the most actions that we show, so I split this across 2 slides. First is for businesses to think about setting ambitious commitments and targets, committing themselves to something and then having the targets to know whether they've achieved it. Integrating biodiversity-related risks, opportunities, costs, and benefits— picking up risk and resilience is so important for businesses, particularly at the moment. As they think about how they engage in sustainability and in biodiversity more broadly in a very changed global landscape, and how they weave this into their decision-making and financial planning. Also, at the corporate level, thinking about staff capacity. For a very long time, businesses have engaged with biodiversity with one specialist, one expert. I speak from experience because I've lost many staff from my organization into businesses as they poach a biodiversity person and drop into their business. What they need to do is build capacity across their whole business so everybody understands how their job relates to nature. Everyone understands that every job is actually a nature job. They take decisions that are relevant on a daily basis. When we think at the operational level for businesses, when they think about their sites within specific places, here there is an existing framework to adopt, and that is the mitigation hierarchy. To work towards no net loss. This idea that we first avoid, then we minimize an impact, and then we go on to think about restoring or offsetting in that very structured and hierarchical order. To talk about measuring and monitoring biodiversity impacts and outcomes of their actions. Businesses at that operational level using that to see the responsiveness that I talked about and how that feeds into their methods. When we think in the value chain, this is a place where some businesses have the most amount of influence through their value chain, and here we do need them to understand that. So mapping the value chain actors, ensuring traceability to prioritize and inform action, but also thinking about building relationships and partnerships that improve capacity, recognizing that the power dynamic within a value chain is often very, very different depending on where in the world a business is. And when we think at that portfolio level, so conglomerates or big financial institutions really engaging across their portfolios in a way that businesses can be more influential than might happen if it were to be sporadic or just a single business. So thinking about fostering actions that improve performance across a whole portfolio and scaling those actions up in a much greater greater way. So this I hope you will find as helpful in terms of thinking about that current draft text, and I hope these actions that we've highlighted give you a flavor of some of what you will see if you look in more detail into the report. And I hope you will find my little roadmap to be useful as well. Thank you so much, and we're very happy to take any questions that you might have, but I think we may take them from over here.

Thank you very much to Matt and Vanessa. So I open the floor for any questions. Mustafa?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for these very interesting presentations. I have been one of the founders of EBS. and have been working very hard. But when it comes to policymakers, which such assessment is based primarily on scientific knowledge, data, whatever, but to communicate with decision makers, this completely different things. Number one, decision makers don't have time to listen to you as such unless if you have something to attract their attention. I mean, they will be interested in something like job creations, women empowerment, issues like this, but not in, you know— When I go to my minister and tell him, it is a good opportunity, you know, but there are many methods or measures and there are many gaps, they will not listen. We need to communicate differently from scientific evidence. We need to communicate in terms of figures. I mean, if we say, for example, if you invest $1 in biodiversity, you expect to gain something like $10, $20. This is a way how they would see themselves. And as I said, if you look at GBF, you have all different targets. You can use these targets in a way that they can listen because, as I said before earlier this morning, that all targets can be communicated now. I mean, you communicate with decision makers in terms of local communities, in terms of women empowerment, in terms of investment. This is the way how can they listen to you, otherwise it would be important. So we need to, you know, I mean, I can't remember how many reports came out now, maybe 10? I think 10 reports. Maybe as a secretariat, every secretariat need to consider feedback from decision makers.

Yes.

It's not enough to say since the last meeting in February, whatever, more than 1,000 articles or new articles. That's very good, but what about the feedback from those people that they are related, the decision makers? Have they listened to you? Because look at practicality. And last, in Kapuskistan, The number of business communities in Cali were so many, and we have thought that a lot of money will come to biodiversity. But since that time, over the last 2 years, I cannot remember any money actually. It is less money available now. I mean, if you take funding, I mean, even GEF now, they don't give the same money that used to give it to us. So when it comes to other bilateral or debt swap or whatever, it became very complicated for developing countries. And finally, just to make it easy, business and bad publicity, everybody knows the relationship, but when it comes to practicality on that, developed countries deal with that issue in a practical way, whereas developing countries are different simply because developing countries, the decision makers are not the same. Sometimes you get decision makers come from different disciplines, military or engineering or whatever, so when the issue of biodiversity comes, it is a little bit problem. Thank you.

Thank you. There was a request from the floor in the back.

Yes?

Thank you very much. I am Hania Moghani, based in Iran, and I also represent ICCA Consortium. The other hat that I am wearing is Regional Chair of Asia at International Environmental Guardianship under the name of Biodiversity Credit Alliance with UNEP.

UNDP, sorry.

Thank you for sharing this report. I just wanted to mention that maybe one of those gaps that would be better to be mentioned by IPES would be the meaningful collaboration with the people on the ground, specifically Indigenous Peoples and local communities, because these kind of assessments should also include the data governance and also knowledge holders who are the guardians of these data and also are the main part of the demand part. So I wanted to propose that maybe it would be good to include in one of your slides which you mentioned about the gaps, the data governance issue, which is very related to specifically to the people on the ground, including indigenous peoples and local communities. The other thing that I want to share is that since COP 16 and under the targets 19 and 23, there are already some entities which are working specifically about and in the field of crediting and business sector of biodiversity, not just biodiversity, for both biodiversity and nature market. And maybe it would be good that IPBES can also include the achievement of those entities which are working specifically around the indicators of these marketing and specifically which are related to the rights of people and nature itself.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any other requests for the floor? Or maybe some questions for clarification? Even though very clear presentations, but still. I know it's a difficult slot. But Rebecca, ready?

Please go check.

Thank you so much, and thank you so much for those interventions and reflections. Incredibly helpful. I suppose I would address the first intervention primarily and to say that, see, we produced a methodological assessment. We had a very, very clear scope. I completely agree that when communicating, we communicate with different audiences in very different ways, but our scope was specifically on the methods. Which is why there is such a heavy emphasis on that in what I presented to you. I also think it's— I was trying to present what is particularly pertinent to the draft substantive decision that's the subject of this meeting. But I would say that we brought as much practicality as we could when we're addressing the options for action, and that's why I spent that time to go through the table and to try to pull out the specific things that can be done, and fully recognize that that will vary from country to country. And actually, that was the topic of a question that we have for the next part of this workshop, is how actually this relates in different national contexts, because, as you will appreciate, it's a— we produce an assessment that tries to address sufficiently high level to be relevant globally, and have to then balance the challenge with how we deal with some things that may be more appropriate in, as you put it, in developing countries or developed countries. But the point is very well taken around the opportunity and the way to communicate this. But specifically, strictly, this was not the subject matter that we were tasked with addressing as part of our assessment. But thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, and thank you. And just then address the second intervention. I think we speak in quite a lot of length about the importance of engaging, particularly through free, prior, and informed consent, with indigenous peoples and local communities, and actually spent quite a lot of our time in Manchester making sure that we were really, really clear with the way we talk about the governance that is required when engaging on that particular topic, and that is why we have that Key Message 8 that talks about how important it is, how business could do so much more right now if they appropriately engaged within existing indigenous and local knowledge, and the governance that goes with that, I agree, is very important, and I think you will find that well reflected in the summary for policymakers.

Thank you very much. There's last question here because to move on time.

Please, Peru.

Gracias. Thank you very much. It seems that this report doesn't go to micro and small business. You know, in Peru, you're going to— you know, the next part of this session will be about how we can use this information, this report in our countries.

Yeah.

You know, one of the recommendations of the decisions is you invite us to use information actually. You know, in Peru, if maybe 99% of the formal business are small and microbusiness. Because we have biodiversity all over the country, kind of mega-diverse country, we need to be everywhere. And we are going to be everywhere with small and microbusiness, not the big ones. And this report, when we read it, we read it like, 3 or 4 times the summary. We cannot just, you know, take it into the floor. How can I— how can we communicate to small business this kind of information? So the question is, is this report made to all kind of businesses or just the big ones? Gracias.

Thank you for this intervention, and absolutely, this is a topic we discussed at length, actually, both as experts but also, I think, within the plenary— within the working group, sorry— that yes, strictly, our assessment could address all businesses, and I think the actions that are there could be applied by any business. The question then becomes around the scale and the priority. And it may be that some actions are sufficiently low priority for a small or a microbusiness that actually to implement them would make very little difference, and so perhaps not implementing them at all is entirely viable. I think we try to address this well, but you're absolutely— you're correct. There's a lot of things which by their very nature by everything, they're most applicable to very large businesses because there's a big suite of things to do and big businesses have much more resources. But I would say it's so important for smaller businesses, and this is why value chain is such a core component of what we talk about, because small businesses make up a huge part of larger businesses' value chains. And that understanding across that value chain, I think, is in incredibly important in order for the actions that might happen for a large business to actually work. So it may be that a small microenterprise doesn't need to take these actions but needs to understand the motivations of a large business that is themselves trying to take these actions or trying to encourage a small business to do so. And we try to lay out that full context and help to make the assessment as relevant as possible in as many different contexts.

But you will always—

whenever I talk about this, I talk about how much the context of a business differs enormously, and the scale of the business is one of the key differences, I think, to always reflect upon. Thank you.

Thank you very much to everybody for these fruitful discussions. We will now break into smaller groups and Yes. Yes, we are running out of time.

I'm sorry.

I hope you can convey your questions in the small breakouts just to keep us on the different dynamics we have already. Apologies for that. We will break into smaller groups and discuss in detail the implications of the report for the implementation of the CUMIN Montreal Global framework and plans for using the report at the national level. After discussion in the smaller groups, you will be invited to report back to the plenary. So I will give the floor to Vanessa to give us some further guidance on discussions. Vanessa, or—

yes.

So we have less than half an hour for the session breakouts and to come back. So we need to hear the instructions.

Thank you so much for your comments, and we would like to invite you now to address these 2 specific questions. One, which are actions to create an enabling environment? Which of these actions that we've presented in the different categories are most relevant in your national context. And the second one is about the actions that businesses can take that you think your government could encourage to be most impactful. So we're talking again about priorities. So we invite you to discuss this with your neighbors and then come back to us and share your comments on what you found the most important actions to create an enabling environment and those to encourage businesses in your context. Thank you. And we have 15 minutes?

We have until 3:45, so it's 25 minutes more or less to have this discussion. and see you here at 3:45.

All right?

So we have the 2 questions here on the screen, so let's meet in small groups with your neighbors around and you can reply back to the plenary. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody. It's time to go back to plenary.

We said 3:45.

Sorry, 10 minutes.

Sorry, I'm tired.

Hello.

So finally this is 15:45, right time. I would like to invite any of the groups that want to share their conclusions on these dialogues that would like to take the floor.

Yes.

You have a few minutes to share. The idea is this, for you to share your ideas, your views, the outcomes, and how this assessment can be linked to the work on substantive questions that we have. I see someone just in front of me. Please identify yourself.

Hi.

and share, please.

Yeah, good evening. We had a small group discussion comprising Sweden, South Africa, and India, and we have made a discussion on the first question, which of the actions to create an enabling environment are most relevant in your national context. So from this point of view, we feel at policy and legal well. The one which is there, A1.1, set and enforce policy, legal, and regulatory framework that incentivize or mandate actions by business and financial institute for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, is one of the important enabling environment we thought. And another thing is ensure that policies are equitably inclusive and aligned with international obligations and national These two are very important for enabling context, and another one is link biodiversity data to national economic accounts through frameworks such as United Nations Systems of Environment Economic Accounting to integrate biodiversity considerations into policy and planning. Because always we project GDP as growth rate, but underlying biodiversity laws, we don't account in it. So that's why we feel that the APOOR Fund 1 is important. And apart from other 2 also, we have to align with all international and national circumstances. And also we have to incentivize the business opportunities for biodiversity conservation. And coming to the next question, which actions that business can take, can take do you think your government could encourage to be most impactful? For that, we had identified 2 important things. That is, one, integrate biodiversity-related risks, opportunities, cost, and benefits into business decision-making and financial planning, because decision-makers are very important just before financial planning, which will help in meaningful biodiversity conservation and meaningful biodiversity-friendly business plans. So we feel this is one of the things, and another thing is adopt corporate data disclosure and transparency standards that capture dependency and impact on nature. And this is another important aspect which thought this will show an impactful on business and financial institutes. With this, I close it. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much for this group of— I think it was Sweden, South Africa, India.

Interesting combination.

Anybody else would like to share your discussions?

Yes.

Thanks so much.

We had some representatives from civil society and government governments from Germany, the UK, Italy, and New Zealand, and we had a wide-ranging conversation. Just to pull out a few headlines in terms of sort of government action that's particularly important, we spoke about the real need for policy and regulatory frameworks that allow stability, the importance of that especially when there's changing governments so that businesses can plan ahead and make sure that they're planning for sort of their profit in mind, being able to understand what they'll be required to do by their regulatory frameworks in the long term. And we also linked to that, talked about the need for those frameworks to be high standard so that the best action can be rewarded and you don't get sort of cowboys coming in and undermining that action. So the governments can also make sure there's high standard frameworks. And then sort of on the other side, in terms of what businesses could maybe do or be encouraged to do, We talked towards the end about encouraging disclosure about their sort of value chains, because then consumers would better be able to understand what they're buying from, and then you could hopefully reward businesses that are more environmentally sustainable. But it's hard to know as a consumer which business is the most sustainable. So something that businesses could be encouraged to do would be to make that more public and then be rewarded. And maybe as a little aside, and maybe we can ask the question later, we were just I was just talking about the question on small businesses and whether there are more tools for them to understand their dependencies in particular. We talked about some case studies where that's quite challenging, and I don't know if there are extra things coming out of the report that could help that, but maybe we can ask another time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Different view also, more on subnational and small business. A friend of Peru.

Gracias.

Well, our group was Granada, Antigua Bermuda, Sri Lanka, and Peru. Could you please display the questions again so I just follow? Okay, thank you. The first question, as our context, our national context, are small businesses, answering the first question might be Action number A23 and Action C22. Both of them are related to design and implement economic and financial instruments, you know, developed for small and micro businesses. Because, you know, it's like the examples here are like green bonds or high-integrity biodiversity credits. Small business won won't do that ever. Answering the second question, the actions are C.5.2 and C.5.3 related to learning and learning about the impacts, learning about sustainability, and inform and educate the consumers about sustainability as well. So Thank you very much. Gracias.

Gracias a ustedes. So we heard already comments from 3 small groups. I wonder if the co-chair or Vanessa or Maria Saskia— yes, I see another light there.

Thank you very much. So our team, Ghana, from Malawi, For question 1, we think number A1, enforce and set and enforce policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks that incentivize or mandate actions by businesses and financial institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, is important to us. We've started work in these areas. We also think A1.3 is an important area for us. A1.4 is something that we are doing and we've been doing, so it is something we can boast of and say that is helping us. And then A1.6 is also an area that will help us in our country. For question 2, We think that C.1.3, use established frameworks to report on biodiversity impacts, dependencies, risks, and opportunities, including biodiversity accounting methods, is good for us. But our only worry has to do with the accounting methods, which is a new area. And we think that if we want to go into that, then we have to build the capacity of businesses to enable them do that. We also think that C16, integrate biodiversity-related risks, opportunities, costs, and benefits into business decision-making and financial planning, is also something that we can do. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Malawi. Is anybody else?

Yes.

Thank you.

Our group was quite small and quite disparate. We had one representative from a developed European country, 2 NGOs representing women's groups and Finance for Nature, and then 2 of us representing developing atoll nations. And in terms of question number 1, we focused in on the general categories and in the columns of the actions, and we felt that the highest priority should be on 3 of them, which is policy and legal, economics and finance, and technology and data, and minorly on capacity and knowledge. We did not put a lot of emphasis on the values and norms. In terms of question number 2, we focused in on technology and data for a natural nation in particular, A4.5, linking biodiversity data to national economic accounts, and we discussed some examples of where that already ongoing. We also focused in on policy and legal in terms of B.1.2, using regulatory and voluntary mechanisms, and C.1.5, comply with biodiversity-related policies, laws, and regulations. We recognize that in the developing countries that it's primarily small and medium enterprises, and most of their incentives fall under a regulatory regime in terms of the permitting structures among the various government agencies. And then we identified constraints to that where the agencies might want to increase their permitting requirements, for example, by integrating climate change into the permitting structure, but with the barrier of them not having the mandate to do it, so there would be pushback from industry, as an example. But still, we felt that regulation was the way to go. From the European developed countries' perspective, it was more about economics and finance, because it was a very entrenched, longstanding climate of financial institutions institutions that are more versed in working within those mechanisms, but we didn't identify any specific actions for question number 2.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Here at the front, Finland.

Thank you.

Our group had participants from Kenya, Australia, Armenia, Germany, and my country, Finland. So quite diverse. Well, considering the first question, we talked about spatial planning, which is A1.3. I think that holds quite a lot of promise if it was— if if the criteria were really built into that, the no net loss thinking and so on. Maybe that applies more to developed countries, I'm not sure. But also we heard from our colleague from Australia representing the indigenous community that if the spatial planning was kind of detailed enough, that would enable involving the IPLCs, like if it went really into the detail of— like it was not just on a broad scale but really looking at, you know, even individual trees and rocks and spaces in the landscape. So that would be a way to involve the IPLCs. And my colleague from Armenia could continue on.

If you may.

Yes, regarding first question, it was not so easy to define because the national context is different. So we think also that Action A.1.1 is like a basis for all other actions because regulatory frameworks, relevant frameworks and regulations are essential for all other actions. And regarding the second question, what businesses can do, businesses can do a lot, of course, as we know, but I think until they transform their business until that changes and recognizing of their opportunities to act for biodiversity. First action could be participating and benefit from financial instruments as an opportunity to— how to say— to start for something. I think use of existing instruments could be a good start for business.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. It's been quite a variety in options to address part of these elements at different scales using metrics going from small places to— many options, quite interesting. So I'm wondering if the coaches want to say something. I saw you taking notes as well, and you prepared the questions.

Thank you so much. And these were really useful to hear, and it was actually great to see so many small groups clustered so intently talking about the assessment. brilliant for those of us that worked on it to see happen and see that impact. There was a great lot of— there was some diversity in what we've just heard, but some clear patterns as well, and people picking up particularly things like A1.1 and recognizing that is sort of a real fundamental basis, and I think we all recognize that. I wanted to address— there was the question that came from the group on this side around small and medium enterprises. I don't think we have any particular insights into new tools that are going to be identified for this. I mean, my own organization— I work for the UN Specialist Biodiversity Center— we built 2 of the tools that are frequently used by businesses. So we built ENCORE, working with partners, and the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool, also working with a number of partners. Those are both applicable in those contexts. They can be used by small and medium enterprises.

Enterprises.

Both of them can, and I'd be very happy to talk to anybody about that. One of the knowledge gaps that we identify in the assessment is very, very clear about what is missing is not just the tools, but the guidance and the support for those small businesses to be able to use those tools to overcome the specific challenges that they face specific to a small business context. And that is something we clearly recognize there's a gap within the assessment, but I'm not yet aware that there's anybody really actively working to fill that. I'd again be very happy actually to talk to anybody who wants to talk about how you fill that gap as part of my day job, and we can have that conversation. But for sure, I think there's plenty out there. The real challenge is how you bridge that small business capacity problem, not necessarily the is there an available tool Thank you very much.

I hope we can engage more with the business sector in biodiversity. Mainstreaming is so important. There are different ways, different opportunities. It's up to us. We don't need to wait for them to come to us. We are the ones that we need to move abroad. So thank you very much to everybody for Thank you very much for these fruitful discussions. Now we're going to break and resume at 4:15 for a short coffee break. Please be punctual because we still have to see 3 reports of progress on the different assessments under the pipeline of IPBES to see monitoring, spatial planning and connectivity, and also progress progress on the Second Global Assessment. So enjoy the coffee and see you at 4:15.

Thank you very much.

Hello again. Please take your seats.

Yeah, we—

All right.

So welcome back to everybody.

We will now provide some information on the currently ongoing IPBES assessments. We will first hear presentations, and thereafter I will open the floor for questions and comments. So we will see the 3 presentations in a row. We will start with the presentation from Dr. With the methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and nature's contributions to people, the IPBES plenary at IPBES 10 in 2023 approved the undertaking assessment using a fast-track approach. And in line with the scoping report set out in Annex 1 to Decision IPBES 10/1, the assessment will be considered at IPBES 15.

Thank you.

13, planning to be held in the second half of 2027. I would like to invite Dr. Mauricio Ferrari, co-chair of the assessment, to present an update on the work on the monitoring assessment. So, Mauricio, you have the floor.

Many thanks, Ezequiel, and very good afternoon to everyone. So, this is a brief introduction on the monitoring assessment. And a brief update on where we currently are and the next steps before finalization.

Where do you point?

Maybe it's too far away.

Point to the laptop.

Yes, exactly.

Does it work? No.

Okay, I'll move it.

Okay, thanks. Okay, thanks, Simone, for moving the slides. Yeah, as Esikio already kindly introduced, that's a methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and nature contributions to people. In short, the monitoring assessment. Next one. The context, again, as Esikio already mentioned, the mandate comes from IPBES 10 and is scheduled to be considered at IPBES 13 in the 3rd quarter of 2027, so next year. So the scope that was adopted at that IPBES 10 includes some of the key aspects that need to be covered by the assessment. So then the first one is to assess the capacity to monitor biodiversity, nature's contributions to people, and the direct and underlying causes of the observed changes. That's in the first paragraph of the scoping document. Then to assess the capacity to monitoring— to monitor progress towards the goals and targets of the KMGBF and other relevant multilateral environmental agreements. Third, to assess existing data and system, so we need to evaluate the availability, data availability, what systems are there to gather data, the gaps, biases in biodiversity and NCP data. The fourth is to evaluate capacity and resources, so we need to review the national and global capacity for data collection, analysis, and sharing with attention to challenges faced by developing countries. Identify opportunities for strengthening monitoring. Of course, this is a very important aspect of the assessment. So options for improving cooperation, collaboration, data sharing, and integration into global networks and platforms. So looking at data flows from the local, national, regional, and global level. And one of the cross-cutting considerations across the assessment is to consider diverse knowledge and value systems, so looking at addressing scientific and indigenous and local knowledge following the IPBES conceptual framework. So that comes basically from the scoping document adopted at IPBES 10. Next one. The assessment team, so we have 3 groups This is the group of experts. We have 81 experts in the assessment, 3 co-chairs, 12 coordinating lead authors. They've actually now become 13 because we have added one for Chapter 3. 50 lead authors, 8 review editors, and 8 fellows, which are young career researchers that are actually very active in the assessment themselves. So the 3 co-chairs are Andrew González, he's based at McGill University in biodiversity research. Patricia Milosevic, she's originally from Venezuela but currently in Australia with the Antarctic Australian Division. And I'm Maurizio Ferrari with the Forest Peoples Program. Then we have the management committee.

with who—

with whom we have regular meetings when needed. So we have 2 members from the Bureau, Bishwa and Yongyut, and 3 members from the MAP, Alla, Ganesh, and Mylor. And then we have 2 fantastic technical support unit members based at McGill University, Kasia and Christina. And we can go to the next one.

Thank you.

So the structure of the monitoring assessment, again, it comes from the scoping document basically. It is structured around 4 chapters. Chapter 1 is to set the scene of what the assessment will include. So it describes the purpose, the intended audience, and the needs. It links to the IPBES conceptual framework, and it provides an overview of the assessment structure. It will also include, for example, definition of, you know, what do we mean by monitoring as well. We had actually very lengthy discussions in the authors' meeting, you know, what do we mean by monitoring. Chapter 2 looks at data needs, so it assesses what data indicator and models are needed to inform the monitoring implementation of the KMGBF and other relevant MEAs, and it integrates multiple and diverse knowledge systems. Actually, this integration of multiple diverse knowledge systems has become a cross-cutting approach across all the chapters as well, so it's relevant also to Chapters 1, 3, and 4. Then Chapter 3 contains the availability of data currently and highlights the challenges and gaps. So it's actually become Quite a big chapter. It's been divided into 3A and 3B because to assess what is currently available as well as to address the challenges and gaps turned out to be probably a bigger job than what was originally envisioned. So it assesses current data systems and coverage including geographic, taxonomic, and temporal scales. It explores the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of existing data. It explores data gaps and biases and the critical aspects of interoperability. It assesses the capacity, capability, and infrastructure available for data gathering and analysis, and it highlights key challenges for coherent— for coherence and among existing systems that prevent currently the aggregation of data and information from the local to the national to the regional and global level, including through relevant indicators at all of those levels. Then Chapter 4 assesses the financial, institutional, and human needs capacity, so it focuses on strengthening capacity basically on the, on the non-prescriptive options for the future for strengthening capacity. So it assesses financial, institutional, human capacity needs and options to meet these needs and to establish and reinforce sustained long-term monitoring programs and projects. It identifies pathways for enhancing scientific and technical cooperation, capacity building, and technology transfer, and it also assesses the economic costs and benefits of strengthening options required to implement those options. And if we go to the next one, it's basically the timeline of the assessment. It started off with an introductory meeting of all the authors and addressing the scoping document in in August 2024, so about nearly 2 years ago. We had the first author meeting in Montreal in November 2024, which was immediately followed by the first IRK dialogue workshop, also in Montreal at the end of November. And that contributed to the development of the zero-order draft of the, of the 4 chapters. We then had an internal review of the chapters at the beginning of 2025 and a first development of the draft of the SPM in April 2025. Then again during that year in August 2025, we had the second ILK dialogue workshop that was held in Nepal. And then at the end of last year, from the 5th of November until the 7th of January 2026, we had the first external review that was open to governments but also civil society organizations and all, all the relevant organizations. We then met for a second author meeting in Frascati in Italy in February 2026 to take into account of all the comments that came from the external review. There were more than 6,000.

Yeah.

And then at the same time, in the same week following the author meeting, we also had the second SPM meeting. That led us to the development of the second draft of the chapters. So we are kind of two-thirds through that process now of— Yeah. Of developing the second draft and of the chapters as well as of the SPM. That should be concluded in the next few weeks and then both the chapters and the SPM will go out for an additional government review from the 3rd of September to the 28th of October. So that will be actually a very important window of opportunity for governments to further review this assessment. And then the plan is to have the 3rd SPM meeting in January 2027, and then the development of the final chapters and final SPM in the first quarter of 2027, and then a final government review in the second quarter of 2027, leading then to the IPBES 13 hopefully adoption at, um, yeah, IBC 13 in the 3rd quarter of 2027. And then if we go to the last slide, which focuses just on the forthcoming milestones— so most of them have already been addressed, mentioned here— so is the additional government review, September to October. So please look out for the notification coming from the IBC Secretariat about providing additional government review input into the assessment. It would be very, very important for the finalization of the assessment. We are also organizing an online dialogue with governments in support of additional review on the 28th of September, so in the middle of that review period. So there will be an online webinar discussing, you know, the, the how to, to maybe where to focus the, the review comments in this next stage.

Yeah.

And then the 3rd meeting to develop the summary for policymakers in January or February with the final government review 8 weeks ahead of IPBES 13, and then the 13th plenary in the 3rd quarter of 2027.

I think I think that's all.

Yeah, yeah, thank you very much. So I think if you have any questions, there will be space after the other presentations.

Thank you very much, Maurizio, for showing this important methodological assessment on monitoring biodiversity and the natural linkages with the work of CBD, in particular SABSTA and indicators and so on. proceed with the methodological assessment of integrated biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning and ecological connectivity. The IPBES plenary at IPBES 10 in 2023 approved the undertaking of the assessment using a fast-track approach and in line with the scoping report set out in Annex 1 to Decision IPBES The assessment will be considered at IPBES 13, planned to be held in the second half of 2027. I would like to invite Dr. Simone Schiel, head of the work program of IPBES, to present an update on the work on spatial planning and connectivity assessment. So Simone, you have the floor.

Simone.

Thank you very much. Yeah, the spatial planning and connectivity assessment basically runs in parallel to the monitoring assessment. Both were approved by the plenary to start at IPBES 10, and both will be considered by the IPBES plenary at IPBES 13. So they are very much on the same timeline. For those of you following the different review periods, you will have seen that the spatial planning and connectivity assessment had a slightly later start. So the reviews are staggered. They don't entirely overlap, which also allows you to focus on one review at a time. In terms of the context, the assessment addresses use and change in land, waters, and sea, relevant of course to the KMGBF, to the SDGs, to other conventions. So hopefully an assessment that can be very useful to the biodiversity-related conventions and commitments. In terms of scope, the assessment will provide options for improving planning for effective conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of nature and its contributions to people, and that across spatial and temporal scales. And on the other hand, it will cover methods, guidance, tools, scenarios, models, data, knowledge, and capacity capacity building for integrating biodiversity considerations into planning and at the same time promoting ecological connectivity, both structural and functional, in relevant processes. Now again, the author team, we have 3 co-chairs also for this assessment, Luis Inostroza, Mari José Martínez-Harms, and Peter Verburg. The technical support unit is hosted by the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The expert team is very similar in size to the monitoring assessment. And we also have members of the IPBES MEPN Bureau following the assessment as management committee. In terms of timeline, as said, similar start and end dates. The spatial planning and connectivity just finalised its external review of, I think yesterday, the 24th of July. Both assessments are run under a fast-track approach. So in principle, they only have one formal big external review of both SPM and chapters. Whereas for the second global assessment, that's a full-fledged assessment. You'll see in a second And you have multiple opportunities to input. Following now the input of governments and stakeholders on both SPM and chapters, we will have a second author meeting in Costa Rica coming up in 2 weeks' time where the authors will have a chance to look at all the comments and plan the way ahead. And then we are looking at an additional government review, this time only of the SPM because of the challenging timeframe for around December 2026. And then same thing, final government review 8 weeks ahead of plenary. And then plenary IPBES 13 sometime in 2027. And we hope to be able to announce the dates of IPBES 13 also shortly so that the assessment teams and everyone can plan. In terms of what the assessment says, so that assessment has 6 chapters. Chapter 1, our usual IPBES chapter, setting the scene, referring to how spatial planning and relevant concepts are defined, looking at the IPBES conceptual framework and how it applies in this context. Then Chapter 2 with a specific focus on implementing 1 of the KMGBF. Chapter 3 with a particular focus on targets 2 and 3 on restoration and protected areas. Chapter 4 entirely looking at ecological connectivity, maintaining, restoring, and enhancing ecological connectivity. Chapter 5 and chapter 6 then look at options for action. On the one hand, specific options for individual actors and then the creation of an enabling environment, very similar to the approach that the Business and Biodiversity Assessment took. In terms of milestones, yeah, I already mentioned that on the timeline slide. So, very much similar to what we're doing with monitoring. So, 2 fast-track assessments in a very tight space. So, we're really looking for your support in getting those finalized. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Simone. We will now proceed to the last assessment in progress, the Second Global Assessment. At IPBES 11 in 2024, the IPBES plenary approved the undertaking of a Second Global Assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services as outlined in the scoping report for the assessment set out in Annex 1 to its decision IPBES 11/1. The assessment will be considered at IPBES 14, planning to be held in the second half of 2028. I would like to invite— will be Simone?

Yes.

Simone again, to present their work on this assessment.

Nick?

So is Nick here, the co-chair?

Yes, I'm here.

Yeah, please, Nick, go ahead. The co-chair of the assessment, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon.

Long day.

Yeah. Thank you for the opportunity. Yeah, so as indicated, the undertaking of the Second Global Assessment was actually approved at IPBES 11 in Windhoek, that is in Namibia, in December 2024. The main scope is to assess relevant knowledge that has become available since the publication of the first Global Assessment and assess progress towards achieving the goals of sustainable— or rather, of sustainability and living in harmony with nature. There are 3 specific objectives. One is to support governments and other actors in implementing the objectives of relevant multilateral environmental agreements and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals. The second objective is to support the assessment of progress towards the achievement of the global targets for 2030 and the Global Goals for 2050 of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework and of relevant Sustainable Development Goals and targets. The third objective is to assess the scientific and technical basis, as well as different knowledge systems and policy-relevant information for the additional efforts needed in the current and subsequent decades to achieve the 2050 vision for biodiversity. The assessment report will be composed of 5 chapters and a summary for policymakers. This is a brief of the assessment team. We are 3 co-chairs. There is Zilu, there is Becky, and myself. We have a total of up to about 107 persons participating. That is including 19 coordinating lead authors, 69 lead authors, 10 review editors, and 12 fellows. And to support the process, we have a management committee headed by David Obura. We also have Sebastian and Eric, the 3 from the Bureau, as well as Joseph, Maria, and Seba Taolo from the MEP expert group. But also we have a technical support unit hosted in Bonn. Coming to the assessment timeline, we commenced the process in early October 2025, where we set up the chapter outlines. We did then have ILKL dialogue workshop, Indigenous Knowledge Dialogue Workshops, the first one having been in Canada in November last year. We had a second one just this month, early this month, here in Kenya as well. We did have a first author meeting in Paris in late November last year, where then we developed the first draft of the chapter. Now, this has been available for external review since the 15th of June, and The review process is open until the 7th of August, and I want to encourage those who perhaps have not had opportunity to do so to register with IPBES and have a look at the chapter so that we can capture your views as well. This is going to be followed by a second author meeting, which is scheduled in the first half of October, which is going to be in Thailand. And during that period, we are going to have— we're going to be developing second draft of the chapters as well as commencing working on the SPM. And after that, then we hope that in the first quarter of 2027, we'll have opportunity to generate the first draft of SPM and then have a second meeting to discuss that. Then the second draft of the chapters, as well as SPM, will be available for external review in the second quarter of 2027. And at the same time, we'll also have opportunity for another ILK dialogue workshop. Then after that external review, we would then be able to work on the third— yeah, the third version, as well as the second draft of the SPM. So the third will be the final version of the chapters.

Yes.

And then that final version of the chapters will not be subject to other external reviews, but will have additional SPM review, which will occur in the early 2028. And then this will be then subjected to final government review in the 3rd quarter of 2028, followed by— plenary of IPBES 14. Now, in terms of structure of the assessment, this has 5 chapters where we set the scene in the first chapter, and the second chapter is looking at different knowledge systems and role of indigenous peoples and local communities. And then chapter 3 is a very big chapter is having 4 sub-chapters, which each can equally be a chapter on its own. So this will basically be on status and trends. And so we are looking at good quality of life in harmony with nature as a sub-chapter. We're looking at drivers of change. We're looking at nature and nature's contribution to people. Chapter 4 will be addressing the future pathways while Chapter 5 will be looking at options for action to address these direct drivers and underlying causes of biodiversity loss and harm to nature. And of course, the summary for policymakers will be capturing information from all the 5 chapters. I also want to bring to your attention that there are some cross-cutting themes that are critical and that are being considered across the chapters. One is the IPBES conceptual framework, and we are also putting efforts to ensure that a lot of work is done on the coastal and marine systems. Then we are also looking at different units of assessment, case studies. Climate change is very critical, and then issues of transformation and indigenous and local knowledge. So, Then next steps is essentially the completion of the first external review, and again, I want to encourage you, in case you've not done so, to jump in. There's a couple of weeks before that closes. And then, of course, we're going to have biodiversity and climate change workshop. This is going to be held in Bern, in Switzerland, and that's going to be next month, on 18th to 20th. Then the second author meeting and first meeting to advance summary for policymakers, as mentioned earlier, will be in the first half of October, and this will be an in-person meeting in Bangkok. And then the second meeting to develop this summary for policymakers will be in February, March— February or March, 2027, and that we are yet to confirm the dates. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you very much, Nick. Now I open the floor for any questions to any of the 3 presentations of ongoing assessments. Everything was very clear, right?

Yes. OK.

I see no requests from the floor. This is very important work from IPBES to CVD, as you can see, for assessments during this workshop, 3 ongoing and 1 recently approved. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you to everybody for this very fruitful discussion. Thank you to the Executive Secretary, to the SOPSTA Chair, to co-chairs, to presenters, to the Secretariat, and all of you for this very long day. As already mentioned, and in line with the procedure set out in Decision 12/25 and the timetable annexed to Decision 16/11, The panelists will be invited next week to consider the most recent finalized IPBES assessment with regard to the relevance of its findings and implications for the work undertaken under the Convention, and for the development, as appropriate, of recommendations to the Conference of the Parties. I hope that the workshop has helped you to gain a better understanding of the findings of the Business and Biodiversity Assessment, and an overview of what to expect from other assessments. So I wish you much success in the coming days. So the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.

Thank you.