Seventh meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-7) - PM Session

Thank you. This is just a small announcement that we have found a key for a room of a hotel, so if someone has lost the key of your room, you can come to the podium and get it.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Secretary. Of course, it's morning in Brazil, so— okay, good afternoon, colleagues. I would like to continue our discussion on item 12, mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors. As you know, we had completed the interventions from regional groups and had begun interventions from parties. The queue has been reloaded with requests from parties for the floor from the previous session, and so we will continue with the parties and then invite observers. I remind you to please upload your statements in advance and to speak slowly. So, colleagues, what I have here in my screen is first the United Republic of Tanzania, then Malawi, and then Indonesia. I would like to remind you to please try to focus on your key messages so that we can save time since we are a little bit behind our schedule. Thank you very much. So with that, I give the floor to the United Republic of Tanzania. Tanzania, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The United Republic of Tanzania supports the statement delivered by Ghana on behalf of Africa Group. Tanzania recognizes that effective mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sector is central to achieving the implementation of the KMGBF targets. However, we noted several challenges, many of which are also reflected in the report. This includes limited and unpredictable financial resources, capacity constraints at both national and local levels, and gap in data— and gap in data monitoring and reporting systems necessary to effectively track mainstreaming outcomes. In addition, sectoral policies and incentive structures do not always fully align with biodiversity objectives, which can undermine implementation efforts. Madam Chair, we therefore underscore the needs for enhanced financial support, capacity building, and technology transfer to support parties in scaling up biodiversity mainstreaming initiatives. We also emphasize the importance of strengthening partnership with the private sector, financial institutions, and regional initiatives, including transboundary landscape approaches to address shared ecosystem challenges. Tanzania further encourages the Secretariat and partners to continue developing practical guidance, tools, and knowledge-sharing platforms to support the KMGBF implementations. Tanzania reaffirms its commitment to advancing biodiversity mainstreaming across all stakeholders as a critical pathway for achieving sustainable development and the objective of the Convention. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Tanzania. I will now give the floor to Malawi, followed by Indonesia and India. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Malawi aligns with the statement made by Ghana. on behalf of the African Group. Malawi is one of the countries that shared its experience through the clearinghouse mechanism on mainstreaming, with particular focus on Goal D and Targets 14, 15, 18, and 19. For Malawi, effective biodiversity mainstreaming is a critical enabler for implementation of the KMGDF, and it has potential to contribute to sustainable livelihoods, poverty eradication, and socioeconomic development. Malawi's progress in mainstreaming of biodiversity has been enabled by the availability of tools, data, and information that allowed us to make a case for biodiversity in other sectors. For example, the Biofin initiative supported Malawi to develop tools that made evidence available to mainstream biodiversity within public finance system, whilst another project on the spatial biodiversity assessment and prioritization being implemented in Southern Africa made it possible for us to develop spatial biodiversity tools and data used for mainstreaming into physical planning, EIA processes, and will be further useful for mainstreaming in mining, agriculture, and other relevant sectors. Our experiences demonstrate that biodiversity mainstreaming is most effective when tools, information, and evidence is available to make a case for biodiversity in various sectors. Malawi has therefore made draft recommendations that place greater emphasis on development of practical implementation tools, evidence, and information for biodiversity mainstreaming. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Malawi. I will now give the floor to Indonesia, followed by India and Guatemala. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Indonesia welcomes the draft recommendations and supports its objective of advancing biodiversity mainstreaming in implementing the KMGBF. In Indonesia's experience, biodiversity mainstreaming is most effective when integrated into national and subnational development planning, public finance, national statistical systems, and sectoral decision-making, ensuring that biodiversity objectives are translated into tangible, tangible implementation. Indonesia therefore encourages the exchange of practical experience and good practices, including the institutional, technical, financial, and data-related enabling conditions that support effective implementation and facilitate replication while respecting the national circumstances. Indonesia also supports the continued efforts to strengthen biodiversity data and monitoring systems including through enhanced national capacities and the use of existing knowledge-sharing mechanisms under the convention. Indonesia further emphasized that future work should remain country-driven, responsive to national priorities and capacities, and avoid one-size-fits-all approach or additional reporting burdens. Finally, Indonesia underscores that predictable and adequate financial resources, capacity building, access to and transfer of technology, and technical and scientific cooperation remain critical to enable developing country parties to effectively mainstream biodiversity and achieve the objective of the framework. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Indonesia. I will now give the floor to India, followed by Guatemala and Argentina. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. India welcomes the progress report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat, Parties, and other institutions to mainstream biodiversity-related regional and sub-regional dialogues, collaboration, and Convention Secretariat organization and institution. India would like to point out that mainstreaming of biodiversity should ensure just transitions, in particular in developing countries, while addressing KMGBF targets. 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19, considering the fact that a large number of corporations, businesses, as well as the small and medium enterprises depend on raw materials, water, and other resources having direct and indirect impact on biodiversity. We would like to highlight that our country has a robust system of regulations with regard to the environment, afforestation, and environmental accounting. Biodiversity is covered by 30 central ministries, departments categorized as life-hoing life-supporting, and life-regulating, which have sector-wise plans covering terrestrial and marine environment. India has aligned itself to the coming Global Biodiversity Framework's whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach in achieving coordination between various sectors in society. India has been able to effectively implement equitable and fair sharing of benefits arising out of biodiversity at national, subnational, and local levels with the active involvement of local communities. Considering the number of agencies, institutions, and players involved in biodiversity mainstreaming, India advocates that there is a collective need to address issues related to harmonized indicators, methodologies, ecological and socioeconomic data, and monitoring frameworks capable of assessing biodiversity-related outcomes across supply chains and economic activities. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, India. I will now give the floor to Guatemala, followed by Argentina and Bangladesh. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Guatemala recognizes that mainstreaming is one of the fundamental pillars for the implementation— effective implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and to achieve its targets in a consistent and sustainable manner. The new National Strategy on Biodiversity in Guatemala was developed under the principles and guidelines of the global framework promoting the effective participation of various stakeholders and governmental sectors, productive sectors, social sectors, academia, and women, indigenous peoples, and local communities. Guatemala believes that we have to revert and stop the loss of biodiversity, and to do so we need to strengthen coordination between productive sectors, environmental, economic, and social sectors. We also need to promote effective mechanisms for inter-institutional governance and inter-sectoral governance. In addition, we highlight the importance of strengthening participation mechanisms, the exchange of knowledge, technical cooperation, and capacity building, all of which enable us to translate policy commitments into tangible actions and measurable outcomes in all sectors of the economy and society. Given all that, we have reviewed the recommendation elements and we've set up— set out proposed edits to the text which we've submitted in writing. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Guatemala. I'll now give the floor to Argentina, followed by Bangladesh and Peru. Argentina, you have the floor. Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Chair. A very brief statement as well due to the little time that we have. We just want to say that we will send comments to the text in writing, and in general, they're around 3 elements: the importance of respecting the voluntarity of any type of mainstreaming plan which is developed, the importance of guaranteeing means of implementation to ensure this mainstreaming and for this to respect the priorities and circumstances of each party. That's all. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias, Argentina. Now, I would give the floor to Bangladesh, followed by Peru and Chile. Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Bangladesh thanks the CBD Secretariat for preparing document CBD/SBI/7/12 welcomes the program progress made in advancing biodiversity mainstreaming. Biodiversity must be integrated beyond the environmental sector into national and sectoral policies, plan, budget, and decision-making, including in agriculture, fisheries, water infrastructure, finance, and local development. Bangladesh supports country-driven whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches with stronger coordination across ministries and meaningful participation of indigenous people and local communities, women, youth, civil society, and private sector. However, many developing country parties continue to face gaps in institutional capacity, biodiversity data monitoring system, technology, and financial resources. We therefore call for predictable financial and technical support capacity building, technology transfer, and practical tools to translate policies into measurable results. Mainstreaming should also build on existing national planning and reporting systems and avoid additional reporting burdens. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Bangladesh. I will now give the floor to Peru, followed by Chile and Botswana. Peru, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Peru welcomes the reports presented and the efforts of the Secretariat in order to respond to that requested by decisions of COP16, which aimed to contribute to effectively implementing Target 14 of the Global Framework. As a megadiverse country, we reiterate our firm commitment to the systemic incorporation of conservation sustainable use within decision-making in sectors and between sectors. In this regard, we value deeply the capacity-building efforts related to mainstreaming biodiversity. We highlight the importance of continuing to strengthen strict collaboration with parties, subnational and local governments, regional technical support centers, non-governmental organizations, financial institutions at the international level, and private sector entities. Nevertheless, we note with concern that mainstreaming efforts continue to be unequal. There is a gap between macroeconomic policies in terms of infrastructure and commercial production sectors. This weakens the global impact of our actions. Looking forward to COP17, Peru believes a priority is to resolve the limited availability of indicators, methodologies, data, and monitoring systems for financing and accountability frameworks in terms of economic activities. Therefore, we urge you all to step up the whole society and government approaches in order to close these gaps.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Peru. I will now give the floor to Chile, followed by Botswana and Madagascar. Chile, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Chile supports the long-term strategic approach for mainstream biodiversity in key economic sectors. We highlight the link between mainstreaming around sectors and targets. 10, 14, 15, 16, placing sustainable development at the heart, and recognize that mainstreaming is moving forward more quickly in terms of planning and policies than in terms of implementation and pushing them into practice. We recognize the recurrent challenges identified in documents, many of which are in line with our national experience— difficulty of strengthening coordination between sectors and levels of government and mainstream biodiversity in decision-making in a wider sense in terms of the economy, development, and tax. Technical, institutional, and financial capacity, which is limited. The scarcity of methodologies and monitoring systems for financing biodiversity, which are harmonized. And difficulty of mainstream biodiversity beyond just the environment. Chair, we highlight that we need to strengthen consistency and complementarity with agendas on climate change and desertification of the Rio Conventions, as well as with other MEAs, within the context of approaches which are whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches. In this regard, we suggest incorporating in operative paragraph 4 an explicit mention on searching for consistency and strengthening complementarity with action programs on climate change and desertification of the Rio Conventions, as well as with other MEAs. In addition, we suggest the incorporation in operative paragraph 5 an explicit mention of the challenges related to coordination between sectors and levels of government, as well as with the technical, institutional, and financial capacities, and the integration of these topics beyond just the environmental sphere. Thank you very much.

That's Chile. I will now give the floor to Botswana, Madagascar, followed by South Africa. Botswana, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity. Botswana aligns itself fully with the statement delivered by Ghana on behalf of the Africa Group. Botswana has set aside approximately 40% of its territory as protected areas, demonstrating our deep commitment to biodiversity conservation. However, we recognize that conservation cannot succeed in isolation. Biodiversity conservation and management must be integrated across all sectors of our economy, including agriculture, mining, energy, and infrastructure development. This is why Botswana's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan identifies with its first national goal that biodiversity is mainstreamed and valued across all sectors of society. For Botswana, alignment with the Africa Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and the global biodiversity instruments is essential. We therefore support the Africa Group's call for, first, strengthening cross-sectoral mainstreaming mechanisms that give biodiversity considerations real authority in national decision-making. Second, integrating biodiversity into the national development planning and budgetary processes. Botswana is actively pursuing this through the project on mainstreaming biodiversity into the financial sector funded through the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund. This will complement efforts to mobilize adequate resources, including domestic and international finance, and in exploring innovative instruments such as green bonds and payments for ecosystem services. Third, recognizing the close linkages between biodiversity mainstreaming and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and also Botswana as it develops its national ESG framework. Botswana stands ready to support and be part of all initiatives that ensures that biodiversity is truly mainstreamed across all sectors. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Botswana. I will now give the floor to Madagascar, followed by South Africa and Panama. Madagascar, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, Madagascar aligns itself with the statement of the African Group delivered by Ghana. We welcome the progress made in implementing Implementing Decision 16/13, particularly the regional dialogues, exchanges of best practices, and capacity-building initiatives aimed at integrating biodiversity. For Madagascar, this integration is an essential lever for achieving the objectives of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Our new National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2026-2030 promotes a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. One fostering sectoral integration, spatial planning, and the participation of all stakeholders. However, our experience confirms that this integration will only be fully effective if it is tailored to national contexts and supports the priorities of sustainable development, poverty reduction, and food security. As the report highlights, developing states face persistent challenges. Intersectoral coordination, scientific data, technical capacity, capacity and resource mobilization, Madam Chair. Madagascar, therefore, supports the continuation of regional dialogues and the sharing of best practices and stresses the need for enhanced support in the areas of financing, technology transfer, and capacity building for the effective and sustainable implementation of the global framework. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Madagascar. I will now give the floor to South Africa, followed by Panama and Bahrain. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Ghana on behalf of the Africa Group. South Africa notes the progress on the progress report on activities related to the mainstreaming of biodiversity within and across sectors. As part of advancing this work, South Africa, in partnership with the Global Partnership for Business and Biodiversity and the CBD Secretariat, convened a 2-day regional business Forum on the 16th and 17th of March, 2026. Supported by SANBI as the TSCC, the forum created a space for dialogue on practical implementation experiences, mechanisms, guidance, and relevant solutions related to business contribution in the implementation of KMGBF to support mainstreaming. The workshop emerged with the identification of common approaches that can support both economic development and biodiversity management across the region. In light of the above, South Africa is of the view that parties should strengthen efforts to integrate business consideration into relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral policies, plans, programs, and decision-making process. This should include, amongst others, finance, mining, agriculture, water, energy, fisheries, forestry, infrastructure development, and fiscal planning through the whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches. Biodiversity mainstreaming is one of the thematic areas within South Africa and BSAP, which clusters targets 1, 10, 12, 14, and 15 to provide a coherent national implementation pathway. South Africa has consistently sought to link biodiversity with broader social and economic priorities, including poverty reduction, job creation, creation and just transition pathways, thereby ensuring that biodiversity is integral to the national development agenda. We welcome the draft recommendation in the document and will submit textual amendments also. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, South Africa. I now see Panama, followed by Bahrain and Uganda. Panama, you have the floor. Gracias.

Thank you, Chair. Panama. It has more than 3,000 kilometers of coastline and more than 1,500 islands. So when we speak about mainstreaming coastal biodiversity, we know what we're talking about. Mainstreaming takes place in many different processes. The report recognizes that mainstreaming is moving forward more in terms of planning than implementation. Panama recalls that 24% of its forests are indigenous territories. With one of the highest levels of conservation in the country. They lead in terms of conservation, and this perhaps underestimates, in fact, their real contribution because degradation just beyond loss of forest coverage continues to be underreported. Therefore, I think priority should be given to indigenous peoples. Mainstream needs to ensure the full respect of their territorial rights, governance, and access to direct financing. Chair, an example which is not in the communications received under this item is that in the foreign ministers held in Latin America, we developed a regional platform to support mainstreaming and monitoring of commitments under the Climate, Biodiversity, and Desertification Conventions. We, in our islands, starting to talk about these same ideas. We don't just deal with each island separately. We talk about them all together and what connects them. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Panama. I'll now give the floor to Bahrain, followed by Uganda and Colombia. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, please allow me to extend my thanks to the Secretariat for preparing this progress report on mainstreaming biodiversity. The Kingdom Bahrain supports its efforts in order to mainstream environmental considerations within and across sectors. In this context, we would like to reiterate the following points. First, on spatial planning and management of ecosystems, we refer to the report's indication about spatial planning and the integrated management of seascapes. We are a small island state with a limited geographical area and with sustained population growth. The implementation of this criteria must be fully flexible and must clearly respect national circumstances. This implementation must not obstruct urban planning plans and other important infrastructure projects to promote economic development and to meet our citizens' needs. Second, on the reform of subsidies, we would like to reiterate what's included in paragraph 1 of the report. There must be just transition. Reforming the harmful subsidies must not be based on a one-size-fits-all. Such a methodology cannot be applied to our arid area. For us, desalination is essential for water and food security, and any such policy must take into consideration social and economic conditions and we need true alternatives to ensure the attainment of sustainable development goals. I would like to propose or we will send our proposal for amending the recommendation in writing. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bahrain. I will now give the floor to Uganda, followed by Colombia and Benin, and afterwards I have Tunisia in this completes our list from parties from this morning. So please be aware of that. Uganda, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Uganda aligns itself with the statement that was made by Ghana on behalf of Africa. Mainstreaming is at the heart of advancing implementation of the CBD, its protocols, and the KMGBF at the national level.

The DF8 project through UNEP is developing guidelines for mainstreaming biodiversity across sectors using the whole of government and whole of society approach. These guidelines will help greatly improve mainstreaming biodiversity by the different sectors. Chair, Uganda supports the draft recommendation but would like this to be expanded to address the challenges that have been identified. Identified in Section B of this document. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Uganda. Please take care of your phones or of your mobiles, people. I will now give the floor to Colombia, followed by Benin and Tunisia. Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We have to reiterate that biodiversity mainstreaming is undoubtedly one of the main facilitating means to implement the Convention and to fulfill the global framework. What's set out by the Secretariat is clear. We have moved forwards in strategies, tools, and processes for planning, but there are persistent gaps in terms of translating these into effective implementation and institutional reform which mainstreams biodiversity into decision-making. In Colombia, our biodiversity action plan up to 2030 responds to these challenges, promoting an intersectoral implementation with coordination mechanisms between institutions, mainstreaming biodiversity into development planning. Therefore, we believe that this decision should help us to move from the exchange of experiences to action. We need to strengthen institutional mechanisms and have higher-level mechanisms as well as development of indicators which enable us to measure indicators and ensure that biodiversity forms part of decisions on investment, health, agriculture, financing, etc. In parallel, my delegation recognizes that mainstreaming needs to be ensured not just at national level but also through the various agenda items of the COP. As said by other delegations, We have to mainstream mainstreaming into item 9 on and item 13, and in particular under the global action plan on biodiversity cooperation with other conventions amongst other items. Mainstreaming should not just be within policies which mention it, but really transform our governments. under the Convention to be able to plan, invest, and take decisions mainstreaming biodiversity. The global framework requires this of us, and we need to therefore move forwards on it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Colombia. I will now give the floor to Benin, followed by Tunisia. Benin, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The Republic of Benin wishes to back the statement made on behalf of the Africa Group on the very important issue of the mainstreaming and integrating of biodiversity within and across sectors. Benin welcomes with a great deal of enthusiasm the content of the report, which clearly shows that most countries have experienced a problem with the setting up with a number of strategies, a number of public policy strategies. We recognize that frameworks are in place for integrating biodiversity across all sectors, but the next step is to move on to the operational level. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches have been effectively implemented, but the impact must now be felt across all sectors to ensure tangible effects on biodiversity conservation. Benin suggests that the parties continue to engage all directly and indirectly affected sectors so that biodiversity issues are better understood by all. Finally, Benin would like to emphasize a recommendation in Section 5, Elements of a Recommendation. The draft recommendation identifies a number of mechanisms aimed at supporting the mainstreaming of biodiversity but does not explicitly refer to the cross-cutting initiatives of the CBD. For this reason, Benin suggests that in paragraph 5, we should explicitly recognize the CBD's cross-cutting initiatives as among the mechanisms for facilitating the exchange of best practices, tools, mechanisms, guidance, and relevant support solutions regarding the mainstreaming of biodiversity. Among these initiatives is the International Biodiversity Initiative for Food and Nutrition within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Benin. I will now give the floor to Tunisia. Tunisia, you have the floor.

Okay, merci, madame.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Tunisia aligns itself with statements made by Ghana on behalf of the African Group, and we would like to add a few additional elements reflecting our national experience. We thank the Secretariat for the document presented on the progress made in biodiversity mainstreaming sectoral policies. For our country, biodiversity mainstreaming is an essential condition for the effective implementation of the global framework. It requires an approach mobilizing all public institutions, local authorities, the private sector, civil society, women, youth, and academia with strong political commitments to all levels. Within this context, Tunisia has made Target 14 a priority in its MBSAP. We welcome the efforts by secretariats to strengthen capacities with communities of practice and technical cooperation. However, we believe that considerable challenges can remain, in particular in terms of intersectoral coordination, capacity building, the availability of data and indicators, as well as monitoring of progress. We also need to better translate commitment strategies into concrete action. In particular in the economic sectors in terms of budgetary processes and investment decisions involving the private sector and resource mobilization in a sustainable manner are also essential. In this regard, Tunisia highlights the importance of strengthening technical and scientific cooperation, the sharing of knowledge and financing mechanisms. We also encourage the strengthening of regional support centers so they can play a strategic role in capacity building and help to measurably and concretely help to implement the Protocol and the Convention. Thank you.

And yes, with that, we conclude the list of speakers, parties that we had this morning. So I would like now to invite other governments and observers We'll begin with major stakeholder groups to ask for the floor. Okay. Okay, so major stakeholder groups will have 3 minutes and the other observers just 1 minute. I will begin with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, IIFB. 3 minutes, please.

Thank you.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I speak on behalf of the Indigenous—

International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. The coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework recognizes that achieving transformative change requires the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Biodiversity mainstreaming must therefore go beyond integrating biodiversity into sectoral policies It must also integrate rights governance system, knowledge of the indigenous peoples and local communities. We welcome the progress report outlined in the Secretariat report. However, it also shows that mainstreaming remains stronger in planning than in implementation, and that important gaps remain in accountability, financing, and cross-sectoral coordination. First, biodiversity mainstreaming must be grounded in a human rights-based approach. All sectoral policies and decisions affecting biodiversity should fully respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including rights to lands, territories, and resources, governance system, ensuring free, prior, and informed consent, and our traditional knowledge that should be integrated alongside scientific knowledge in planning, monitoring, and decision-making. Secondly, mainstreaming must address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, We encourage parties to reform incentives harmful to biodiversity while strengthening positive incentives that indigenous-led conservation, customary sustainable use, and community governance. Thirdly, direct and accessible financing for indigenous peoples and local communities remain essential. Resources should reach indigenous institutions and communities directly to support implementation of the framework, strengthen territorial governance, and maintain traditional system. Finally, we urge parties to ensure that biodiversity mainstreaming is measured not only by the new policies but by real improvements in rights recognition, meaningful participation, biodiversity outcomes, and accountability.

Thank you. Thank you very much, IIFB. I will now give the floor to NGOs, the CBD Alliance, and then afterwards to subnational and local authorities. Please be advised, the other observers that are asking for the floor, I will ask you to participate on the next part because of the timing. Okay, so NGO CBD Alliance, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mainstreaming biodiversity into all sectors was established to ensure that biodiversity issues get high on the agenda of all decision-making processes, particularly regarding economic, fiscal, and financial decisions. While the mainstreaming efforts are underway, we note that the impact of economic sectors on biodiversity is still excessively high and growing. We therefore believe that further work is needed to address the barriers and the challenges to align economic policies and their implementation decisions with biodiversity. We urge parties in the CBD to identify those and to develop further work to address them. We have proposed language in this regard in our written submission. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Please, technician, subnational and local authorities do have 3 minutes, and I will give the floor to them right now. Subnational, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the local and subnational governments major group coordinated by ICLEI, Regions 4, and the Government of Quebec, we welcome the progress made in advancing biodiversity mainstreaming across sectors. We commend the Secretariat and its partners for their continued efforts, particularly in strengthening capacity building, knowledge sharing, peer learning, and technical cooperation. We are encouraged by the growing momentum for multilevel action on biodiversity and by the recognition that local and subnational governments are essential implementation partners. As acknowledged in this session, 1613, we encourage the continued use of this terminology in decisions and reports to ensure that their contributions are clearly reflected and recognized. Looking ahead, local and subnational governments remain committed partners in implementing the KMDBF. We stand ready to continue supporting capacity building, knowledge exchange, and multilevel cooperation. while contributing to progress on Targets 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19. We look forward to continuing our collaboration with parties, the Secretariat, and partners across the convention community. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, ICLEI. I will now give the floor to business. You have 1 minute.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Finance for Biodiversity Foundation sees mainstreaming as a critical means of implementation for the KMGBF. Nature underpins economic stability, resilience, and growth. The decline of biodiversity and ecosystem services such as water, soil health, and climate regulation presents systemic economic risks. We recommend that upcoming decision documents emphasize the financial system transformation required to effectively implement the KMGBF. This includes greater involvement from ministries of finance, central banks, and financial regulators. The creation of sectoral nature transition pathways, such as those being developed in the UK and under consideration by other countries, will be another key enabler for mainstreaming of biodiversity across economic sectors. In our view, a whole-of-economy approach to nature alongside a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach will be essential for successful economic and—

Thank you very much, Business. I see no more requests for the floor. We have thus completed the first reading of item 12. Oh, Biodiversity International, you have 1 minute. Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The Alliance of Biodiversity International and CIAT, as part of the CGIAR, submitted a previous statement and we wish to add the following. First of all, we thank the European Union for the support and echoing Benin, Brazil, and others, we reiterate that sustainable use of genetic resources can translate biodiversity objectives into concrete action across agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. While supporting food security, nutrition, climate resilience and livelihoods. We welcome the approaches identified in paragraph 43 of the progress report and suggest explicit language recognizing agrobiodiversity-driven solutions for sustainable food production, including landscape and food system approach. We also recall Decision 8/23, which established a cross-cutting initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition, and we encourage parties to leverage these and other cross-cutting initiatives to strengthen policy coherence and accelerate implementation of the KMGB framework targets. The Alliance stands ready.

Thank you very much, Biodiversity Alliance. I'm sorry for that. So now we have really concluded this item, the first reading of this item. Well, after hearing your interventions, I propose to establish a contact group to work on biodiversity mainstreaming. The group will be co-chaired by Ezequiel Benitez-Diaz from Mexico and Scott Wilson from Canada. Together with the co-chairs and with the support of the Secretariat, I will produce a non-paper for discussion by the contact group, so the discussions on This group would concentrate on the review of the non-paper so that we have a CRP with a recommendation to COP. The secretariat will inform us of the time and room for the contact group to meet. I would like to remind you of all the rules that apply to the contact group, and of course I will ask the co-chairs to repeat them before convening the first meeting.

Thank you.

And dear delegates, if you have not already done so, please be sure to upload the full text of your intervention no later than 1 hour after the close of this session. I would like now to address item 6, the 5th assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. and the midterm evaluation of the implementation plan and the capacity-building action plan for the protocol. I will give 1 minute to change teams. Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, please take your seats. Thank you. I will now invite the Secretariat to introduce the documents prepared for item 6. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. 2 documents have been made available to facilitate the work of the subsidiary body. Firstly, document CBD/SBI/7/6. The document provides information on the steps in the process and a section with highlights of findings. The document also contains the draft recommendation for consideration by the subsidiary body. The draft recommendation contains elements covering all goals of the Protocol's Implementation Plan and Capacity Building Action Plan. The elements of the draft recommendation have been developed based on contributions provided by the Compliance Committee under the Cartagena Protocol at its 21st meeting and the Liaison Group on the Cartagena Protocol at its 15th meeting, both of which were held in June of this year. Secondly, document CBD/SBI/7/6/add1. This document contains a comparative analysis of information to inform the assessment and evaluation process. The comparative analysis was prepared using information from the 5th National Reports, the Biosafety Clearinghouse, as well as information on compliance and capacity building. and shows progress towards the goals of the plans. Progress was measured from the baseline using the indicators provided in the plans. The comparative analysis was also made available in an advanced edited version to the Compliance Committee and the Liaison Group to facilitate their work. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. As you all know, Information Document 21 lists the 14 submissions received from parties and the one statement from one observer on item 6 by the deadline. The list of parties and observers indicated in the information document is also being displayed on the screen. Note that this list only includes observers that have a registered on site. Colleagues, are there any objections from any parties or observers listed in the formation document to your statements being formally entered on record as statements officially submitted for this agenda item in this meeting? Please raise your hands if you have any objection. I don't see any hands raised. Thank you, colleagues. So your statements will be formally entered on record and considered as officially submitted under this agenda item. I will now ask IPOCs, the only observer that has submitted an early statement, to check if they are in the room. Please raise your hands.

Yes.

Thank you very much for your presence. And I would like now to ask if any party would like to support the submission made by IIFB. I see, yes, I see the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, and Fiji. And with those 3, among other observers, and the full list will be published on the orders tab on our webpage for this meeting. And then with that, we have concluded the early submissions of statement review. I would like now to begin the consideration of this item by parties, interventions by parties. So, colleagues, as this is an item pertaining to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, I will give the floor first to parties to the Cartagena Protocol, but delegates from other governments and observers may also request the floor. I now open the floor for interventions on agenda item beginning with parties speaking on behalf of a regional group. I remind you that I will be limiting statements to 4 minutes for regional groups, 2 minutes for individual parties, 3 minutes for IPLCs and local— IPLCs and major stakeholder groups, and 1 minute for non-parties and other observers. So I will now give the floor to Malawi

Thank you, Madam Chair. Malawi is reading this statement on behalf of the African Group. Madam Chair, the African Group welcomes the progress made by the parties in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and towards the achievement of the goals of the Implementation Plan and the Capacity Building Action Plan. We also recognize with appreciation the contribution of the Compliance Committee and Region Group to this assessment. However, we note with concern that important gaps persist across our region and that biosafety capacity building and dedicated and predictable resources remain key regional challenges and priorities. Africa shares the concern that several parties have not yet taken measures or have only drafts or temporary measures for implementation, and the development of biosafety regulations remain a challenge for several parties in some regions. We therefore call for focused capacity development and political will to finalize and operationalize and administrative and institutional measures. Madam Chair, the rapid ongoing technological development means capacities on risk assessment, risk management, detection, and identification requires continuous updating. While a significant percentage of parties have access to laboratories, challenges persist with accreditation of laboratories access to certified reference materials, validated LMO detection and identification methods, and trained personnel, as evidenced from the assessment. Regional cooperation through networks such as Network of Laboratories Exchange of Scientific, Technical, and Institutional Knowledge is therefore essential. The region continues to experience significant challenges with accessing funds to support implementation of the protocol. Africa, therefore, calls for enhancement of focused capacity building and development and access to dedicated and predictable financial resources for implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The African groups remain committed to constructive engagement during negotiation at this subsidiary body of implementation to ensure that the protocol delivers on its objectives and contributes to the objectives of the Convention and Target 17 of the Kumming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework. We therefore have made some text proposals for some paragraphs in the draft decision, and we shall submit them together with a statement. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Malawi. I would now I would like to give the floor to Vanuatu. Vanuatu, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Vanuatu speaks on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. 10 of our 14 countries are parties to this protocol. Let us begin with something that worked. Reporting under this protocol went from 23% to 69% in a single cycle. The assessment tells us why. 71 eligible countries Our parties received Global Environment Facility disbursements for national reporting by mid-February, where in the previous round no one had received anything by the deadline. Chair, that is not a coincidence. It is decision CP10/9 working. That decision asked the facility to disburse in a timely manner so that projects supporting the 5th National Report could be approved well before the reporting deadline. It was done and reported triple. This is the clearest evidence anywhere in the document where this meeting— that funding a party to do the work is more effective than asking it to. We support the paragraph asking the facility to disburse well in advance, and we ask that it is strengthened from an invitation into a request with the timing expressed in months before the deadline rather than left open. Now, the harder part. The assessment finds that almost 3/4 of parties have either no national resources for biosecurity— biosafety, or resources that are not adequate. On the adequacy of national biosafety budgets, the regional figures are 0% in Africa, 8% in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 30% in Asia and the Pacific. And yet the draft decision urges parties to allocate adequate resources from national budgets before it comes to the financial mechanism at all. We ask that this ordering be rebalanced. Article 28 of the Protocol, read with Article 20 of the Convention, does not place the primary burden on the national budget of a party that the assessment has just found has no budget biosafety budget to allocate from. There is one finding that deserves particular attention, and it is an island question. Article 17 on unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures is the worst functioning provision in this protocol. 6 parties reported unintentional movements in their national reports. The biosafety clearinghouse holds no unintentional movement communication at all. and 2 records of illegal movements. On the evidence before us, the emergency notification machinery is simply not operating, and 82% of parties named this as a capacity priority. For archipelagic states, this is not an abstraction. Our borders are hundreds of ports of entry spread across thousands of kilometers of ocean, and many are on outer islands with no laboratory with within 1,000 kilometers. 2/3 of parties are said to have access to certified reference materials. We ask how many of those 2/3 are island states? There is no island analysis in this assessment, no archipelagic assessment, and no disaggregation beyond the 5 regional groups, which places our 14 countries inside an Asia-Pacific average shaped bioeconomies nothing like ours. Decision 16/17 has now placed island biodiversity in the standing work of this convention. The biosafety assessment has not yet caught up with that. 3 requests here. One, that island and archipelagic borders biosecurity accredited laboratory access and certified reference materials be added expressly to the priority capacity areas and reflected in the next reiteration of the Capacity Building Action Plan adopted in Decision CP10/4. 2, 30, methodology.

Thank you very much, Vanuatu. I will now ask that— I do not have observers on my screen right now. I would like now, since I don't see any more requests for the floor, on behalf of regional groups, I would like now to ask to open the floor for interventions by parties, individual parties. And as I have stated, I will give preference to parties to the Cartagena Protocol. Okay, so I will have the first intervention from Egypt, followed by Peru, Thank you. And afterwards, the United Republic of Tanzania. I think that there is some problem with one observer that is still on my screen. Please wait for your turn. Egypt, you have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Egypt aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group. Egypt considers this 5th assessment and review of the effectiveness of the protocol an important opportunity to strengthen the implementation of the protocol. While encouraging progress has been made, important implementation gaps remain, particularly for developing country parties. We wish to highlight some points. First, future assessment should continue to strengthen the scientific robustness, transparency, and methodological consistency by clearly distinguishing between implementation gap, reporting gap, and data limitation. This will ensure that conclusions and correctly reflect progress and remaining challenges. Second, strengthening national capacities remains essential. Continued support should prioritize environmental risk assessment, risk management, monitoring, detection, and identification of living modified organisms, regulatory oversight, and the effective use of the biosafety clearinghouse. In this context, Egypt wishes to emphasize that risk assessment and risk management are national determinations undertaken by parties in accordance with the Cartagena Protocol. Legislation and priorities and circumstances. At the same time, transparency and scientific integrity should be strengthened through the identification, disclosure, and appropriate management of conflict of interest in relevant risk assessment and risk management process. Third, sustained means of implementation remain indispensable. Predictable financial resource, technology transfer, scientific and technological cooperation, and knowledge sharing are essential to enable developing party to address the implementation gap identified through this assessment. Finally, Egypt welcomes this important contribution of the Compliance Committee and reiterates the value of its facilitative, transparent, non-adversarial approach in supporting parties through technical assistance, constructive engagement, and targeted capacity building. Thank you, Madam Chair. We will submit our proposed text in writing.

Thank you very much, Egypt. I would like to remind delegates to speak a little bit slowly and also to upload the statements before asking for the floor. So I now have Peru, followed by Tanzania and Vietnam. Peru, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For megadiverse countries carrying out technically robust assessments in very ecologically complex areas where we have agrobiodiversity, and productive systems of traditional nature living side by side, it's critical for many countries to have sufficient capacities and methodologies, which often lack. In addition, we observe with concern that 88% of the parties still require capacities in terms of detection and identification, the lack of reference materials, And Latin America and the Caribbean has the lowest levels of registration for these, and the lack of accreditation of laboratories is a direct risk for cross-border movements which might be accidental or illegal and their release into environments. We ask for prioritization of regional centers, capacity building, and accessible access to reference materials, in particular for new products coming into the market. The report also reveals a critical reality. In Latin America and the Caribbean, only 8% of parties believe that their budgetary national resources for biosafety are sufficient. Biosafety cannot be an unfinanced obligation. We urge GEF to guarantee direct means of financing in a timely and predictable manner for biosafety, avoiding the dispersion of funds within general funds. We recommend establishing a more direct financing mechanism which guarantees that parties have funds in a timely manner in order to facilitate national consultation procedures. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Peru. I will now give the floor to Tanzania, followed by Vietnam and Morocco. Protocol. Tanzania, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. United Republic of Tanzania aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group. We welcome the 5th assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the midterm evaluation of its implementation plan and capacity building action plan. The findings demonstrate encouraging progress in strengthening national biosafety frameworks institutional arrangements, and information exchange. At the same time, they clearly show that many developing countries continue to face significant implementation challenges, particularly in relation to human resources, technical experts, risk assessment, laboratory capacity, and financial resources. United Republic of Tanzania believes that successful implementation of the Cotonou Protocol requires sustained investment in institutional and economic capacity, technology transfer, scientific cooperation, and predictable financial support. Capacity building initiatives should remain demand-driven and responsive to national priority and circumstance. We also emphasize the importance of strengthening regional collaboration, including South-South and triangular cooperation, to promote knowledge sharing, and building resilient biosystems. Finally, implementation of the Protocol should continue to respect national legislation and the national decision-making process while advancing the objective of the Protocol and contributing to the achievement of Target 17 of the Kumamoto Global Biodiversity Framework. I thank you.

Thank you very much, United Republic of Tanzania. I will now give the floor to Vietnam, followed by Morocco and Lesotho. Vietnam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Vietnam welcomes the 5th assessment and review of the Catarina Protocol and the midterm evaluation of the implementation plan and the capacity building action plan. We appreciate the work of the Secretariat, the Compliance Committee, and the Lion While recognizing the progress made, Vietnam believes that capacity building remains a priority for effective implementation of the Protocol. It should be practical, demand-driven, and responsive to nationally identified needs and priorities. While Vietnam broadly supports the recommendations contained in the document CBD/ At BI/7/6, we have submitted specific textual proposals to further consideration. These proposals aim to reinforce capacity building in key areas, including risk assessment and management, detection and identification of living modified organisms, illegal and unintentional transboundary movements, public awareness, monitoring and reporting, while recognizing technology change as an important component of capacity building underlies the importance of adequate and timely financial support, including continued support of the Global Environment Facility under the 9th replacement of the Global Environment Facility and the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund and—

Thank you.

as well as the mobilization of additional resources from all relevant sources. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Vietnam. I will now give the floor to Morocco, followed by Lesotho and Namibia. Morocco, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The Kingdom of Morocco wishes to thank the CBD Secretariat as well as liaison group For the quality of the documents issued, the report highlights encouraging progress in the implementation of the Protocol, notably due to the high number of national reports submitted, the strengthening of national biosafety frameworks, and the development of the Biosafety Clearinghouse. However, this assessment also underscores that significant challenges remain. Many parties continue to face shortcomings in legal frameworks, institutional and technical capacities, qualified human resources, and sustainable financing. These constraints limit the effective implementation of the Protocol, especially in the areas of risk assessment and management, the detection and identification of living modified organisms, and the monitoring of transboundary movements. In this respect, Morocco considers that capacity building must remain a strategic priority. It is essential to invest more in human resources training, technology transfer, the development of scientific infrastructure and laboratories, as well as in the regional networks of expertise to support the parties in the effective implementation of their obligations. Morocco also emphasizes that the mobilization of sufficient, predictable, and accessible financial resources is an essential prerequisite. Furthermore, Morocco states that biosafety can no longer be addressed on a sector-by-sector basis. It must be fully mainstreamed into national policies on biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, food security, health, and scientific innovation. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Morocco. I will now give the floor to Lesotho, followed by Namibia and Kenya. Lesotho, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Lesotho aligns itself with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of the Africa Group. We thank the Secretariat for the comprehensive analysis contained in the documents presented and welcome the contributions of the Compliance Committee and the Liaison Group to this 5th assessment and review. The findings demonstrate encouraging progress in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and the achievement of several goals in the Implementation Plan and Capacity Building Plan. At the same time, significant challenges remain, particularly for least developed countries and small island developing States. Lesotho remains committed to implementing the protocol, but like several parties, we continue to face constraints in establishing and operationalizing the legal, administrative, and institutional measures required for full implementation. We therefore support targeted assistance for the development and implementation of national biosafety frameworks, including technical support for legislative development and institutional institutional strengthening. Chair, the review confirms that limited financial resources, inadequate technical capacity, and restricted access to technology remain major barriers to implementation. We therefore welcome the draft decision's emphasis on capacity building, support for detection capabilities, and regional cooperation among biosafety experts. We are particularly concerned that progress on resource mobilization has been limited. We urge parties, the GEF, and relevant organizations to provide adequate, predictable, and accessible financial and technical support to developing country parties to enable effective implementation of the protocol. Lesotho recognizes the important contribution to the— of the Cartagena Protocol to the implementation of Target 17 of the KMGBF, and stresses that biosafety capacity building is essential.

Thank you very much, Lesotho. I'll now give the floor to Namibia, followed by Kenya and India. Namibia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of the Africa Group. Chair, the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol depends not only on the adoption of biosafety legislation, but on the capacity of parties to implement, monitor, and enforce their national biosafety frameworks. While progress has been made, resource constraints continue to limit effective implementation. Persistent challenges including limited institutional and technical capacity, inadequate enforcement systems, and insufficient laboratory capabilities are further intensified by rapid technological advances that require continuous strengthening of scientific and regulatory expertise. Namibia therefore underscores that capacity building should remain the cornerstone of effective implementation. Chair, sustained and predictable financial resources together with enhanced regional collaboration and technical exchange will be critical to strengthening implementation and enabling parties to fulfill their obligations under the Protocol. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Namibia. I will now give the floor to Kenya, followed by India and Mauritania. Kenya, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Kenya aligns itself with the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of the Africa Group. Kenya welcomes the findings of the 5th Assessment and Review of the Effectiveness of the Cotonou Protocol on Biosafety. Safety and the midterm evaluation of the implementation plan and capacity building action plan. We acknowledge the progress made by parties in strengthening implementation of the protocol. However, Kenya shares the African group's concern that significant implementation gaps persist, particularly among developing country parties. Some parties are yet to fully operationalize the necessary legal, administrative, and institutional measures. Chair, rapid developments in modern biotechnology require continuous strengthening of capacities in risk assessment, risk management, monitoring, detection, and identification of living modified organisms. Particularly, attention should be given to accredited laboratories, validated detection methods, certified reference materials, and adequately trained personnel. Kenya supports enhanced global and regional cooperation through laboratory networks, exchange of scientific and technical expertise, joint trainings, and information sharing. We further call for dedicated, adequate, and predictable financial resources to enable developing countries to effectively implement their obligations under the protocol. Finally, Kenya supports retaining the goals of the implementation plan and capacity-building action while prioritizing areas where progress remains limited. This will ensure that the protocol contributes effectively to the objective of the convention and Target 17 of KMGBF. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Kenya. I will now give the floor to India, followed by Mauritania and Indonesia. India, you have the Thank you, Madam Chair.

India welcomes the documents prepared by the Secretariat on the 5th Assessment and Review of the Effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol and the Midterm Evaluation of the Implementation Plan and Capacity Building Action Plan. India considers that the continued strengthening of national biosafety frameworks should be viewed in the context of addressing evolving scientific and technological developments, including emerging applications of modern biotechnology, rather than as an indication of inadequate implementation. Capacity building should therefore remain forward-looking and responsive to national priorities and needs. India supports continued strengthening of Biosafety Clearinghouse as an important mechanism for information exchange, transparency, and international cooperation. Efforts to improve the quality, completeness, and timeliness of information submitted by parties should be undertaken through technical support and capacity building. Taking into account differing national capacities. India believes that conclusions and recommendations arising from the assessments should accurately reflect the available evidence. Where findings are based on responses from only a limited number of parties, the conclusions should be appropriately qualified to avoid broad generalization and to ensure balanced reporting. India supports the continued implementation of the Capacity Building Action Plan in a manner that is— demand driven, responsive to national circumstances, and aligned with parties' priorities. Capacity-building initiatives should promote knowledge sharing, institutional strengthening, and the effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol while avoiding unnecessary reporting or administrative burdens. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you very much, India. Colleagues, I will soon close the list of speakers. I will now give the floor to Mauritania, followed by Indonesia and South Africa. Mauritania, you have the floor.

You have the floor. Madam Chair, dear colleagues, Mauritania attaches a great importance to the 5th assessment of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and its midterm implementation review. These assessments allow us to measure progress. Identify gaps and better guide our actions to ensure the effective implementation of the Protocol. At the national level, Mauritania continues to strengthen its legal institutional framework for biosafety. The National Biosafety Law has been adopted and enacted. Implementing regulations are being finalized and our 5th national report under the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety was submitted on time. This progress demonstrates our commitment to implement the Cartagena Protocol. Despite the progress made, developing states, especially the least developed states, continue to face significant challenges. There remains a considerable need for financial resources for technology transfer, for technical and scientific capacity building, for the training of experts, for the development of national laboratories, and for the modernization of control and surveillance systems. We encourage the strengthening of regional networks of experts, the promotion of knowledge sharing and best practices through the Biosafety Clearinghouse— House, as well as the development of South-South and triangular cooperation. All of this in order to strengthen national capacities for the assessment, management, and monitoring of risk associated with living modified organisms. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mauritania. I'll now give the floor to Indonesia, followed by South Africa and Zimbabwe. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Indonesia welcomes the 5th Assessment and Review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol and the midterm evaluation of its implementation plan, and appreciate the work undertaken in their preparation. We consider this exercise to provide a useful evidence-based and facilitative basis for strengthening implementation, while recognizing that implementation gaps should be assessed in light of differing national circumstances, capacities, and reporting capabilities. Indonesia emphasized that the continued importance of strengthening national biosafety frameworks, including risk assessment and risk management, detection and identification of living modified organisms, the effective use of biosafety clearinghouse, emergency preparedness, and institutional coordination consistent with national legislation and priorities. We further underscored that effective implementation by developing country parties requires adequate means of implementation, including predictable and timely financial resources, access to the— access to and transfer of technology, technical and scientific cooperation, and sustained capacity building to strengthen national institutions, laboratory infrastructure, human resources, and reporting capacity. Finally, any follow-up action should remain within the mandate of the protocol built on existing obligation, avoid creating unnecessary reporting burdens, and preserve sufficient flexibility for parties in accordance with national regulatory frameworks and capacity. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Indonesia. I'll now give the floor to South Africa, followed by Zimbabwe and Ghana. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. South Africa supports the statement made by Malawi on behalf of the Africa and welcomes the progress made on the implementation of the protocol and the gaps and challenges and the need for further support. Additionally, and recalling decision CP-10/3, South Africa recognizes the contribution of the KMGBF to the implementation of the protocol and the contribution of the protocol to the 3 objectives of the convention. South Africa therefore believes it will be valuable to reflect on and capture experiences, challenges, and lessons learned by parties in, one, the integration of biodiversity into NBSAPs and how this has contributed to implementation of the Protocol, and 2, the process for the compilation of the 5th National Reports and contribution to the Convention's 7th National Report, which form the basis for the respective assessment. This with a view to inform important improvements for future assessments and help better distill key messages on whether we are on track to achieving the objectives, goals, and targets we have set on biosafety. South Africa has made text proposals and these have been submitted in writing. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you very much, South Africa. I'll now give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by Ghana and the Dominican Republic.

Thank you, Chair. Zimbabwe supports the statement delivered by Malawi on behalf of the Africa Group. We note with appreciation the contributions made by both the Liaison Group on the Cotonou Protocol and the Compliance Committee under the Cotonou Protocol towards this assessment. The findings highlight implementation gaps that require urgent attention if parties are to achieve Target 17 of the KMGBF by 2030. This is important given the critical role of biosafety in ensuring the safe application of modern biotechnology. As biotechnology continues to evolve rapidly, parties should strengthen their national biosafety systems to keep pace with these developments. The assessment identifies gaps in risk assessment and risk management, as well as in the detection and identification of living modified organisms, among other issues. It also shows that many parties continue to lack the financial and technical capacity required for the effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol. Addressing these capacity gaps remains essential. As highlighted by the liaison group, regional technical support centers have an important role to play in supporting the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol by facilitating and supporting biosafety capacity building. Finally, we emphasize the need for dedicated predictable and adequate financial resources to support the effective implementation of the Cartagena Protocol and decisions adopted under it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. I will now give the floor to Ghana, followed by the Dominican Republic and Panama. Ghana, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Ghana supports the statement made by Malawi on behalf of Africa. Chair, biosafety is very key to achieving the objectives of the Convention and the KMGBF. We acknowledge progress made by parties to implement the Protocol in spite of existing challenges and wish to emphasize the following for effective and enhanced implementation of the Protocol. One, harmonization of efforts, building of technical and institutional capacity with more emphasis on new and emerging technologies. 2, focus on issue automatic-based capacities such as on detection, risk assessment, and risk assessment. 3, science and research and development and measures that support mainstreaming of the Protocol. We finally recommend that the GEF allocate dedicated funds for the implementation of the Protocol, including for regional projects and addressing thematic issues. I thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Ghana. I'll now give the floor to the Dominican Republic, followed by Panama and Yemen. Dominican Republic, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Dominican Republic thanks the Secretariat for the preparation of the document which contains the 5th evaluation and review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. In addition, we thank them for the presentation of the draft decision. Our delegation thinks it's necessary to strengthen financing in order to address the gaps identified. Although progress has been made, gaps persist in terms of biosafety, in particular for developing countries. Which still have not reached acceptable development in terms of measures in biosafety. We reiterate that capacity building requires accessible financial resources. Financial mechanisms at international level need to ensure specific allocations for the effective implementation of national biosafety frameworks. We need to continue with capacity building and technology transfer to developing countries. We recognize the role played by the Compliance Committee and support that their recommendations continue to be used as a technical basis in order to provide guidance for support to developing countries facing difficulties in terms of compliance with their obligations and in terms of reporting their national reports and institutional capacity building. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Dominican Republican colleagues. I'm now closing the list for parties' interventions, so I will now give the floor to Panama, followed by Yemen and Uganda. Panama, you have the floor. Gracias, Presidenta.

Thank you, Chair. Panama reiterates its commitment to a biosafety mechanism which is solid and inclusive. On synthetic biology, our position is clear. There is no scientific evidence which determines that products developed through synthetic biology are not covered under LMOs in Article 3 of the Cartagena Protocol. Under this technical certainty, the Convention should avoid fragmenting the biosafety regimen and the duplication of resources with other multilateral institutions such as the OECD and UNESCO. In our view, resource mobilization needs to be focused on strengthening national capacities, technology transfer, and scientific process— progress for developing countries. Enabling sustainable biosafety. To ensure biosafety, which is legitimate, decision-making needs to integrate not just scientific criteria but also indigenous knowledge and socioeconomic, cultural, and territorial considerations, safeguarding traditional food systems and the rights of indigenous peoples. Panama has maintained a flexible approach during the last 10 years. This represents at time a serious concern for our delegation. It's not sustainable to continue giving funds to a new ATAG on synthetic biology when there is lack of resources for the management of national capacities. We formally ask for resources promised for a new ATAG be directed instead where financing is a priority. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Panama. I'll now give the floor to Yemen Followed by Uganda and Tunisia. Yemen, you have the floor. Yemen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We welcome the project and draft recommendations on the fifth assessment and review of the effectiveness. This is important to promote. The implementation of the Protocol. We appreciate the progress achieved in national reports and legal frameworks, as well as the Clearinghouse. However, the results of the assessment emphasize the continued challenges faced by the developing countries to implement the Protocol. It is important to build the capacities of the least developing countries and the developing countries in general. We need technology transfer and support our national laboratories that are lacking in the least developing countries. We need capacity building to assess and identify and detect our challenges. It is important to place emphasis on the countries that are affected by crises and the vulnerable countries, as I said already. Assessment should include the following: the effectiveness of the application of legislations, the quality of risk assessment, and the readiness of national institutions. In conclusion, we say that the success of the Protocol requires international cooperation and the availability of implementation tools. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Yemen. I will now give the floor to Uganda, followed by Tunisia and Saudi Arabia. Uganda, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Uganda aligns itself with the statement that was made by Malawi on behalf of Africa. Uganda has made progress in implementing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, but also faces a number of challenges. And, Chair, in particular we are pointing out here the institutional— the lack of institutional capacity at subnational level. Uganda calls for targeted support for capacity building of subnational governments for effective implementation of the protocol. And in this regard, Chair, we would like to see the draft recommendation I have one that is on support for capacity building and institutional strengthening of subnational governments for implementation of the protocol and Target 17 of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Uganda. I'll now give the floor to Tunisia, followed by Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Tunisia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Tunisia aligns itself with the statements made by Malawi on behalf of the African Group. I would like to highlight a few additional elements in terms of its national priorities. We thank the Secretariat for the preparation of the document and welcome this 5th assessment review. Of the Cartagena Protocol, which is an important foundation in order to guide our next steps. Tunisia recognizes the progress made, in particular in terms of identification of LMOs and in terms of strengthening the exchange centers for prevention of biotechnological risks. In this regard, we welcome cooperation with the North African TCSS, which has led to the development of the 5th National Report on the Implementation of the Cartagena Protocol. Tunisia encourages the continuation of these efforts in terms of cooperation and technical support in order to effectively support countries in the implementation of the global framework and its protocols. We also share the concerns expressed with regards to a lack of financial resources dedicated to biosafety. Financing remains a determining factor in ensuring the sustainability of national biosafety frameworks. We thereby call for a rapid implementation of the Kunming Biodiversity Fund, which is a major opportunity in order to support parties in achieving targets of the goal framework. Finally, we highlight the importance of strengthening synergies between the Cartagena Protocol and the Kunming Mutual Goal Biodiversity Framework. RMB-SAP. is being set out, and we consider the implementation of the protocol is an important lever to contribute to achieving this important target, that is Target 17. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tunisia. I will now give the floor to Saudi Arabia, followed by Bahrain and the DRC. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia welcomes the progress achieved in the 5th assessment, Mainly, the high level of national reporting to 96% or 69%, but 81% of parties continue to have capacity building needs. Regional gaps in risk assessment continue to widen. These gaps threaten the fair implementation of the protocol. The kingdom reiterates sovereign right to. Regarding LMOs in accordance with its national legislation. We call for a sustainable financing mechanism to build our laboratory and resource and human resource capacities. We call on all parties in order to ratify the NKL and the protocol. Biosafety is not a luxury but is a necessity in order to protect our people's health and to maintain our food security. We stand ready to cooperate with all parties in order to ensure the effective and fair implementation of the Protocol. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia. I would like to remind parties that the list of speakers for parties is closed, so I have Bahrain followed by the DRC and then Uruguay. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, we thank the Secretariat for preparing this document. We also extend our thanks to the Compliance Committee. We have checked the midterm evaluation report. We commend the progress achieved globally, but we would like to shed light on a key challenge that requires a flexible approach that is mindful of national circumstances. Thank you. Mainly for the cases of main transit countries. I would like to mention the burden of cross-border control and laboratory infrastructure. Like other regional countries, we face challenges in ensuring compliance with the inspection of LMOs in different areas. Biotechnology is progressing at a fast pace. This leads to a greater gap between capacities, local capacities and important technologies. This is why we call for stronger capacity and also training capacity for our customs officers and human resources. Second, we support the establishment of regional laboratories to ease the burden on national laboratories instead of imposing restrictions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bahrain. I will now give the floor to the DRC, followed by Uruguay and Venezuela. DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you, thank you so much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. The DRC wishes to back the statement made by Africa— for Africa made by Malawi. We believe that the improvement of the implementation of the Takartena Protocol requires a holistic approach which combines solid regulatory frameworks, rigorous scientific assessments, and a performing training system, the commitment of the public, international cooperation, and the mobilization of resources. The results of the 5th assessment of the Cartagena Protocol clearly demonstrates that the elaboration of legislation to prevent biosafety risks remains problematic for most of the parties, especially in certain regions. Some progress has been witnessed by a number of parties in paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Protocol. The adoption of regulatory frameworks and the publication of measures and other tools in the Centers of Exchange for the Prevention of Biotechnology Risks, the appointment of competent national authorities and focal points are all elements of progress that have been achieved. Thus, to improve the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol, the DRC stresses the need for a consolidation of biosafety institutions, an improvement of safety assessment and risk management, a strengthening of information exchange systems, public awareness raising, the participation of this public, strengthening international and regional cooperation, as well as monitoring and surveillance of the implementation, and finally the mobilization of resources. I thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC. I will now give the floor to Uruguay and followed by Venezuela. Uruguay, you have the the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Uruguay thanks the Secretariat, the Compliance Committee, and others for the work conducted for the 5th assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol and the midterm evaluation of its implementation plan and capacity-building action plan. We recognize the progress made by the parties in strengthening national biosafety frameworks and biotechnology frameworks, the presentation of reports, the exchange of information, and the assessment of risks. At the same time, the assessment confirms that considerable gaps persist in terms of capacities. Uruguay believes that existing plans offer an adequate framework to guide future work in line with the circumstances, priorities, capacities, and institutional national frameworks We highlight in particular the need to continue strengthening assessment and risk management on a scientific basis and on a case-by-case basis, as well as capacities for detection and identification of living modified organisms and the effective use of information exchange centers on biosafety. International and regional cooperation, the exchange of knowledge, technology transfer, transfer, access to infrastructure, methodologies, and reference materials can be a concrete contribution to the implementation of the Protocol. Finally, capacity building should be accompanied by financial resources which are adequate, accessible, and predictable, and by a cooperative approach which strengthens the decisions adopted by national competent authorities. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Uruguay. I give the floor to Venezuela. Venezuela, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Venezuela welcomes the working documents relating to the 5th Assessment and Review of the Effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol and the Midterm Evaluation of the Implementation Plan and Capacity Building Action For Venezuela, biosafety is not an isolated technical topic. It's a fundamental pillar of our agrofood, our health of our population, and the integrity of our biosafety in line with the Global Biodiversity Framework. In assessing the effectiveness of the protocol, We need to have a precautionary approach. We note the concern global trends which tend to flexibilize free prior and informed consent or accelerate the introduction of LMOs using purely commercial logics. Risk assessments need to continue to be rigorous, transparent, and scientifically independent, strictly respecting the sovereign rights of each state to restrict prohibit anything which threatens its biosafety at a native level and its ancestral varieties. With regards to the capacity-building action plan, we need to be categorical. We can't have asymmetries and blockades to resources such as we have seen in our last national report. Global international financial architecture, and MEAs continue to have bureaucratic and political barriers which are excluding unilateral measures, coercive measures, and illegal measures against our country that directly limit our institutional capacities. These restrictive measures impede our access to financial flows, acquiring latest generation laboratory equipment, and the micro Thank you very much, Venezuela.

I don't see any other parties for the Cartagena Protocol on my screen. I would like now to open the floor for non-party— other governments, non-parties, and observers, beginning with major stakeholder groups. Okay. So I see IPOCs. IPOCs, you have the floor.

Gracias, señora presidenta.

Intervengo.

Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the International Indigenous Biodiversity Forum. The full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol is essential in order to guarantee that decisions on LMOs incorporate not just scientific criteria and technical criteria, but also indigenous knowledge as well as socioeconomic, cultural, and territorial considerations. This participation will strengthen transparency, legitimacy, and relevancy of biosafety policies, in particular for cases in which the possible effects of LMOs can affect the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, means of life, indigenous food systems, and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Chair, we welcome the recommendations set out in the document on the 5th Assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and Biotechnology, as well as the midterm evaluation on the implementation plan and the capacity-building action plan for the protocol. Finally, we urge parties to support the recommendations relating to indigenous peoples and local communities.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Thank you very much. IPOCs, I understand that we already have support for your statement that was already submitted. I don't see any further intervention— ask for the floor, so I consider that we have completed the first reading on agenda item 6. I see that we have a lot of common understanding on the draft recommendation. Of course, the general evaluation, and it's only natural that you want to strengthen it and to make it more effective. And that being said, I think that we can move to a CRP. So I will prepare a conference room paper with the help of the Secretariat, and I will bring it— this back to you eventually. I think that very soon. And please, if you have not already done so, please be sure to upload the full text of your intervention so that it can be captured on the CRP. I would like now to take up item 7, On the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol, I will give a minute for us to change teams. Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, yes, I will begin the consideration for item 7, and I will invite the Secretariat to introduce this item. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The Secretariat has prepared a number of documents to support parties in their consideration of the Second Assessment and Review of the Nagoya Protocol in accordance with the methodology and elements contained in Decision MP5/5. Document for SBI 7 Addendum 1 before this meeting includes the results of the analysis of information for elements A to I in accordance with Annex 1 to Decision MP5/5, and also includes updated data for the framework of indicators in accordance with Decision MP3/1. This document, Add 1, draws from various sources of information which are presented and analyzed in the following complementary information documents. INF2 provides an analysis of the information provided by parties for each of the questions of the national report. INF3 Rep 1 contains the scoping study commissioned by the Executive Secretary on the possible reasons and underlying root causes for the challenges to effective implementation and compliance and on possible ways to enhance implementation. INF 4 provides an analysis of the information published in the ABS Clearinghouse. INF 5 analyzes the responses to the Access and Benefit Sharing Clearinghouse targeted survey. INF 6 contains an analysis of capacity building and development support available for the implementation of the Protocol. And finally, INF7 provides an analysis of financial resources and resource mobilization supporting the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. In addition, Document 7 Add2 provides information for the consideration of Element J and includes the synthesis of views on the preliminary review of the compliance procedures and mechanism. As requested, the Informal Advisory Committee on Capacity Building for the Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Compliance Committee considered all the documents presented and worked in a complementary and non-duplicative manner to contribute to the second assessment and review process. The conclusions from the deliberations of these committees are before this meeting as document CBD/SBI 7/7, and the document contains key messages and findings in Annex 1, a list of possible indicative actions that can be taken at national level to enhance implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in Annex 2, and the input provided by the committees on actions that can be taken at global, regional, and sub-regional level informs the draft recommendation provided in Section 3 of this document. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. So, as has been pointed out and as reflected in Section 3 of the document, recommendations relate to the second assessment and review process, as well as strategic actions to enhance support for implementation of the protocol, including capacity building and development, the ABS clearinghouse, and the financial mechanisms and resources. It is expected that the recommendations of the SBI will be taken up under the respective agenda items of the COP/MOP to the Nagoya Protocol, to which they most closely relate. The recommendations will also be incorporated under the appropriate agenda items in the compilation of draft decisions. Colleagues, Please notice that the Information Document 21 lists the 11 submissions received from parties to the Nagoya Protocol and 3 statements from observers on Item 7 by the deadline— received from observers by the deadline. The list of parties and observers indicated in Information Document is also being displayed On the screen. Note that this list only includes observers that have registered on site. Dear delegates, are there any objections from any parties or observers listed in the information document to your statements being formally entered on record as statements officially submitted for this agenda item in this meeting? Please raise your hands if you have any objections. I see no hands. Thank you very much, colleagues. Your statements will therefore be formally entered on record and considered as officially submitted under this agenda item. And I would like to remind parties and observers That if you have submitted an early statement, you should not ask the floor to read it out loud. We are running out of time here, particularly for observers. Of course, I cannot impede you, but I would really ask for collaboration. So regarding the statements submitted by observers, I'll go through the list. We have only 3, and I will ask if you are all here, present, and I will ask for support from the parties. So the first organization is Ecomaxis Querétaro. Are you here? Yes, you are present. Thank you. And colleagues, do you support this statement? Yes, I see the DRC and Panama.

I support.

Thank you very much. Organization number 2, the IIFB, IPOCs, are you here? Yes, you are present. Thank you very much. I do also see support from Brazil, the DRC, and Panama. Thank you very much, among others. Organization number 3, the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP. Yes, you are present. Thank you. And I see that there is a lot of support. I acknowledge Egypt, Cuba, and Jordan. And of course, the full list will be available on the webpage for this meeting. Thank you very much. And now I would like to please begin the consideration And I invite comments on all recommendations included in Section 3 of the document CBD/SBI/7/7, including those in subsections A, B, and C. Please be very focused and precise and state to which item are you Your intervention is related to. The floor is now open for interventions on item 7, and as this is an item pertaining to the Nagoya Protocol, I will give the floor first to parties to the Nagoya Protocol, but delegates from other governments and observers may also already request the floor. We will begin with parties speaking on behalf of a regional group, Please only request the floor now if you are speaking on behalf of a regional group. I see Egypt. Egypt, you have the floor. Follow.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Egypt has the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. Africa considers that the full set of analysis and assessment documents an important milestone and invaluable learning exercise. While they demonstrate encouraging progress in implementing the Protocol, they also confirm that important implementation challenges remain. Africa wishes to highlight several observations. First, the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol should ultimately be assessed by the extent to which it achieves the objectives set out in Article 1 and contributions to the 3rd objective of the Convention. While progress in establishing legislative, administrative, and institutional measures is encouraging. Future assessments should place greater emphasis on implementation outcome, including whether ABS systems are operational, generate fair and equitable monetary and non-monetary benefit, provide legal certainty for provider and user, and contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. As the assessment itself recognized, the existence of legal and institutional measures does not on its own demonstrate effective implementation. Second, The assessment identified persistent implementation challenges, including limited institutional and technical capacities, insufficient coordination among competent authorities, difficulty in operationalization of checkpoints, and incomplete publication of mandatory information through the ABS Clearinghouse. Addressing these practical implementation gaps should remain a priority. Third, effective implementation requires adequate, predictable, and sustainable means of implementation. Long-term capacity building, technology transfer, scientific and technical cooperation, and side, sustainable financial support remains essential for enabling developing country parties to implement the Protocol effectively. Africa, therefore, welcomes the assessment emphasis on strengthening lasting institutional capacity rather than relying solely on short-term project-based support. Fourth, Africa welcomes the preliminary review of the compliance procedure and mechanism and agrees that the experience with the current mechanism remains limited. Compliance should continue to serve as a means for supporting implementation rather than an end itself. At this stage, priority should be given to assisting parties in fully implementing their obligations and making effective use of existing facilitative, non-adversarial, and consultative compliance procedures before considering institutional change. Finally, Africa recalls that Article 10 remains an integral component of the Nagoya Protocol. The forthcoming consideration of the need and modality of the global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism provide an important opportunity to address situations where bilateral approaches are unable to ensure equitable and benefit-sharing. The finding of this assessment should therefore inform this deliberation drawing on implementation experience, remaining gaps, and opportunities to strengthen the Protocol's contribution to achieving the 3rd objective of the Convention. Africa believes that the next phase of implementation should focus on moving from establishment of legal framework to their effective operationalization, strengthening national implementation, improving legal certainty, enhancing transparency through the Access and Benefit Sharing Clearinghouse, supporting both provider and user in implementing ABS requirement. We will submit our concrete text proposal in writing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Egypt. On behalf of the African Group, I will now give the floor to Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Fiji speaks as the Chair of the Pacific Islander Developing States. 10 of the 14 countries are parties to this protocol. What the assessment saw is a protocol with functioning architecture and very little flowing through it. Since entry into force, 6,269 internationally recognized certificates of compliance have been issued. 31 of them relate to access to traditional knowledge, 0.2% monetary benefits over 12 years came around $53 million, of which 3 parties account to 82%. 10 parties have received less than $100,000 each, and 75% of the foreign commercial users came from a single regional group. We are providing a region with strong customary governance, and on these numbers, we have almost nothing to show for it. Much of the explanation sits on the checkpoints. 46% of the parties have designated one. In Asia and the Pacific, the figure is 27%, lowest of any region, which means 73% of the parties in our region have not designated a checkpoint at all. We therefore support a paragraph urging parties to establish and fully operationalize their checkpoint, and we support the remainder carried in with the same paragraph that Article 15 5:17 applies to all parties and not only to the providers. We expect that the remainder to be contested. We ask the meeting to keep it, and we record now that its deletion would materially change the balance of obligation this protocol was negotiated to strike. But urging will not carry us far in a country where officers hold one focal point and the competent authority and the checkpoint function at the same time. The assessment is described precisely: insufficient human resources, too many roles in too few hands, one-off training, high staff turnover, short-term project funding, and reliance on a very narrow range of external funding. We therefore ask for 2 things: that the paragraph feeding this assessment into the 4-year framework program priorities of the 10th replenish names Small Island Developing States expressly, and that a proper resource checkpoint establishment program be set up and delivered regionally through the support center designated under Decision 13-3 because of the 14 national program of one officer, it is not viable delivery model and never has been. The compliance committee own view is that it would be premature to change the procedure when there have never been one triggered, and we agree with the committee. We have seen the proposal that have— that would open and trigger the committee's position to industry and user organizations. We ask this body to consider carefully what that would mean for a provider state the size of ours facing compliance proceedings through a buyer-user. Our position is that sequence matters. Provide the capacity first, then any questioning of widening the trigger. We do not accept the two being taken together. One final point. This assessment says nothing about digital sequencing information, although the 6th meeting of the parties will revisit Article 10, taking the very assessment into account. That gap must be filled before we take there, and we ask that the methodology adopted in Decision NP505 be supplemented accordingly. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Fiji. I will recall parties and parties speaking on behalf of regional groups. even informal regional groups, to not repeat their statements that were object to the mechanism of early submissions. Thank you very much. So I would like now to invite parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Yes? I will take the first intervention from Brazil, followed by Peru. Brazil, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the floor.

Brazil welcomes the 2nd assessment and review of the Nagoya Protocol and thanks the committees and the Secretariat for the valuable work. Implementation should not be assessed solely on the basis of the existence of legislation, institutions, or checkpoints. Future reviews should also examine The maturity, operational effectiveness, and concrete outcomes of national ABS systems, including benefits effectively shared while avoiding additional reporting burdens. Brazil proposals for this agenda item consider the following: full implementation requires adequate enabling conditions, including institutional capacity, legal certainty, technical and scientific cooperation, technology transfer, and predictable financial resources for developing countries. Checkpoints should be operationalized progressively in accordance with national circumstances, legislation, and capacities, and with due regard for confidential information. Community protocols should be developed and disclosed only in— determined by indigenous peoples and local communities concerned. With respect for free, prior, and informed consent. Brazil considers it premature to revise the compliance procedures, which should retain their cooperative and facilitative character. Capacity building should strengthen national research, value addition, bioeconomy, and sustainable use. Finally, the Conference of the Parties should also retain authority determine whether an instrument qualifies as specialized under Article 4.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Brazil. I would like now to give the floor to Peru, followed by South Africa and Ghana. Peru, you have the floor.

Muchas gracias, señora Presidenta.

Thank you very much, Chair. Peru expresses its thanks to the Secretariat of the Convention for the document presented. The work conducted with the Compliance Committee and the ad hoc Advisory Committee for the 2nd assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. In general, we welcome the recommendations aimed at improving the implementation of the Protocol, in particular those focused on the development or improvement of normative and institutional frameworks, capacity building and strengthening, and the improvement of information exchange tools. We welcome the progress made in the adoption of national frameworks for access to genetic resources. Nevertheless, we are deeply concerned that only 46% of parties have designated assessment points, and that the generation of communications in the ABSCH is minimal. This gap in cross-border monitoring maintains distrust and the risk of biopiracy. We invite parties, in particular user parties, to fully and effectively apply Articles 15, 16, 17 of the Protocol. Finally, my delegation expresses its sincere thanks to the Fund and UNEP for the approval of the— Global GEF project for development of national reports of the protocol. Nevertheless, we need to call attention on the limits of its operational design. The implementation scheme through umbrella projects and individual agreements generates a very slow bureaucratic process. As a result, the approval and instrumentation in terms of financing occur in a slow manner. Resources recently were made available after the official presentation of reports reports, which is 28th of February 2026. This situation compromised the organization in timely manner of national participatory workshops. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Peru. I'll now give the floor to South Africa, followed by Ghana and Indonesia. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa associates itself with the statement of the African Group and adds the following national remarks under Agenda The Scoping Study Commission for this review identifies South Africa as a country where access and benefit sharing has been treated as a matter of rights and redress and cites our industry-wide benefit sharing agreements as a model for other parties. We raise this to frame our core point: where the Protocol is implemented as a rights-based instrument rather than a technical compliance exercise, it delivers results. On root causes, many of the implementation gaps documented in this assessment are not primarily technical. They reflect mistrust between user and provider countries and insufficient political will in user country jurisdictions to operationalize Articles 15 and 16. Recommendations forwarded to COP/MOP should diagnose this honestly and not reduce every gap to a capacity problem. On monitoring and checkpoints, South Africa is concerned that a small number of parties account for most checkpoint communiqués and that many of those are internal, providing no cross-border monitoring value. Provider countries' genetic resources do not stop being theirs once they cross a border. We request that paragraph 9 of the draft recommendation be strengthened to require user country-specific progress reporting, not only aggregate global figures. On political attention, as international focus increasingly shifts to the KALI Fund and DSI, South Africa asks that this SBI not to follow attention or resources to migrate away from the Nagoya Protocol's bilateral system. The two are complementary, not substitutable. provided countries have secured real and demonstrable—

Thank you very much, South Africa. Colleagues, please, if you want to speak to this agenda item, push the button so that we know how many speakers we will have. Thank you. I will give the floor to Ghana, followed by Indonesia and India. Ghana, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We aligned ourselves with the statement made by Africa. Chair, Ghana supports the review's overall findings, particularly the conclusion that many parties have made significant progress in establishing administrative measures while the legal frameworks necessary for full implementation of the protocol remain incomplete. This reflects Ghana's own experience. Our experience also demonstrates that project-based support, while valuable, is insufficient to build sustainable national capacity. In addition, without domestic legislation, Ghana cannot recover the cost of processing ABS applications through permit fees, limiting the long-term sustainability of our national ABS. Chair, while Ghana has benefited from access to genetic resources, benefit sharing related to traditional knowledge remains extremely limited. This highlights the need to strengthen legal and institutional frameworks that ensure indigenous people and local communities can fully participate in and benefit from the protocol's implementation consistent with national circumstances. In this regard, Ghana wishes to emphasize the following priorities. First, support is needed to help developing countries finalize the domestication of ABS legislations. Second, capacity building and development and we must move away from short-term projects to sustain institutional support. Third, greater attention should be given to financial sustainability for the implementation of the Protocol. And finally, targeted support is needed to strengthen benefit sharing arising from traditional knowledge and community participation. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Ghana. I will give the floor to Indonesia, followed by India and Morocco. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia welcomes the outcomes of the second assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol and reaffirms its commitment to its full and effective implementation. We emphasize the importance of transparent and practical step-by-step access and benefit-sharing procedures to enhance legal certainty while preserving flexibility for practice implement the protocol in accordance with national legislation, circumstances, circumstances and priorities. In this regard, any standardized template or checklist should remain voluntary supporting tools in accordance with provision of the protocol, national legislation, circumstances, needs and priorities. Indonesia also recognized community protocol and procedure a valuable instrument to strengthen the effective participation of IPLC in access and benefit sharing process consistent with national legislation. Their development should be supported through continued capacity building, technical assistance, and adequate financial resources, including by drawing on lessons learned from relevant capacity building initiatives. Indonesia encouraged continue and enhance support for this effort, including through the consideration of lessons learned from Secretariat-facilitated small grain initiatives and other relevant capacity-building mechanisms. Finally, we reaffirm the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol should continue to respect the sovereign right of states over their, their genetic resources and enable parties to implement the Protocol in accordance with their national legislation, circumstances, needs, and priorities. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Indonesia. I will now give the floor to India, followed by Morocco and Saudi Arabia. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. India considers the Second Assessment and Review an important opportunity to identify implementation challenges and further understand the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. The assessment should remain balanced, evidence-based, and party-driven, recognizing different national circumstances, legal frameworks, and implementation capacities. The assessment should respect parties' flexibility under national legislation and institutional arrangement and should not employ a uniform implementation model or obligations beyond the protocol. Quantitative indicators should be complemented by qualitative assessments of ABS implementation. The assessment should give equal attention to challenges faced by users and providers in implementing national ABS measures consistent with the sovereign rights of a state over their genetic resources. India has established a robust national legal and institutional framework. Its first national report records 12,830 ABS approvals, $34.60 million mobilized, and $16.83 million disbursed to the local communities and benefit claimers. These achievements could be reflected as good practices. India considers the existing compliance framework under Article 30 and Decision NP-1/4 appropriate. Given the limited implementation experience, substantive changes would be premature. The mechanism should remain facilitative, cooperative, transparent, and non-adversarial and non-punitive. Strengthening implementation requires sustained capacity building, technical cooperation, and adequate, predictable, and accessible financial support responsive to nationally identified priorities while respecting national legal and institutional framework. India remains committed to the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol consistent with its objective principles and the sovereign rights of state over their genetic resources. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, India. I would like now to give the floor to Morocco, followed by Saudi Arabia and Kenya. Morocco, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Following the adoption of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework, the debate is no longer about the boldness of the goals, but about our collective ability to achieve them. The time has therefore now come to make the targets of the global framework fully operational. In this respect, the conclusions of the second assessment of the Nagoya Protocol's effectiveness are quite unequivocal. The main challenges no longer lie in accession to the protocol but in its effective implementation. In this context, Morocco considers that strengthening the financial mechanism is an essential condition for the effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. It is absolutely essential to ensure predictable, sustainable, and easily accessible financial support to enable parties to strengthen their national capacities to make their access systems and benefit-sharing systems fully operational. In light of recent developments regarding digital sequence information, Morocco emphasizes a need to strengthen complementarity between the GEF, the GBF, the KALI Fund, and the future multilateral mechanism for DSI. These instruments must operate in a coherent and cohesive complementary manner to support the full implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. Morocco also believes that genetic resources, DSI, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits should no longer be viewed as as a mere regulatory obligation. They now constitute a strategic lever for sustainable development, for the bioeconomy, for scientific innovation, for the valorization of biological resources and biodiversity financing. Investing in science, innovation, technology, and national capacity is investing in biodiversity that creates value. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Morocco. I will now give the floor to Saudi Arabia, followed Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by conveying my gratitude to the Secretariat for having elaborated this document, and we fully understand the importance of strengthening the Protocol for an equal sharing of the benefits while respecting the sovereignty of states over their genetic resources. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia believes that any guidelines, including information control and exchange, should be implemented in keeping with national specificities of each party while protecting commercial data. We also want to stress the fact that technology transfer activities, exchange of knowledge and skills hinges on requests being submitted by recipient countries. By way of conclusion, Saudi Arabia backs a gradual implementation of all of these elements while carefully set before we set up new criterion.

Have you finished, Saudi Arabia? It's not very clear for me from the translation. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Kenya. Kenya, you have the floor, followed by Argentina and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Kenya, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Kenya aligns itself with the statement read by Egypt on behalf of Africa. Kenya welcomes the outcomes of the 2nd review and assessment of the Protocol, which has identified key gaps, challenges, and opportunities for improvement while also demonstrating positive progress in advancing the implementation of the Protocol. Chair, Kenya reaffirms that the bilateral PS framework under the Protocol remains one of the key cornerstones in fulfilling the third objective of the CPT, safeguarding the sovereign rights of provider countries while ensuring fair and equitable benefit sharing. The effectiveness depends on a balanced implementation by both provider and user countries through appropriate legal and administrative measures. To enhance effectiveness, Kenya has the following recommendation: enhanced membership to the protocol, strengthening monitoring protocols and reporting, advancing discussion on Article 4, 10, and 11, mainstreaming APS across all relevant sectors, uh, all relevant sectors, strengthening IPLC governance through protocols, by cultural protocols, enhancing cooperation, collaboration, and synergies, increase care funding, and also request the Secretariat to document and share lessons learned and good practices to support evidence-based implementation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Kenya. I'll now give the floor to Argentina, followed by DRC and Zimbabwe. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Argentina thanks the Secretariat and the Compliance Committee for the work conducted for the 2nd assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. In general, we agree with the main findings presented in the documents. We recognize the progress made in the implementation of the protocol, although we need to note that considerable gaps continue, in particular in the appointment of checkpoints and the adoption and implementation of national measures. Argentina believes it's especially important improving the quality and availability of the information in the ABS Clearinghouse and ensuring its consistency with national reports. We emphasize that we need to pay particular attention to financial, technical, administrative, and human resource limitations identified in national reports. These factors, along with the lack of institutional coordination and policy prioritization, continue to affect effective implementation. In light of the results, Argentina highlights the importance of promoting capacity building in a continuous manner, technical assistance, regional cooperation, and exchange of experiences between parties. Finally, we believe it's important that the implementation of the Protocol continues to be developed in a manner which is complementary with other relevant international instruments, in line with Article 4, avoiding duplications and preserving the rights and obligations arising from other international agreements. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Argentina. I will now give the floor to the DRC, followed by Zimbabwe and Malawi. DRC, you have the floor. Merci.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for giving us the floor. The DRC supports the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. The DRC commends the parties that were able to submit their national reports despite the difficulties they have faced to facilitate this assessment, which constitutes a new source of information for future exercises to evaluate and review the Protocol's effectiveness. The DRC believes that the implementation of the Protocol on the Access and Equitable Sharing of Benefits requires an integrated approach combining legal, institutional, technical, and participatory frameworks. The results of the second assessment of the Protocol's implementation show that significant progress has been made in establishing the legislative, administrative, and policy foundations necessary for implementing the Nagoya Protocol, including the adoption of national measures and policy measures regarding access and benefit sharing. And this progress has been deemed uneven across regions. Furthermore, differences of opinion persist regarding the understanding of the role of checkpoints. Their designation and implementation pose a challenge for many parties, and the limited progress made in this area is a cause for concern. Therefore, to improve implementation, the DRC supports provisions that reiterate or reinforce considerations of the following points in the draft decisions currently under development. strengthening the legal and regulatory framework, strengthening the institutional governance framework, capacity building and awareness raising, monitoring, evaluation, and transparency, scientific and economic integration, promoting equity and community participation.

Thank you very much, Zimbabw. Oh no, it's not. Yes, no, I'm sorry, it was the DRC. Thank you very much, DRC. I would like now to give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by Malawi and Madagascar. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Zimbabwe aligns itself with the intervention made by Egypt on behalf of Africa and appreciates its emphasis on strengthening implementation support. At the same time, our experience demonstrates that the existence of legislation alone does not automatically translate into fair and equitable benefit sharing. As a provider country, Zimbabwe has established the necessary legal and institutional framework, yet tangible benefits remain limited. The success of the Nagoya Protocol should be judged not only by the number of parties with legislation, but by the extent to which it delivers equitable benefits, conserves biodiversity, and improves the livelihood of indigenous people and local communities. We therefore look forward for the next phase of implementation to focus on transforming legal readiness into measurable outcomes through stronger provider-user benefit-sharing frames and partnerships, enhanced capacity for IPLCs to negotiate mutually agreed terms, effective user country compliance, and dedicated, predictable financial and technical support based on needs as highlighted in the assessment report outcomes. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. I'll now give the floor to Malawi. followed by Madagascar and the United Republic of Tanzania. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Malawi supports the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. We believe that if there is an issue that is not given adequate attention in this convention, it is the Nagoya Protocol. Yet the current geopolitical situation where there is a need to mobilize resources from all sources, the Nagoya Protocol, if supported to deliver effectively, has the potential to complement financing through monetary benefits that could contribute to conservation and livelihoods. We welcome the assessment of activities undertaken to support implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and recognize the significant progress made by parties in establishing national legislative administrative, and institutional measures. However, we believe that the assessment also highlights important methodological challenges. The existence of laws, permits, checkpoints, institutions demonstrate progress in implementation, but does not on its own demonstrate effectiveness. For Malawi, the next stage of the review should therefore focus on whether the systems established are actually delivering objectives of the protocol. First, we need to be— we need better evidence on the relationship between access and the beneficiary. The assessment indicates that permits are being issued, but it does not sufficiently show how many have been issued, whether they are commercial or non-commercial, what benefits have subsequently been generated, or how the benefits are distributed between monetary and non-monetary and technical and scientific benefits. Second, the assessment appears to capture the provider side more strongly than the user side. We need better information on the users of the genetic resources, their compliance obligations, and their access to the genetic resources.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Malawi. I will now give the floor to Madagascar, followed by Tanzania and Zambia. Madagascar, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, Madagascar aligns itself with the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. We thank the Secretariat for the quality of the documents prepared within the context of the 2nd assessment and review of the Nagoya Protocol. As a megadiverse country and provider of genetic resources, Madagascar believes that this assessment is an important opportunity to strengthen the effective implementation of the Protocol so that it can fully contribute to biodiversity conservation, its sustainable use, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. As noted by the Secretariat, limited technical and institutional capacities, the lack of financial resources, as well as needs in terms of technology transfer and scientific cooperation remain major challenges for a number of developing countries. In this regard, Madagascar believes that we must strengthen support to countries which provide genetic resources in order to develop operational institutional frameworks, strengthen capacities for negotiation and implementation of agreements for access and benefit sharing, and improving information monitoring systems. Finally, Madagascar highlights that the effectiveness of the Protocol should be valued in terms of its capacity to produce tangible results for the conservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of genetic resources, and the improvement of means of subsistence of local communities. Thank you very much, Freya.

Thank you very much, Madagascar. I will now give the floor to Tanzania, followed by Zambia and And the list of requests for the floor is closed. Thank you very much. Tanzania, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The United Republic of Tanzania supports the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of African Group. Tanzania welcomes the Second Assessment and Review Report of the Effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol and appreciates the comprehensive analysis undertaken by the Secretariat and emphasizes on the following areas. First, the review report demonstrates encouraging progress made in the establishment of national access and benefit-sharing frameworks and institutional arrangements. The assessment highlighted persistent implementation challenges related to institutional and local community capacity, technical expertise, stakeholder awareness, inadequate financial resources, and effective beneficiary arrangements. Second, Tanzania stresses that successful implementation of the Protocol requires sustained investments in institutional and technical capacity, technology transfer, scientific cooperation for developing country parties. Furthermore, Tanzania requested for more support to strengthen national capacity for their operationalization of the access and the benefit sharing framework, enhancing awareness among both users and providers of genetic resources, improving the effective functioning of the access and the benefit sharing clearinghouse mechanisms. Finally, the implementation of the protocol should continue to be guided by national registration circumstances and priority while advancing the objective of the Nagoya Protocol. Which is contributing to the implementation of the GBF. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Tanzania. I will now give the floor to Zambia, followed by Burundi and Bahrain. Zambia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Zambia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. While Zambia has established a legal framework through the protection of Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources, and Expression of Folklore Act 2016. Our priority is now to operationalize this framework to ensure that objectives of the protocol are fully realized. The first national report highlights several key implementation gaps. These include limited institutional and technical capacity, the need to strengthen coordination among institutions involved in the implementation of ABS, low awareness of ABS, requirements among stakeholders and the need to operationalize checkpoints and strengthen compliance monitoring. Zambia also realizes the importance of improving the publication and regular updating of information in the ABS Clearinghouse to enhance transparency and legal certainty. Importantly, Zambia has yet to realize measurable monetary benefits from the utilization of its genetic resources. At the same time, there is significant potential to expand non-monetary benefit sharing through collaborative research, technology transfer, scientific cooperation, and capacity building. Addressing these challenges will require predictable and sustainable financial resources, long-term institutional capacity building, and enhanced technical support. Strengthening national implementation will also require meaningful engagement, of local communities, researchers, and private sector, as well as other stakeholders. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Zambia. I will now give the floor to Burundi, followed by Bahrain and Uganda. Burundi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Burundi supports the statements made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. Burundi is a party to the Nagoya Protocol and is committed to taking actions in order to implement the National Action Plan for Access and Benefit Sharing. Ratification of the Protocol, the progressive integration of the principles set out within it in our national policies for biodiversity is a priority The submission of national reports, participation in capacity-building activities organized as part of the CBG, taking into account of all this in our MBISAPs are important. Despite all this progress, there are still gaps in this regard in Burundi. In particular, it's difficult to institute a fully operational legal framework due to low human and financial resources for the effective implementation and the low involvement of the private sector, a low-level documentation of mechanisms for control and monitoring. In order to improve results for the next assessment, Burundi asked for a development of a sharing of benefits for indigenous peoples and local communities, implementing national monitoring systems which can be used by researchers and commercial organizations, capacity building for judicial and customs authorities and research authorities, the protection of traditional and local knowledge, the development of partnerships with research centers. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Burundi. I will now give the floor to Bahrain, followed by Uganda and Namibia. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Secretariat and all the specialized committees for the preparation of this document. We reiterate our full commitment to the implementation of the targets of the Protocol, and we need to guarantee a balanced and effective implementation. We would like to shed light on the following. As for the clearinghouse and the inspection centers, in the recommendations there is room for concern, especially in the operationalization of the inspection. Units. We have to bear in mind that any delay in the operationalization is not due to the lack of political will or willingness not to comply, but it's because of lack of trained resources and the need for the building of technical capacity. We need more flexibility so that we can update the databases, which is conditioned by the availability of resources. We don't want to put the developing countries in a situation where they can't live up to their obligations. As for health conditions, we think that there is an opportunity to better document the findings. Of this assessment. We suggest that these recommendations live up to Article 8 in terms of the rapid obtaining of resources. It is important to achieve integration and complementarity with internationally competent instances in line with Article 4. It is important also to live up to the health needs of the developing— of the member states. The microphone is cut.

Thank you very much, Bahrain. I will now give the floor to Uganda, followed by Namibia and Uruguay. Uganda, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Uganda aligns itself with the statement that was made by Egypt. on behalf of Africa. Uganda is very rich in biological diversity and hence effective implementation of the Nagoya Protocol on ABS is fundamental to the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits arising from use of its genetic resources. To enhance implementation of the Nagoya Protocol in Uganda, there is a need to strengthen institutional capacity at the national and subnational level, as well as building capacity of checkpoints and IPLCs. Uganda calls for capacity building and institutional strengthening to be integrated in the draft recommendation to address the requirements of paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of that same draft recommendation.

recommendation.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Uganda. I will now give the floor to Namibia, followed by Uruguay and Germany. Namibia, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia aligns with the African Group and makes the following 4 points on the assessment. In terms of this assessment, we can see that the indicators count legislative measures, focal points, and certificates, not whether benefits were shared. A party with a full framework and no certificates appears identical to a party with none. Compliance responds only to what is reported, and no provider country learns when its resources are used abroad without consent. A quiet record is not a Evidence the protocol works. Secondly, in terms of Article 10, we have continuously observed that a decade after entry into force, it has never been operationalized. Namibia shares genetic resources across its borders and has no mechanism for transboundary transboundary situations. The assessment should report which provisions remain unimplemented. And finally, Madam Chairperson, the protocol is increasingly referenced elsewhere: the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Waipu Treaty on Genetic Resources, Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction. That standing must shape how we assess and resource it. The Access and Benefit Sharing Unit carries this protocol. The Clearinghouse Compliance and digital sequence information, but the proposed structures adds no post in terms of our budgeting. We clearly want to highlight this, and we will provide textual proposals in this regard. Thank you. Thank you very much, Namibia. I'll now give the floor to Uruguay, followed by Costa Rica. Uruguay, you have the floor. Gracias, señora.

Thank you, Chair. Uruguay thanks the Secretariat once again. The Compliance Committee and the Ad Hoc Advisory Group for the work conducted for the 2nd assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol. We recognize the progress made in the establishment of institutional frameworks and national measures for access to and sharing of benefits. Uruguay believes it's important to continue working on key practical and predictable actions which provide legal security both to governments and users, facilitate responsible research, and preserve the traceability of genetic resources and traditional knowledge related to them, and ensuring a just and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization. We also highlight the central role played by the Information Exchange Center and the need to strengthen human, technical, legal, institutional resources of developing countries. The improvement of implementation needs to be accompanied by financial resources which are adequate, regional cooperation, exchange of experiences, provide— or noting the difficulties arising from the lack of institutional capacities and compliance with obligations. Finally, we believe it's important to maintain consistency between the Nagoya Protocol and other processes of the Convention, avoiding duplication and preserving the nature and scope proper to the bilateral access system and access to and sharing the benefits.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Uruguay. I will now give the floor to Costa Rica.

Yes.

Muchas gracias, señora.

Thank you very much, Chair. Costa Rica believes that the assessment confirms that the protocol's effectiveness depends not just on the existence of norms but also of their practical implementation, the availability of institutional capacities, and access to technical and financial resources which are adequate. Therefore, Costa Rica supports the recommendations aimed at strengthening coordination between institutions, Digitalization of procedures, capacity building, the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and the exchange between parties. We support efforts to improve transparency and predictability of access and benefit sharing mechanisms. Nevertheless, we highlight that simplification of procedures should not reduce national controls nor free prior and informed consent, mutually agreed mechanisms established by each party. Costa Rica also highlights the importance of strengthening the Information Exchange Center through updating information, interoperability in a gradual manner of data confidentiality, and continuous technical support. In terms of capacity building and resource mobilization, we reiterate that developing countries need predictable and long-term means of implementation. On the Compliance Committee, we support strengthening their function of support and prevention, maintaining their cooperative nature and not contentious nature. Any technical, legal support or any additional activity needs to be carried out with consent of the party, respecting confidentiality, due process, and national sovereignty. Finally, Costa Rica thanks Secretariat for the work conducted and would like to note that it will submit in writing its comments specifically on the text. And the microphone cut out. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Costa Rica. I'm so sorry. Um, I see one non-party at my screen as well, so I will give you the floor, but of course you are entitled to just one minutes. So please, microphone to Yemen.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yemen will shortly join the protocol. However, there are a few points that I would like to highlight. We emphasize Compliance and monitoring. We express concern over the content of the report, which is about monitoring genetic resources. The mechanism has not been completed yet, and the majority of reports from the checkpoints is limited to a number of states, member states. It is important to set up effective checkpoints, and it is important to commit the users to respect national legislations. And the microphone is cut off.

Yemin, apologies. For me, it was not in the, in the list. since you are not yet a party. You have already ratified, but you are still during the period for the entry into force for you. I'm so sorry. I hope that next meeting everything will be solved. I would like now to open the floor for observers. Yes, thank you very much. So I will give the floor to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, IIFB.

Thank you, Chair. I make this statement on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, IIFB. The effectiveness of the Nagoya Protocol cannot be measured solely by legislative and policy frameworks, but by how it functions on the ground within the territories, lands, and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The conservation, sustainable use, and fair utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge depends entirely on respecting these relationships. To ensure the Protocol achieves its objectives, the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities across all aspects of implementation must be full, effective, and meaningful, and not a mere procedural formality or a cosmetic gesture. Our direct involvement in decision-making, monitoring, and compliance is a fundamental requirement for inclusivity legitimacy, equity, and effectiveness. We call on states to recognize and support the development of community protocols and procedures that reflect our community law, our customary laws, collective decision-making, and responsibility towards our natural resources. Parties must ensure our full and effective participation participation when establishing national ABS procedures and publish protocols through the ABS clearinghouse mechanism to guarantee legal certainty and protect our rights. Furthermore, capacity building, awareness, and monitoring systems must be long-term institutionalized and responsive to, responsive to our realities and interests. Fair, transparent, and enforceable, uh, benefit-sharing arrangements can only be realized when monitoring approaches incorporate indigenous peoples' and local communities' perspective. Finally, we underscore the indicative actions in Annex 2, which provide a practical roadmap for parties and the Secretariat to advance the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, particularly regarding provisions for indigenous peoples and local communities. I thank you.

Thank you very much, IPOCs. I see also that NGOs are asking for the floor. You have 3 minutes.

Thank you, Chair. TWN wishes to highlight 3 issues. First, the assessment does not speak much on DSI. While it identifies enabling conditions for the success of the protocol, it overlooks critical impediments to its success, particularly anonymous access to DSI. Chair, Kali Fund does not address this gap. Neither does the indicating action— indicative actions in this document. Users will therefore continue to engage in biopiracy using DSI. European Commission guidance recognizing terms and conditions regarding DSI in the MTAs sharing genetic materials should be recognized as a starting step. Second, while implementing Article 8, parties should take into account circumstances of scientists in developing countries who are compelled by research funding conditions and international collaborators to transfer genetic resources and DSI to institutions in the Global North without conditions on subsequent use or benefit sharing. The African Academy of Sciences records such exploitative practices as early as 2021. Finally, we welcome the call to change the narrative around ABS. ABS should be recognized not as a regulatory burden but as a strategic instrument for enabling equitable research partnership, access to appropriate technology, meaningful and legally certain public benefits such as access to life-saving medicines, and equally for the realization of the human right to scientific progress. But this will not be the case, unfortunately, if the users of DSI remain anonymous. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So I understand that you are not the CBD Alliance, and also you have not submitted an early statement. So I would like to see if anybody supports your intervention? Any party? I see, yes, Namibia and South Africa. Thank you very much. If you could please upload your intervention as well, and I will give now the floor to business. Business, you have 1 minute.

International Chamber of Commerce speaking. ABS policies and measures have a significant impact on research and innovation. The current complexity of procedural requirements presents substantial challenges that add uncertainty, delay, and cost to the research and innovation process, discourages researchers and businesses from sourcing and using genetic resources from countries with complex requirements, and requires substantial human and financial resources from both governments and users so that transaction and administrative costs often outweigh the benefits. So they can comply, users need more legal certainty, clarity, and transparency on often complex national rules, streamlining of the fragmented landscape of national and international ABS regulations, clear processes and procedures to facilitate implementation of ABS obligations, access to accurate, understandable, and up-to-date information on the ABS Clearinghouse and national focal points, and better understanding of commercial innovation realities by governments. We urge Nagoya Protocol

Apologies. Thank you very much, Business. Do any party— does any party wish to support this statement? Yes, I see the UK and Japan. Thank you very much. Okay, I don't see any further requests for the floor. Thank you very much. Yes, so we have completed the first reading of agenda item 7. Please allow me some minutes. So, thank you very much, colleagues. I see that we have a lot of common understanding on the draft recommendations. Therefore, I will prepare a conference room paper with the help of the secretariat, and we will be presenting this on the next plenary, on a new plenary. I remind you to upload your written statements within 1 hour after the close of this session. I would like to take the advantage of a few minutes that we still have from interpretation and to introduce Item 8, Synthetic Biology, a thematic action plan to support capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology and knowledge sharing. Thank you, Thank you very much, colleagues. I will now invite the Secretariat to introduce item 8 in a very effective manner. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For item 8, the Secretariat prepared document CBD/SBI/7/8.

The document outlines the process for the development of the thematic action plan to support capacity building and development, access to and transfer of technology, and knowledge sharing in the Context of synthetic biology for the implementation of the objectives of the convention and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, as requested in paragraph five of decision 1621.

The document includes implementation support elements that are of relevance to the subsidiary body.

In addition, the subsidiary body also has before it. The draft thematic action plan, which is contained in document CBD/SBI/7/8 Add 1, and as finalized following a peer review process. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. I would like now to pass to the review of the early statements. So as previously explained, information document CPD/SCBI/7/21 contains the list of the 14 submissions received from parties and the 5 statements from observers on Item A received by the deadline. So the list of The list of parties and observers indicated in the information document is also available on the slides that we are seeing on the screen. Colleagues, first, regarding the parties and observers' early submission of statements, I would like to ask if there are any objections from any parties or observers listed in the information I would like to call for a vote of consent to your statements being formally entered on record as statements officially submitted for this agenda item in this meeting. Please raise your hands if you have any objection. Okay, thank you very much, colleagues. Your statements will be formally entered on record and considered as officially submitted under this agenda item. And now I would like to pass to the support for statements made by observers. I will do the same thing that we have been done— doing here, so I'll ask if the organization is here and I will ask for support. Organization number 1, ECO-MACCEI Querétaro, are you here? Yes, they are present. Do I see any support? Yes, I see Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mexico, among others. Organization number 2, IPOCs, the IIFB. Are you here? Yes, they are present. Thank you very much. I see on my screen Congo, the DRC, and Gabon supporting. Thank you very much. Organization number 3, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN. Yes, they are there. Thank you very much. Do I see support? Yes. Chile, Gabon, Congo. Thank you. Organization number 4, the CBD Alliance. Polynesia. Yes, they are there. I see Fiji. No. Fiji, are you supporting?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. And organization number 5, the Women for Biodiversity, are you here? Are you present? Women for Biodiversity, no, they are not present, so that's it for now. Thank you very much. So all the statements except that for the— of Human for Biodiversity will be considered under this agenda item. Okay. So thank you very much, colleagues. I would like now— Yes, I would like now to open the floor for interventions from parties speaking on behalf of regional groups. Please only ask for the floor on this agenda item if you are speaking on behalf of a regional Yes, I see Tonga. Tonga, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Tonga would like to speak on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States and its 14 countries. We supported the development of this action plan under Decision 1621, and we want to see it adopted. We must also tell this meeting Yes. Plainly, that is drafted, it does not reach us. Small Island Developing States appear exactly once in the entire plan, in the opening scope paragraph. After that, across 3 outcome areas, 12 outputs, and every indicative action in the document, we do not appear again. There is no dedicated provision, no financing window, and no island entry point anywhere in it. The plan also has no indicators. They were removed in the reasoning that the actions are voluntary. There is no column for actors and none for timelines, no baseline and no target date. Then there is the gap that matters the most to islands. The plan never mentions invasive species or alien species, no biocontrol, eradication, no gene drives, marine or islands. Chair, We asked the meeting to hold 2 facts together. Under Decision 11/7, the parties to the Cartagena Protocol have already welcomed additional voluntary guidance materials to support the case-by-case risk assessment of living modified organisms containing engineered gene drives. The Convention has therefore accepted that this technology is close enough to deployment to require risk Risk assessment guidance, and yet the capacity building plan intended to prepare parties for synthetic biology does not mention it once. Consider what that means in practice. The most likely real-world application in the coming decade is genetic biocontrol of invasive species, first on islands. Invasive species drive 60% of documented global extinctions.

Thank you.

And our region leads the world in island restoration. So we are at once the most likely site of deployment and the most exposed to unintended spread because an organism released on an island cannot be called back. A capacity-building synthetic biology that never mentioned the principal island application is not something this group can allow to pass without correction. Our requests are constructive ones.

Thank you.

Number 1, name island application explicitly with rigorous containment, precautionary approach, case-by-case assessment, and free prior and informed consent. Real consent, Jaya, not just consultation. 2, restore monitoring lines with indicators for needs and benefit sharing, because a plan without review will not attract resources. Number 3, strengthen implementation, making the plan operative requests to the financial mechanism consistent with Decision 1633. Number 4, retain precautionary principles and recognition of nature's diverse values consistent with Decision 1614. And number 5, last one, islands and small island developing states' representation must be guaranteed. Balanced geographical representation was stressed at and is required by Decision 1626. For delegations of one, a guaranteed seat is the difference between taking part and being absent. Chair, we ask for these corrections so that the plan can truly serve all parties, including islands where synthetic biology will first be tested and where its risk will be most acute.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tonga. I don't think that we have time to take any more intervention.

The interpreters regret to announce that interpretation time has come to an end. Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. So I would just ask the Secretariat if they have any announcement. Thank you very much, colleagues, for this afternoon's and this morning's work.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, so just a couple of announcements. As we announced earlier, we have found a key for a hotel room. It's a trademark. If anybody has lost the key, they can come to the podium and pick it up. For the side events, there is a minor announcement that some of the rooms have been updated, so please check the screen before you head to the side events room. And they are on the screen, and they are also— the new rooms are also on the CBD events app. For the contact groups, as earlier announced, the Contact Group on Resource Mobilization will meet in Conference Room 3 and 4. Non-paper has been already posted. And Capacity Building Contact Group will meet in Conference Room number 1, both at 7:30 PM, and the non-paper is being posted there as well. So thank you so much, and we wish you all a very nice evening and look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Thank you.

Thank you.