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

Good afternoon, colleagues. Please take your seats. Welcome back. Thank you very much. Yes. I would like now to continue our consideration on item 5, digital sequence information on genetic resources. We will do the same thing that we did for the previous items, so I will begin with the early submissions of statements. As previously explained, Information Document 21 listed 18 submissions received from parties and the 7 statements from observers on Item 5 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 registered on site. Given that the modalities for early submission of statements were intended to be a time-saving measure, the parties and observers that submitted early statements may wish to refrain from delivering oral statements, except where necessary to make clarifications. Parties and observers that did not submit written statements during the informal process may wish to request the floor and submit their written statements accordingly. Colleagues, 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 objection. Thank you, colleagues. Your statements will be formally entered on record and considered as officially submitted under this agenda item. Regarding the statements submitted by observers, I will go through the list on the screen one by one. Representatives of observer organizations are requested to raise your hands So that we can confirm that you are in the room. I would then ask parties to press their microphone button if they support the statement made by that observer. I will read out the party of the— the name of the 3 first parties on the list. So, Observer 1, Alliance of Biodiversity International and CIAT, Are you in the room? Yes, thank you very much. I see that you are present. Any parties would like to support? Yes, there is support from Egypt, Colombia, and Fiji. The rest of the list, as you recall, will be made available from the Secretariat. Thank you very much. Now, organization number 2. Eko Makse Keretaro, on behalf of CBD Women's Caucus. Are you in the room? Yes, thank you. I see that you are in the room. I see that there is support from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tajikistan, and Mexico. Thank you very much. Organization number 3 now, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, IFPMA. Are you in the room? Yes, I see that they are in the room. Thank you very much. Are there any support for this submission? Yes, I see Central African Republic and the United Kingdom and Brazil. Thank you very much. Now, organization number 4, IPOCs, the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. Are you in the room? Of course, you are always in the room. Thank you very much. Do I see any support? Yes, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Côte d'Ivoire. Thank you very much. I would like now to ask if the Secretary of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Yes, they are in the room. Thank you very much. International treaty. I acknowledge that you have also support by Jordan, the European Union, and Uganda. Thank you very much. I see— I would like now to ask if the CBD Alliance Third World Network Are you in the room? Yes, you are in the room. Thank you. Do I see any support? Yes. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, and Brazil— oh, I'm sorry, and Jordan. Yeah. And the rest of the list, of course, will be available from the Secretariat. I now acknowledge our last organization that has submitted statements, the United Nations Development UNDP. Yes, thank you very much, UNDP. I acknowledge the Central African Republic, Cuba, and Jordan are supporting your statements. So with this, we acknowledge the statements of all the organizations. Thank you very much. With that, let us now start our consideration of this agenda item and following intervention— just a moment.

Thank you.

With that, let us now start our consideration. So, as always, I will first give the floor to parties, followed by observers, and then international organizations. Please refrain to pushing the button unless you are in the right group. Of course, as you know, following interventions by observers, I will give a brief chance for parties that may wish to comment on or support any specific proposal made by these organizations. As we have been— as we have done previously, if the observer organization which is making a statement and it's only repeating what has been submitted, I will not ask again for support from parties. Thank you. If you are doing something new or presenting new proposals, please say so. I invite you all to be as concise as possible and please to upload the full text of your intervention to the Secretariat as soon as possible so that interpreters may benefit from it and at any rate no later than 1 hour after the close of this session. Please note, however, that your key points, especially those that you would like to have reflected in the draft recommendation, should be read out in the room. I now open the floor for interventions on item 5, beginning with parties.

Parties speaking on behalf of the regions.

Yes, I'm sorry. Beginning with parties speaking on behalf of original groups. Please request the floor now only if you are speaking on behalf of a regional group. Yes? Thank you very much. So Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Egypt has the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. The establishment of the multilateral mechanism including the CARI Fund is a major achievement under the Convention. Our priority now is to ensure its effective, equitable, transparent, and accountable implementation, delivering meaningful monetary and non-monetary benefit, particularly for developing countries. The African Group wishes to make 6 points. First, we reaffirm that the Conference of the Parties is the governing authority of the multilateral mechanism, including the Caliph Fund. Its governance, institutional arrangement, and operational modality must remain under the authority and guidance of the COP. And any substantive change should be considered and approved by parties. Second, governance and institutional documents developed for the operation of the mechanism and the CARI Fund, including the Memorandum of Understanding between the Multi-Trust Partner Office and participating UN organizations, its annexed documents, the Term of Reference, the Rules of Procedure, and Operational Manual, should be submitted to the COP for review to ensure consistency with Decision 16.2. In this regard, the African Group proposed an additional agenda item on the institutional document of the Caliphate. Third, greater clarity is needed regarding the governance of the Steering Committee. Members and alternates should serve in a representative capacity, be nominated transparently by their region and constituencies, consult those they represent, and report back regularly. The Steering Committee should likewise report regularly to the COP. Fourth, additional implementation modalities should not be limited to contribution calculation. They should also address identification of the contributor, reporting and verification, transparency, certificate, and the delivery of non-monetary benefit informed by the implementation experience and fairness review of the mechanism. Fifth, the study on options for making DSI publicly available is a useful technical contribution. However, Given its potential policy implications, it should be subject to further scientific and technical validation, including opportunities for parties and relevant stakeholders to provide comments. Work on database should also be strengthened— lawful submission, transparency, and accountability while maintaining open access in accordance with the agreed decision. Finally, non-monetary benefit sharing should extend beyond capacity building to include scientific and technical cooperation, technology transfer, collaborative research, sharing of research results, and access to products and services arising from the use of DSI. The review of the mechanism should also assess whether its governance and delivery benefit and responsive to the priority of development targets. To facilitate the negotiations, the African Group submitted its proposed amendment in writing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Egypt, on behalf of the African Group. I now will give the floor to Fiji for— by the European Union. And please only ask for the floor now if you are speaking on behalf of a regional group. Please abstain to push the button right now. Fiji, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, Fiji speaks as Chair of the Pacific Small Island Developing States on behalf of the 14 The Caliph Fund is convention's flagship benefit-sharing instrument. 18 months after it opened, it has 2 contributors. The only amount publicly disclosed is $1,000, and it came from a startup whose chief executive told the press his company's earnings do not even meet the contribution thresholds. The convention's own estimate of what the mechanism could raise is $1 to $10 billion a year. We take no satisfaction in saying this. We supported the mechanism established by Decision 16/2 and we support it still, but there is no financial reporting in the documents before us, no receipts, no contributors, no disbursements, and this body is being asked to adopt a review methodology without a baseline to review against while the estimated cost of conducting that first review is $254,000. $815, more than 200 times the income the Fund has publicly disclosed. The methodology is where this item is decided. Across all 3 documents before us— the note, the study, and the review methodology— Small Island Developing States are mentioned 0 times, so are Least Developed Countries. So in fact, our developing countries, the prioritization of Small Island Developing States and Least Developing developed countries is written into the modalities adopted in Decision 16/2, but it has not been carried into the methodology that Yerevan has been asked to adopt. The only distributional indicator is distribution by the region and entity type, and even that is conditional. Aggregating us into Asia-Pacific will make Pacific outcomes invisible by construction. Put at its plainest, as drafted, the first review of the mechanism will not be able to answer the simplest question we have, which is whether any money reached a public island state. A review methodology that cannot measure compliance with the modality it exists to review, it is not fit for purpose. 2 amendments would fix it. Disaggregate allocations and disbursements by small island developing states and least developed countries Status and add an indicator measured directly against the prioritization provision of Decision 16/2 modalities. Attach B, attach a compliance indicator to the commitment that at least half the fund supports IPLCs. At present, that commitment has no indicator and every element concerning their rights has classified as not available at its first review. So the money coming in will be audited, and the question of whether it went where we promised it would go is deferred. There is, there is the wrong way around, and it is inconsistent with decisions 16/4 and decision 16/5. Um, 2 points: free prior informed consent does not appear anywhere in these 3 documents. It should, and we asked it to be inserted inconsistent with the program of work in Decision/16/4. And benefit sharing rests on contributions that are traceable and possible. Goodwill has not enough— has not been enough. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Fiji, on behalf of SEEDS. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member states, and this intervention does not replace our written submission. The European Union and its member states recognize the importance of the multilateral mechanism for sharing, for sharing benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources and its KALI Fund as an important instrument under the Convention to help mobilize resources from private sectors and contribute to the implementation of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. We congratulate and welcome the initial contributions made by Terra Viva and Prozomics. They are important first steps, and we invite other companies to follow the same path. In Cali, parties launched something new and innovative to enable the sharing of benefits arising from the use of DSI. As with any new mechanism, time is needed to understand how it should function in practice. New systems require a period of learning and testing in order to identify what works well and where further clarification may be needed. Now it is the time to test the modalities under Decision 16/2 and work together to fine-tune them and address pending issues and challenges. At COP18, when we will hopefully have more evidence to assess and review the mechanism, including its fund. The UN and its member states take seriously the concerns raised by stakeholders, in particular calling for more legal clarity and incentives to contribute into the fund. We are firmly convinced that a successful implementation of the Kali Fund requires a collective effort. This is why, together with other partners, we are promoting occasions for informal exchanges amongst parties, non-parties, IPLCs, private sectors, and all other stakeholders to build common understanding and explore ways to address issues related to the implementation of Decision 16/2. With the same spirit, the EU, Germany, and the Netherlands joined the Friends of the Caliphate. Madam Chair, I wish to reiterate the commitment of the EU and its member states to continue engaging constructively with all parties and stakeholders to support an effective, transparent, and workable implementation of the mechanism and its fund. We appreciate the progress made by parties to advance the implementation of Decision 16/2 and believe additional work until COP17 is needed, particularly to increase legal certainty and clarity, build common understanding on key terms, and create enabling conditions. to mobilize contributions until COP17. For this, we have flagged several elements in our written submissions on areas where further discussions at COP17 could be useful. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, European and its member states. I see South Africa at my screen, but I'm not sure if South Africa is also Are you also speaking on behalf of a regional group, or is it a national statement?

Thank you, Madam Chair. South Africa will deliver this statement on behalf of like-minded megadiverse countries. Thank you. Chair, LMMC members collectively hold more than 70% of the world's biological diversity. The digital sequence information driving commercial innovation globally is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, derived from our genetic resources and the traditional knowledge of our peoples. The multilateral mechanism and the Kali Fund acknowledge that reality. We are here to ensure acknowledgement becomes delivery. It represents a transformative opportunity to share benefits, improve access globally to DSI, and mobilize additional finance from the use of biodiversity with the opportunity to contribute to the overarching objectives of the Convention and the goals of the Framework. We recognize the Kali Fund in the context of the CBD as the globally relevant fund for the fair, equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of DSI. The LMMC wishes to highlight the 5 priorities. First, governance must remain within the Conference of Parties. All substantive governance documents, including Memorandum of Understanding, Steering Committee terms of reference and operational arrangements must be submitted to the COP for review and approval before implementation. Second, the primacy of national ABS legislation must be reaffirmed. The multilateral mechanism is a complement to national ABS frameworks, not a substitute. The LMPC requests that the recommendation forwarded to COP17 explicitly states that the sovereign rights over genetic resources and their derivatives must not be narrowed by the mechanism. On the contrary, it must be reinforced by the mechanism, including the caliphate. Third, thresholds must not hollow out the mechanism. The structure of contributions is a central test of this mechanism's credibility. Thresholds must be designed with reference to the full population of commercial DSI users while safeguarding non-commercial research, SMEs, and early-stage stage innovators from disproportionate admin burden. Fourth, non-monetary beneficiary mechanism must be substantive. The non-monetary benefits cannot be reduced to general capacity building. They must include a minimum technology and know-how transfer, collaborative research and development, joint scientific programs, sharing of result— research results. Fifth, certificates must be verifiable and meaningful. So the draft recommendation is silent on how the qualifying certificates will be used, verified, and recognized by national ABS authorities. Without this, certificates risk functioning as payment receipts rather than evidence of genuine benefit sharing, inconsistent with the intent of Decision 16/2. The LMMC therefore requests a new operative paragraph tasking the Executive Secretary to develop certificate verification modalities and a list of incentives to encourage contributions to the fund and adoption before COP18. On the database study, the LMMC supports independent peer review and party comment before any findings inform policy decisions. On additional modalities, all options, especially products and service approaches, must be implemented in order to attract more DSI users, both outside and inside sectors listed in 16/2. Decision 16/2 represents a carefully balanced package that parties agreed to implement and should be implemented entirely. Chair, the like-minded megadiverse countries are committed to a strong, credible, and equitable multilateral mechanism, one that delivers real verifiable benefits to countries and communities that are the source of the world's genetic world. We reiterate, the Caliphate will be judged not by its establishment but by what it delivers. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, South Africa, on behalf of the LMMCs. I would like now to open the floor for parties, please. Okay, I will first give the floor to the United Republic of Tanzania, followed by Colombia, and then the Russian Federation. Tanzania, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The United Republic of Tanzania aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of Africa. Tanzania welcomes the establishment of multilateral mechanism including the CARFAR Fund as an important step towards ensuring fair and equitable beneficiary from the use of digital sequence information. Chair, Tanzania supports an effective, transparent, and accountable implementation of the multilateral mechanism under the authority of Conference of Parties. We also support sustainable capitalization of CARIFUND and emphasize the importance of capacity building, technology transfer, and scientific cooperation to enable developing countries to fully participate in digital sequence information landscape. Furthermore, Tanzania supports greater transparency in digital sequence information database while respecting national sovereignty, indigenous people's rights, and traditional knowledge. We also support a practical view of the mechanism based on implementation experience to strengthen its effectiveness. effectiveness and ensure meaningful benefit for developing countries. Finally, Tanzania remains committed to working with all parties toward an effective, equitable, and inclusive digital sequence information regime under the Convention. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Tanzania. I would like now to give the floor to Colombia, followed by the Russian Federation, and then afterwards Zimbabwe. Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Colombia would like to reiterate its firm commitment to the implementation of Decision 16.2, the implementation of the Multilateral Beneficiary Mechanism Fund. This is a carefully negotiated decision, and our priority is its full operationalization and implementation, respecting the mandate set out by COP. Possible adjustments and additional modalities need to be based on the effective review of the functioning mechanism based on evidence and experience. The mechanism is complex and we run the risk of rendering it inoperable. The Cali Fund is a legacy of COP16 and Colombia recognizes it as an important tool in the financial international architecture for biodiversity. This mechanism is a transformative opportunity in order to empower the implementation of the targets of the Convention and these SAPs, means of implementation, in particular for mega-diverse countries and for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Chair, the success of the mechanism depends on trust and collaboration between governments and the private sector. My delegation believes that we have need to design incentives to stimulate contributions from companies to the Fund, not just working on certification. It's essential to provide legal clarity and consistency, which is required between national and international mechanisms, fostering complementarity with other mechanisms, always respecting sovereignty. Since COP16, we've moved forwards in forum processes, but also through through informal dialogues and initiatives such as the Group of Friends of the Focali Fund. Colombia would like to highlight the importance of this work, the interests and opportunities of the various non-state actors. Colombia will continue to work in this collective effort with other parties, the Secretary-General of the Convention and others. And the microphone cut out. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Colombia. Russian Federation, followed by Zimbabwe and Indonesia. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, the Russian delegation wishes to thank the Secretariat for preparing the following documents: the report on the progress of tasks to be considered by the Conference of the Parties, the summary of tasks facing the subsidiary body for implementation, and elements from the draft recommendations. We support the call to make digital sequence information available in publicly accessible databases. We believe that we should not create a single unified database within the framework of the mechanism. Rather, it is appropriate to consider existing and emerging databases for digital sequence information as segments of a global data sharing network. We believe that to ensure the functioning of the global data sharing network for digital sequence information, it is necessary within the framework of the Kunming Framework Program to develop and adopt a unified standard for the presentation, processing, and display of digital sequencing information. At the same time, the submission of digital sequence information to the national segments of the Global Data Sharing Network and the provision of this information from the national segments of the global network must be carried out in accordance with the specific requirements established by the national laws of the countries operating the segments of the global network. We also believe that it would be advisable to consider the proposed product-oriented approach for the operating conditions of the multilateral mechanism, this in addition to the existing sectoral approach. However, the decision to adopt a product-oriented approach should be made following the results of the first review of the mechanism's effectiveness, including the Kali Fund, to be conducted at the 18th meeting of the parties. The proposals of the Russian Federation for amending CBD/SBI/7/5 will be submitted to the Secretary today. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I'll now give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by Indonesia and Peru. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, Zimbabwe wishes to express its appreciation to the Secretariat and the Steering Committee for their efforts towards the operationalization of the multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, including the KALI Fund. Zimbabwe wishes to reiterate that, in accordance with the decision the Conference of the Parties' regional authority over the caliphate, and reaffirms its confidence in the indicative contribution rates agreed by the Conference of the Parties. Zimbabwe further underscores that digital sequence information should remain publicly available and accessible while being accompanied by enhanced technology transfer, collaborative research and development, and the sharing of research results. 2018 and wishes to express its deep concern regarding the continued lack of contributions to the Kali Fund. Zimbabwe has submitted its proposed textual amendments and reaffirms its readiness to engage constructively in the forthcoming discussions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. I'll now give the floor to Indonesia, followed by Peru and the Democratic Republic of Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Indonesia welcomes the progress made in operationalizing the multilateral mechanism, including the establishment of the caliphate.

At this early stage, our collective priority should be to ensure that the mechanism becomes effective, predictable, transparent, and capable of delivering fair and equitable sharing of benefits in accordance with the convention and relevant COP decisions. In this regard, Indonesia considers it premature to introduce additional modalities before sufficient implementation experience has been gained.

Any consideration of further modalities should be informed by practical experience and evidence, including the first effectiveness review of the mechanism at COP18. Indonesia supports appropriate transitional assistance to facilitate the work of the steering committee. Such assistance should remain fully consistent with the mandate agreed by the COP, preserve the primary responsibility of commercial and other relevant users to contribute to the mechanism, and should not create unintended financial obligations for parties. We further underscore the importance of maintaining the independence, transparency, accountability, and party-led character of the steering committee. Its work should remain fully accountable to the COP and avoid arrangements that could create actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Furthermore, transparency measures should be implemented in accordance with applicable national legislation and relevant international obligations while respecting the rights of indigenous people and local communities, including, as appropriate, their free, prior, and informed extent. Transparency should not be interpreted as requiring the disclosure of traditional knowledge or associated information without appropriate safeguards. Finally, communication and educational materials should faithfully reflect agreed COP decisions and existing guidance.

Thank you very much, Indonesia. I will now give the floor to Peru, followed by the Democratic Republic of Congo and Brazil. And I would also say that I will be closing the list of parties' interventions very soon. So I'll now give the floor to Peru. Peru, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. For Peru, genetic information constitutes an intrinsic part of genetic resources. Therefore, we highlight that the multilateral mechanism and the Kali Fund are complementary and under no circumstance will substitute our national legislation as expressly recognized in Decision 16/2. My delegation emphasizes that the just and equitable participation in benefits derived from the use of DSI is a substantive obligation, an essential pillar of the CBD. Not a voluntary concession. What is optional lies in the path chosen in order to comply with this obligation, either through national frameworks or the multilateral mechanism. When DSI comes from the genetic resources of a country, it's up to them to exercise their sovereign right to set out the conditions for access to and distribution of benefits. Nevertheless, bilateral and multilateral approaches Are not mutually exclusive. National frameworks can set out that the monetary benefits be channeled directly to the Kali Fund, thereby guaranteeing normative harmony and avoiding double contributions. With regards to additional modalities, Peru supports paragraph 1, alt 1. Our priority as parties needs to focus on operationalizing and consolidating the mechanism and the Kali Fund approved at COP16. Any additional modality needs to be considered only in the light of the results of the first effectiveness review of COP18— at COP18. Nevertheless, we emphasize that this does not mean shutting down discussions. The intersessional period can be used in order to continue analyzing and working on technical work on additional modalities, including product-based approaches. Peru expresses its thanks to the Steering Committee of the Cali Fund for the methodological proposal of the effectiveness review, which we believe to be a solid base for work in order to work on it more at COP18. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Peru. I would like to remind parties to speak slowly for the benefit of interpreters, and of course, if it's possible, to upload your statements before taking the floor. I would like now to invite the Democratic Republic of Congo, followed by Brazil and India. DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. The DRC supports a statement made by Egypt on behalf of Africa. The DRC supports any initiative or provision aimed at promoting the implementation and operationalization of the multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of digital sequencing information on genetic resources, including the KALI Fund, and to ensure benefit sharing and reaffirm compliance with Decision 16/2 regarding the governance structure of the KALI Fund. We support any initiative by the parties and by other stakeholders aimed at encouraging private sector engagement. Engagement and contributions to the KALI Fund, as well as contributions from non-parties and relevant organizations to support the work of the Steering Committee of the Multilateral Mechanism. The DRC supports provisions regarding the development of educational materials by Indigenous Peoples and local communities with the support of the parties and relevant organizations and initiatives intended for database managers, scientific institutions, and research facilities, as well as the Secretariat and other relevant stakeholders, on the management and governance of data relating to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as their traditional knowledge, which provide guidance for scientific publications on research using digital sequencing information on genetic resources. And we believe that concrete steps must be taken to translate commitments into action. Thus, necessary support from the parties and relevant organizations in the areas of capacity building and funding is a prerequisite for the success of this process. Thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC. I would— well, I would like now to close the floor for interventions from parties, and I would give the floor to Brazil, followed by India. and the United Arab Emirates. Brazil, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, Brazil aligns itself with the statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of the LMMC. At the outset, we would like to make 3 broader points. First, while discussions on DSI inevitably involve financial resources, these arise from benefit-sharing obligations and should not be conflated with the financial obligations under Articles 20 and 21. Second, Benefit sharing from the use of DSI is not optional. What users may choose is to comply through national ABS systems or through contributions to the KALI Fund. The priority now is to avoid overlapping commitments, making the fund an attractive mechanism for private sector participation. Discussion on certificates in the steering committee at COP17 will be key to achieving this. Third, Brazil thanks the ATAG for its work but remains concerned that the proposed indicators do not adequately reflect criteria established in Decision 16.2. In particular, the methodology should give due weight to countries' biodiversity and the global environmental benefits it provides alongside the financial needs for conservation and sustainable use as well as DSI use. Now turning to the specific tasks before us under this agenda item. On modalities, Brazil supports the adoption of a complementary product and service-based modality alongside a sectoral approach established in Such a modality should rely on clear and demonstrable nexus between the use of DSI in research and development and the resulting product or service. It should not require the tracking of and tracing of individual sequences. A self-declaration system should suffice while protecting confidential sensitive business information and intellectual property. Brazil further supports the continued open availability and accessibility of DSI, as well as non-monetary monetary benefit sharing, including through capacity building, technology transfer, and scientific cooperation, particularly for developing countries. These measures must respect the rights and self-identified needs of IPLCs. Finally, on review methodology, Brazil recalls that the Kali Fund is innovative because it provides direct allocation—

I'm sorry. Thank you very much, Brazil. I will now give the floor to India India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. India reiterates its commitment to the effective operationalization of the multilateral mechanism including the Kali Fund as agreed under Decision 16/2. India wishes to reiterate that the implementation of the multilateral mechanism should remain without prejudice to national legislation as agreed under Decision 16/2, the sovereign rights of the parties, over their natural resources as recognized under Article 15 of the Convention must continue to guide work on DSI. With regard to additional modalities, India supports Option 2 contained in the document. The multilateral mechanism has only recently become operational, and introducing new modalities before sufficient implementation experience is available would be premature. At the same time, where DSI is associated with identifiable genetic resources originating from single party, applicable national ABS measures of the provider country should be duly recognized. India has already established an enabling national framework through its Biological Diversity Act, Biological Diversity Rules, and ABS regulations, and believes that national ABS systems should be duly recognized alongside the multilateral mechanism. Finally, India considers that the proposed review methodology must be balanced, objective, transparent, and based on decision 16/2 and 15/9. Finally, India emphasizes that developing countries, particularly mega-diverse countries, should have equitable representation in all future work relating to the operationalization of the multilateral mechanism. I thank you, Madam.

Thank you very much, India. I would like now to give the floor to the United Arab Emirates, followed by Uganda and Malawi. United Arab Emirates, you have the floor.

Thank you so much. The UAE believes that the mechanism is still at an early stage without any contributions. We back any other studies following the first reading of this report. We would like to add an optional element to this work that something that would not undermine the direct or indirect use in national legislation, and to avoid any duplication. By other mechanisms. We must therefore choose the best way and the most economical way to move forward. As far as tools are concerned, we should be guided by existing structures and data must be used to analyze the report while respecting confidentiality. We welcome the global report, which sheds light on the path ahead as far as our future work is concerned. We stress that all of this should be published in all the official languages of the United Nations. And by way of conclusion, we will have to incorporate this data in all of the various procedures to ensure that it is included in the set of requirements. Thank you.

Thank you very much, United Arab Emirates. I would like now to give the floor to Uganda, followed by Malawi and Argentina. Uganda, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Uganda aligns itself with the statement that was made by Egypt on behalf of Africa. In relation to Decision 16, Uganda underscores the importance of an adaptive evidence-based approach where consideration of additional operational modalities should be informed by the first effectiveness review of the multilateral mechanism.

Thank you.

At COP18. The review of the multilateral mechanism should be party-driven while the steering committee should serve in an advisory role under the authority of the Conference of the Parties. The multilateral mechanism should remain firmly anchored on the 3 objectives of the convention, particularly the fair and equitable sharing of benefits, measures to improve transparency, accessibility and governance of DSI should be implemented in a manner that promotes equity, respects national legislation, recognizes the rights of IPLCs, and supports provider countries. Uganda calls for capacity building, technology transfer, technical assistance, and predictable financial support for developing countries. Chair, lastly, Uganda has proposed some textual changes on the draft recommendation. which is attached to our submission. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Uganda. I would like now to give the floor to Malawi, followed by Argentina and Kenya. Malawi, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Malawi supports the statement made by Egypt on behalf of Africa. For Malawi, Our major focus at COP17 is not to renegotiate Decisions 15/9 and 16/2, but to take decisions that allow us to implement the mechanism in its totality. We want decisions that demonstrate that we are moving from negotiation to implementation. That is why we do not support paragraphs 1, 1bis as provided in the draft recommendation. We therefore also believe that This should be addressed in the light of the outcomes and recommendations resulting from the first review of effectiveness of the mechanism, and that this would need to include considerations of modalities for strengthening the contribution framework where the level of capitalization and disbursement is insufficient to achieve the objectives of the multilateral mechanism. Finally, Malawi would like to state that the credibility of the multilateral mechanism depends on whether it actually generates predictable and meaningful monetary benefits. A fund cannot be considered operational merely because governance structures and procedures exist. It must demonstrate meaningful capitalization and disbursement. We chose the multilateral mechanism because it is easier for business and science, but business cannot expect the benefits of the multilateral mechanism without contributing. to it. If commercial participation remains negligible, parties will be faced with pressure to consider additional national measures, which will likely not be another voluntary mechanism. We have made textual proposals in line with our position, and we will submit them in writing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Malawi. Give the floor to Argentina, followed by Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire. I will remind you that we should speak slowly so that interpreters can get everything that we are saying, and also, please, colleagues, so that we can be more effective in our discussions, if you want to just support support and repeat something that has just been said, be brief and support some other party that has said it. Argentina, you have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair. Argentina believes that at this stage, the priority is to consolidate the structural elements of the mechanism agreed upon by the COP before moving on to new benefit-sharing modalities. In particular, there are still aspects which require greater development, including data governance and transparency, information traceability, and the implementation and monitoring of non-monetary benefits. Decision 16.2 needs to be our compass. It sets out our mandate and our path. In this regard, we support those options which enable us to assess its functioning in line with agreed-upon procedures. In this regard, the incorporation of modalities based on products or services would imply new challenges to identify which products use DSI and determine in an objective and verifiable manner the corresponding basis of calculation. Finally, Argentina emphasizes that whichever development is carried out to serve the mechanism in the future needs to be commensurate to its goals and avoid introducing unnecessary regulatory or administrative burdens for parties. We'll continue to work in a constructive manner in discussions, and we will send text modification proposals in writing in addition to the statement.

Thank you.

I'll give the floor to Kenya, followed by Côte d'Ivoire and Burundi. Kenya, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Kenya aligns itself with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the Africa Group and the statement given by South Africa on LMM. We welcome the progress made under COP16 Decision 16/2. However, Kenya remains concerned that the voluntary contribution to the Akali Fund remained low despite the growing use of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and digital sequence information. To strengthen implementation of the TSI multilateral mechanism, Kenya has made some recommendations that parties to identify and engage users within their jurisdiction and encourage their contribution to the KALI Fund. Parties support establishment of national databases. Parties strengthen capacity building and awareness creation and Parties also to finalize and adopt benefit-sharing modalities by COP17. And lastly, parties to review and where necessary update national legislations and policies to support effective implementation of the mechanisms.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Kenya. I will give the floor to Côte d'Ivoire, followed by Burundi and Bahrain. Côte d'Ivoire, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Côte d'Ivoire backs the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. We'd like to reaffirm the fact that we are wedded to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol, and especially the principle of the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. With regard to the proposed additional modalities for contributions to the We believe that the mechanism— that the mechanism on digital resources is still in an implementation phase. At this stage, it would be preferable to consolidate its operations before introducing new contribution modalities based on products or services that utilize digital sequencing information. We also support strengthening existing databases. Basis on DSI through the improvement of metadata regarding countries of origin, prior consent, agreed conditions, and if necessary, traditional knowledge. Furthermore, the success of this mechanism will hinge on the strengthening of institutional capacities of developing states as well as on effective technology transfer, which would enable them to fully participate in its implementation. And finally, we recall that this mechanism must complement rather than replace Nagoya Mechanism to ensure that there is fair and equitable and transparent sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Côte d'Ivoire. I will now give the floor— oh, I'm sorry. I'll now give the floor to Burundi, followed by Bahrain and Bangladesh. Burundi, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Burundi supports the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. Genetic resources are a strategic issue because of their importance for biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, and benefit sharing. The main challenges are as follows: ensuring equitable access to genetic resources, ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use with provider states and indigenous and local communities, strengthening the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, establishing an international mechanism for the sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources, facilitating scientific research while ensuring equity, and prevent genetic resources from being used without compensation for the countries of origin. Burundi would like the draft decision to mention transparency in the transmission of information on DSIs, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from DSIs, capacity building and technology transfer, transfer, as well as preventing the use of genetic resources without compensation for countries of origin. Regarding the KALI Fund, Burundi would like the operational mechanism to be simplified so that countries can access the funding provided by the Fund. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Burundi. I'll give the floor to Bahrain, followed by Bangladesh and Guatemala. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

First and foremost, we express our thanks to the Secretariat for preparing this document. Chair, the Kingdom of Bahrain attaches great importance to the protection of genetic resources. The mechanism before us is a way to preserve these based on principles of the sovereignty of states over their own genetic resources. This should not be a compulsory process. Access to information Without protection will be harmful to our sovereignty. Free and open access to information on genetic resources should not be a means to short-circuit the Nagoya Protocol, which requires a balance between between science and the protection of national interests of countries. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, the Kingdom of Bahrain. I'll now give the floor to Bangladesh, followed by Guatemala and South Africa. Bangladesh, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Bangladesh thanks the Secretariat, the Steering Committee, and the ad hoc technical expert group for their work on the multilateral mechanism and the Caliphate. Bangladesh supports the additional modality in operative paragraph 1, allowing entities to calculate contribution based on products or services developed directly or indirectly using digital sequence information. This should complement, not replace, the existing sector-based approach and should remain practical, transparent, and administratively administratively manageable. Bangladesh considers that this additional modality can be introduced at COP17 without waiting for the first review in 2028. It could create a clearer connection between the commercial use of digital sequence information and contribution to the Kali Fund. Its implementation should nevertheless remain practical, transparent, and administratively manageable and should not depend on costly or technically burdensome tracking and tracing system. We also support stronger private sector engagement, improving existing database through standardized metadata and interoperability, and further capacity building for developing country parties. Bangladesh supports adoption of the review methodology in document CBD/SBI/7/5/Additional 2. The first review should assess whether the mechanism generates adequate and predictable resources, ensure fair distribution of benefits, and enable developing countries to access both monetary and non-monetary benefits. Finally, adequate finance, technology transfer, and technical assistance are essential for equitable participation in and benefit from—

Thank you very much, Bangladesh. I'll give the floor to Guatemala, followed by South Africa and China. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Guatemala aligns itself with the statements made by South Africa on behalf of the like-minded megadiverse countries. We reiterate that access to DSI is essential for science, conservation, and innovation. Nevertheless, the availability of data does not guarantee equitable participation. We support strengthening existing systems of databases, and we don't see a justification at this stage for a new database which would be centralized under the convention. On the modality based on products and services, we believe its adoption in the form proposed is premature. The document sets out that this would require monitoring and traceability, and that it would be technologically complex and costly. Guatemala supports continuing technical work prior to COP18. This will enable us to develop rules for allocation and verification, safeguards against avoidance and double counting, and an analysis of its costs and impacts on the revenues of the Kali Fund. In addition, a modality based exclusively on products could also reduce the contribution base. Guatemala reiterates that Indigenous Peoples and local communities need to fully participate in the governance of these tools and have adequate resources. Therefore, Their role should not be limited to just producing educational materials. Finally, the review needs to measure not just how much is collected, but what monetary and non-monetary benefits effectively reach developing countries and indigenous peoples and local communities, which capacities are being strengthened, and which administrative costs are being generated. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Guatemala. I will give the floor to South Africa, followed by China and Saudi Arabia. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa associates itself with the statements of the African Group and the like-minded megadiverse countries and offers 3 national observations. On scope, the mechanism operates as a safety net where DSI carries no existing ABS conditions. South Africa would welcome text in the recommendation that clearly confirms the right of parties to maintain or introduce national ABS measures, removing any ambiguity about the relationship between the mechanism and national legislation. On certificate integrity, the draft recommendation does not address how CaliFund certificates will be issued, verified, or recognized. Recognized by national ABS authorities. Without clear verification and recognition procedures, certificates may not be usable by national ABS authorities in provider countries, limiting their value as meaningful evidence of benefit sharing in practice. South Africa requests a new operative paragraph tasking the Secretariat to develop certificate issuance and verification modalities before COP18. On contribution thresholds, thresholds must not have the practical effect of exempting the majority of DSI users from contribution obligations. The mechanism's long-term credibility will depend on the share of DSI use in actual captures. Finally, Chair, South Africa looks forward to the first review of the effectiveness at COP18. as the moment to assess whether the mechanism is delivering at the scale its establishment promised. We encourage commercial DSI users to engage early and look forward to working with all parties to ensure it delivers on that promise. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, South Africa. I will give the floor to China, Saudi Arabia, and Namibia. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. China thanks the Secretariat and the Kali Fund Steering Committee for their work on the DSI Multilateral Benefit Sharing Mechanism and the Kali Fund.

China has 3 points. One, about the additional modalities.

China believes the mechanism has only just entered implementation and needs time to prove its effectiveness.

New modalities should not be introduced before the current arrangement has been fully tested and evaluated.

We support prioritizing implementing the existing mechanism and considering product and service-related modalities only after the first effectiveness review at COP18.

Second, on DSI availability and accessibility, China believes that building a new large-scale database would face major legal, technical, financial challenges while increasing data fragmentation.

A more practical approach is to build on existing public databases through incremental and complementary improvements. Third, on the effectiveness review methodology, China stresses, first of all, the review should remain independent to ensure objective and impartial conclusions. Secondly, coordination with other international instruments should be considered early to avoid duplicate charges and overlapping contributions that create unnecessary burden. Third, the review should proceed in phases, beginning with operational readiness and evaluability before moving to substantial review.

I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, China. I'll now give the floor to Saudi Arabia, followed by Namibia and Panama. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We reiterate the importance of this conference to bolster international cooperation on fair and equitable sharing of benefits of genetic resources, it is important to develop the elements of the multilateral mechanism. Our delegation reiterates the fact that this mechanism should stress the importance of fair and equitable sharing of benefits without really resorting to complicated dues or Transboundary taxation. This could be detrimental to national products as well as manufacture manufacturers, particularly in agriculture. Priority should be given to binding commitments to the users of DSI. This should be the essence of our efforts. We stress the importance to. Take the appropriate measures for databases to ensure compliance and respecting national mechanisms for sharing of benefits. It is important to develop national systems to access benefits and to protect intellectual property and encourage national innovation activities. It is important to put clear-cut guidance and to provide technical support to guarantee participation by these States Parties in this mechanism. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia aligns with the African Group statement read by Egypt on behalf of the group and adds the following 4 points. First, support mutual supportiveness. The mechanism must not erode bilateral benefit sharing under the Nagoya Protocol and national law. Namibia's Act of 2017 already governs digital sequence information from our genetic resources. Secondly, the issue of delivery, the commitment in Decision 16/2 to indigenous peoples and local communities requires direct access modalities, not exclusionary accreditation. And thirdly, in terms of resources, the draft decision qualifies nearly every mandate with subject to availability of resources, yet CBD/SBI/7/15/ADD1 proposes 10 new posts, and none of the Access and Benefit Sharing Unit, which carries the workload. A mandate without a post is an aspiration. Finally, Madam Chairperson, coherence and data issues related to sequence information is also being negotiated elsewhere. including under the World Health Organization's pandemic agreement. Divergent rules invite forum shopping and the burden falls on provider countries. Provenance and persistence identifiers are the precondition for variable benefit sharing. Open access and traceability are not opposites. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. I'll now give the floor to Panama, followed by Yemen. Panama, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The corridor, which has transferred species for millennia between continents, is now relying on databases. Panama asks for an ambitious approach on identities and rates of contribution before COP17. Megadiverse countries have rights for this mechanism, not just obligations. Therefore, legal certainty is also required for the providers of genetic resources and not just users. But we can't continue moving forwards without certainty on mechanisms in the Kali Fund, first of all. The steering committee needs to strengthen transparency of its processes and ensure that all parties are included in the conversation. This also ensures sovereignty and not allowing that scientific gaps between developing countries and developed countries continues widening. The database which stores this information needs to be developed within developing countries as well, not just abroad. Panama has already held conversations at the national level in order to define these mechanisms mechanisms always aligned with the Nagoya Protocol and free, prior, and informed consent. It's an inconvenient truth, but we need to say it out loud. We can't allow a traceability which our own tax system can still not offer. Panama reiterates that indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and youth, need to have direct access to the Cali Fund. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Panama. I will now give the floor to Yemen. Yemen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Republic of Yemen welcomes the draft recommendation and supports efforts to operationalize the multilateral mechanism for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources. This also includes the KALI Fund. Yemen stresses the importance of the participation of the private sector to finance the mechanism to ensure fair and benefit— fair and equitable sharing of benefits. We need training, we need data governance so that we enabled in developing countries and the least developed countries to effectively participate in the implementation of the mechanism. We also need to ensure transparency and accessibility of GTPL digital sequence information while respecting national frameworks, ownership, and considerations to traditional knowledge. The success of such mechanism requires financial and technical support as well as capacity building to developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and crisis-affected countries, so that they can develop their national capacities in managing digital sequence information and making equitable use of the benefits arising from it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Yemen. I see no further requests from the floor from parties. I would like now to open the floor for other governments and observers, and I will start with the IPOCs. And please, I will ask major stakeholders to not repeat what is in their statements. Just be brief and try to go through the key messages because we are running out of time. So first, IIFB, you have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I make this statement on behalf of the IIFB. Digital sequence information begins long before a sequence is uploaded into a database. It begins in territories, ecosystems, and landscapes that indigenous peoples and local communities have cared for over generations. The biodiversity that makes DSI valuable today exists because these relationships with nature have endured. That is why the DSI mechanism is not just about sharing monetary benefits. It is also about ensuring that indigenous peoples and local communities remain active partners in the governance, generation, and responsible use of biodiversity Our proposals seek to strengthen this connection in practical ways. We ask that educational materials be self-led by indigenous peoples and local communities, because our own institutions are best placed to explain our governance systems and community protocols. We also propose that when digital sequence information is made publicly available, this should be as appropriate as possible. Open science is important, but openness must be balanced with safeguards for rights and sacred knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, consistent with the UNESCO recommendation on open science. Beyond access to data, indigenous peoples and local communities should also shape how data are governed. This is why we emphasize. The care alongside fair and trust principles, recognizing collective benefits, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics in the governance of data relating to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Non-monetary benefits are equally important. Indigenous Peoples and local communities should have the opportunity to identify for ourselves the kind of non-monetary benefits that respond to our aspirations. Finally, where monetary benefits are concerned, the question is not only how much funding is generated, but whether indigenous peoples and local communities can actually access it. The review of the mechanism should therefore assess whether operational arrangements enable the full range of funding pathways, including direct access, as already envisaged by Decision 16.2. This is essential if the mechanism is to support the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, IIFP. I see Also NGOs, I think it's the CBD Alliance. Please identify yourself. You have 3 minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm from Third World Network. I'm making the statement on behalf of CBD Alliance. The CBD Alliance appreciates the efforts of Secretariat, Steering Committee, and intersessional processes to operationalize multilateral mechanism on DSI. However, its long-term legitimacy and credibility will statement on whether the implementation remains faithful to Decision 16 and fully respects the rights of the sovereign— the sovereign rights of the provider states and the rights of the indigenous peoples and local communities, including in particular their right to know and be informed about the utilization of genetic resources through DSI. It is a critical component of right to science of these communities and countries. We are concerned that objective is at risk. First, we are not persuaded by the Commission study on database accountability, which dismisses these measures to improve transparency and accountability as infeasible without adequate evaluation. The study has not undergone peer review despite significant methodological concerns and was prepared by a member of stakeholder group that conflates anonymous access with open access, sidelining safeguards needed to prevent prevent digital biopiracy. Until accountable databases and traceability measures are developed, it is premature to introduce additional modalities based on products and services developed using TSI. Second, the proposed review methodology requires substantial revision. It focuses mostly on measures taken by parties to incentivize users under paragraph 13 of the Annex to Decision 16/2, while overlooking the implementation measures by databases and parties hosting databases for the effective implementation of Decision 16/2 pursuant to paragraphs 10 to 12 of its annex. Similarly, no assessment is proposed for measures taken pursuant to paragraphs 6 to 8 of the annex to Decision 16/2. The measures might be taken by regional and sub-regional support centers under the technical and scientific cooperation mechanism of the CBD. Third, the Memorandum of Understanding establishing the institutional arrangements for the Kali Fund, together with its annexed documents, depart from Decision 16 by treating the monetary benefit-sharing contributions as donations rather than a mode of discharging obligations arising pursuant to convention through the multilateral mechanism. These foundational documents were concluded without a first reading by the Steering Committee or any party-led process. We therefore urge parties to review these arrangements before advancing further implementation. If implementation becomes centered primarily on resource mobilization that results in the appeasement of the users of DSIR while neglecting the rights of the providers recognized under the Convention Nagoya Protocol, the KALI Fund risks being perceived merely as a fund that collects fees for biopiracy. We trust that you will not allow this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, CBD Alliance. I now acknowledge business followed by academia. Business, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of ICC, the International Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses from across sectors and countries. Businesses are committed to working with parties and stakeholders towards a multilateral mechanism that is workable, contributes meaningfully towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and also aligns more broadly with the transition towards a more sustainable society and economy. For business, it is essential that the mechanism avoids outcomes that create uneven competitive conditions across countries or between different types of technologies. It should also support research and innovation across countries, including by encouraging the improvement of the quality and accessibility of existing databases. To achieve this, business is looking to SBI 7 and to COP 17 to provide clarity and to work towards a common understanding on the fundamental elements of the MLM that is still currently missing.

Yes, business, thank you very much. Please note that other stakeholders, you just have One minute. Academy and academia and business just have one minute. I apologize for that. Academia, you have the floor.

Gracias, señora presidenta. Agustín.

Thank you, Chair. I make this statement on behalf of DSI Center of Experts, a network of non-commercial users of DSI from more than 30 countries from all. regions of the United Nations. We believe that the main responsibilities of our sector in this discussion are threefold. First, supporting strengthening of capacities in terms of DSI. Second, sharing non-monetary benefits arising from the use of DSI. And third, aligning databases for DSI with the multilateral mechanism, including the Kali Fund. Nevertheless, the draft recommendations of the DSI leaves aside 2 of these 3 essential aspects: the distribution of non-monetary benefits and the other, despite a wide-ranging consensus on this. We recognize that important work has been done to continue developing and putting into function the Calais Fund, but work continues and the mic has been cut out.

Thank you very much, academia. Thank you. Yes, I would like now to open the floor for international organizations. International organizations. I see no more requests for the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. I— with that, I think that we have concluded our review of item 5. Distinguished delegates, I have taken note of the extensive discussions on this matter. It is clear that more discussions are needed on this item. Accordingly, I will establish a contact group to work on the entire draft recommendation with a view to addressing the 3 issues presented to SBI. First, the potential additional modalities for the multilateral mechanism. Second, the possible new tools and platforms for making DSI available and accessible in a transparent and accountable manner. And the methodology— and third, the methodology for the review of the effectiveness of the multilateral mechanism, including the Kali Fund. The contact group will be co-chaired by Ida Hellmark from Norway, and Neka Nikolas from Antigua and Barbuda. I remind you that in the Contact Group, please focus the work on the operative paragraphs. Finally, considering that DSI is a vast topic, I urge you to stick to the 3 issues at hand for SBI during our Contact Group discussions, and I reiterate what I said earlier. Please refrain from revisiting accepted COP decisions, and therefore this— I refer to Decision 15/9 and 16/2. Please also refrain from discussing topics on DSI that are being considered directly to Conference of the Parties. Please check the monitors of the online schedule for the time and place of the meeting of this contact group. Thank you very much, colleagues. We are a little bit behind of our schedule, a little bit. So I would like now to please reorganize ourselves. I'm now taking item 4. Resource mobilization, and the financial mechanism. And I will start with 4A, resource mobilization. Okay, so we will take the sub-items one after another, one after another, one after the other. I hope that we can Conclude, at least for A today. And with that, I, I will give you some more time to organize yourselves. 2 minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, colleagues, let's not lose precious interpreter time. Please take your seats. I now invite the Secretariat to introduce the documents for this item. Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, please, microphone to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Chair. For Agenda Item 4A, the Secretariat prepared document—

pre-session document number 3.

Section 2 of the document provides a progress report on the delivery against the requests contained in paragraph 26 of Decision 1634, and Section 3 provides a detailed overview of the tasks that are now before the Subsidiary Body on implementation and a synthesis of the documentation prepared by the Secretariat to support delivery of these tasks. Section 4 provides element of a draft recommendation for consideration of the subsidiary body. In addition, the subsidiary body has before it the following addendum and information documents in support of these sections of document— precession document 3.

Colleagues, please take your seat. If you need to talk, please go outside so that we can benefit from the Secretariat's presentation and the interpretation. Thank you. You may proceed, Markus. Thank you. I'm sorry for that.

Thank you.

Sorry, sorry, I have some technical issue here.

Why doesn't it work here?

Oh, okay, good. Sorry.

Just a moment, we have some technical issues.

So I was about to mention the relevant documentation in the addenda documents. So Addendum 1 provides proposals for the best periodicity of notifications for reviewing and amending the list established in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Convention, considering also potential opportunities for broadening the contributor base. Then Pre-Session Document 3 Add 2 provides a review of implementation of the strategy for resource mobilization. Pre-session document 3 provides further development of criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism, and addendum document 4 provides impediments to the effectiveness of global biodiversity finance. In addition, we have 3 information documents.

Information document 18 provides a list of countries that complements the analysis provided in Addendum 1.

Information Document 19 provides the full review of implementation of the strategy for resource mobilization, and Information Document 20 provides opportunities to strengthen tracking of the various sources of biodiversity finance. Thank you very much. Back to you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. Well, as previously explained, Information Document 21 lists the 21 submissions received from parties and the 14 statements from observers on Item 4 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 registered on site. Given that the modalities for the early submission of statements were intended to be a time-saving measure, I would reiterate that the parties and observers that submitted early statements may wish to refrain from delivering oral statements except where it's necessary to make clarifications. Parties and observers that did not submit written statements during the informal process may wish to request the floor and submit their written statements as per established procedures. Colleagues, 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 for this meeting. Please raise your hands if you have any objection. Thank you, colleagues. So your statements will be formally entered on record and considered as officially submitted under this agenda item. I would like now to call your attention to the list of observers that had made early statements. So I will go through the list on the screen one by one, and we'll do the same that we have done so far. So I will just ask if they are here so that we can confirm that they are here, and I will ask for support from parties. I see the Democratic Republic of Congo. Oh, no.

Okay.

So organization number 1, ECHO, Maxey Querétaro, are you here? Yes, thank you very much. Do I see any support? Yes, the DRC, Tajikistan, and Brazil. Thank you very much. Organization number 2, Global Impact, are you here?

Yes.

I don't— oh, yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do I see any support for the statement made by Global Impact? Yes. I see Nigeria, European Union, and Norway. Thank you very much. So, organization number 3, the Global Youth Biodiversity Network?

Yes.

Yes. Thank you very much. Do I see any support? Yes, the DRC, Brazil, and Fiji. And of course, as you know, the whole list of speakers will be available. Organization number 4, Greenpeace International. Are you here? Yes, thank you very much, Greenpeace. Do I see any support?

Yes.

Thank you.

There is support from Cameroon, DRC, and Gabon. Thank you very much. Organization number 5, IPOCs, the IIFB. Are you here? Yes. Thank you very much. I see support from Côte d'Ivoire, Panama, and Brazil. Thank you. And the whole list will be available. Thank you.

Thank you.

Organization number 6, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN. Yes, I see support. There is support from Tunisia. Ghana and Egypt. Thank you very much. Organization number 7, also IPOC, Pueblos Indígenas de la Amazonía Colombiana, are you here? Yes, thank you very much. Yes, I see support from Gabon, Brazil, Panama. Thank you. Thank you very much. Organization number 8, Rainforest Action Network, are you here? Yes, thank you very much, Rainforest. Do I see support for the statement? Yes, Brazil.

Brazil.

European Union. Thank you very much. Organization number 9, the Secretariat of the International Treaty. Are you here? Yes, thank you very much. Do I see any support? Yes, they have support from Comoros, the Dominican Republic, and the European Union.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Organization number 10, The Nature Conservancy. Yes, I see you. Thank you very much. Do I see support? Yes, I see support from Gabon, Brazil, and the European Union. Thank you very much. Yes, there are— I see the list is increasing. Organization number 11, The CBD Alliance. Hi, thank you. Do I see support? Yes. Egypt, DRC, and Gabon. Thank you very much. And organization number 12 in our list, United Nations Development Programme, the UNDP. Are you here?

Yes.

Yes, thank you very much, UNDP. I see also support from Tajikistan, Tunisia, and the Dominican Republic. Thank you very much. Yes. Okay, I wait a little bit because I think that we have— yeah, support from several parties so that I can keep all the supports. Organization number 13 on our list, Women for Biodiversity. Please raise your hands. Yes, thank you. Women for Biodiversity. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're here. So I acknowledge that there is support from the DRC, Mexico, and Kenya. Thank you very much. And organization number 14, WWF, are you here? Yes. Thank you very much. I see we have support from Gabon, Kenya, and the DRC.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And with that, we concluded the support for the early submissions from observers. Thank you very much. Oops, they are all on record. Thank you. And now I would like to open the floor for your views on item 4. As you know, we will begin with parties speaking for— on behalf of a regional group. If you are a party that wishes to speak on behalf of a regional group, please ask for the floor now and only if this is the case. Okay. I see Brazil, followed by Zimbabwe and the European Union. Brazil, you have the floor. And please state for which organization are you making your statement. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I have the floor— the privilege to take the floor on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries. GULAC thanks the Secretariat and the GEF for the documentation prepared. Resource mobilization is indispensable to the implementation of the Convention as a whole, including the achievement of the KMGBF. Yet, biodiversity finance gap remains profound. The 23% decline in ODA last year, together with mounting debt burdens and shrinking fiscal space in developing countries, should be a matter of serious concern to this body. This is further compounded by the fact that some parties in our region no longer qualify for ODA. For GRULAC countries in particular, this is really troubling, as our region faces higher implementation costs due to the significant share of global biodiversity it hosts. Furthermore, we emphasize that biodiversity finance overwhelmingly operates in ecologically rich yet socially vulnerable areas. Protecting this natural wealth must go hand in hand with supporting the livelihoods and resilience of those who steward these ecosystems. These trends must be assessed in light of Articles 20 and 21. While GLOBAL+ supports the mobilization of resources from all sources, this must remain a fully consistent with the differentiated obligations established by the Convention. Domestic resources, private finance, South-South cooperation, and innovative instruments can complement but never replace the obligation of developed country parties to provide new and additional financial resources that are adequate, predictable, timely, and accessible. Likewise, any discussion on broadening the contribution base must remain fully consistent with the Convention. External economic classification modifications cannot alter the legal obligation of parties, and any assumption of developed country obligations must remain voluntary and based on the expressed consent of the party concerned. Grulock underlines the importance of mainstreaming biodiversity in international planning, fiscal frameworks, and public budgeting processes, and also emphasized the importance of transparency and integrity in financial reporting. International and domestic resources, public and private finance, and co-financing should be clearly distinguished. While we recognize the delivery of co-benefits between biodiversity and climate finance, for instance payments for ecosystem services and nature-based solutions, we underscore that biodiversity finance and climate finance are 2 different issues. Therefore, double counting must be avoided. Decision 1634 represents a carefully balanced package and should not— should be implemented in its entirety. The 2 complementary tracks established by the decision, namely the permanent institutional arrangement under Article 21 and resource mobilization from all sources, must continue to advance in parallel. The phased process established by Decision 1634 offers an opportunity to rebuild trust among parties and develop an architecture capable of supporting the long-term financing needs for the implementation of the Convention according to priorities established by parties. Goodluck welcomes the progress made in developing criteria for the permanent institutional arrangement. In our view, this process should be guided, among others, by the principles of coherence, efficiency, and effectiveness. According to Article 21 and Target 19, any arrangement should operate under the authority and guidance of, and be accountable to, the COP, provide new, additional, adequate, and predictable financial resources on grant and concessional terms, ensure fair and representative governance, facilitate simplified and direct access for developing countries, promote effective participation participation of IPLCs and support long-term programmatic implementation, all in accordance with national priorities, legislation, and institutional frameworks. Regarding the GBFF, despite its swift operationalization and efforts, current capitalization remains far below what is required. In addition, we note with concern that many countries in our region have not yet received support from it. GULAG looks forward to engaging constructively in these negotiations, and our countries will present specific tax proposal during the consideration of draft recommendations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Brazil. On behalf of GRULUC, I would like to remind delegates that we have to speak a little bit slowly so that interpreters can keep your speech. So I would like to give the floor to Zimbabwe, followed by European Union and Fiji. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Zimbabwe is presenting this statement on behalf of the Africa Group. We thank the Secretariat for the documents prepared. Our region considers resource mobilization as important as the KMGBF itself. Many countries in Africa continue to face limited domestic fiscal space and mounting debt burdens, whilst obligations to deliver on commitments made under the KMGBF targets are also increasing, a reality already limiting effective implementation of regional and national strategies. Pillar D of the Africa Biodiverse Strategy and Action Plan indicates a clear need for mobilizing expanded domestic and international financing mechanisms for nature conservation in our biodiverse planet. Chair, Africa acknowledges the progress made so far in mobilizing financial resources for biodiversity in line with the resource mobilization strategy of the KMGBF. We, however, are deeply concerned that the review of the implementation of the strategy on resource mobilization shows that current efforts fall short of the level required to achieve the collective targets at global level. We further are concerned, Chair, that the general trajectory of financial resources available for environment and biodiversity continues to show sustained decline instead of recovery. Official development assistance also continues to dwindle. Biodiversity remains one of the least prioritized areas with shrinking envelopes despite anchoring the global economies and providing the invaluable life support system. This trend now is reflected in the financial mechanism of this convention itself. Africa expresses its deep concern that the 9th replenishment of the GEF 9 was concluded with a reduction of close to 27% in funding compared to GEF 8. This contraction comes at the precise moment when parties are expected to accelerate implementation of the KMGBF. Addressing the impediments to the effectiveness of the global biodiverse finance requires a whole-of-government effort to tackle the underlying structural and systemic challenges. This must include efforts to equitably address sovereign debt burdens crippling developing countries so that there is fiscal leverage to address biodiversity loss and to ensure that the debt servicing does not incentivize harmful incentives. AMFU activities. Africa is committed to the implementation of the roadmap we adopted at COP16 and further develop the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism envisaged under Article 21, which must be under the authority of the COP. We have reflected on the criteria and made specific amendments detailed in our submissions that we are putting forward with our statements. These include but are not limited to the primary consideration of Article 20, new eligibility categories for developing countries which needs more reflection, direct access for financial resources through— but also meaning that biodiverse finance should be channeled to countries directly rather than intermediaries, grievance and redress mechanisms, and also Making sure that voluntary contributions alone, we know that they cannot provide adequate financial resources, and efforts to broaden the contributor base must not negate or diminish the obligations of developed country parties under Article 20 of the Convention. Chair, Africa remains fully committed to advancing this agenda and to engaging constructively with all parties. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Zimbabwe. I will now give the floor to the European Union, followed by Fiji and South Africa. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the EU and its 27 member states. The EU and its member states broadly support the draft SBI 7 decision and the COP17 recommendation while proposing few targeted amendments. First, on biodiversity finance effectiveness, we broadly support the finance— the findings and the proposed elements for enhancement. Secondly, regarding the criteria for the structure to operate the financial mechanism, we support the Secretariat's analytical approach to streamlining the criteria. Should parties wish to develop the criteria further, we're hoping to We're open to hearing views on whether potential additional criteria are necessary and appropriate. Finally, on broadening the contributor base, we believe it is necessary to amend the current list to mobilize new and additional resources. We suggest here at SBI 7 to follow the approach used ahead of COP 8, where with the Executive Secretary preparing a revised list for adoption at COP 17, after consultations with parties. We propose to review and adopt an amended list at every subsequent COP. To ensure continued progress after COP17, we also look forward to hearing the views and proposals from other parties on addressing the contributor base more systematically. Madam Chair, this statement does not replace our early— earlier written submission where we have provided further drafting suggestions. We look forward to constructive discussions during this SBI. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, European Union. I will now give the floor to Fiji. Fiji, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Fiji speaks on behalf of its 14 member states, Pacific Island countries. We firstly would like to align ourselves with the statement made by Brazil on behalf of GRULAC. and Zimbabwe on behalf of African Group. Chair, I will not go into the substantive discussions that has been submitted through our written submission, but we would like to reiterate some key points. First, the draft decision answers still includes words, notes, and invites where possible and where appropriate. Chair, Decision 15/7 and Decision 16/34 did not commit this Convention into a strategy of encouragement. We ask that the operative language be brought back in proportion with the findings of where biodiversity finance is still 7.3 times less than what is being invested in harmful subsidies or those that are harmful to nature. Chair, there are 3 things that must be reflected in the SBI recommendation text that reflects the Pacific Seeds perspective. If it goes through, the criteria governing the future financial mechanism will contain no reference to Small Island Developing States anywhere in them, and we will have nothing to build on when questions of allocation and differentiated access arises. Article 20, paragraph 5 of this convention requires the parties to take full account of the specific needs and the special situation of least developed countries, and in Article 20, paragraph 6 of Small Island Developing States. Generic language is not a drafting improvement. It is the removal of a treaty distinction, and so both the reference and the phrase responding to their needs and priorities must remain in the text. Chair, secondly, the direct allocation, reliance on national executing agencies, the participation of recipient country authorities at every step, and the grievance and redress mechanism— those are items 11, 12, 13, and 15. And all 4 sit under the heading not captured, which in this drafting means that they fall far away unless a delegation speaks for them. We are speaking for them and we ask that they be moved into the criteria. We also ask for the word grant to be referenced. Article 21, paragraph 1 of this convention provides that the mechanism shall function on a grant and concessional basis. Not one of the 4 criteria says so. and nothing before us proposes to add it. A criteria that sets that or omits the financing modality written into the convention is incomplete on its face. Criterion D already provides that we must access— access must be timely and simplified, and those 2 words are not negotiable for us. Chair, on the impediments annex, the annex actually omits almost every barrier that binds the hardest on Small Island Developing States: co-financing requirements, minimum project sizes, creditworthiness, and eligibility thresholds. So we ask that this is not set by income per head rather than by vulnerability. Our last is on broadening the contributor base. Our position is that the test must be capability and vulnerability, not income per head. Chair, we will be in the Contact Group on these items with text. We thank you for this opportunity to reflect on these 4 key points.

Thank you very much, Fiji, on behalf of SEEDS. I will now give the floor to South Africa. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa again delivers this statement on behalf of the group of like-minded mega-diverse countries comprising 20 parties to the Convention and home to approximately 70% of the world's biodiversity. Our intervention focuses on the urgency of implementation, the centrality of new, additional, adequate, predictable, and accessible finance provided in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, and the need to rebuild trust through concrete international cooperation. 4 years after the adoption of the KMGBF, ambition must now be matched by the provision of adequate means of implementation. As megadiverse countries, we are at the forefront of efforts to conserve, sustainably use, and restore biodiversity. We are advancing national policies, investments, and institutional reforms, often under significant fiscal and capacity constraints. However, national efforts alone cannot deliver the scale of action required to halt and reverse The Convention has always recognized that biodiversity conservation is a shared global responsibility requiring effective international cooperation. It also makes clear that the extent to which developing country parties can implement their commitments depends on the effective implementation by developed country parties of their commitments related to financial resources and technology transfer. Chair, we acknowledge that the progress that has been made, we remain concerned that the current levels of biodiversity finance fall short of the ambition reflected in Target 19A. Biodiversity finance should flow where biodiversity is, and megadiverse countries carry a significant responsibility for conserving the world's biodiversity and sustaining global ecosystem services. While we acknowledge and note the GBFF represents an important step forward and encourage continued efforts to ensure that its benefits reach all eligible parties, all eligible developing country parties, including the LMMC. The period ahead, as envisaged in Decision 1634, offers an important opportunity to advance carefully balanced package of outcomes. We believe that implementation of all elements of the decision will help to advance the agreed roadmap. The 2 complementary tracks established under the decision, namely the permanent institutional arrangement under Article 21 and resource mobilization from all sources, should continue to progress in a balanced and mutually reinforcing manner. We note with concern that GF9 replenishment stands at $3.9 billion compared to $5.3 billion under GF8. 2008, at a time when ambition and implementation needs to grow. While we support efforts to mobilize resources from all sources, this effort should complement and reinforce rather than replace commitments under Article 20 of the Convention. The LMMC recognized the important and potentially complementary contribution of the private sector, philanthropic organizations, and multilateral development banks. At the same time, these sources are most effective when they supplement predictable public financing provided in line with the convention's established commitments and responsibilities. In this regard, the international biodiversity finance architecture must provide new, additional, predictable, and adequate accessible means of implementation, especially from developed to developing countries. In conclusion, the LMMC reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening national implementation and advancing the objective of the convention and look forward to working constructively with all parties to secure an effective, equitable, and sustainable resource mobilization outcome that enables full implementation of the framework. We stand ready to engage further on the next and to— on the text and to contribute constructively to the negotiations ahead. Thank you.

Thank you very much, South Africa. I don't see any further interventions from regional groups.

Yes?

So I would like now to open the floor for parties. I would like to remind you that you have just 2 minutes as parties, 2 minutes. Technician, please. And also that please Please refrain from repeating your early statements and, if possible, try to refer to your original group statements so that we can save some time. I know this is a very important issue. I would like now to take the first intervention from the Democratic Republic of Congo, followed by Egypt and then Colombia. DRC, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The DRC supports the statement made by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group and that of South Africa on behalf of the like-minded megadiverse countries. As a megabiodiversity country, the DRC reiterates that the global framework will not succeed without concrete and immediate international financial justice. Firstly, we remind you that the full implementation of Articles 21 and 39 of the Convention is something that's already been decided upon. Biodiversity financing is not official development assistance but a legally binding obligation for developed states. SBI will have to formalize the establishment of a permanent financial mechanism for biodiversity, one that is predictable, adequate, and directly accessible to developing states. Secondly, the assessment of Target 19A of the global framework is alarming, to say the least. There remains a huge gap in reaching the $20 billion promised annually by 2025. The DRC asks the SBI to establish a strict accountability mechanism to measure actual flows to developing states, excluding any double counting with climate finance. And thirdly, the DRC insists on organizing an international conference with the ministers of the environment and finance from developed and developing states to remove bottlenecks in access to funds. Madam Chair, the DRC is fulfilling its responsibilities to humanity and mankind. It is time for developed states to fulfill their legal and financial obligations as well. I thank you.

Thank you very much, DRC. I will now give the floor to Egypt, followed by Colombia and India. Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Egypt aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group. Resource mobilization lies at the heart of the Convention as reflected in Articles 20 and 21, and has been consistently reaffirmed by the Conference of the Parties as indispensable for achieving the objectives of the Convention and the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Success shouldn't be measured only by amount of finance mobilized, but also by its effectiveness, predictability, accessibility, and responsiveness to nationally identified priorities. In this regard, Egypt wishes to highlight the following points. We support maintaining the integrated roadmap established in Decision 16/34, the review of resource mobilization strategies, the identification of impediments to biodiversity finance, and the development of criteria for the future institutional structure for the financial mechanism should continue as a part of one coherent intergovernmental process. Second, the future institutional structure must remain under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties, consistent with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, and it should provide a transparent, equitable, accessible financial mechanism that responds to the need and priority of developing countries. Third, improving the effectiveness of biodiversity finance is as important as mobilizing additional resources. This requires simplifying access, strengthening national capacity, reducing transaction costs, and promoting country ownership, including through national implementing entities and, where appropriate, direct access modalities. Fourth, efforts to broaden the contributor base should complement, not replace, the obligation of developing country parties under Article 20 of the Convention. Voluntary contributions must remain voluntary and shouldn't alter agreed responsibility under the Convention. Finally, biodiversity finance must remain country-driven, support implementation of national biodiversity strategy and action plan, and avoid creating additional financial burden for developing countries. Egypt remains committed to working constructively toward a practical, coherent, and effective biodiversity finance architecture. We will submit our detailed text proposal in writing.

Thank you very much, Egypt. I'll now give the floor to Colombia, followed by India and Ghana. Thank you very much. Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Colombia believes that effective implementation of the framework requires strengthening financial architecture at international level in full consistency with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Within this context, we need to ensure new resources, additional and predictable and sufficient resources, accessible for the parties, in particular developing countries, according to their own national needs and priorities. In addition, we reiterate that resource mobilization from all sources should complement and not replace the obligation of parties which are developed countries. Any evolution in financial architecture needs to be fully maintained in alignment with the provisions of the Convention, preserving the voluntary nature of contributions under these obligations. Colombia believes it's also important for the process set out in Resolution 1624 to maintain open all institutional options for the future financial mechanism. Finally, we highlight the importance of strengthening professionalism through greater role played by national implementing agencies, the full and effective participation of local authorities and indigenous peoples, local communities, and Afro-descendants. Within this context, Colombia highlights the importance of Target 18, and we support the evolution both of incentives, such as positive incentives to strengthen implementation of the framework. On the financial mechanism, Colombia believes that the results of the first global review should guide future priorities of programming and allocation of resources. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Colombia. I will give the floor to India, followed by Ghana and Saudi Arabia. India, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. India welcomes the document prepared by the Secretariat on resource mobilization, including the review of the implementation of resource mobilization stage development of the criteria and analysis of impediment of global biodiversity finance. India considers resource mobilization to be the cornerstone for the effective implementation of the Convention and the KMGVF and remain concerned that the current level of international financial resources is far from sufficient to meet the needs of developing countries for implementation of the framework. India recalls Decision 16/34, 2 complementary mandates establishing permanent financial mechanism arrangement under Article 21 and improving finance mobilization from all sources. We reiterate that the permanent financial mechanism envisaged under Article 21 should function under the authority and guidance of the COP and also be fully accountable to it. India emphasized that efforts to align financial flows and reform or repurpose incentives should fully recognize national circumstances and developmental priorities. These reforms should therefore be undertaken in a phased, nationally determined, and evidence-based manner. India notes the references to illicit financial flows and related macroeconomic issues. Given the complexity and cross-sectoral implications of these issues, India believes that the Secretariat should prepare a comprehensive technical assessment for consideration by parties before further policy recommendations are developed. India remains committed to working constructively with all the parties towards establishing a robust, equitable, transparent, and accountable financial mechanism that enables the full and effective implementation of the Convention and the Kunming-Montréal Global Vaidhavi framework. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, India. I will now invite Ghana, followed by Saudi Arabia and the United Republic of Tanzania. And you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Supporting the statement made by Zimbabwe on behalf of Africa, Ghana welcomes the document SBI 7/7/3 and calls on parties to further shape the document as a practical and resource-oriented resource mobilization package for the adoption at COP17 that will provide a clear pathway accelerating implementation while addressing key implementation barriers. In this regard, Ghana would support the following recommendations. In line with Target 19, developed parties should deliver on the commitment to mobilize $30 billion annually by 2030 in the context of declining financing and increasing debt stress and fiscal constraints, especially for developing countries, noting that ODA declined by 23% in 2025, and that only approximately $17.7 billion was mobilized in biodiversity finance between 2020 and 2023. Chair, effective resource mobilization not only requires mobilizing additional funding, but addressing structural barriers that prevent equitable access. We call for improvement of the quality, predictability, accessibility, transparency, and accountability of biodiversity finance through simplified access and reliable, transparent monitoring systems. We also call for strengthening biodiversity-climate finance synergies to improve efficiency and effectiveness of existing financing implementation while avoiding double counting. We call for advancement on discussions on the institutional structure of the financing mechanism consistent with the principles of the Convention. Finally, we call for aligning financing with biodiversity objectives. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Ghana. I will now give the floor to Saudi Arabia, followed by United Republic of Tanzania and Indonesia. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor. Saudi Arabia, just a moment. I think that the interpretation is not working. I don't know why. Please, I will ask you to start from the beginning. Let's see if it works now. Please give full 2 minutes to Saudi Arabia because the interpretation was not working.

Thank you, Chair.

Saudi Arabia would like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of these documents relating to resource mobilization and the financial mechanism. The latter should be based on the principles of that agreed upon, including shared differentiated responsibilities in line with point 20 of the agreement and the Main role of this financing mechanism. Saudi Arabia would like discussions to focus on the effectiveness of the use of these resources, access to financial resources, while avoiding any duplication on new forms of financing. Saudi Arabia insists upon upon the need to keep these as optional elements in line with economic policies and national circumstances of each country. In conclusion, we should establish safeguards for this mechanism in line with domestic legislation, giving priority to capacity building, technology transfer, in order to achieve the goals of the Convention. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia. I'll now give the floor to United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia, followed by Nigeria. Tanzania, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The United Republic of Tanzania aligns itself with the statement delivered by the African Group, Zimbabwe. While progress has been made, the biodiversity financing gap remain significant. The United Republic of Tanzania emphasized that achieving the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework requires new, additional, predictable, adequate, and accessible financial resources, along with financial mechanisms that effectively respond to the needs and priorities of developing countries. Chair, our priority is to ensure that Biodiversity finance reaches implementation on the ground. This requires simplified and more efficient access to funding, strengthened national institutional and technical capacity, enhanced support for project preparation, and greater investment in the implementation of the national biodiversity strategies and action plan, biodiversity finance plan monitoring system, and national We also encourage strong collaboration between the CBD and the Global Environment Facility, including other emerging biodiversity funds, to improve efficiency, transparency, and measurable biodiversity outcomes. In addition, innovative financing approaches and private sector engagement should be promoted as complementary source of finance, while public finance remain the cornerstone of biodiversity implementation. Chair, United Republic of Tanzania remains committed to working constructively toward an effective, equitable, and country-responsive global biodiversity finance architecture that enables all parties to deliver on the objective of the Convention and the coming Montreal global biodiversity framework. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Tanzania. Colleagues, I will be closing the floor for parties' intervention in some minutes, so if you wish to take the floor, please ask for it now. I will now give the floor to Indonesia, followed by Nigeria and China. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia supports the statement of South Africa on behalf of the LMMCs. Indonesia also appreciates the continued efforts of developed country parties and other contributors to increase the biodiversity finance. While these developments are encouraging, the current scale of finance resource remains insufficient to meet the ambition of the KMGBF. In this regard, developed country parties should continue to fulfill their commitments. Under the Convention by providing new, additional, adequate, predictable, sustainable, and accessible timely financial resource to developing countries. Indonesia may support discussion on the operationalization of Article 20 provided that such efforts fully preserve the primary obligation of the developed country parties under the Convention. Voluntary contribution by other parties should not create new obligation nor alter the differentiation established under the convention or undermine the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Such contributions should complement, not substitute for, the fulfillment of existing commitments and efforts to support the implementation of KMGBF. Indonesia further emphasized that domestic resource mobilization, private sector engagement, and innovative financing are important complementary source of finance. However, this approach should remain nationally determined, respect national circumstances and sovereignty, and be accompanied by robust safeguards, transparency, and accountability. We also encourage simplified access to biodiversity finance, stronger country ownership, enhanced direct access for developing countries, and greater attention to technology access and transfer, capacity building, and scientific cooperation as essential means of implementation. Finally, Indonesia supports strengthening synergies between biodiversity and climate finance while respecting the distinct mandates of the relevant multilateral environmental agreements. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Indonesia. I'll now give the floor to Nigeria, followed by China and Chile. Nigeria, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Nigeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Zimbabwe on behalf of the Africa Nigeria underscores the importance of faithfully implementing the roadmap agreed at COP16. In this regard, we caution against introducing any new or additional criteria for the permanent institutional structure of the financial mechanism beyond what was agreed in Decision 16/34. Our focus at COP17 should remain on further developing the agreed criteria, not reopening for expanding the negotiated mandate. Nigeria believes that the resource mobilization decision to be adopted at COP17 provides the appropriate vehicle to advance implementation of Decision 16/34, particularly paragraph 26. We therefore support strengthening the draft SBI recommendation and will submit our textual proposal in writing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Nigeria. I will give the floor to China, followed by Chile and Guatemala. China, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. China thanks the Secretariat for the documentation and wants to make 3 comments. First, on the standards for operating entities of the financial mechanism, we believe that we should focus on effectiveness First of all, we should respect recipient countries' ownership priorities and make sure that it aligns with NPCEP in an accurate way. Second, the design of the system should be fair and should have accountability.

We should avoid unnecessary administrative and transactional costs on recipient countries.

Second, China agrees that the principle with the key barriers identified by the Secretary— many developing countries face difficulties in accessing, securing, implementing the international funds.

Greater attention should be given to asymmetries and also higher thresholds.

Third, on the review of the contributor countries, China believes that developed countries' status should be determined by multiple factors including per capita, historical responsibility, et cetera.

It should not be used in a simplistic way. Secondly, Any revision should be normally formally considered approved by COP without affecting legitimate— the legitimate access of developing countries to financial support. In addition, China stressed that broadening the contributor base must not weaken the core funding obligations of developed countries under Article 20 of the Convention. Such measures should complement, not replace, the existing financial mechanism. Their purpose is to expand the total funding and not to shift or dilute responsibilities of developed countries.

I thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, China. I will give the floor to Chile, followed by Guatemala and Bangladesh. Chile, you have the floor.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Chair. Chile aligns itself with the statement made by Brazil on behalf of GRULAC and welcomes it. For Chile, resource mobilization is essential to overcome the deficiencies of implementation identified in the Global Review. Chile reiterates its commitments to Target 19 and Target 18 and Target 14. We recall that mobilization from all sources needs to be fully in line with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, in particular in a context of reduction in official development assistance and increasing fiscal pressures and debt pressures on developing countries. Chile takes note of the analysis of the obstacles to the effectiveness of global financing for biodiversity and agrees that strengthening Target 14 and the role of NBSAPs is fundamental to improve effectiveness. In this regard, Chile highlights its experience with innovative financial instruments and the growing role of ministries of finances in aligning fiscal policies with biodiversity goals in collaboration with various stakeholders. Chile also recalls that although biodiversity and climate action generate mutual benefits, financing for biodiversity and climate financing need to continue to remain distinct, and we need to avoid double counting. Finally, Chile hopes to take part in a constructive manner during the review of the draft recommendation. Thank you very much, Chair.

Gracias, Chile. I would like now to invite Guatemala and Bangladesh, followed by Bahrain, but I would also like to announce that I'm closing the floor for parties' interventions. Guatemala, you have the floor.

Gracias, señora Presidenta.

Thank you, Chair. Guatemala supports the statements made by Brazil on behalf of CRULAC and South Africa on behalf of the like-minded megadiverse countries. My country would like to highlight in the statement the role of the EBFF, recognizing and thanking them for the progress made in its authorization, and we understand the limitations it's faced in terms of capital and availability of resources. In addition, we congratulate countries who have projects approved in order to move forwards in the implementation of the framework. Chair, my delegation would like to highlight the fact that various countries in my region, megadiverse countries, and many countries in many other parts of the world have not received support from the GBFF, despite the fact that my country has submitted project proposals in the various calls. The accumulated experience within these calls shows that there are considerable differences in capacities between parties and in between the various implementing agencies in countries. Guatemala expresses its profound concern for the fact that if access to resources continues to exclusively depend on highly competitive processes, a significant part of developing countries might be left without direct support from the GBFF before 2030. Chair, we would like to recall that the creation of the GBFF responded to a mandate adopted by COP15, which requested a financial mechanism which is simple, effective, and with effective and easy access to ensure implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework for all eligible parties. Therefore, Guatemala proposes that the SBI recommends to the COP taking note of this situation and urges the financial mechanism to consider measures which encourage— and the mic was cut off. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Guatemala. I'll give the floor to Bangladesh, followed by Bahrain and Botswana. Bangladesh, you have the

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bangladesh appreciates the Secretary's analysis on document CBD/SBI/7/3 and supports the proposed inclusion of additional criteria reflected in the Convention. These criteria are essential to ensure that the future financial mechanism remains consistent with Article 20 and Article 21. And respond effectively to the needs and priorities of developing country parties. Bangladesh particularly supports the explicit inclusion of new additional predictable, adequate, and timely financial resources. This represents existing commitments under the Convention and are necessary for implementing the KMGBF, including updated NBSEP, national monitoring systems, and reporting obligations. Bangladesh supports mobilization— mobilizing resources from all sources and broadening the contributor base. However, these must complement, not substitute for, the obligations of developed countries parties under Article 20 and must not dilute their primary responsibility to provide financial resources to developing countries. Regarding Criteria C, Bangladesh supports retaining an explicit reference to the full and effective participation of indigenous people and local communities. The term inclusive alone may not adequately recognize their distinct rights, knowledge, roles, and contributions.

Explicit recognition would promote meaningful participation in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of supported programs.

Bangladesh therefore supports the proposed criteria and looks forward to their adoption in COP17. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Bangladesh. I will give the floor to Bahrain, followed by Botswana and the Russian Federation. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, Bahrain. I think that we still have some technical problems with the interpretation. I would like to see if we can solve this, and please give full 2 minutes to Bahrain. Yes, if you may.

Let's see. شكراً السيدة الرئيسة. نشكر الأمانة على.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Again, I'd like to thank the Secretariat for having prepared this document, and I'd like to share a few constructive comments regarding recommendations proposed therein. In assessing the efforts aimed at filling the financing gaps, we must comply with point 20 of the agreement. Any contributions for developing states should remain optional— or by developing states should remain optional. We should use different sets of criteria to grant greater responsibility to developing states, but this is not part of common and shared responsibilities. International solidarity is very important, but it should be optional and non-binding and certainly not coercive. We also back the mobilization of resources for the good of least developed states and island states, given the fragility of the situation they find themselves in. And they should not have to follow the criterion— development criterion, economic development criterion— which could undermine the equitable distribution of these resources to developing states. Further elements will be sent in writing. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Bahrain. I give the floor to Botswana, followed by the Russian Federation and then Gabon. Botswana, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity.

Botswana aligns itself with the statement made by Zimbabwe. on behalf of the Africa Group. We welcome the deliberations on the revised resource mobilization strategy. However, we must express concern regarding the findings of the global review, which indicate that financial flows to developing countries are lagging significantly behind the agreed targets. For economies like Botswana, where biodiversity underpins the tourism and wildlife economy, The gap between commitments and disbursements is not an abstract number. It represents tangible risks to conservation management, anti-poaching efforts, and community livelihoods. Botswana and the United Nations Development Programme, through the Biofin Project, secured limited funding from the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, GBFF, for the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the Botswana financial sector. We call upon all parties to support the Secretariat as it continues to explore new avenues to mobilize resources to replenish the GBFF.

I thank you. Thank you very much, Botswana. I will now give the floor to the Russian Federation, followed by Gabon and South Africa. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you so much.

A number of other countries. We support work done to define criteria for the institutional structure of the financial instrument of the Convention and to assess existing financial institutions in terms of compliance with those criteria. Before approving the criteria for the institutional structure for a permanent financial mechanism for the CBD, they must be thoroughly discussed. There are many questions regarding the proposed document, including on Annex 1 and Document 3, Addendum 3, which is unclear as it stands. Now, we believe that we should be able to carry out this work during our meeting. We should present such a list in a single annex. Any actions taken by the Secretariat prior to COP18 must be submitted to the SBI for preliminary discussion. And in this respect, the Secretariat should carry out the actions specified in paragraphs 4 and 7 using funds from the core budget, as this forms the very basis for further work. Specific amendments to the text of the recommendations will be submitted to the Secretariat in writing. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Russian Federation. I will call upon parties to be very focused and really try to deliver only key messages so that we can finish the list of parties' intervention today. So I'm giving now the floor to Gabon, followed by South Africa and Armenia. Gabon, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Gabon wishes to associate itself with the statement made by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group. Gabon shares the concerns expressed by Africa as it comes to the continuing gap between the financing needs for biodiversity and the resources effectively mobilized to date. We're especially concerned by the decrease in international financing devoted to biodiversity, as well as a decrease of resources available within the framework of the Convention's financial mechanism at a time when the parties had been called upon to increase and improve, to step up their implementation of the biodiversity framework. We therefore back Africa's position according to which developing states pursuant to Article 20 of the Convention must fully comply with their obligations. Mobilized resources must be new. There must be additional resources. They must be predictable. They must be adequate and accessible to developing states. We also back the proposals aimed at bolstering direct access to financing through national institutions and to preserve the eligibility of all developing states in terms of access to the financing mechanism. At a national level, Gabon continues significant efforts to mobilize resources for biodiversity. These efforts are reflected by the updating of the National Strategy and Plan of Action for Biodiversity, the development of strategic partnerships with donors and other private stakeholders, the promotion of innovative financing mechanisms for nature, and the implementation of projects backed by the GEF and other partnerships at an international level. Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, Gabon. Thank you very much. I'll now give the floor to South Africa, followed by Armenia and Argentina. South Africa, you have the You have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group. South Africa emphasizes that under Article 20 of the Convention, developed country parties have the primary responsibility to provide new, additional, and predictable financial resources, while parties agreed to mobilize at least $20 billion annually by 2030, including $30 billion per year in international financial flows, progress under Target 19 remains far below what is required. Current trends therefore point to a serious risk of missing the 2030 financial target. South Africa welcomes the report on the review of the resource mobilization strategy, which reflects a positive overall trend. However, the available data show that biodiversity-specific international flows remain well below the agreed target. Even more concerning, the review's project declining levels of official development assistance in 2024 and 2025, creating uncertainty around the financing outlook for the KMGBF. South Africa stresses the urgent need to mobilize financial resources for the implementation of the Convention, its Protocol, and the KMGBF. Innovative financial solutions should be encouraged, but they must not shift responsibility onto member states particularly developing countries. For example, blended finance often faces high transaction costs and tension between commercial profit motives and ecological conservation objectives, although it can be used as public or philanthropic—

Thank you very much, South Africa. I will now give the floor to Armenia. Thank you. The next speaker is Armenia, followed by Argentina and Dominican Republic. Armenia, you have the floor.

I thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, we would like to thank the Secretariat of the Convention for preparing the draft recommendations and supporting information and analytical materials to facilitate discussions by the parties. The draft recommendations represent a good basis for negotiations. To ensure progress on both tracks we had agreed in Rome. We look forward to negotiations on further development of criteria for the institutional structure, development of a list of impediments to the effectiveness of the global biodiversity finance, review of the strategy on resource mobilization, and broadening contributors' base, as well as other important items. The Decision 1634 outlines roadmaps for advancing on these topics, and it should serve as a reference point for discussions to bridge divergent views and achieve progress in addressing biodiversity finance gap. SBI 7 is a critical milestone in the run-up to COP17, and the success of the COP will largely depend on how far we will progress in the negotiations here in Nairobi. Armenia pledges full support to you, Madam Chair, and the co-chairs of the Contact Group in facilitating discussions.

I thank you.

Thank you very much, Armenia. I will now give the floor to Argentina, followed by the Dominican Republic and Kenya. Argentina, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We align ourselves with the statement made by Kulak. In this context, I would like to make a few additional points. We would like to emphasize that resource mobilization is not just financial instruments and requires a solution which considers the specific circumstances of each country. We have to consider, amongst other things, Article 20 of the Convention, instruments in general, forms in which biodiversity are integrated into national planning of each state need to consider different economic, fiscal, budgetary, and national production circumstances and the diversity of debt structures of the countries. Any reference to the integration of considerations of biodiversity in debt strategies need to be voluntary, on the request of parties, and in line with their economic and fiscal frameworks. It's essential for financial instruments to respect national priorities and not impose new conditionalities. Finally, we believe a priority is strengthening public financing, capacity building, and technical assistance. Contributions from other sources can be complementary but should not replace the obligations of developed countries to provide new and additional financial resources in line with Article 20. We will present some proposals for edits to the text in writing. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Chair. My delegation would like to support that expression expressed by Guatemala and by Brazil on behalf of GRULAC. With regards to the needs for financial resource mobilization, we believe it's essential for SBI to recommend to COP17, taking note of the needs of developing countries to have financial support which is accessible with low levels of bureaucracy in order to implement projects, and initiatives which will be part of the implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework and the national strategies. In addition, we need to facilitate attention paid to these requests, which shows the interests and priorities of developing countries. Thank you very much, Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kenya aligns with the statement delivered by the African Group and the statement by the like-minded mega-diverse countries. On the existing financial mechanism, Kenya is concerned that the level of replenishment between the GEF cycles 8 and 9 is reducing significantly and the progress of Target 19 on resource mobilization is not on track. On the impediments annex, Kenya calls for it to comprehensively reflect all barriers developing countries face in mobilizing biodiversity resources, including inadequate finance, prohibitive access procedures, insufficient technology transfer, and debt burdens. The annex must be practical, solution-oriented, a tool with clear timelines, benchmarks, and accountability mechanisms to guide financial entities like the GEF in simplifying procedures. On the broadening the contributor base, Kenya insists that this must not dilute developed countries' obligations under the Convention, upholding the common but differentiated responsibilities. Any expansion requires frameworks for additionality, safeguards against replacing the official development assistance, capacity building support, and enhanced transparency. Chair, Kenya remains committed to an ambitious, equitable resource mobilization framework aligned with the KMGBF. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Kenya. I would like now to give the floor to Yemen, followed by Panama and Canada. Yemen, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yemen welcomes the report and the draft mobilization. We would like to focus on the following. We will give priority to vulnerable countries, set up indicators on the benefit by the vulnerable groups and developing countries in the first review of the report. It is also important to equitably represent the developing countries and the vulnerable countries. It is important to link financing with the NBCEPs. My country thinks that reforming the financial mechanism should take into consideration the national implementation of the financed projects to better benefit from the financial resources by international organizations during the implementation of these projects in the vulnerable countries and the countries that are facing crises and conflicts. Thank you.

Yemen. I will now give the floor to Panama, followed by Canada and Namibia. Panama, you have the floor.

Gracias.

Thank you, Chair. Panama aligns itself with the statements made By Grulak, I would like to add a few elements. Panama believes it's important for criteria to access financing reflect not just level of income of a country, but also the value of its biodiversity and its climate vulnerability. This is taken mind in development of the criteria for the financial mechanism. We took into account indigenous peoples and local communities. Panama suggests that we have specific points in order to take into account indigenous knowledge and indigenous peoples in terms of their direct access to financial resources. We highlight the importance of having clear methodologies which enable us to clearly distinguish between financing aimed at biodiversity and that aimed at climate action, avoiding double counting Thank you very much, Chair, and we will reiterate our commitments to strengthening financial architecture for biodiversity, and we are ready to contribute within the discussions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Panama. I would like now to give the floor to Canada, followed by Namibia. Canada, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am making this statement on behalf of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom specifically on donor base expansion. We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations as developed country parties and to continuing our support for international biodiversity finance. At the same time, meeting the scale of global biodiversity financing needs will require a broader and more sustainable contributor base. As national circumstances and capabilities evolve, expectations to contribute should also evolve. If we continue relying on a contributor base that has remained unchanged for 2 decades, we risk rowing upstream. Maintaining a static understanding of contributors limits the resources available, disincentivizes ambition, and does not reflect the shared global effort needed to achieve the goals of the Convention and the KMGBF. Many of the parties considered developing countries at the time of the agreement of Article 20 have since undergone economic growth, while developed countries' share of gross national income has declined.

Decision 1634 calls on parties to explore opportunities to broaden the donor base, yet the current draft does not adequately reflect that mandate.

We thus propose using the World Bank country income classification as a proxy, as identified in SBI/7/3/add1 and SBI/7/inf/18, to better reflect the current global context. Accordingly, parties classified as high income under the classification should be used to review and amend the list of developed country parties and other parties that voluntarily assume the obligation of developed country parties, with the exclusion of small island developing states. We have proposed text to this effect and look forward to engaging constructively on this issue in contact groups. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Canada. I'll now give the floor to Namibia. Namibia, you have the floor. It's only 2 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Namibia aligns fully with the statement delivered by Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group and offers 2 points in further support of it. As we speak on Target 18, under the Strategy for Resource Mobilization for 2025 through 2030, $500 billion in harmful incentives were to be identified by 2025. That deadline has passed. This is the one finance stream requiring no donor decision, and reporting on it strengthens our group's mandate for external finance. We ask that our recommendation to COP17 address the identification and reform of harmful incentives.

Thank you.

alongside mobilization. Secondly, the resource requirements annexed to our recommendation must be realistic. Table 2 of CBD/SBI/7/15/ED1 places Targets 14, 15, 18, and 19 with a single unit, for which Table 3 proposes 1 P2 post and 1 personnel Service Assistant, the Voluntary Fund for Additional Activities has received $7.9 million against $28.7 million estimate. Chair, the Group's finance agenda cannot be delivered on those terms. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Namibia. As there is no more request from the from parties. I would like now to open the discussion for other governments and observers, beginning with IPOCs. You have 4 minutes. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, 3 minutes. IPOCs, IAFB, you have the floor, followed by youth and NGOs.

IPOCs.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I deliver this statement on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. We already uploaded our statement with our proposals, and we thank parties for support. In summary, here are a few points on important issues. The findings on the OECD DAC clearly show how how that only 8% of the international biodiversity financial flows to indigenous peoples and local communities. A huge portion is channeled through intermediaries who are not necessarily chosen by indigenous peoples and local communities. Out of that 8%, it is only 1.7% of the biodiversity finance goes directly to indigenous peoples and local communities. Which is not in accordance with demands for direct access to finance. On further development of the criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism, the notion of ensuring the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in item 9 is not adequately reflected in inclusive, and therefore full wording needs to be retained. Proposed criterion 14 and 19 need to be adequately reflected as additional criteria, particularly the notion of direct access to finance. Regarding the proposed criterion 15 on the existence of a grievance and redress mechanism, We need an independent grievance and redress mechanism that can receive and address complaints and concerns from indigenous peoples and local communities, groups, and individuals that may be adversely affected by the impacts of activities funded by the financial mechanism. On identification of impediments, we note the gaps on the safeguarding capacity, monitoring, and under-equity access and power asymmetries in biodiversity finance, noting that direct access, not only access through trusted intermediaries, should be guaranteed. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, IIFB. I now recognize youth, followed by NGOs. Youth, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Global Youth Biodiversity Network, which serves as the international coordination platform for youth participation in the CBD.

We have submitted specific text proposals for this agenda item, and we thank the parties who have expressed their support to these proposals.

We are taking the floor to briefly outline our general key priorities as youth for this agenda. Dear delegates, A recent Gibbon report covering more than 160 youth-led biodiversity initiatives across 57 countries found that our organizations face chronic financial insecurity and depend largely on small, short-term, and inflexible grants with high administrative burdens. Despite recognition of the roles of youth, indigenous peoples, local communities, and women in implementing the Convention and the Framework, work, as well as the barriers they face in access and means of implementation, equity-related impediments to biodiversity finance have not been assessed in depth. In particular, limited progress has been made in ensuring direct access to finance and meaningful participation in decision-making.

We therefore call on parties to ensure that the criteria for the financial mechanism promote socially and ecologically equitable local access to resources and inclusive governance.

The GEF review process should also include the assessment of support for locally led biodiversity action and inclusive governance. Under the GBFF, a dedicated funding window should be established for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and women and youth-led organizations with a strong focus on piloting direct access modalities.

Finally, While reviewing the resource mobilization strategy, private and so-called innovative finance should not be treated as inherently scalable solutions, given the evidence on socio-ecological conflicts arising from several case studies.

Greater attention, on the other hand, should be given to international financial commitments and debt sustainability in a way to address the disproportional implementation burdens facing by developing countries.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, youth. I will now give the floor to NGOs. NGOs, you have the floor. Thank you, Chair.

I'm from the Third World Network, a member of the CBD Alliance. At the heart of the resource mobilization discussions is the question of equity. Developing countries hold most of the world's biodiversity and bear the greatest burden of implementation. Article 20 is clear: there are common but differentiated responsibilities, with obligations on developed countries to provide financial resources to developing countries. As developed countries bear greater responsibility for ecological breakdown, there is an ecological debt owed to developing countries and the indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth who steward biodiversity. The criteria The criteria for the institutional structure to operate the financial mechanism, which must be under the authority of the COP, must be rooted in equity. Any consideration of the contributor base must not negate the obligations of developed countries. There must be a distinction between resources provided through this route from resources mobilized from all other sources. Those who protect biodiversity, indigenous peoples, local communities, women and youth, and their representative institutions should be able to receive funding directly. The inequities perpetuated by the international economic and financial system must be reversed. Firstly, funds disbursed from the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism should be as grants and non-debt-creating. Secondly, improving the effectiveness of global biodiversity finance must include sovereign debt relief. In developing countries so that resources can be channeled to biodiversity and development needs rather than servicing debt, while ensuring, ensuring that debt servicing doesn't result in increased biodiversity extractivism. Developing countries, of course, face inequitable higher borrowing costs. Current global tax rules are deeply unjust. Developing countries cannot adequately tax profits generated in their economies due to unfair allocation of taxing rights and lost revenue due to tax abuses. We urge cooperation and collaboration with negotiations at the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation in this regard. Chair, it is clear that there is an equity or justice gap in the resource mobilization agenda. This needs to be closed. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Enidio. I see no more requests for the floor, and with this, we have concluded our consideration for item 4A. I've seen lots of common ground, but also, as you know, I've seen some issues that deserve further consideration, so I would I would like to convey a contact group for this item also. And the contact group will be chaired by— look, just a moment, please.

OK.

Yes, the contact group will be chaired by Lucretia from Switzerland and Francis Ogwal from Uganda. The time and venue of the contact group will be informed. Please pay attention to our schedule. And I would like now to ask the Secretariat to outline the mandate We will now update for the contact group that we have just convened. Thank you very much. Secretariat, you have the floor. Please, microphone to the Secretariat.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The mandate of the Contact Group is as follows. The Contact Group will be tasked to work on a non-paper providing a draft recommendation, including elements of a draft decision for consideration by COP17, reflecting views heard today in balanced manner and to find agreement thereon. In line with the mandate given to the subsidiary body in paragraph 24 of Decision 1634, the group will specifically work on the following tasks: first, the further development of the criteria for the institutional structure operating the financial mechanism; second, the identification of impediments for the effectiveness of global biodiversity finance; and third, discuss opportunities for broadening the contributor base and how to advance in reviewing and amending the list set up in accordance with Article 20/2 of the Convention. The Contact Group should also agree on the next steps to be taken towards COP18, in line with the roadmaps established by Decision 1634. And finally, the Contact Group is kindly asked to refrain from reopening agreed text in Decision 1634. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Secretariat. I wish to remind you that Contact Groups are open to participation parties, other governments, and observers, unless otherwise decided by the co-chairs. I propose that we reconvene this meeting tomorrow at 10:00, and I thank you very much for this very interesting discussions today. I wish— I wish that we'll resume in the same spirit.

Thank you.

And I would like to ask the Secretariat to make some announcements. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you very much. No major announcements, only that the first contact group on PMRR will meet at 7:30 PM today in Conference Room 3 and 4, which is just behind this room.

Apart from that, in a lighter mode, we apologize for the delay in our flights.

We will try to make up tomorrow as much as we can if there are fewer headwinds, and we count on your cooperation and support and understanding and wish you a very nice enjoyment of the side events which are starting as well as the contact group, and see you tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.