(2nd Meeting) Committee on Science and Technology - UNCCD COP17

Excellentias distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, declare inaugurated the second meeting of the 17th period of sessions of the Committee of Science and Technology. I invite the committee to proceed to the consideration of the third three A titled. interconnection between science, policies and knowledge dissemination, knowledge dissemination, technology transfer and innovation. I invite Ms. Olga Andrellera, Secretary of the Committee on Science and Technology, to present this topic to us.

Thank you. It is an honor for me to present to you the ICCD/COP17/CST/3 document entitled compartiendo los conocimientos, eh, transferencias de technologies and innovation, which corresponds to the project section two, which is in document CST eight. The document informs us about the application of decision eighteen bar COP sixteen, which summarizes the work carried out in the biennium two thousand twenty five twenty six to facilitate access to data, to knowledge and technologies, strengthen the transfer of technology and innovation, ampliar la colaboración científica y el acceso a las prácticas sostenibles de gestión de las tierras. En primer lugar, la Secretaría del Mecanismo Mundial seguirá manteniendo la disposición las herramientas para difundir conocimientos por medio de el sitio web de la UNCCD. Esto incluye la herramienta sobre sequía y su comunidad de aprendizaje y práctica, la caja de herramientas de arenas de tormentas de arena y de polvo, la caja de herramientas sobre tenencia de la tierra y el dashboard de datos de la UNCCD sobre restauración global de la tierra en el conjunto de información al respecto. Junto a estas herramientas brindan apoyo al acceso a los datos, asesoría práctica, intercambios entre pares, recursos de formación y ejemplos pertinentes para una gestión sostenible de la tierra, restauración de esta y resiliencia ante las sequías, la transferencia sobre transferencia de innovation. The document recalls the framework model developed by the mechanism. The world deals with both the movement of promising technologies from research to practical application and the dissemination of mature technologies on good practices between countries. The document presents concrete examples. First, the feasibility study on carbon sequestration in Central Asia, conducted by IASA with the UNFCCC and regional partners, examines whether land management practices that improve soil and carbon biomass could also support sustainable land management, restoration, land degradation neutrality, and resilience to drought.

Identifying where such approaches are feasible and under what conditions they can deliver sound land management outcomes. The second example addresses monitoring gaps in hyper-arid environments. An international expert process involving 60 experts from more than 20 countries examined limitations in applying land productivity dynamics and soil organic carbon indicators under very low vegetation and carbon conditions. The resulting work identifies priorities, including refinement of the remote sensing methods and thresholds, stronger field observations, higher resolution data, alternative proxies, and hybrid approaches using emerging analytical tools, together with capacity building and scientific cooperation. The third example is the handbook on land degradation neutrality assessment in Central Asia, regional experience and practical approaches. Building on the global LDN framework, it translates existing guidance into practical tools adapted to the region's high climatic variability, complex rangeland interrogated systems, salinization, and data constraints. The handbook promotes dynamic time series analysis, multilevel indicators, and the combined use of remote sensing, field observations, national data, and local knowledge to distinguish temporary fluctuation from persistent degradation and the proof diagnostic or otherwise poorly detected processes. Importantly, it links assessment to decision making by helping identify degradation hotspots and differentiated responses in line with the LDN hierarchy of avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation. A further major area addressed in this document is continued collaboration with the world overview of conservation approaches and technologies. Its global SLM database now documents more than 2,500 technologies and approaches from around 139 countries. Since COP16, joint work has strengthened linkages between this knowledge base and UNCCD reporting and knowledge tools, including PRIS4, the DRUT and SANDA Storm toolboxes, and the Knowledge Hub. WACAD has also supported parties through the ECLDM decision support system, regional training and guidance, while further work has advanced aridity responsive and gender responsive SLM documentation and improved connections with other restoration platforms. Taken together, these activities demonstrate the practical and demand driving approach to knowledge sharing, technology transfer and scientific cooperation. respond international and regional circumstances while remaining coherent with globally agreed to NCCD approaches. The committee may wish to take the note of progress made in the implementation decision 18 slash cop 16 encourage continued development of practical knowledge products and collaboration with relevant scientific and technical partners and encourage parties and other stakeholders to continue contributing to government SLM practices including The committee is invited to consider the information contained in the document CST/3 and the corresponding draft decision contained in the document CST/8. Thank you, Chair.

I thank Ms. Andreeva. I now open the floor for questions and comments to the UNCCD Secretariat. Participants wishing to take the floor are requested to press the microphone button now. I ask delegations to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. I thank you for your kind cooperation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Grenada.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Grenada thanks the Committee on Science and Technology and supporting bodies for their work in developing tools for knowledge sharing and technology transfer and welcomes the continued efforts being undertaken in this area. We recognize the significant potential of digitalization and artificial intelligence to facilitate knowledge sharing and technology transfer. thereby accelerating sustainable land management, preventing and reversing land and soil degradation, combating desertification, and enhancing drought resilience. At the same time, we note that digitalization and artificial intelligence may inadvertently deepen existing inequalities where parties face limited connectivity, insufficient data availability, inadequate digital infrastructure, constrained technical capacity or limited access to affordable technologies. Such challenges may hinder the ability of some parties to fully leverage and apply these technologies in support of environmental sustainability. We therefore urge the Secretariat to remain mindful of the risk of an expanding digital divide and to ensure that efforts in this area contribute to greater inclusion and equitable access. Grenada further highlights the special circumstances of small island developing states. In addition to their unique geographic and capacity constraints, many SIDS continue to face challenges related to data governance, digital infrastructure and the development of enabling frameworks for the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Addressing these challenges requires strengthening data ecosystems and data governance arrangements that support the effective adoption of artificial intelligence and digitalization. In this regard, we urge, we encourage the Secretariat within its mandate and available resources to support capacity building efforts aimed at enhancing understanding of the linkages among AI, artificial intelligence, data and digital transformation. We also emphasize the importance of promoting technologies that are affordable, accessible, maintainable and adaptable to local contexts, including open source and low bandwidth solutions where appropriate. Finally, we underscore the importance of safeguarding data sovereignty, ensuring transparency and accountability, upholding ethical standards, and maintaining meaningful human oversight in the application of artificial intelligence and digital technologies. Grenada reaffirms that technological progress should ultimately serve all people and the planet and in the context of our convention contribute to sustainable land management restoration of degraded lands and enhance drought resilience. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Grenada. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Brazil supports the draft decision on knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation. As stressed in our previous statements, knowledge sharing and technology transfer processes should be guided by the needs, priorities and national circumstances of developing countries. in accordance with Article 18 of the Convention. Effective implementation requires approaches that respond to locally identified challenges and contribute to sustainable and long-term capacity development. Brazil would also suggest members to incorporate the concept of social technologies into the text of the draft decision. It is our belief that social technologies community-based innovations and locally adept solutions play an important role in sustainable natural resource management, land restoration and drought resilience. Our national experience demonstrates that low-cost, replicable solutions developed through participatory processes can significantly enhance the reach and impact of actions under the Convention. Recognizing and valuing these approaches strengthens local ownership and contributes to the effectiveness and sustainability of policies and interventions. Regarding digitalization and artificial intelligence, Brazil acknowledges the significant potential of these tools to expand access to data, information, and good practices. However, it is our view that their use should complement rather than replace locally generated knowledge and national monitoring systems. In this context, we support language encouraging the combination of remote sensing with field verification, national databases, traditional knowledge, and the contextualized interpretation of global methodologies. Such an integrated approach is essential to ensure accuracy, relevance, and national ownership. Brazil further recognizes the importance of national public platforms that facilitate access to data, information, and knowledge related to desertification, land degradation, and drought. These platforms, such as Brazil's strategic system on desertification and drought, and the Katinga and Desertification Observatory contribute to transparency, informed decision making, scientific cooperation, and capacity building at the national, regional, and global levels. Mr. Chair, the impacts of land degradation and desertification tend to affect vulnerable groups and communities differently. Aggregated data can obscure these differentiated impacts. Therefore, we believe it is important that the production and analysis of disaggregated data consider not only gender, but also race, ethnicity, and territory. Incorporating these dimensions can help identify differentiated impacts and vulnerabilities, strengthen the scientific basis for decision making, and support more effective and territorially targeted policies and actions. Finally, Brazil supports provisions aimed at strengthening international cooperation on knowledge and technology transfer for developing countries. We underscore the importance of enhanced capacity building, access to financial resources and the sharing of technical expertise. Innovation under the UNCCD should provide inclusive, accessible and nationally adaptive solutions that effectively respond to the realities and needs of developing countries. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Secretariat. Dear delegates, we thank the CST for the amount of work regarding knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation. We recommend that the Convention should promote a technology transfer model that combines data product, online tools, technical training and localized applications, leveraging regional centers and international cooperation platforms. Efforts should be made to facilitate the sharing and application of remote sensing data, methodologies, case studies and China's experience. Technology transfer should go beyond the delivery of equipment or software. Methodological guidelines, data interface, governance practices and continuous service should also be part of it. Pilot projects of combination of high resolution remote sensing, ground validation and machine learning should be conducted in priority regions, utilizing long-term time series and dynamic baselines to improve the applicability of global indicators across diverse conditions, particularly Emphasis should be placed on data integration, model-based analysis, knowledge management, science communication, and capacity building. It's also necessary to maintain regular communication with national coordination center and science technology liaisons and ensure data governance, quality control, scientific independence, and long-term funding mechanisms. I thank you.

Thank the distinguished representative of China. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mongolia.

Thank you, Chair. Mongolia welcomes the progress made on knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation. Knowledge must be accessible not only for scientists, government institutions, but to the whole of the society, including local authorities, herders, women and youth. It should be available in understandable formats and local language translated into practical guidance that people can apply. Those continuous support and expansion of knowledge sharing tool is needed. Mongolia values its longstanding cooperation with Wocat and Mongolian scientific institutions. This partnership contributed to Mongolia's first national desertification atlas, decision support tool, and recently selected publication of the sustainable land management that's applicable for rangelands. These publications will bring together field-tested practice and knowledge of heritage researchers and practitioners. We encourage partners to expand the WACAD knowledge base and support training, peer learning and South-South cooperation. In variable range systems, remote sensing must be complemented by field monitoring, national data and pastoralists or local land use knowledge. Mongolia supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence guided by transparency, human oversight, data protection and respect for traditional knowledge. has value only when it's shared, understood and used. Mongolia calls the adequate resources to ensure that proven solutions reach the communities responsible for managing and restoring our land. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mongolia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria.

Thank you, Chairman. The Algerian delegation welcomes the headway made when it comes to knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation. We believe that knowledge sharing must go above and beyond simply disseminating data and information. It must make it possible to transform scientific knowledge and experience on the ground into specific solutions which are adapted to the environmental, economic and social conditions of each country. In that respect, we attach major importance to the role played by WOCAT and mechanisms which make it possible to document, validate and disseminate good practices when it comes to sustainable land management. We also believe that technology transfer must go hand in hand with genuine transfer of know-how and capacities. Technology can only be adopted sustainably if it is adapted to the local context, tested on the ground and where stakeholders who must implement it must take ownership of it. We would also like to highlight the importance of knowledge transfer and technology transfer amongst countries who face similar conditions of aridity and drought. South-South and regional cooperation can play an important role in that respect. given that several countries have experiences, practices and solutions which can be adopted and replicated in other countries. Digital transition provides new opportunities, remote sensing, geographical information systems, data platforms and when relevant artificial intelligence can contribute to enhancing follow-up of land degradation, the restoration of ecosystems and the management of risks linked to drought. However, we believe that these tools must remain at the service of the needs of various territories and users. Technology must facilitate decision and action and must not become a means in and of itself. We therefore encourage strengthening mechanisms, enabling documentation of national experiences, sharing of good practices, supporting scientific networks at the regional level and facilitating transfer and adaptation of technologies. Lastly, we feel that innovation must be viewed in a broad sense by involving scientific, technological, institutional and local innovation, as well as knowledge and experiences of communities who live and work directly on the land. Our goal must be to build up a genuine chain of knowledge, produce this knowledge, document it, share it, adapt it, transfer it, and lastly, assess the results on the ground. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Oh yeah, now it works. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are we speaking in Russian? We very much support the efforts of the Secretariat towards maintaining rate and volume of work when it comes to knowledge sharing and raising countries' capacities, even though as far as we know, the special officer that was previously responsible for that position in the secretariat hasn't worked since the holding of the 16th COP in Riyadh. Nevertheless, we do think that a significant amount of work has been carried out, effective work, particularly aimed at expanding support to certain countries and regions, application of mechanisms and methods developed as part of activities under the CCD and associated institutions. Nonetheless, we do think that work here should be even more targeted and stepped up. We propose including in the decisions under consideration that we're currently discussing two further points. First of all, concerning the fact that we would consider and propose by the next COP a series of methods acceptable for enhancing capacities and knowledge sharing so that they are tailored or adapted and can be applicable to different countries and regions because it's clear that in different countries that have different cultures and traditions that have different educational traditions, methods used in capacity building and knowledge sharing, they must be adapted to those specific country specificities and regional specificities. The second point that we propose including, which has already been tested within the activities of the interregional group of the Central Asia countries and Russia, is that of creating international and interregional best practice centers or centers of excellence. so that those centers of excellence should not just be located in specific places but so that they can have distributed functions dependent on experience and orientation of given countries and their institutions for example if there's a country that's good at addressing drought in that regional center then it would hold a leading place in that field let's say another country's pretty good at or affect… works when it comes to rangelands, then it would be responsible for that. That we distribute those centers, they could be organized online and that would be a more effective way of tackling things. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union.

Thank you, Chair, distinguished delegates and representatives. The EU and its 27 member states reiterate their support for facilitating access to technologies that respond to practical needs of the local population. We welcome the progress made in strengthening the UNCCD knowledge architecture to enhance knowledge sharing, scientific collaboration and practical tools that support sustainable land management. In this regard, we encourage to continue improving key tools such as the drought toolbox, also by taking advantage of global system already available, as for example the Copernicus framework. We encourage to put a particular emphasis on regionally specific technologies and know-how. We welcome the technology transfer and innovation initiatives supported through voluntary contribution under Decision 18/COP16. We would appreciate clarification on two points. First, whether the work on hyper-arid environment is intended solely to improve monitoring methodologies or reflect a broader evolution in the Convention implementation framework. With this respect, we would encourage to broadening the scope of this activity and also include arid area which share similar challenges. And second, how the Central Asia experience is expected to be adapted and transferred to other region. Finally, we strongly welcome the continued collaboration between the UNCCD Secretariat and WOCAT. We commend WOCAT's leadership in documenting and disseminating sustainable land management practices, the continued enhancement of its global SLM database and decision support tools, and the establishment of the WOCAT multi-donor basket under Decision 18/COP16. We encourage continued support from Parties and partners to sustain this important effort. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Morocco.

Mr. President, Chairman Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen Delegates, I want first of all to express our most sincere gratitude to the government and people of Mongolia for their excellent organization of this COP17. The Kingdom of Morocco commends the work presented by the Secretariat on knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation and aligns with the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. Chair, Morocco believes that bolstering the science policy interface depends on accessible knowledge, reliable data and solutions adapted to national and local realities. We welcome efforts towards bolstering knowledge sharing, particularly through WOCAT, whose database includes more than 2,500 technologies and sustainable management approaches coming from 139 countries. Morocco sets great store in the conclusions of the international meeting of experts held in Riyadh on follow-up to land degradation in hyper-arid zones. We stressed the importance of adapting follow-up methods to specificities on the ground and to combine, as per the context, remote sensing, land observation, local knowledge and national data. Data sharing should in that regard be carried out according to modalities agreed under a common agreement, taking into account national information systems, capacities of the parties and protection of sensitive data. Morocco stresses the importance of technology transfer and innovation adapted to the needs, capacities and to national priorities. The study into low carbon agriculture in greater Central Asia also offers useful lessons for arid zones taking into account National specificities and priorities at national level Morocco has experience when it comes to applied research in arid zones in land restoration and rage land collection of rainwater as well as utilization of remote sensing and geospatial data for followup for drought followup finally we stress the importance of bolstering the capacities of capacity building and South-South and triangular cooperation to foster sharing and adaptation of solutions, the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirms its willingness to contribute to enhancing the links between science, knowledge and action. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Morocco. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uganda, followed by Mexico and Japan.

Distinguished guests, Uganda recognizes the role of knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation and development and accelerated implementation of sustainable land management, prevent reverse soil degradation, combat desertification, and increase drought resilience. Uganda therefore appreciates the work done by the Secretariat in developing tools for knowledge and technology transfer. The WOCAT has continued to support accessibility to sustainable land management best practices, and Uganda will continue to share best practices through the WOCAT platform. Uganda is driving digital transformation and artificial intelligence integration under the Ministry of ICT and National Guidance, aligning with Vision 2040 and National Development Plan goals to build a modern digital economy. This is an enabler in the initiatives to promote digitalization and AI in the knowledge management system to accelerate knowledge sharing for the sustainable land management prevent and reverse land and soil degradation, combating desertification and increase drought resilience. However, this requires capacities to be built in the areas of integrating digitalization and artificial intelligence in land resource management. It is refreshing to know that the secretariat and the global mechanism are working towards supporting parties to be self-sufficient in accessing data and information related to sustainable land management practices and soil restoration and drought resilience. Uganda's policy on knowledge and information sharing is anchored by constitutional rights, the access to information act and the digital e-government frameworks. These rules aim to promote transparency, citizen participation, and efficient data integration across public institutions, knowledge and technology transfer to foster innovation and facilitate access to appropriate technology are promoted within this context. Uganda has continued to enjoy collaboration from developed parties and other parties in the area of transfer of knowledge and technology to support the sustainable and efficient use, management and restoration of land and soil and water resources, thereby contributing to enhance resilience. Specifically, The technical backstopping initiative by UNCCD through the regional hubs, for example, PISLM from the Caribbean, RACMRD supporting the Eastern and Southern Africa, and then OSS, that is Sahara Sahel, to enable successful press reporting. Under the Sentinels for Land Degradation Neutrality project, Uganda has enjoyed support funding from the ESA led by Vito Remote Sensing in Belgium, collaboration with Lund University in Sweden, GFZ in Germany, Wageningen University, the Netherlands, and Conservation International from USA. Under this project, Uganda was involved in the development of high resolution datasets for use in LGN reporting. We are looking forward to the possibility of using these datasets for the current PRAIS reporting. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Uganda. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Thank you, Chair.

Mexico supports knowledge dissemination, technology transfer and innovation as a tool to strengthen the implementation of the Convention, taking into account different national capacities, circumstances and priorities. We also support cooperation with scientific institutions, international organizations, and other relevant actors to facilitate access to knowledge and technologies on mutually agreed terms and in accordance with national priorities and circumstances. And finally, about the potential participation of the private sector, that should complement public efforts and should not create new reporting or compliance obligations for the parties. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you, Chair. Japan would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of Mongolia for its excellent arrangement and warm hospitality, and to the UNCCD Secretariat and all partners for their dedicated efforts in preparing this meeting. Japan strongly supports the idea that effective knowledge sharing is essential for advancing sustainable land management. This includes the exchange of knowledge, best practices and experiences among stakeholders, as well as improving access to.

And dissemination of relevant information.

In line with the importance of knowledge sharing, the Ministry of Environment of Japan is implementing a project in Mongolia in cooperation with the Mongolian government. that promotes the exchange of knowledge between scientists and local communities for sustainable land management and ecosystem restoration. As part of this initiative, some of the project activities and lessons learned will be presented at the side event entitled Community-Based Ecosystem Management for Combating Desertification in Mongolia.

Which?

Will take place in room MET02 on 24th August, Monday, from 13:00. We warmly invite all interested participants to attend and look forward to broad participation. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya.

Mr. Chair, Kenya supports cooperation to promote equitable access to technologies, strengthen knowledge exchange, and scale up of innovations that enable evidence-based decision making, sustainable dryland development, and coordinated implementation across the Rio conventions. Kenya, noting its level of development, calls on developed country parties and other parties, as well as international bodies and the private sector, to continue to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technology and support the sustainable and efficient use, management and restoration of land, soil and water resources for enhanced resilience. Kenya encourages CST to continue to play a more vital role in data and information generation for the support of the work of UNCCD implementation and reaffirms that strengthening knowledge sharing, strengthening technology transfer and innovation are essential to accelerating land restoration, strengthening drought resilience, enhancing food and nutrition security and building resilient communities and ecosystems. Increased international cooperation Investment and equitable access to technologies are critical to advancing the objectives of UNCCD and the sustainable development goals, the Paris Agreement and Africa's Agenda 2063. We therefore support enhanced cooperation to scale up innovation and strengthen knowledge exchange to enable evidence-based decision making and coordinated implementation of UNCCD framework. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Fiji, followed by Zimbabwe and Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Secretariat, distinguished delegates and partners, As part of the 14 member countries of the Pacific's Small Island Development State in the vast Pacific Ocean, we acknowledge the decision and support made in regards to knowledge sharing and the use of technology to disseminate research proven technologies to country parties, and specifically to the seats, to the P seats. We commend the work of the work yet and will continue to seek its support in this regards. When global bodies speak on land degradations, images of sprawling deserts often come to mind. But in Fiji and other Pacific islands, land degradation wears a different face mask. It is the salt creeping into our coastal agricultural land. The severe ridge to reef erosion, stripping our earned agricultural progress. We are not fighting deserts. We are fighting the systematic loss of our life-sustaining forest land, soils with its healthy ecosystem, and coastlines. Under the UNCCD mandate for knowledge sharing, we must realize that knowledge is not a one-way street flowing from industrial nations to island states. True innovation happens when we weave traditional knowledge together, traditional knowledge system with modern scientific techniques. In Fiji and other pieces, our traditional agroforestry and coastal management practices have sustained communities for centuries. Yet climate velocity is upacing historical memory. By sharing data globally and receiving accessible downscale digital tools and AI-driven land monitoring system locally, our farmers and communities can anticipate droughts and soil salinization before disaster strikes. Together, technology transfer cannot mean dumping obsolete or mismatched hardware onto developing nations. For Fiji and the Pacific, technology transfer must be practical, resilient, and locally maintainable. We need to target technology for real-time land neutrality monitoring adapted to mountainous island topography, resilient agricultural technologies that withstand saltwater intrusion, accessible digital platforms that empower rural and indigenous women who are on the frontline of farming, yet often lack control over technical resources to lead local land restoration enterprises. Innovation under that convention must bridge the gap between high level science and the grassroots user. Fiji and the SIDS and the PSCs calls upon our global partners to move beyond talk and into cooperation innovation network across the Pacific. We must co-create solutions that respect our ecological boundaries and empower local practitioners with training and open source data and direct climate finance. In the Pacific Island Development States, which include Fiji, we treat soil as our heritage, our economy, and our identity. Implementing the vision of knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation in our shared lifeline is our shared lifeline. Let us commit today to ensure that no island and no community is left behind on the map of global resilience. I thank you, sir.

I thank the distinguished representative of Fiji. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe.

Thank you, Chair. Distinguished delegates and representatives, Zimbabwe aligns with the imperative to strengthen global action on land degradation and desertification through accelerated technology transfer and innovation. We recognize that the application of cutting edge scientific tools and evidence based resolution technologies are critical to reversing land degradation, particularly in our arid and semi-arid regions. Zimbabwe commits to supporting regional and international knowledge exchange mechanisms that enable developing nations to access and adapt proven technologies and best practices for land restoration. We call for enhanced investment in accessibility of the UNCCD Knowledge Hub as a central platform for disseminating scientific evidence, technology guidance and innovative solutions across our continent. We emphasize the particular importance of scaling carbon farming technologies and sustainable land management practices for the restoration of fragile soils, which require specialized approaches tailored to African context. Zimbabwe stands ready to participate in technology sharing partnerships and to contribute our our own experience to collective learning. We urge developed nations and multilateral institutions to support these initiatives through enhanced financing and capacity building. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the Secretariat for presenting the document and its preparation and to the Global Mechanism. I want to thank them for their work on consolidating these platforms under the section on data and knowledge on the website of the Convention. Argentina adopted the WOCAT methodology over 10 years ago, but it's worth mentioning the need for adaptation to national needs that it requires for it to be adopted and internalized in the long term. Given that, WOCAT offers the best framework, but can only be internalized by countries if they have ownership through respecting the general framework these possibilities of adapting WOCAT should be taken into account and replicated in any other global knowledge mechanism taking lessons learned from WOCAT could help with genuine ownership of other frameworks in any case it's worth mentioning that generation of more global platforms and mechanisms requires assignment of resources that could be used to bolster regional platforms or sub-regional and national platforms. Also taking into account the official nature of data, of the data that the convention draws from those global platforms in which it converts into a dashboard for points of international and global analysis within the convention portal showing data from countries that weren't provided through official channels. And that requires political validation for that information that shows that those portals show. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cambodia, followed by South Africa and Sudan.

Mr. Chair, distinguished delegate, lady and gentlemen, at our set, I would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to the government and the people of Mongolia for their excellent arrangement and warm hospitality to our delegates from the first step in the beautiful city of Ulaanbaatar. Cambodia commend the convening of the 17th session of the Committee on Science and Technology under the theme of restoring land, restoring hope. Cambodia recognize the CST play a vital role in bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and policy action. As we face escalating drought, wildfire and land degradation that increasingly threaten food and water security for billion people, therefore work on this committee is become more urgent. Cambodia wish to emphasize three points. First, on land degradation neutrality, Cambodia believe that we must accelerate the implementation of voluntary LDN targets, integrating sustainable land management with biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation. Second, on drought resilience, Cambodia welcome the synthesis report on the supplementary technical guidance to support aridity and drought planning across the Rio Convention and Sendai Framework. We urge the CST to continue developing proactive science-based approaches that combine technology, innovation and traditional knowledge. Third, on the science policy interface, Cambodia believe that we must strengthen knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation. The CST should continue improving procedure for communication of information and the quality of report to ensure that science translate into tangible action on the ground. Cambodia look forward to a productive session and reaffirm our commitment to working with our party to turn pledge into action. I thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cambodia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you, Chair. South Africa just want to acknowledge the government and the people of Mongolia for their hospitality and how they've hosted us so far. And in terms of the decision, South Africa welcomes the progress on the knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation under this decision. We commend the secretariat and the global mechanism for strengthening platforms such as the drought toolbox, the sand and dust toolbox as well, some of the work at platforms and the communities of learning and practice. Distinguished delegates, South Africa support the African group position that technology transfer should encompass not only equipment and digital technologies, but also knowledge methodologies, implementation models and best practices. Such transfers should be accompanied by adequate capacity building and institutional support. Chair South Africa supports the Africa position as well that this should extend beyond hardware and digital tools to include scientific and indigenous knowledge systems. implementation models, institutional innovations, and proven sustainable land management practices. Technology transfer must be accompanied by capacity development. Countries require support to evaluate, adapt, maintain, and scale technologies within local ecological and socioeconomic context. This includes strengthening expertise in remote sensing, GIS, soil health assessment, restoration monitoring, artificial intelligence applications, digital agriculture, and sustainable range land management. South Africa proposed that knowledge generation should include participatory identification of research areas through horizon scanning. South Africa recognize that technology transfer may particularly, we particularly welcome the communities of learning and practice as vehicles for South-South cooperation and encourage greater sharing of experiences through the WOCAT and other UNCCD knowledge platforms. Expanding the visibility of the African innovation and best practices will enrich the global evidence base. South Africa further emphasize the importance of validating ground truthing emerging technologies and AI based products to ensure scientific accuracy and practical applicability in diverse landscapes. We recommend institutionalized two way knowledge flows. This should be done by establishing mechanisms for knowledge generated by communities, indigenous people, practitioners and national institutions to feed into the UNCCD global knowledge platforms rather than knowledge transfer being predominantly global to local. The second recommendation is on local contextualization. As a core principle, South Africa requests that the CST knowledge products and tools include guidance for national and subnational adaptation, recognizing different ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional contexts. Thirdly, we recommend the strengthened South-South and Africa to Africa knowledge transfer create dedicated mechanism within the communities of learning and practice and work out for south-south exchange, peer learning and replication of proven African innovation. Fourth, we want to move from knowledge sharing to knowledge uptake. We encourage parties to develop mechanism to track whether knowledge technologies and innovation are adopted, adapted, implemented and scaled, particularly at the local level. Lastly, we recommend that we establish validation and crowd truthing protocols. The CST and the secretariat should promote scientific validation, independent assessment and ground truthing of emerging technologies, remote sensing products and AI applications before they are promoted for widespread decision making. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sudan.

Thank you, Chair. In terms of technology transfer, Sudan highlights the importance of scientific research, data accessibility, digitalization, knowledge and information sharing, technology transfer and capacity building in addressing land degradation, drought and desertification. Sudan emphasizes the need to adapt and localize technological solution to national circumstances and translate them into practical, scalable and sustainable action. Building it is national experience and accumulated expertise in this field, which was recognized during COP14, Sudan refer it is readiness to share the national experience and strengthen international and regional cooperation. Sudan also stresses the importance of leveraging digital platforms and modern data systems, strengthening national and institution capacities, and promoting the exchange of knowledge and good practice to support effective and evidence-based response to land degradation, drought and desertification. Thank you, Chairman.

I thank the distinguished representative of Sudan. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, dear audience. Switzerland welcomes the continued efforts of the UNCCD process to support the exchange of best practices on SLM between the parties through WOCAD, as this is described in the document currently under discussion. As a long-term co-founder of the WOCAD process, we are thankful to hear the feedback from many parties currently in this room, and we would like to echo this positive feedback, and we hope that this useful work will be continuing and so we call on partners that are able to do so to contribute to the basket fund that will support these activities in the future. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Thank you, Chair. IUCN welcomes this report and its attention to where global methodologies break down, monitoring productivity in hyper-arid zones, distinguishing drought stress from persistent degradation in rangelands, and interpreting greening that is not recovery. These determine whether a party can demonstrate progress at all. IUCN's global ecosystem typology and red list of ecosystems assess ecosystem condition rather than extent. And the Key Biodiversity Areas program has made progress in strengthening its monitoring framework to do the same. Further, the Panorama Platform, a multi-stakeholder knowledge management initiative, identifies and promotes examples of tested and replicable solutions in biodiversity conservation, land management, and sustainable development more broadly. We offer these standards and knowledge products to the Committee and to the science-policy interface to complement the Convention's other knowledge tools. Finally, I would note that our members reinforced the centrality of this issue at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Abu Dhabi last year, adopting Resolution 8.005 on the protection and restoration of diverse native grasslands, which addresses the importance of knowledge exchange to address degradation, desertification and reduced carbon sequestration in these systems directly. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the civil society, Association para Investigacion y Desarrollo Integral.

Distinguished delegates, On behalf of civil society and indigenous peoples, we welcome the report on knowledge sharing, technology transfer and innovation, and commend the Secretariat, the SPI, WOCAT and partners for their efforts. It is important to recognize that without dedicated, predictable financing and formal mechanisms for civil society and community participation, these tools risk remaining inaccessible to those who need them the most. We therefore like to highlight the following key aspects. First, knowledge sharing must be inclusive and participatory. CSOs, indigenous peoples, local communities, pastoralists, women and youth have to participate meaningfully in generating, sharing and applying knowledge. Second, traditional, local and indigenous knowledge must be recognized alongside scientific knowledge. Community knowledge should be systematically integrated into knowledge platforms, technology transfer initiatives, scientific assessments and capacity building. Third, knowledge data and technologies must be openly accessible. Scientific information, data sets, methodologies, and tools should be available through multilingual user-friendly systems. Fourth, technology transfer must empower local actors for them to access, adapt, and apply technologies through capacity building and peer-to-peer learning. Fifth, community-led innovation must be recognized and scaled up. This includes evidence-based agroecological approaches, regional restoration, participatory water management, and community-based monitoring. Sixth, innovation should support integrated and resilient land systems. This could help to strengthen synergies across the Rio Conventions and address interconnected environmental changes. Finally, digital technologies and artificial intelligence must complement, not replace, community knowledge, local expertise and participatory decision-making. Clear ethical guidelines, data protection standards, and indigenous data sovereignty principles must govern the design and deployment of AI tools. Distinguished delegates, the success of knowledge sharing, technology transfer, and innovation will ultimately depend on whether they reach and empower those restoring land, managing water, and building resilience every day. We call to parties to adopt concrete time-bound decision at COP17 that translate these priorities into resources action. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative, the Association para la Investigacion y el Desarrollo Integral. That was the last speaker on my list. I now give the floor to Mr. Baron Joseph Orr, Chief Scientist of UNCCD to respond.

So to begin, I would like to touch upon different dimensions of participation that were mentioned by honorable delegates from Brazil, Mongolia, Japan, and civil society. And I may have missed a couple of others. There were quite a few. And I wanted to -- a number of these were associated with data and the need to ensure that linkage between what we're doing nationally all the way to local and all the way back again. And I wanted to have you recall that when you adopted the scientific conceptual framework for land degradation neutrality, a less used element in that framework is exactly what you have been proposing in these interventions, which is to actually establish in the monitoring process this connectivity not only to verify data, but actually to link what's happening towards implementation, so for successful implementation. And maybe that's a basis to build upon if you were to augment this in your response to this decision. And it's, I think, important to recognize that it's a mix of verification, because there were several comments made that relate to the viability of the data. For example, if there's a invasive species of high productivity, but on the ground you recognize it's an invasive species, you need to adjust so that the approach to monitoring includes mechanisms where you can intervene and make adjustments in that reporting process, as has been being discussed in the Creek. And I think it's also important to recall that you have the flexibility to add indicators in any level, whether it's a part of the country, a type of ecosystem, or even beyond that. So the framework itself has the flexibility. The do of it is the bigger challenge. And that's also coming up in these comments where A number of parties mentioned the need to address capacity building. By the way, I just wanted to say that Mongolia has provided us a solution to the drought problem with the rain. So I think that's very kind of the host country. So I'll try to continue. It's kind of hard to hear myself at the moment. Let me see if this works. Okay.

Nope.

It doesn't work.

Wow.

So if I could just get somebody towards the back, can you hear me? That's the important thing. Okay, I can't hear myself, but you can hear me. That's good. Okay, so let's shift then to where I was just speaking. So On the side of this that relates to the data themselves, it was initially raised by China, and it was again raised by a number of parties. I will try to be at least reasonably comprehensive. Uganda focused on it, again linking this to capacity building. Kenya, data and information support. and I think there were a couple of others, including civil society. So the current mechanism that you have embraced in past COP decisions to try, I mean, obviously this is not a convention that specializes in data directly. We embrace data that are provided by partners. And in order to ensure that that process is equally balanced and multilateral. You have in past decisions emphasized the role of the Group on Earth Observations, which is the intergovernmental and inter-organizational platform where all different types of data gathering can be discussed. And in the case of UNCCD through the GOLDN flagship, we have a mechanism to try and ensure that any data providing organization can participate, but with the aim of moving towards that harmonization that you referred to in many of these interventions. So it's a mechanism. effectiveness and not as something that you can discuss like anything else, but you've embraced this mechanism and it has been highly effective in the context of LDN. It's progressed, it's allowed us to enhance the viability of indicators. But at the same time, you also recognize that land degradation And also drought resilience is highly variable across the landscape. It's a global problem, but it's manifest uniquely locally. And even today, data sets don't bring us to that solution. You don't have a global data set that ensures that local relevance. And so the key here is that also So inside the framework, that mechanism for participation is highly emphasized. But in your decision, you drew a divider between national to global relevance and national to local relevance. And it's more prescribed and defined and methodologically backed what you're doing from the national to global level. But there's always a desire once you see the map to determine is it applicable locally and rarely is a global map, even a national map applicable locally. And that to handle that, I'm reminding you or having you recall that you've built in that you're totally flexible from the national to local level and you can pursue it in any way that makes that relevant. And that is an elegant solution to a very difficult problem. It doesn't solve the full capacity building challenge. And so I'll add to this that it's actually an innovation of some clever people in the secretariat to get it off the ground, but this concept of hubs, knowledge hubs, as a way of supporting the national reporting process that you're just going through now and the workshops behind that has been intriguing because the feedback coming from these workshops has been very, very positive because there was a significant effort, and this was across many interventions, of trying to make this process more and more relevant regionally and even nationally through your own contributions. And you have an opportunity in the Creek under, I believe it's document Creek four, I apologize, I'm not sure, but it's the national reporting document. There is a paragraph where this hub concept is looked at in terms of potential expansion? Would you want to go beyond simply helping train for national reporting, but to make it more relevant in other ways, expanding this link to capacity building that you're referring to? And there have been interventions in this mix that even brought that to the knowledge sharing and the scientific transfer, whether it be global to local or south south or any other type of exchange, can that be made more relevant if we embrace this hub concept in an augmented way? So I'm not suggesting that you do, that is clearly in your hands, but I wanted you to realize that if you're not finding a mechanism under this particular decision, you may wish to cross-reference to that work in the CRIC. And then I also wanted to emphasize that a number of countries, China, Mongolia, Algeria, the European Union, Fiji and the Pacific SIDS, Zimbabwe, Argentina, really emphasized different dimensions of why WOCOT is useful. At the same time, some of your interventions called for a way to have exchange of these best practices, to enhance, if you will, case studies. And if you look at the way that the WOCOT database is structured, it's a blend. It is practices. but with real examples. It's done on purpose that way so that the visibility of how it may work becomes more apparent. But as was pointed out in some of the interventions, it's not easy to know is that practice applicable in my context? It looks like it, it fits some of the criteria cross-referenced, but how can we do that? And that's where, in my terminology, that's the high tech, high touch boundary that we need to embrace here. That part of WOCOT is simply a repository, but part of it is to be there and be part of that discussion because of their experience and understanding these practices. So you've embraced these concepts. and if you, sorry, this partnership, and if you feel that this is an area that needs augmentation, it can be considered in the way you approach this decision. And then I believe finally, I wanted to note that there were quite a number of interventions that focused on AI, and of course, all of them, the positive dimensions, and all of them, the risks, and where it fits in. And you have not made a decision in the past on this. You have not mentioned this directly other than the typical use new technologies, which is not the same as these interventions were very specific. And so it may be worth considering. And I also wanted to point out to you on a different decision, and not early enough to be incorporated in this decision. The UNCCD Secretariat addressed the guidance challenge in the agriculture lands decision in partnership with FAO when we recognized that FAO was launching an AI-enabled knowledge base. It's called ATIO, and you'll hear more about it when we reach that decision in the discussions. But the reason I'm mentioning it here is it's being presented. I will ask you to confer with FAO. I don't know all the times, but it's being presented in one or two side events relative to that work. But also what was particularly emphasized here is how do we in a careful way, in an appropriate way, link this to what FAO calls grassroots knowledge, kind of an umbrella term to bring local knowledge, traditional, indigenous, et cetera, where there are a lot of sensitivities about how easily using that knowledge can abuse that knowledge and abuse where it came from. And FAO has been pursuing a pilot here in Mongolia to try to figure out that problem. How do we bring that into these higher AI related technologies in a careful way. That's being presented on the 27th of August in the Mongolia House by the FAO team that has been conducting this. This was not a UNCCD partnered initiative, but it does reflect this. My reason for mentioning it is You have not addressed this concept in decisions before, but there is progress around you that might be borrowed from if you decide to address it in decisions going forward. And with that comment, I believe I have addressed many, perhaps not all, of the very strong and useful interventions in this session. I pass it back to you, Chair.

I thank Mr. Orr. I thank all participants for their valuable comments and contributions. The committee has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 3A. I now invite the committee to begin its consideration of agenda item 4, entitled Future Functioning of the Science-Policy Interface. I now give the floor to the Secretary of the Committee on Science and Technology, Ms. Olga Andreeva, to introduce the documentation under this item.

Thank you, Chair. Distinguished delegates, I have the honour to introduce document ICCD/COP17/CS-T/5, which corresponds to draft decision four in document ICCD/COP17/CST/8. Document CST/5 is entitled Preparations for the Future Functioning of the Science-Policy Interface. By its decision 20/COP16, the Conference of the Parties requested the development during the 2025-2026 transition biennium of a number of elements needed for the future functioning of the science policy interface, beginning with the 2027-2030 quadrennium, covering membership and governance, procedures for requests and outputs, technical support, cooperation with other intergovernmental science policy bodies, and financial implications. In response, the Bureau of Committee on Science and Technology, with the support of the Secretariat, and input from the SPI undertook work during the 2025-2026 biennium to prepare the institutional, procedural and operational foundations for the future functioning of the SPI. This included the renewal of SPI membership for the transition biennium, preparations for the transition for four-year work programmes, the development and training of new procedures, consideration of cooperation with partner scientific bodies, and the preparation of feasibility study on technical support arrangements, including the possible use of an external technical support unit. I am joined on the podium by the UNCCD Chief Scientist who will present the work summarised in the document CST/5. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the Secretary of the Committee on Science and Technology. I now invite the Chief Scientist of the UNCCD, Mr. Baron Joseph Orr, to make a presentation.

Thank you, Chair. I will begin by first of all thanking the CST Bureau who were fundamental to the development of this document and more importantly all the work behind it that led to what's inside this document. And I will make an observation that came from one of the Bureau members. You'll notice in this document early on a table that cross references many paragraphs, if not all paragraphs, in decision 20 with the structure of the document. And the reason I'm mentioning that is to keep in your mind that decision 20, COP16, Almost every paragraph is dependent on some other paragraph. It is not a document where you can understand if you only focus one paragraph at a time, hence that table and hence the structure of the documents. I wanted that to be in your mind if you revisit the document after this presentation. I'm only going to go through here the structure so that -- I'm not going to repeat that table, but just so that you recognize what the CST secretary just mentioned, which is inside of this document. So we're talking about things that make the SPI run at the level of individuals, so the governance and the TORs -- oops, move back -- and then the the work that's necessary to move the SPI through the transition biennium, which was this biennium, to a four-year cycle and to use the science vernacular to move towards a more IPCC-esque approach to flagship reports and to determine how would we approach this new concept of fast track assessments, which was introduced at COP16. And then, as was mentioned by the CST Secretary, you asked that we try and understand how is it done inside of other bodies? How do we actually have new in these reports? In GLO1 and GLO2, we were fortunate because of a generous in-kind contribution from the government of the Netherlands to have that kind of support. But it was ad hoc. It was a very beautiful relationship and very powerful for those reports, but it's not something that is structured and sustainable, and it wasn't available for GLO3. So it's important to have some mechanism. And the idea was to learn from the experiences of these other bodies. And then inside here are something more standard, our coordination with respect to other bodies and the attempt, but it didn't work out because of access to resources, but to explore, can we create something light across all of these land-related science bodies, something mandate light that could help us work together. And that idea was explored all the way to a draft terms of reference. But in the end, because the funding wasn't available, it's being put off for a later date. And finally, there is the aspect of financial implications of everything that I'm talking about. So with respect to the procedures, as you may know, in the past, the SPI actually was tasked with determining, not finalizing, but providing the topics of future SPI products. But that totally changed with the approach to moving towards flagship, where the necessity of consultation with parties is far, far higher. It's not a, we call it addressing a bottleneck approach where we're attacking a very narrow scientific need. It's a much broader concept and the need for consultation is built throughout both procedures actually, but in particular on the approach to receiving and prioritizing requests for the SPI. So this is available. There's a link in the document that will bring you to the procedures that the CST Bureau developed in this regard with the support of the Secretariat. And I might add a university in Germany, Sneckenberg University, that is actually an IPBES TSU, technical support unit, and also for data, and also the data focused entity for IPCC. So an incredibly rich experience, and we're able to provide the true insights of how this really works. So the INF document that you have, which I will show you in just a second, is tied to that. In terms of the preparation side, there also was a request for more in respect to how we approach the scientific rigor of the reports and how we do it temporally through the process, the reviews, scoping, all of these elements are now far more transparent, far more structured in the proposed procedures, and far more detailed. And if you look on the right, you'll realize that things that you have been mentioning in many of your interventions are touched upon in the annexes of this set of procedures. In addition, in the document, we realize that the procedures all talk about each timeframe, but to create an indicative timeline of a real flagship report, this is an indicative timeline for GLO4. And I could just point out, GLO3 was, the SPI had maybe 10 months to work on it. This is assuming 36 months, which is much more aligned with a flagship report, much more reasonable from a science point of view and a communications point of view. And so all the elements that are needed are now expressed here to give you a sense of how does that lay out temporally. And when we look at the INF document, It's very rich. It provides mechanisms, it provides what a structure would look like, and it points to the financial implications. But the financial implications for all that we're doing in the CST, the Creek, and the CAOU are referred to the budget contact group. So that means that anything that had to be documented, and there was a request in the decision that this be documented, particularly for all of this related to the SPI, that is an annex in the budget document, and it's a crossover there. So you can get a feel. Remember, it's a four-year cycle, so it's the only table in the budget document that runs four years rather than just two years. And with that, I have covered everything that I needed to say about introducing this document. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the Chief Scientist of the UNCCD. I now open the floor for questions and comments. Participants wishing to take the floor are requested to press the microphone button now. I ask delegations to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. I thank you for your kind cooperation. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Brazil recalls that paragraph six of the decision 20/COP16 requested the CST Bureau to develop and submit for the consideration of the CST at its 17th session, procedures for receiving and prioritizing requests to the SPI for the preparation of flagship reports and for fast-track assessments, information products, and advice. In this regard, we therefore understand that these procedures are before us at this session for substantive consideration and agreement by parties, and we highlight the importance of discussing the document ICCD/COP17/CST/5 in the contact group. Brazil appreciates the extensive work undertaken by the Bureau, the Secretariat and the SPI. Our concern is to ensure a clear distinction between the important role of the Bureau in facilitating and preparing intersessional work and the role of the CST as the intergovernmental body in taking substantive decisions and approving outputs that are to carry intergovernmental authority. In this regard, Brazil would like to highlight three specific issues. First, Regarding the summary for policymakers, the current procedures are not fully consistent in this respect. Table 3 states under how parties shape flagship reports that parties participate through CST consideration and approval of the recommendations in the SPMs by consensus. by way of discussions of the flagship report document and the corresponding draft decision. The projected GLO4 timeline on page 12 similarly envisages the SPM recommendations being translated into a draft CST decision for approval. Brazil believes that approval only of the recommendations is not sufficient. The summary for policymakers itself in its entirety should be subject to intergovernmental line by line consideration and approval by parties through the SCT prior to publication. This is important because the SPM as a whole, its findings, key messages, framing, and policy-oriented recommendations is the principal policy-facing product of the assessment. Intergovernmental authorities should therefore attach to the SPM as a whole rather than only to recommendations subsequently incorporated into a CST decision. This is also consistent with established practice under both the IPCC and the IPBES where the SPM itself is subject to line by line consideration and approval by their respective intergovernmental bodies. We note that other language already introduced in table 3 moves precisely in this direction, referring to the SPM being considered and approved through an intergovernmental line-by-line review by Parties prior to publication, and to the SPM itself being subject to line-by-line discussion and agreement. We support this approach and believe that the entire Table 3 as well as the GLO-4 timeline should be made consistent with it. Second, regarding the topic of GLO-4 and the SPI work programme, the general procedure in Table 2 provides that the Bureau prepares recommendations on the SPI work programme that are subsequently transmitted to Parties for consideration and decision. However, for the 2027-2030 quadriennium, an exception is proposed under which approval of the topic of the GLO4 and the update of the SPI work programme would be undertaken by the CST Bureau. We understand that this exception has been proposed because of the particular time constraints associated with the first quadriennial cycle. Nevertheless, approval of the topic of a flagship report and of the SPI work programme is a substantive decision that should remain with Parties through the CST. Brazil is therefore prepared to be flexible regarding the timeline for this first report, recognising the transitional nature of this cycle. If additional time is required, we could adjust the GLO4 timeline and explore practical solutions, including, if necessary, the possibility of an extraordinary session of the CST back-to-back with CRIC-25. Flexibility in the timetable would be preferable to transferring these substantive decisions to the Bureau. Third, regarding future changes to these procedures, Table 3 currently provides that the CST Bureau may periodically review and update these procedures. We agree that the Bureau should review implementation and identify possible improvements. However, if these procedures are now considered and agreed by Parties through the CST, they should not subsequently be substantively amended by the Bureau alone. We would therefore suggest that the Bureau may periodically review their implementation and propose updates for consideration and approval by the CST. The aforementioned edits to text should also be reflected in Table 1. Chair, our intention is not to limit the important role of the Bureau or the scientific independence of the SPI. Rather, A clear division of responsibilities strengthens both scientific credibility and intergovernmental legitimacy. The SPI should lead the scientific work, the Bureau should facilitate, coordinate and prepare intersessional work, and Parties through the CST should retain responsibility for substantive intergovernmental decision-making and approval. We therefore look forward to examining tables one, two and three, as well as the corresponding GLO4 timeline and relevant provisions of the draft decision in the contact group. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the Secretariat for preparing the document. COP 17/5, which establishes the framework for the future functioning of the SPI. There we find improvements in terms of the time of the membership of its members, greater leadership with the inclusion of the chair of the CST himself, standardized process procedures when it comes to requests from the parties, flagship reports like the GLO and.

Scientific peer review and might not be able to be recruited as under full-time employment but rather found in a number of institutions which could then the which could where the sorry which could be support we could be contracted for contractual work for specific tasks. So maybe we would rather need a small management unit which can mobilize scientific support depending on the changing and regional leads from UNCCD parties. Maybe we should invest a little bit in thinking on these modalities. We would also like to have more information on the prospects of getting access to continuous and sufficient funding. the proposed staffing will be quite cost extensive. Is this really a realistic perspective? Maybe the secretariat has more information on the funding possibilities. Another point is the oversight and the steering of the TSU, which should be more clearly defined. Decision making could be become quite difficult in a steering committee. Another assumption seems that flagship reports seem to be perceived to be the main outputs of the SPI also in the future. Is this assumption really the best road to go? Could other activities of the SPI, such as support to countries, not become more important in the future? We have heard several calls from parties that point into this direction. We would like to invite the CST to further reflect on this. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya. in event that you couldn't hear me over the rain. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya.

Thank you, Chair. Kenya contributes to UNCCD science policy interface by domesticating global land frameworks, operationalizing early warning systems, and hosting major global observance on rangelands and drought resilience that shape evidence-based pastoral and land policies. And in that regard, the country on June 17th hosted global desertification and drought day and we appreciate the honor that was extended to us. In domestic policy and scientific integration, Kenya is using international data to align local and national policies with the UNCCD mandate for land degradation neutrality and sustainable rangeland management. Chair Kenya strongly advocates the strengthening of SPI by integrating localized data, enhancing proactive drought early warning system, and bridging science policy silos across the country. It advocates for global science framework that better reflects the realities on the ground using grassroot pastoral mobility and community-led range land management practices. This includes championing science backed early warning and anticipatory action system rather than reactive crisis management. as well as supporting robust regional scientific network in Africa to ensure technical data originates directly from vulnerable ecosystems. Chair, as I conclude, Kenya supports strengthening the mandate, procedure and technical support arrangement of the SPI to ensure it remains responsive to the evolving challenges of drought, land degradation, climate change and biodiversity loss. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe.

Thank you, Chair. Zimbabwe welcomes the work undertaken during the 2025 to 2026 transition period to prepare the science policy interface for the 2027 to 2030 period. quadrennium and calls for the future SPIA to be inclusive, regionally balanced and responsive to the needs of developing countries. Zimbabwe wishes to highlight four priorities. First, greater participation of African scientists and research institutions in the SPIA, particularly on drylands, drought and land degradation. Second, stronger linkages between SPIA and universities and centers of excellence, including opportunities for young scientists. Third, systematic integration of indigenous and local knowledge alongside conventional science. Fourth, greater emphasis on implementation science, how solutions are scaled, financed and sustained nationally. Zimbabwe's research and innovation strategy, university environmental management agencies, research partnerships, and indigenous knowledge documentation program offer a practical contribution to this agenda. Zimbabwe therefore encourages the future SPIA to First, ensure equitable African representation in SPI membership and assessment processes. Second, strengthen partnerships with African universities and research institutions, including young scientists. Third, promote systematic integration of indigenous and local knowledge. Fourth, strengthen implementation science and the scaling of evidence-based solutions, and fifth, provide technical and institutional support to African institutions that can generate and lead science, not only consume it. I thank you, Chairperson.

I thank the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of UNESCO.

Thank you, Chair. The committee's work on the future functioning of the science policy interface is closely relevant to UNESCO. UNESCO looks forward to strengthening collaboration and synergies in this area. Land degradation, biodiversity loss, water challenges and climate change are increasingly interconnected and threaten ecosystem integrity, human well-being and economic resilience. UNESCO's mandate on sciences, culture and information communication to support integrated policies really advance environmental sustainability and human development. Science underpins evidence-based decision-making. UNESCO advances research, scientific cooperation, innovation, open science, and knowledge sharing. All these promote dialogue among scientific communities, indigenous peoples, local knowledge and holders, and policymakers. Integrating diverse knowledge systems strengthens environmental governance, improves restoration outcomes, and supports locally adapted solutions. Knowledge sharing, education and capacity building are equally essential. Through the Education for Sustainable Development Program and Life Learning Program, UNESCO equips individuals, institutions, communities with knowledge and the skills that are required to implement sustainable water and land management and for them to allow to participate in the restoration efforts. Culture is also equally important. Cultural heritage, traditional practices and cultural landscapes embody generations of knowledge about sustainable land and water management and as well as relationships between people and nature. UNESCO's programs and networks of centers translate international commitments, including the Rio conventions, into practical actions by linking science, education and culture and support science-based policies on ecosystem restoration, biodiversity conservation, sustainable water management and climate resilience. UNESCO stands ready to support member states in addressing land degradation, desertification and water challenges through knowledge sharing, education, innovation and capacity building to strengthen the science policy interface for science-based policymaking. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of UNESCO. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative, civil society, British Society of Soil Science.

Thank you, Chair, distinguished delegates. On behalf of the civil society and indigenous peoples, we welcome progress in preparing the future functioning of the science policy interface. and commend the CST Bureau, the SPI and the Secretariat for laying the foundations for its 2027-2030 work programme. Under CST5, we welcome efforts to transition to quadrilateral functioning, strengthen procedures for scientific outputs, enhance technical support for SPI and cooperation with partner scientific bodies. However, The SPI future success will depend not only on scientific excellence, but also on being inclusive, transparent, accessible, interdisciplinary and responsive to communities affected by desertification, land degradation and drought. Civil society therefore highlights seven priorities. First, Meaningful participation must be embedded throughout the SPI's work. The whole of civil society must participate systematically in the scoping, development, review, dissemination and application of SPI outputs. Second, local communities and indigenous knowledge must be fully integrated alongside scientific evidence. Clear mechanisms are needed to incorporate knowledge from communities with generations of experience in sustainable land management. Third, community-generated evidence must be recognised. Community-based monitoring, citizen science, participatory data collection must be better integrated into scientific assessments and reporting. Fourth, scientific knowledge must be accessible and useful. SPI guidance and knowledge products should be available through open, multilingual and user-friendly platforms that reach policymakers, the private sector and the whole of civil society, including indigenous peoples. Fifth, strengthen interdisciplinary and system-based approaches, land degradation, droughts, biodiversity loss. Food insecurity, water scarcity, climate change and disaster risk reduction are interconnected. SPI work must strengthen synergies with the Rio Conventions and the Sendai Framework and advance land-based solutions with multiple environmental and social benefits. Sixth, invest in capacity building and knowledge exchange, particularly for grassroots organisations, civil society, women, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities. So SPI outputs can translate into global, national, regional and local implementation. Finally, strengthen gender responsive science and ensure adequate long term support. This requires gender expertise, gender disaggregated data and meaningful participation, including predictable resources. The SPI's establishment as a permanent mechanism is a significant achievement. Its future must combine scientific excellence with inclusion, accessibility and practical relevance. By connecting diverse knowledge systems with policy and action, the SPI can become an even stronger bridge between science and implementation, contributing to resilient landscapes equitable development and sustainable futures for all. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the British Society for Soil Science. That was the last speaker on my list. I now give the floor to the Chief Scientist of the UNCCD to respond to the questions and comments raised.

Thank you, honorable delegates, for the excellent interventions. I will begin with the initial intervention from the honorable delegate from Brazil. And indeed, the CST Bureau considered the range of possibilities when establishing the procedures from a truly IPCC approach with a full negotiated line by line summary for policymakers all the way back to where we were with GLO1 and GLO2 where nothing was negotiated at all. So we had the whole continuum and the recognition that when we looked at financial resources and other realities for being able to support this and the actual experience of the institution because UNCCD is a policy body and CST is a science policy link. It is not a science assessment body, so it's not built in structurally yet into the CST. The decision was made to go with an approach that was more familiar and fitting to the current way that the CST takes on SPI reports in the past. But the continuum remains and it's in your hands. If parties move further towards full approval, that is something that could be accommodated, but it would have to be recognized that an SPM, the length of an SPM is almost as long as all the draft decisions you negotiated at a COP, right? So it's a lot of work that's there. And the concept that was proposed that it might be by a different party, that it might be linked to, or no, I think it was your intervention that it might be a special session, et cetera, is certainly a possibility and is available to the parties based on the convention text, so something for consideration. With the contribution related to the exception, very much appreciate your recognition that the Bureau was trying to address the kind of awkwardness of starting after this COP instead of before and realizing that that would mean a delay of two years if we jumped straight to that schedule. So they came up with this exception and I think that any mechanism that you might provide to strengthen the consultation as it were and I think what you're referring to is true review by this body is welcome. But the solutions that we had available, we focused on the current cycle of the CST and the COP. And then with Let me see one second. The building in a mechanism to strengthen the CST's oversight of changes in the procedures also is something that is fully available as an option. The Bureau itself followed past practice of the CST where the responsibility for updating governance related elements to the SPI was in the hands of the Bureau, but it could be extended beyond that as you have proposed. With respect to the With respect to the intervention by the honorable delegate from Argentina, as it was mentioned in the previous agenda item and is being discussed in the CRIC, but not with the science part that you introduced, the idea that we are making progress in becoming more regional in our approach to science and more relevant nationally, but there could be further progress and that it might be something that would leverage this hub concept, which was tested in the national reporting cycle, as I mentioned in the previous section, is certainly a possibility. I mean, I think that Any mechanism that we can come up with that would enhance that should be very seriously considered. It is a lack, and it's not a good excuse to say in a biennium we can focus on global and not on regional. We've got to come up with such a solution. The reason that it's not proposed in this decision is the hub concept was a secretariat idea only meant to address improving reporting. It wasn't meant to go beyond that. But the feedback at each of those workshops that was related to this, it was very clear that this could be a mechanism. It's working for reporting. It could go beyond that. And I would I would suggest that your leverage would be the decision on national reporting where the hubs are discussed. It doesn't mean it can't be discussed here, but at least it's already in the draft, sorry, in the official document. And then the EU also commented on the procedures and mentioned some Specific emphasis on the clarity with respect to first order draft, second order draft. Again, that could be fine-tuned in your discussions on this decision. And they also mentioned the exception. So it's a problem that we have to address and strengthening the CST's oversight is welcome. The There were a number of interventions that touched on the TSU and I'll bring them together here because the intervention from the honorable delegate from Switzerland looked at the problem in a different way than was raised by EU. So the EU mentioned that there was an effort to reach budget neutrality. But to be fair, if you look at the annex, even though it is often communicated that the TSUs of IPBES and IPCC are budget neutral because of the contribution of the host country and the host institution in kind, In reality, there is a significant oversight. Actually, it's also true with these hubs. There's that management component that was mentioned here. However, the budget itself and the ability of the current model to be flexible are built into that feasibility study. In other words, in the imagined approach in the feasibility study, the open call for a TSU would be fully open. So it could be a combination of countries and within, if it was only one country, which is typically more manageable, but it doesn't have to be that way. A TSU could involve multiple institutions. There's also a mechanism there to create not the network that was proposed by Switzerland was at the level of the individual scientist, but that the level of regional links to the TSU so that they would have a connection and would have a contribution. So all of these are possible in the way that in the current approach, the way that the proposals would come in. It could also be refined in how the open call would be structured. And then, and so the, in both the EU and the Switzerland intervention, there was this aspect of voluntary contribution. The feasibility study makes it clear that both the roles of the TSU and the nature of that voluntary contribution, it's structured because and subject to an open call so that the independence of the TSU from the political process could be better guaranteed. And that's important. aspect because they're often voluntary contributions. First of all, they're ad hoc and they tend to be tied to a specific project that a country would like to pursue. But this is meant to be more structured and tied to the functioning of the CST, hence the approach of the open call. And then further with the intervention from Switzerland, The way that I heard the network approach is similar but different from the SPI. So it's down at the level of individual scientists. The scientists on the SPI volunteer. It's a major commitment that they make, and they make this commitment because of the potential to contribute and be a part of this process. And contractual work, that same motivation is not there. It's a very different link to the process. So I think one would have to be careful to keep that in mind. And of course, there is a cost implication there. However, the idea of linking two networks has been tested by the SPI. There have been some very fruitful ad hoc attempts at this. For example, say, in France, the French scientific committee on desertification approached the SPI and looked for that connection, and we attempted to work in that regard. And there were some aspects that were successful, but some that because it's not really obvious in advance how it might link to COP decisions, it wasn't an easy blend, but it was successful. And there could be a mechanism built in here that would link what we're talking about here with the TSU with leveraging existing networks that would be dedicated, as was the case in the test that was done with say SFD to the work of the CST, the work of the SPI. So it's a possibility. But I want to emphasize that a TSU is not doing the science on any IPBES or IPCC report. The scientific assessment is entirely done by the scientists that volunteer to participate in that assessment. The TSU is the mechanism to put that science to work. So when that assessment reveals that, and it can really range, that scenarios need to be developed, projections need to be calculated, et cetera, the TSU, because they're already built towards that capability, they can operate and deliver that. And that is very, very powerful. It's not a simple thing to mobilize from the ground up. And just to give you an idea, we explored trying to create a TSU ad hoc for GLO3. And it wasn't an open call. It was just an exploration, just a, could you do this to these different entities? and the value was very, very high. It wasn't a bid, it was just, we could do this, but it would cost about two million euros. Another one was closer to three million, just like an IPCC assessment. It's not surprising, because they have to gear up, they have to create the ability to do the modeling, et cetera. to pursue a TSU where it's structured, it's open call rather than ad hoc, there's a lot of value to that, right? Because then it's really designed to support the flagship report itself. So I think that's important to keep in mind when you consider that side of it. So The access to continuous funding and the idea of prioritizing funding, which were raised, one by the honorable delegate from Switzerland, another by ESU, are not as simple as they might seem on the surface. It's very important In the budget discussions this time, you will be able to see that balance between core budget and voluntary contributions and what that means for the Secretariat. It's not easy to generate staff funding through voluntary contributions. It's very challenging. So I just want to be realistic here. I mean, I've been trying to do it for years without great success. And I'm not alone. The entire Secretariat has been behind those efforts. But it's not simple. It's a challenge, and particularly in the current climate. The oversight of the TSU is a very excellent point, and I think we'll have to consider that more closely. It's very lightly touched upon in the feasibility study, and we would have to figure out exactly how that fits inside the way that science is managed in the secretariat. And then the the contribution from the honorable delegate from Zimbabwe, and there were some other contributions which touched upon the regional balance in the SPI. And actually, if you look at all the things that the SPI has to balance, it's been more successful at regional balance than any of the others. And actually, Africa has never been in deficit. It's always been at least equal to any other region. It does get unbalanced at times, and it's very difficult to recruit scientists that are not familiar with UNCCD, even though they have the right expertise, to convince them to take the big step to jump over. There are SPI members in the room that can tell you how many times they emailed me back and forth to learn about UNCCD before they took that big step of applying to the UNCCD. We put a huge effort in recruitment, but it was pointed out to us recently by the government of Korea and also I'm sorry, I can't remember right now, but a couple of countries have pointed out that a mechanism where the recruitment of the secretariat is supported by your own recruitment as countries could enhance this. I will say that the standard approach has not been very successful, right? So we put this out to all countries and we asked them to help in this recruitment. But when the people who apply tell us where they learned about the SPI, very rarely did they learn about it from you. I'm being very honest here when I say this. So if we're going to go down that path, it would have to be a firm commitment. We would have to structure it where it is a step. that parties take in contributing to that recruitment drive. But it would be very welcome. It's very difficult to one-on-one follow up with hundreds and hundreds of scientists to try and convince them to apply for the SPI. But it's a good point. In the aspect that's related to indigenous and local knowledge, it is foreseen in decision 20 and there has been enormous progress in this direction. In fact, we have currently on the SPI one of the top experts in the world in this regard and we never had anything like that in the past. So we're moving in the right direction to strengthen that is certainly something that you could consider. The last point here is about implementation science. And I want to emphasize that WOCOT, when they look at new best practices, they look at this with you, or they can, if you're the ones contributing to what's there. They have a mechanism for trying to understand scientifically the value of these practices. It's very, very very intensive. It's not an easy step in their process. It's not 100% across the board. It depends on how that practice comes in and what's provided at that stage. But it is extremely important and it's something that we have to recognize that getting the scientific community to evaluate what we do is a two-way street, right? It's about communicating to that scientific community the value in conducting science of that kind and the other direction. So it's something that I think is an excellent idea, but it's not an easy thing to make happen. I will finish on that comment by saying this. In the other two Rio conventions, the scientific community awareness leads to frequent collaboration among scientists to explore very specific things that those conventions are doing. It's only happened, to my knowledge, once under the UNCCD, and it was in the previous biennium. It was an initiative led by a university in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with partnerships with many scientists around the world. And it led to a very powerful publication. For the first time, there was an exploration of land degradation targets relative to food loss and food waste targets relative to sustainable use of oceans targets. And you might wonder, where do they fit in? But if you want to reduce pressure on land, what better way than to make up for the losses by reducing them, which would put far more less pressure on converting new land. And the same thing with the sustainable use of oceans. It's a novel concept, but my point here is that that once again is us. That's raising the awareness of the value of everything that we do in the CST so that the scientific community coalesces and pursues those kinds of publications. Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank the Chief Scientist of the UNCCD. I thank all participants for their valuable comments and contributions. The Committee has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item four. Distinguished delegates, we have concluded our programme of work for this meeting. The Committee will hold its third plenary meeting tomorrow morning, Wednesday 19 August, at 10 a.m. in this room. The Committee will then hold its fourth plenary meeting jointly with the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention in the afternoon at 3 p.m. in the plenary hall. Further information on the programme for CST-17 and related meetings is available on the conference website and the UNCCD app. Finally, I wish to inform delegations that the CST Contact Group will meet in room MET-13, located in Zone B, immediately after the adjournment of this meeting. This meeting is adjourned.