European Union

On Monday, 12 December, WG I approved without, or with minor discussion, conference room papers (CRPs) on: Cartagena Protocol Article 30 (subsidiary bodies); review of progress towards Aichi Target 16 on the Nagoya Protocol; and monitoring and reporting, and use of the term “indigenous peoples and local communities” under the Cartagena Protocol. WG I further heard reports from contact groups and addressed CRPs on: Strategic Plan implementation; compliance under the Nagoya Protocol; integration among the Convention and its Protocols; the Supplementary Protocol on liability and redress under the Cartagena Protocol; assessment and review under the Nagoya Protocol; and the communications strategy. WG II approved without, or with minor discussion, CRPs on the in-depth dialogue on thematic areas and other cross-cutting issues, best-practice guidelines on TK repatriation, and scientific assessment of progress towards selected Aichi Targets. WG II further addressed: implementation of Aichi Targets 11 (protected areas) and 12 (threatened species); the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO) and IPBES; indicators; and invasive alien species. Contact groups and Friends of the Chair groups met throughout the day to address: capacity building; unintentional transboundary movements under the Cartagena Protocol; sequence information on genetic resources; global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism under the Nagoya Protocol; biodiversity mainstreaming; the financial mechanism; and synergies. IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, has provided daily web coverage, daily reports and a summary and analysis report from the UN Biodiversity Conference. The summary and analysis report is available in HTML and PDF. Photos by IISD/ENB | Francis Dejon For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. Working Group I L-R: Valerie Normand, CBD Secretariat; David Ainsworth, CBD Secretariat; and WG I Chair Mette Gervin Damsgaard (Denmark) Contact Group Co-Chair Wadzi Goredema-Mandivenyi, South Africa, reported on the contact group on risk assessment Contact Group Co-Chair Laure Ledeux, EU, reported on the contact group on resource mobilization L-R: Contact Group Co-Chairs Maria Schultz, Sweden, and Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Ghana, reported on the contact group on capacity building Felipe Costa, Brazil Jimena Nieto Carrasco, Colombia L-R: Korsheda Yasmeen, Nurul Karim, Mohammed Solaiman Haider, and AKM Rafiqul Islam, Bangladesh L-R: Helmut Gaugitsch, Elfriede Anna More, and Andreas Meissenberger, Austria Delegates from China consulting Marcia Levaggi, Argentina Mehmet Gölge, Turkey Barbara De Rosa-Joynt, US Laurent Schley, Luxembourg Naritiana Rakotoniaina Ranaivoson, Madagascar Babucarr Dumbuya, the Gambia Working Group II WG II Chair Malta Qwathekana (South Africa) Risa Smith, Canada José Luis Echeverría Tello, Guatemala Moustafa Fouda, Egypt Jukka-Pekka Jäppinen, Finland Bob Kagumaho Kakuyo , Uganda Anne Teller, EU Nadia Chenouf, Algeria Sarah Pearson Perret, Switzerland Malik Morjan, South Sudan Ghanim Abdullah Mohammed, Qatar Darío Mandelburger, Paraguay Andrew Bignell, New Zealand Samantha Hautea, Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) Ramon Carillo Arellano, ITTO Delegates from Malaysia consulting L-R: Reem Al Mheiri and Hiba Al Shehhi, United Arab Emirates L-R: Raphaël Simonet and Ludovic Aquilina, Monaco COP 13 Snapshots Central Africa Forests Commission (COMIFAC) member states consulting L-R: Easter Galuvao, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and Makiko Yashiro, UN Environment L-R: Evelin Acosta and Hortencia Hidalgo Caceres, IIFB COP 13 documentation team

The theme for the Rio Conventions Pavilion (RCP) on Monday, 12 December, was Protected Areas: “Partnerships for improving natural wealth for achieving global targets and for addressing global challenges.” The session provided a forum to discuss the status of implementation of Aichi Target 11 (protected areas) and national "roadmaps" of prioriy actions; how the roadmaps contribute to achieving the Target; and helping countries in implementing their roadmap in order to achieve multiple benefits. The EU, UNDP, Japan Biodiversity Fund, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Governments of Germany, Republic of Korea, India, Mexico, Brazil, GEF, Birdlife International, IUCN, Institut de la Francophonie pour le Développement Durable (IFDD), Red Latinoamericana de Cooperación Técnica en Parques Naturales, Áreas Protegidas, Fauna y Flora Silvestre (REDPAQUES) and Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) were co-organizers. In the morning session, participants heard about progress in implementing Aichi Target 11 and national roadmaps. Session 1 showcased experiences from the Asia and Pacific region, with presentations from India, Fiji, SPREP and ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity. Session 2 focused on Africa, with experiences from South Africa and Uganda, and on support from Germany and IFDD. In the afternoon, Session 3 on Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) focused on Mexico and Brazil, and the work of REDPARQUES. Session 4 presented perspectives from Europe, including the Governments of Albania and Malta, the EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) and IUCN/WCPA Global Programme, Europe. The last Session featured presentations by the GEF Secretariat, BirdLife International, UNEP/WCMC, and Indigenous Peoples' and Community Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCA) Consortium. IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB+ Meeting Coverage, provided daily web coverage, daily reports and a summary report from RCP at CBD COP 13. A summary of the Rio Conventions Pavilion events is available in HTML and PDF. Photos by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. Opening Session L-R: Sarat Babu Gidda, CBD Secretariat; Stefan Leiner, European Commission, Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD; Matthias Krause, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany; Neville Ash, UN Environment (UNEP); Jamison Ervin, UN Development Programme (UNDP); and Trevor Sandwith, IUCN Sarat Babu Gidda, CBD Secretariat Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD Stefan Leiner, European Commission Neville Ash, UNEP Matthias Krause, BMZ, Germany Sarat Babu Gidda, CBD Secretariat, Edjigayehu Seyoum, CBD Secretariat, and David Cooper, Deputy Executive Secretary, CBD, thank Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD, for his work in advancing Protected Areas around the world Session 1: Asia and Pacific Region L-R: Vinod Mathur, Wildlife Institute of India; Eleni Tokaduadua, Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and Environment, Fiji; Stuart Chape, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP); Roberto Oliva, Executive Director, Asian Nations (ASEAN) Centre for Biodiversity (ACB); and Ignacio March, National Commission for Natural Protected Areas, Mexico Ignacio March, National Commission for Natural Protected Areas, Mexico Vinod Mathur, Wildlife Institute of India Eleni Tokaduadua, Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and Environment, Fiji Stuart Chape, SPREP Session 2: Africa Region View of the panel during the session Aggret Rwetsiba, Uganda Wildlife Authority Thanduxolo Mkefe, Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa Participants in the session engage with the panel Session 3: Latin America and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) View of the panel during the session Jamison Ervin, UNDP Ugo Vercillo, Chico Mendes Institute, Brazil Cláudio Maretti, IUCN Participants during the session Session 4: Europe Marie Therese Gambin, Environment and Planning Authority, Malta Klodiana Marika, Ministry of Environment, Albania Grégoire Dubois, EU Joint Research Centre (JRC) Session 5: Presentation by Other Partners Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, ICCA Consortium Pepe Clarke, BirdLife International Naomi Kingston, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Trevor Sandwith, IUCN Mark Zimsky, GEF Secretariat Launch of the 'Protected Planet' Report Partners of the 'Protected Planet' report and participants in the session join hands in support for the implementation of the National Priority Actions on Protected Areas for achieving multiple benefits Around the Venue

The following event was covered by IISD Reporting Services on Saturday, 10 December 2016: Signature and Launch of the Yucatan Peninsula Agreement on Sustainability for 2030 (ASPY) Biodiversity-Related Development Finance: Towards Better Tracking IISD Reporting Services, through its ENBOTS Meeting Coverage, is providing daily web coverage of selected side-events from the UN Biodiversity Conference. Photos by IISD/ENB | Diego Noguera For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. Signature and Launch of the Yucatan Peninsula Agreement on Sustainability for 2030 (ASPY) Presented by the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Mexican REDD+ Programme, and the Latin American Conservation Council (LACC) At this event, moderated by Antonio Godoy, State of Quintana Roo, the state governments of Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán in Mexico, together with civil society organizations (CSOs) and over 50 companies committed to green growth and conservation of the Yucatán Peninsula by signing the ASPY. Aurelio Ramos, Director, TNC Latin America, noted the need to increase food production by 2050 due to population increase, stressing that Latin America is central to addressing this challenge. He underscored the need for private-public partnerships to meet the joint challenges of development and conservation, lauding the partnerships represented within the ASPY. He highlighted that the ASPY aims to, inter alia: achieve zero deforestation by 2030; restore two million hectares of degraded lands; and promote Mayan biocultural landscapes on over five million hectares of land. Rafael Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, Governor of Campeche, said that the signing represented a step forward in the preservation of the YucatánPeninsula and in biodiversity mainstreaming. Calling the Agreement the “start of the green wave” of Mexico, he stressed that the ASPY will address not only forestry, but also marine and coastal, as well as terrestrial, biodiversity. He highlighted the region’s biocultural heritage, as well as the numerous protected areas, stating that Campeche has the largest mangrove area in the country. Rolando Zapata Bello, Governor of Yucatán, underscored that the region’s natural wealth is a “treasure,” pointing to the threats posed by climate change. He highlighted that the ASPY is an important strategy for the region and will be essential in achieving zero deforestation, and addressing sustainable consumption and production. He drew attention to Mexico’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and the Cancún Declaration on Mainstreaming Biodiversity, stressing that the Yucatán Peninsula will be central to achieving both these agreements. In a keynote address, Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Governor of Quintana Roo, noted that the signing of the ASPY will drive green growth in the Yucatán Peninsula, and announced that this is the first regional agreement on conservation and sustainable growth in Mexico. He stressed that the ASPY is an opportunity to elaborate new green development strategies, and called for the coordination of efforts in order to meet the strategic goals set out in the Agreement, including on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal zone management, ecosystem conservation, water, sustainable markets and sustainable tourism. He welcomed private sector partnerships to attain long-term sustainability represented in the ASPY, expressing confidence that other entrepreneurs and private sector actors will also join the Agreement. The Governors then signed the ASPY, which consists of two interlinked agreements: the collaboration Agreement between the three states; and the Private Sector Declaration. The dais during the event Aurelio Ramos, Director, TNC Latin America, pointed to the ASPY as a tool to attract resources from the global community and the private sector in order to promote green growth in the Yucatán Peninsula. Rafael Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, Governor of Campeche, stressed that “we need to leave a better world for our children,” underlining the need for the youth to be involved in the green growth agenda. Rolando Zapata Bello, Governor of Yucatan, welcomed the ASPY, highlighting that it will make the region attractive to new investments that promote sustainable growth. Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Governor of Quintana Roo, promised that he would “restore one coral for each vote,” and called for private investment in green development. (L-R): Rolando Zapata Bello, Governor of Yucatan, Carlos Manuel Joaquín González, Governor of Quintana Roo, and Rafael Alejandro Moreno Cárdenas, Governor of Campeche, sign the ASPY. Contact: Nadia Peimbert (Coordinator) | npeimbert@tnc.org More Information: http://www.nature.org/ggc http://ccpy.gob.mx/agenda-regional/aspy2030.php Biodiversity-Related Development Finance: Towards Better Tracking Presented by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) This workshop, moderated by Gabriela Blatter, Federal Office of Environment, Switzerland, engaged participants in discussing current methods of tracking biodiversity-related financing. Markus Lehmann, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat, highlighted the challenges faced by parties in meeting the financial mobilization targets, noting that mainstreaming biodiversity into all sectors makes financial reporting difficult, and pointed to the additional challenge on reporting private assistance. In the first session, on approaches to tracking biodiversity-related development finance, Galina Alova, OECD, presented the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Creditor Reporting System (CRS) used to monitor development finance targeting the three Rio Conventions. She described the Rio Markers, which are used to capture data to track financing of Rio Conventions’-related activities and goals. She reported bilateral biodiversity-related official development assistance (ODA) of US$8.7 billion in 2014-2015, with the top five contributors being Germany, the US, Japan, France and the EU. In a brief discussion, participants noted difficulties in ensuring data consistency due to the qualitative nature of the Rio Marker. Luis Antonio Sánchez Perales, Ministry of Environment, Peru, spoke about his country’s approach to tracking biodiversity-related expenditure, stressing that “we must know how much goes to salaries and how much goes to trees and birds.” He presented an online platform where data on both public and private expenditure for biodiversity-related finance can be tracked, noting that an average of US$500 million was spent between 2010 and 2014 on waste management, waste water treatment and in situ conservation of potato breeds. Bart Missinne, European Commission (EC), highlighted that the EU’s strategy for “biodiversity-proof” development cooperation must ensure that biodiversity is considered in: strategic environmental assessments, to identify and prevent undesired side effects of development projects on biodiversity, and through mitigation measures from development projects; and sector-wide planning, such as for health and infrastructure projects. He demonstrated how the EU has doubled total biodiversity-related ODA to developing countries by 116% against a baseline of average spending from 2006-2010. Ferdinand Mwapopi, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, discussed his country’s experience in tracking national biodiversity expenditure. He cited the use of the UN Development Programme (UNDP) Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) approach for public-private expenditure reviews for biodiversity and costing biodiversity-related projects. He reported progress in disaggregating expenditure data based on sources and activities, noting that biodiversity expenditure was highest in 2010, receiving 2.4% of total government expenditure, and lauded the substantial increase in Germany’s contribution since 2015. Blatter, on behalf of Eva Mayerhofer, European Investment Bank, spoke on the development of a joint methodology to track biodiversity-related multilateral development finance for multilateral development banks (MDBs). She reported reduced biodiversity-related funding and called on MDB member countries to channel more funding towards biodiversity. She noted that the OECD tracking methodology follows a process-related approach to assess the biodiversity relevance of funding, adding that tracking positive impacts of funding on ecosystem management is preferable to tracking financial flows. In the second session on how the DAC CRS can be used to track biodiversity-related ODA, Guillaume Simon, OECD, presented a biodiversity-related development finance database of the OECD using three examples of project reporting to illustrate information on, inter alia, donor commitments, project descriptions, timelines and geographic specification. He noted the database uses the Rio Markers to specify whether principal objectives of the project are biodiversity-related. He also said the data could be exported and that a data visualization tool, which illustrates project details, can be accessed at: http://stats.oecd.org Armida Andres, Biodiversity Management Bureau, the Philippines, discussed her country’s experience, noting concerns on the use of the Rio Markers since most projects do not fall directly in the categories proposed. She recommended feedback mechanisms between donor recipient countries and the CRS to refine these categories and to include differentiation of project implementation at national, subnational and local levels. She noted that tracking biodiversity expenditure is contributing to reporting to National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). She underscored her country’s preference for its own public expenditure review processes, saying the EU markers were “oversimplified.” Matthias Krause, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany, reported on a BMZ report ‘Committed to Biodiversity,’ which tracks Germany’s international cooperation in support of the CBD. He said bilateral funding is channeled through BMZ and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). He noted that the report focuses on international biodiversity finance, which promotes sustainable production and consumption patterns and ensures biodiversity and ecosystem services are taken into account in economic and political decision-making processes. In a lively two-part discussion, participants discussed, inter alia: the complexities of reporting particularly against the backdrop of mainstreaming biodiversity; the need to ensure that ODA actually benefits biodiversity; the importance of sharing information to avoid overlaps and improve transparency; the role of BIOFIN in reporting; the need to use biodiversity-relevant coefficients to mainstream biodiversity at the national level; and the need to consider biodiversity finance related to private lands. They also spoke about, inter alia: how to account for the difference between what is reflected in project proposals and what is implemented on the ground; how to practically track financing in the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; and the danger of basing the ability to achieve all the Targets on Aichi Biodiversity Target 20 (resource mobilization). They also highlighted: the extent of biodiversity-related projects on the database; the importance of assisting recipient countries in using the OECD reporting database; the potential to bridge the gap between the use of datasets in reporting biodiversity-related financing and transparently communicating how this reporting aligns with national commitments for the Rio Conventions; and the use of “commitments” versus “disbursements” in reporting national efforts for biodiversity conservation. Moderator Gabriela Blatter, Federal Office of Environment, Switzerland Markus Lehmann, CBD Secretariat, welcomed country perspectives on biodiversity-related financial reporting. Galina Alova, OECD, said Africa accounted for the highest share of bilateral biodiversity-related ODA commitments in 2014-15, amounting to 31%. Luis Antonio Sánchez Perales, Ministry of Environment, Peru, noted that “it is not how much we spend on biodiversity, but what we do with the funding.” Bart Missinne, EC, described how the EU uses performance indicators to track and report on biodiversity investment. Grégoire Dubois, EC, during ensuing discussions. Matti Nummelin, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland Ferdinand Mwapopi, Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibia, said Namibia has been tracking biodiversity-related funding since 2006. Guillaume Simon, OECD Development Co-operation Directorate, described the content of an online database to track biodiversity-related development finance. Matthias Krause, BMZ, said that since 2012, projects that include the Rio Markers are considered in a country’s biodiversity-related bilateral financing. Contact: Galina Alova (Coordinator) | Galina.Alova@oecd.org Nicolina Lamhauge (Coordinator) | Nicolina.Lamhauge@oecd.org More Information: http://oe.cd/RioMarkers

On Friday, WG I approved without, or with minor discussion, conference room papers on the SBI modus operandi and mechanisms to support review of implementation under the Convention and its Protocols. WG I further addressed: unintentional transboundary movements, and transit and contained use, of LMOs; and review of implementation of the Strategic Plan. WG II addressed: pollinators; forest biodiversity; biodiversity and climate change; ecosystem restoration; and progress towards Aichi Targets 11 (protected areas) and 12 (threatened species). Contact groups on resource mobilization, the financial mechanism, and risk assessment of LMOs met throughout the day. An evening plenary reviewed progress, adopted decisions and addressed organizational issues. IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, has provided daily web coverage, daily reports and a summary and analysis report from the UN Biodiversity Conference. The summary and analysis report is available in HTML and PDF. Photos by IISD/ENB | Francis Dejon For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. Working Group I WG I Chair Mette Gervin Damsgaard (Denmark) Marcus Davies, Canada Diego Pacheco Balanza, Bolivia Hayria Mohamed, Comoros Leticia Rubello, Grupo Ecologista del Mayab A.C. (GEMA) Lim Li Ching, Third World Network (TWN) Anselmina Liphola, Mozambique Shirin Karryeva, Turkmenistan Soul Lee, Republic of Korea Ruben Dekker, EU Mohamed Ali Ben Temessek, Tunisia Takashi Ito, Japan Somaly Chan, Cambodia Marcia Levaggi, Argentina L-R: Shirin Karryeva, Turkmenistan; Elvana Ramay, Albania; and Senka Barudanovich, Bosnia and Herzegovina L-R: Christine von Weizsäcker, ECOROPA and François Meienberg, Switzerland L-R: Murali Krishna; Amita Prasad; Vibha Ahuja; and Gyanesh Bharti, India L-R: Willy Tonui; Josphat Muchiri; and Kavaka Mukonyi, Kenya Working Group II WG II Chair Malta Qwathekana (South Africa) L-R: Paula Díaz and Karin Molt, Chile L-R: Jaime Grubb, James Hammond, and Melissa Cotterill, Australia Asghar Mohammadi Fazel, Iran Tone Solhaug, Norway Horst Korn, Germany Javier Gutierrez, Nicaragua Lena Chan, Singapore Abdul-Hakim Aulaiah, Yemen Delegates from WG II in a huddle to discuss language pertaining to ecosystem restoration Plenary Rafael Pacchiano Alamán, COP 13 President, presiding over the evening plenary Chair Mette Gervin Damsgaard (Denmark) Chair Malta Qwathekana (South Africa) Spencer Thomas, Grenada, reported on the status of the Budget Committee Maria Luisa Angelica Del Rio Mispireta, Peru, reported on the status of the Credentials Committee Chengshou Bai, China, formally accepted to host COP 15 in China COP 13 Snapshots L-R: Clare Glass Rudaks and Mercy Mundyadzwe, Botswana Delegates from the Philippines Delegates from Malaysia showing their CHM award and certificate of achievement from CBD

On Thursday, WG I addressed: cooperation with other conventions and organizations; a global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanism under the Nagoya Protocol; and socioeconomic considerations, liability and redress, risk assessment and risk management, and unintentional transboundary movement of LMOs under the Cartagena Protocol. WG II approved without, or with minor discussion, conference room papers (CRPs) on sustainable wildlife management, UNPFII recommendations and climate-related geo-engineering. WG II further addressed marine debris and underwater noise, marine spatial planning, biodiversity in cold-water areas and pollinators. The budget group met in the morning. Contact groups on resource mobilization, capacity building, the financial mechanism, synthetic biology and Article 8(j) met throughout the day. IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, has provided daily web coverage, daily reports and a summary and analysis report from the UN Biodiversity Conference. The summary and analysis report is available in HTML and PDF. Photos by IISD/ENB | Francis Dejon For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. Working Group I Chair Mette Gervin Damsgaard (Denmark) presiding over WG I Micheline Dorcé Donnacien, IIFB Pedro Rocha, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) Cuauhtémoc Ochoa Fernández, Mexico Elena Makeyeva, Belarus Leo Maier, EU Neimatullo Safarov, Tajikistan Véronique Amari, Côte d'Ivoire Yousef Saleh Al-Hafedh, Saudi Arabia Goote Voigt-Hanssen, Norway Christine Echookit Akello, Uganda Letchumanan Ramatha, Malaysia Claudio Chiarolla, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Kent Nnadozie, Secretary, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR) Working Group II L-R: Robert Höft, CBD Secretariat and WG II Chair Malta Qwathekana (South Africa) Reneé Sauvé, Canada Alain De Comarmond, Seychelles Adam van Opzeeland, New Zealand Ana María Hernández Salgar, Colombia Karma Nyedrup, Bhutan Esther Shushu Makwaia, Tanzania Akram Eissa Darwich, IFAW L-R: Augusto Manuel Pinto and Marcal Gusmao, Timor-Leste L-R: Marco Vinicio Araya, Pamela Castillo, and Zdenka Piskulich, Costa Rica L-R: Eleni Tokaduadua, Alisi Rabukawaqa, and Alfred Ralifo, Fiji L-R: Victor Canton, Anna Laura Mello, and Alejandro Nario Carvalho, Uruguay L-R: Sarat Babu Gidda, CBD Secretariat, in conversation with Umair Shahid, Pakistan L-R: Daniela Diz, IISD RS, discussing marine issues with Alexander Shestakov, Russian Federation Contact Groups Contact group on traditional knowledge COP 13 participants waiting to enter the contact group on synthetic biology COP 13 Snapshots L-R: Ailis Rego, Charles Gbedemah, Michele Rattray, CBD Secretariat, waiting for the Budget Committee to start its session with CBD Executive Secretary Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias Youth participants consulting Nader Ibrahim, CBD Secretariat, with youngest COP 13 participant Theodore Sinatra, Mexico L-R: Daniela Hernández Orozco, Daniel Goycochea Rodríguez, and Alejandra Guzman Olguín, Mexico

The following events were covered by IISD Reporting Services on Thursday, 8 December 2016: GEF Investments and Donor Coordination to Address the Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) Crisis Synthetic Biology — Opportunities, Challenges, and Environmental Benefits Multiple Approaches to Valuing Nature: The Work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on Diverse Values and its Echo in Practice Sustainable Agriculture for Biodiversity: Taking Concrete Transformative Steps Operation Target 16 - Operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) in Germany “Let Nature be the Solution” Insights in National Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Capacity Building Needs – Tools, Measures and (Regional) Approaches to Address Them IISD Reporting Services, through its ENBOTS Meeting Coverage, is providing daily web coverage of selected side-events from the UN Biodiversity Conference. Photos by IISD/ENB | Diego Noguera For photo reprint permissions, please follow instructions at our Attribution Regulations for Meeting Photo Usage Page. GEF Investments and Donor Coordination to Address the Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) Crisis Presented by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank This event, moderated by Jaime Cavelier, GEF, presented the GEF-funded Global Partnership on Wildlife Conservation and Crime Prevention for Sustainable Development (the GPW project), which aims to tackle the poaching and the IWT crisis. Mohamed Bakarr, GEF, said the GPW project follows GEF funding principles, including country-driven actions and partnerships. Cavelier presented an overview of the GPW project, highlighting components including: reducing poaching through enhancing wildlife benefits to communities; reducing IWT through increased law enforcement; and reducing demand for illegal wildlife products. Elisson Wright, World Bank, presented a report analyzing international funding to tackle IWT. The report, he noted, maps out donor contributions from 24 bilateral agencies involving 1100 projects that tackled IWT in Africa and Asia between 2010 and 2016. He discussed: interventions in protected area management; promotion of sustainable use and alternative livelihoods; policy, research and assessment; and communication and awareness. Matthias Krause, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany, reported on the ‘Wildlife Crime in Africa: from Crisis to Solution’ consultative meeting, held in June 2016 in Berlin, emphasizing that the magnitude of the IWT crisis requires international coordinated efforts. He reported German support of €800 million to support 400 protected areas. Christine Dawson, US Department of State, said that, in 2010, the US contributed US$10 million towards IWT, which was up to US$95 million in 2015. She noted that an interministerial taskforce has been set up in the US involving 17 agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Defense, to address this issue from a crime perspective. Kenichiro Tanaka, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, said as one of the largest donor of the GEF, his country is committed to continued work on IWT, including support for law enforcement particularly in customs. Midori Paxton, UN Development Programme (UNDP), said her organization supports 13 national projects relating to IWT, including aspects of capacity building for enforcement, intelligence and landscape management with communities. She urged for long-term investment in sustaining successes in combatting IWT. Johan Robinson, UN Environment, cited community projects providing incentives to prevent IWT and work with UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) on issues regarding the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Presenting GWP project recipient country experiences, Hoang Thanh Nhan, Viet Nam Environment Administration, pointed out that tackling IWT requires involvement of all ministries and agencies, and not just those dealing with wildlife conservation. She noted an additional US$10 million from the US Agency for International Development to support the GWP project. She also reported on the Hanoi IWT conference held in November 2016 in Hanoi. Agostinho Mangueze, National Administration for Conservation Areas (ANAC), Mozambique, demonstrated progress in addressing IWT, including: legislative changes to increase jail terms for wildlife crimes; regional collaboration with Tanzania and South Africa; capacity building of law enforcement; collaboration with Viet Nam to address supply chains; and community awareness. Theresa Mundita Lim, Biodiversity Management Bureau, the Philippines, said that besides being a transit point for IWT, her country was also losing revenue amounting to US$ 230 million annually from IWT in marine biodiversity. She drew attention to the recently developed National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan that will enhance wildlife protection. In ensuing discussions, participants noted the need to measure success of IWT interventions alongside funding trends. Nepal said whereas they have halted rhino poaching, tiger poaching is on the rise. Participants also noted the important role played by the media in reducing the value of ivory by almost half in China. Mohamed Bakarr, GEF, said the GPW project has received US$131 million to date to combat IWT. Jaime Cavelier, GEF, said the GPW project involves 19 countries for work on elephants, pangolins, rhino, gorilla and big cats and has leveraged an additional US$703 million. Participants watched a WildAid video on the illegal wildlife trade. Elisson Wright, World Bank, said the establishment of a donor engagement platform on IWT would allow proactive discussions and information sharing to enhance efforts in combatting IWT. Partners of the GWP project Contact: Jaime Cavelier (Coordinator) | jcavelier@thegef.org Elisson Wright (Coordinator) | ewright1@worldbank.org More Information: www.thegef.org www.worldbank.org Synthetic Biology — Opportunities, Challenges and Environmental Benefits Presented by CropLife International (CLI) This event, moderated by Taiwo Koyejo, CLI, addressed different applications of synthetic biology and how this technology should be regulated. Henrik Toft Simonsen, Technological University of Denmark, noted different research aims of bioengineering, including: the production of chemicals, such as those used in drugs, vaccines, biofuels and vitamins, in a sustainable manner; novel use of engineered cells, such as through tissue engineering and diagnostics; and novel tools for engineering, such as “transformation tricks” and sequencing of DNA. Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute, highlighted his Institute’s work on synthetic biology, and said the ongoing synthetic biology discussions at the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP 13) contact group provide a good basis for risk assessment regarding living organisms developed through current and near-future applications of synthetic biology, noting such methodologies may need to be updated and adapted in the future. Mark Tizard, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), distinguished between gene editing, genetic modification and gene drives, highlighting an opportunity, through gene editing to move from a “responsive” approach, typified by “slowness and luck,” to a “directed” approach, typified by “precision and speed.” On the possible release of gene drives, he called for: “a route with flashing lights, check points and off-ramps, rather than barricades.” Kate Wildauer, SynBioBeta, highlighted potential positive impacts of synthetic biology, including: production of biodegradable forms of products such as plastics and inks, and conservation of plants and animals by providing alternatives to them. She said limiting the growth of synthetic biology tools with “disproportionate regulation” could have negative economic, ecological and security impacts, and called for supporting industry with appropriate regulation and governance that allows for safe outcomes. In the discussion, participants considered, inter alia: ethical concerns, such as the loss of livelihoods in Africa due to the proliferation of synthetic biology; the risks of promoting synthetic biology versus the risks of banning it; dialogue as key to addressing the concerns of different groups; the need for adequate national biotechnology regulatory systems as the field progresses; the value of connecting early-phase start ups with regulatory agencies prior to commercialization; and the need for capacity building in the area of synthetic biology. (L-R): Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute; Kate Wildauer, SynBioBeta; Mark Tizard, CSIRO; and Henrik Toft Simonsen, Technological University of Denmark Mark Tizard, CSIRO, highlighted “the dynamic tension between conserving biodiversity and feeding the planet,” underscoring: “we are not in full control and new tools are urgently needed to help.” Kate Wildauer, SynBioBeta, stressed that “synthetic biology is part of the next industrial revolution.” Henrik Toft Simonsen, Technological University of Denmark, stated that over the next 40 years the world will need to build “a new Manhattan” every eight weeks due to increasing urbanization, and will need to do so in a different way from the past, noting bioengineering can assist. Robert Friedman, J. Craig Venter Institute, noted his organization’s work on creating a “minimal cell” with the smallest set of genes necessary for growth, “to help us understand the fundamentals of life.” Taiwo Koyejo, CLI, moderated the event. A view of the room during the event Contact: Taiwo Koyejo (Moderator) | taiwo.koyejo@croplife.org More Information: https://croplife.org/ Multiple Approaches to Valuing Nature: The Work of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) on Diverse Values and its Echo in Practice Presented by the UN University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and IPBES This side event, moderated by Ulrike Tröger, GIZ, presented the IPBES guide on multiple values of nature to support more holistic decision making and for incorporating these values into social and environmental assessments. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES, spoke on the IPBES Work Programme 2014-2018 in providing scientific and methodological assessments for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and stressed the importance of considering plural or multiple values for nature to design appropriate methods which take these into account. David González, National Autonomous University of Mexico, described a framework illustrating how to integrate different “ways of knowing and relating to nature” to encompass the diverse meanings of value. He compared the use of a single worldview for valuing nature, which often results in the use of cost-benefit analysis to measure economic value, with a plural perspective of worldviews for identifying the variety of policy instruments and governance systems that reflect diverse values for nature. Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, UNU-IAS, described a valuation methodology to strengthen access and benefit sharing (ABS) of biological resources in India. She noted that in order to go beyond economic valuation, it is necessary to consider the uncertainty of values, which varies according to the type of resource, ownership regime and sector involved. She stressed the need for mediation by competent authorities to ensure that the equity considerations of multiple actors are addressed, and the need to account for sectoral business models, uncertainty and the product life cycle for ABS. Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, UNU-IAS, described the work of the Regional Centres of Expertise (RCEs) in promoting education for sustainable development. He noted RCEs are innovative platforms for multisectoral and interdisciplinary information sharing and collaboration, which link formal education with networks and informal forms of learning, and, thus, provide added value in promoting multiple values for nature. The ensuing discussions took place through a “fishbowl” style discussion in which panelists addressed topics raised by participants, such as, inter alia: the role of future generations in articulating values for nature; the challenge of accounting for “non-visible” values; raising political interest in identifying plural values for ecosystem services; and the need to consider continua and gradients in the assessment of ecosystem service values. (L-R): Ulrike Tröger, GIZ; Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, UNU-IAS; Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary, IPBES; Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, UNU-IAS; and David González, National Autonomous University of Mexico Ulrike Tröger, GIZ, described the ValuES Initiative, which provides an inventory of methods and instruments to assess and value ecosystem services. Unnikrishnan Payyappallimana, UNU-IAS, described how RCEs promote “community-to-community” learning.   David González, National Autonomous University of Mexico, stressed that plural values for nature are needed to design management and policy interventions in a transparent manner. Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian, UNU-IAS, stated that plural valuation for ABS need not focus only on economic values.   Participants during the discussion Contact: Ulrike Tröger (Coordinator) | ulrike.troeger@giz.de More Information: http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/values http://www.aboutvalues.net Sustainable Agriculture for Biodiversity: Taking Concrete Transformative Steps Presented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) This session was moderated by Dan Leskien, FAO. Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), highlighted the challenges facing agriculture including droughts and floods, and noted the need to adapt agriculture to new realities such as the impacts of climate change. He said that due to some unsustainable practices, agriculture is also a source of biodiversity loss and degradation, and called for robust actions to promote mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture. Chikelu Mba, Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Team, FAO, called for a transition to a narrative that reflects the mutually reinforcing nature of agriculture and biodiversity. Noting that the focus has often been on the negative impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, he cited an example of agroforestry as a sustainable agricultural practice, which has the additional benefit of climate mitigation. He stressed the need to go beyond research on the positive impacts of agriculture, to making farmers embrace sustainable practices as part of their regular routines. Rafael Obregón Viloria, National Commission for Knowledge and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), Mexico, presented on innovations by the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Lacandon Tropical Forest, noting that the country began working on this multisectoral, participatory project to ensure that farmers continue to be stewards of nature by engaging in sustainable agricultural practices, diversifying their livelihoods, and conserving and restoring the landscapes around them. He stressed the importance of involving farmers, “respecting their value as producers,” and incentivizing them to voluntarily engage in biodiversity conservation. Tauti Fautino M-Leota, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa, spoke on the overall policy framework facilitating the mainstreaming of biodiversity into national planning processes in her country, including the Strategy for the Development of Samoa, which considers the environment as a cross-cutting issue throughout. She pointed to the objectives of the environment sector, including governance, administering natural capital, and mainstreaming climate and disaster resilience, and noted the synergies between the agriculture and environment sectors. Gunnstein Bakke, Directorate of Fisheries, Norway, presented on the ecosystems-based fisheries management in his country, noting the evolution of the sector from the 1970s when there was an overfishing crisis, to the current ecosystems-based system, which maintains both profitability of the fisheries sector as well as ecological sustainability. He stressed the need to maintain the adaptive capacity of the fisheries sector even after the recovery of fishstocks, including through the reduction of fishing vessels, and underscored the need for political will to ensure the sustainability of the sector. Jeanine Volken, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Switzerland, spoke on the role of agriculture in not only food production but also in the conservation of biodiversity. She drew attention to national agricultural policies, including the Proof of Ecological Performance tool to ensure sustainable agricultural practices. Moderating the discussion, Kim Friedman, FAO, noted the need to strengthen mainstreaming efforts already underway, underscoring the need to include both farmers and consumers in these efforts. Participants and panelists then considered, inter alia: the need for community engagement to promote the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; the role of markets in creating more sustainable fishing patterns; and the need for national-level institutional frameworks to successfully implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). (L-R): Chikelu Mba, Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Team, FAO; Dan Leskien, FAO; Irene Hoffmann, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO; and Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary, CBD, noted “huge opportunities” for win-win solutions between the agriculture and environment sectors. Dan Leskien and Irene Hoffmann, FAO A slide from Chikelu Mba’s presentation Chikelu Mba, Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Team, FAO, called for packaging solutions tailored to farmers and providing the financial and technical solutions to incentivize them to move towards sustainable practices. (L-R): Jeanine Volken, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Switzerland; Tauti Fautino M-Leota, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa; Rafael Obregón Viloria, National Commission for Knowledge and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO), Mexico; and Gunnstein Bakke, Directorate of Fisheries, Norway A slide from the presentation of Rafael Obregón Viloria Rafael Obregón Viloria, CONABIO, Mexico, noted the country’s promotion of local and regional agricultural value chains. Jeanine Volken, Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Switzerland A view of the room during the side event Contact: Chikelu Mba (Coordinator) | Chikelu.Mba@fao.org More Information: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ebs/CBDCOP13_FAO_AG__Flyer-A5.pdf Operation Target 16 - Operationalization of the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) in Germany Presented by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) This side event, moderated by Stefan Lütkes, BMUB, provided an overview of the steps undertaken by Germany to operationalize the Nagoya Protocol in order to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 16 (on ABS). Lütkes cited the German Act Implementing the Obligations under the Nagoya Protocol and Transposing Regulation of July 2016, noting that Germany is taking its obligations under the Nagoya Protocol very seriously. He elaborated on the relationship between BMUB as the Protocol’s national focal point and BfN, the competent national authority for the Protocol. Thomas Ebben, BMUB, presented a case study on the practical and legal aspects of implementing the Protocol in Germany. He said four institutions have national experience in ABS: BfN; the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food; Robert-Koch-Institut; and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office. BfN, he noted, is the “one-stop-shop,” providing users with services, such as information, advice, declarations, checks and sanctions in regards to ABS issues. Thomas Greiber, BfN, said the role of his institution includes: processing and verifying criteria for applications for inclusion in the EU register of collections; checking user compliance; enforcing compliance and sanctioning infringements; and providing information and advice. He demonstrated the ABS Clearing-House Mechanism and highlighted some challenges, including constraints in identifying risk criteria for compliance checks. In discussions, participants asked for clarification on how BfN deals with confidentiality and assures adequate checkpoints. Panelists noted that confidentiality of information requires clarity on why this should be private, and noted two control point stages during declaration of due diligence. Participants were also informed that the EU regulates compliance measures but that ABS is under the sovereignty of individual member states. (L-R): Thomas Ebben, BMUB; Thomas Greiber, BfN; Stefan Lütkes, BMUB; and Ellen Frederichs, BfN Stefan Lütkes, BMUB, moderated the event, discussing the legal framework for implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in Germany. Thomas Ebben, BfN, discussed the role of his institution in promoting and monitoring compliance and enforcement and demonstrated submissions of due diligence through the EU-developed online DECLARE platform. Thomas Greiber, BfN, discussed the role of his institution in promoting and monitoring compliance and enforcement and demonstrated submissions of due diligence through the EU developed online DECLARE platform. A participant asks a question during the discussion. Contact: Thomas Greiber (Coordinator) | thomas.greiber@bfn.de Thomas Ebben (Coordinator) | thomas.ebben@bmub.bund.de More Information: http:/abs.bfn.de “Let Nature be the Solution” Presented by the European Commission (EC) This event, moderated by Marco Fritz, EC, and Barbara Livoreil, Foundation for Biodiversity Research, France, discussed “Nature-Based Solutions” (NBS) which provide business opportunities for regenerating urban areas, improving air and water quality, -and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Andrew Deutz, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), highlighted the investment opportunities that exist in reframing nature as infrastructure, stressing that nature improves water and air quality and is the first line of defense in protecting coastal developments from disasters. He also identified the role of NBS in regenerating cities, offering insurance values in the face of hydrological risks, and for climate mitigation. Sarah Bekessy, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), highlighted the critical role of “everyday nature” for the future of urban development, emphasizing its role in, inter alia: mitigating and adapting to climate change; “re-enchanting” people with nature; providing health benefits for adults and children. She also emphasized opportunities to connect urban dwellers with indigenous knowledge through urban greening projects. Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, spoke about the role of NBS for DRR. She stressed that ecosystems can: prevent or mitigate hazards; reduce exposure by functioning as natural buffers; and reduce vulnerability by supporting livelihoods before, during and after disasters strike. She noted that a key challenge for incorporating biodiversity and ecosystems into DRR lies in convincing engineers and finance ministries to compare the costs and benefits of “grey” versus “green” infrastructure. Ángela Andrade, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, summarized lessons learned from the event, noting that NBS is a “problem-oriented approach” that addresses the key challenges facing urban areas by enhancing flood protection, food security, climate mitigation and the health of urban populations. She underlined the importance of showcasing the social, cultural and economic benefits of NBS, as well as the need to adopt a collaborative approach across different sectors, including for agriculture, mining and engineering. In the ensuing discussion, participants discussed the potential of NBS to rejuvenate the most industrialized areas within urban settings. Andrew Deutz, TNC, said that people tend to think of nature as a “victim in the face of infrastructure development,” but that “we need to think of nature as part of the solution.” Sarah Bekessy, RMIT, stressed that we must shift thinking from biodiversity as an urban constraint to a massive opportunity for sustainable urban development. Ángela Andrade, IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, stressed that a “big opportunity” exists to change people’s perceptions about development as being synonymous with ecosystem restoration. Karen Sudmeier-Rieux, IUCN Committee on Ecosystem Management, highlighted the multiple benefits of ecosystem approaches to DRR. A view of the room during the event Contact: Marco Fritz (Coordinator) | marco.fritz@ec.europa.eu More Information: http://europa.eu/!Jg99bW https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm Insights in National Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Capacity-Building Needs – Tools, Measures and (Regional) Approaches to Address Them Presented by the ABS Capacity Development Initiative (ABS Initiative) This event, moderated by Andreas Drews, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), saw representatives of the ABS Initiative and several African partner countries present and discuss progress made, success factors and challenges. Drews introduced the multi-donor ABS Initiative, noting its work in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. He said the Initiative’s core activities in its 10 African partner countries comprise support for: national capacity building, focusing on national institutional regulatory ABS frameworks; ensuring effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs); and the development of ABS agreements. Melle Assia Azzi, Algeria, highlighted ABS activities in her country, including: contribution to the analysis o=f the national legal framework; an inception workshop of the Algerian ABS policy and legal framework project; capacity building of national focal points and stakeholders; and a national diagnostic study. She said work on IPLCs may commence in 2017. Kavaka Watai Mukonyi, Kenya, highlighted activities including: institutional approaches for improved coordination on ABS permits and decisions; legal gap analysis; training; support to three pilot community-based ABS projects; studies on genetic resources and traditional knowledge (TK) utilization; and dialogue between the private sector and providers. Albun William Banye Lemnyuy, Cameroon, noted, inter alia: the drafting of a national ABS strategy; support for development of an interim ABS regulation; and negotiation of, support for, and comments on, various mutually agreed terms (MATs). Prudence Galega, Cameroon, additionally highlighted her country’s intent to develop a law, rather than an interim regulation, on ABS by April 2017. Naritiana Rakotoniaina Ranaivoson, Madagascar, highlighted: a “political letter” on ABS, which provides an overall ABS strategy; development of an interim ABS regulation; clarification of the involvement of local communities in the prior informed consent procedure process; the establishment of a biodiversity community register; and the piloting of valorization activities. Hugues Adeloui Akpona, Benin, noted activities in his country include: popularization of the national ABS strategy; support to the development of an interim ABS regulation; a pilot bio-cultural community protocol project; preparatory consultations on a TK documentation strategy; creating the basis for a valorization strategy; and capacity building to make existing partnerships ABS compliant. Opening the discussion, Suhel al-Janabi, ABS Initiative, called for input from speakers on lessons learned. Speakers expressed an interest in learning from other countries: about experiences of developing ABS laws and signing MATs; how to get “a good deal” within an agreement; how to put in place a fair benefit-sharing mechanism; how to ensure monetary benefits reach communities; and how to identify who represents communities. They also expressed an interest in sharing research. In closing, Mahlet Teshome Kebede, African Union, reflected on the potential for regional or continental implementation. Suhel al-Janabi, ABS Initiative, highlighted very different capacity building and support needs in different countries. Melle Assia Azzi, Algeria, noted that “sometimes it is easy to adopt a law, but difficult to implement it in the field.” Hugues Adeloui Akpona, Benin, noted ongoing efforts to clarify the representation of local communities at the national level. Albun William Banye Lemnyuy, Cameroon, offered to share experiences on MAT negotiation and signature.   Prudence Galega, Cameroon, highlighted training parliamentarians who work with communities as an important entry point for training on IPLCs. Kavaka Watui Mukonyi, Kenya, stressed effective ABS laws are a driver for research and development, which is key for the economy. Contact: Andreas Drews (Coordinator) | andreas.drews@giz.de More Information: www.abs-initiative.info