Egypt the Dream Foundation for Development and Innovation (EDFDI)

AI capacity-building;Interoperability of governance approaches;Transparency, accountability, and human oversight;Safe, secure and trustworthy AI;

These four priorities form the bedrock of equitable global governance from the perspective of the Global South.

In Africa and the broader Global South, AI governance gaps create critical bottlenecks that hinder sustainable development, civil society empowerment, and climate action. The most significant challenge is the profound AI capacity divide. The concentration of computing infrastructure and foundational models in the Global North limits our region to being mere consumers of technology. This gap restricts our ability to develop sovereign AI solutions tailored to local crises, such as deep-tech climate restoration, water management, or precision agriculture. Furthermore, the lack of interoperable governance approaches threatens to marginalize developing nations. As the Global North rapidly establishes fragmented regulatory frameworks, these rules risk becoming unilateral barriers that do not reflect our socioeconomic realities. Without inclusive, interoperable standards, civil society organizations in our region struggle to access the tools needed for innovation. Additionally, gaps in transparency and accountability within current global systems allow bureaucratic monopolies and external consultancies to exploit climate finance mechanisms, delaying urgent funding for grassroots projects. However, bridging these governance gaps offers transformative opportunities. By prioritizing safe, secure, and transparent AI, we can revolutionize global climate finance. For instance, deploying decentralized AI systems—like the proposed Unified Global AI Climate Server (UGAICS) and automated Climate Finance Points (CFPs)—can bypass bureaucratic corruption, ensuring unbiased and immediate funding for local initiatives. Moreover, establishing robust AI capacity-building frameworks will empower communities to transition from technology consumers to innovators. Grassroots initiatives demonstrate that with equitable access, we can cultivate "Green AI" to solve local environmental challenges. Ultimately, implementing human-centric, interoperable AI governance will protect vulnerable populations, uphold fundamental human rights, and transform AI into a sovereign tool for environmental and economic resilience across Africa.

The AI Dialogue must serve as the primary catalyst for shifting AI governance from fragmented, exclusive frameworks into a truly universal and actionable multilateral system. Its most critical role in advancing international cooperation is bringing the Global South to the table on equal footing, ensuring that global tech policy prioritizes sovereign capacity-building and technology transfer over mere software risk mitigation.

The AI Dialogue should strategically connect with the UNFCCC climate finance mechanisms, the Global Digital Compact, the ITU's 'AI for Good' platform, and the UN's Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. Crucially, it must build upon existing climate dialogues—such as the UNFCCC Veredas Dialogue and the Work Programme on Climate Finance—where the vital intersection of advanced technology and planetary restoration is already being negotiated. It should also integrate with regional mechanisms like the African Union's digital frameworks to ensure localized, grassroots relevance.

To maximize stakeholder contribution, the AI Dialogue must evolve beyond traditional plenary sessions into a "Think-and-Do" framework, treating civil society and the technical community not merely as observers, but as vital implementation partners.

The most critically underrepresented voices in AI governance are grassroots communities in the Global South, particularly women in climate-vulnerable coastal regions, youth innovators outside Western tech hubs, and non-English speaking populations. Currently, global discussions predominantly reflect the priorities of major tech corporations and developed economies, often treating developing nations merely as data sources or passive technology consumers rather than active co-producers.

Fostering truly dynamic engagement requires abandoning passive conference formats in favor of interactive, technology-driven methodologies that mirror the innovative nature of AI itself.

To promote effective AI governance and offer concrete solutions, we propose three operational platforms and practices developed by our entity, which shift AI from a passive analytical tool to an active planetary restoration mechanism: