1st Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Good morning, everybody.
As usual, we start 10:00 P.M.
Welcome those from capitals and welcome colleagues from Geneva.
Before I start, I have to tell you that I'm very happy to be in this room.
Sorry.
I hope that this room brings some good vibes because Some years ago and I mean, lots of years ago, it was in this room that Brazil was presiding the convention on tobacco control, and we were able to finish our work.
You can imagine how hard it was to make a convention on tobacco.
I think this biological is a little bit easier in Sala.
So Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I would like to welcome you all and declare open this 90th session of the working group on the strengthening of the biological Weapons Convention.
As agreed by the 90th Review Conference, this meeting is taking place in an in person format in accordance with the regular practice under the convention.
It is also a public meeting which is being webcast live on UN web TV.
A word of appreciation for the implementation support unit.
With a very small team and a demanding agenda, the ISU has supported this working group with quite professionalism and impressive stamina.
Thank you.
Their institutional memory and technical rigor have helped keep our discussions anchored in reality while we try to design something new.
Distinguished delegates.
We have made progress since our last session back in February.
Not as much as I would like though.
At each of the informal consultations that I have convened since then, we have managed to highlight more text in yellow, which I'm hoping will be able to quickly turn to green later today.
However, our progress has not been quick enough.
We therefore need to further accelerate our work and make maximum use of the remaining time available.
We only have ten working days and I repeat, we only have ten working days left in which to finalize the report for adoption at our session in December as required by the 90th review conference.
I therefore prefer that delegations refrain from repeating national positions.
We all know them.
We have repeatedly heard the national positions of many delegations.
We have listened to this and incorporated them into the version of the draft report.
Instead of listening to national positions, let's listen to compromises.
That's what I want.
I think that everybody wants.
We now need to find compromise to allow us to collectively craft a final document reflecting our common interests.
The growing risks posed by biological weapons can only be managed by working together.
Even since we last met in February, there have been significant scientific advances which are of directed relevance to our discussions and which serve to remind us of the necessity for a successful outcome in December.
For example, you may have seen the recent reports on the use of artificial intelligence to design new virus not previously seen in nature.
This demonstrates that the convergence of AI and biology is creating new security challenges while opening important opportunities for scientific and medical progress.
The issue for the convention is that a gap may emerge between these rapidly advancing capabilities and our collective ability to understand, govern, and prevent their misuse.
Closing that gap is precisely why our work here matters.
Distinguished delegates.
With regards to our working methods, as at our previous sessions, I intend to run our meetings efficiently and punctually.
We will start and finish on time.
Morning sessions will start at ten and finish at 13.
In afternoon sessions, we will start at 15 and finish at 18.
Our overriding focus at this session will be on the update version of the revised draft final report, which was circulated earlier this month as a document BWC slash wg slash nine slash p.org slashv.org.
Dated August six, 2026.
This document is based on extensive discussions and consultations, including at our previous session in February and the many rounds of informal consultations since then.
I have met bilaterally with many delegations and I have also met with several groups of states parties as well.
To keep our pace, our delegation will have up to 3 minutes for a first intervention on any paragraph.
Should further interventions be required after a new language is proposed from the floor, a second intervention on the same paragraph may not exceed 2 minutes.
Silence during our reading will be taken as agreement with my draft.
If you support a paragraph, you do not need to take the floor.
I invite delegations, sorry.
Sorry, I invite delegations that face difficulty with any formulation to propose clear and concrete alternatives wording every time.
Only in this way can we maintain a steady negotiation rhythm and avoid losing time that we do not have.
We must not be distracted from our primary mission to focus on our mandate to conclude our work.
I therefore call on all of you to heed my call and to refrain from raising issues which do not and I repeat, do not fall within the mandate of this working group.
The microphone is going to be cut.
Distinguished delegates, in accordance with the decision of the nieth Review Conference, the first session of the working group confirmed as its rules of procedure, mutts Mutant, the rules of procedure of the nieth Review conference as contained in document BWC slasht slash two.
We have successfully used these rules of procedure for the first eight sessions of this working group.
And they are the same rules as used for the previous BWC meetings.
In accordance with these rules of procedure, we need to turn briefly to the subject of attendance at this particular session of the working group.
The ISU has received a request from one state party, Israel to attend this meeting as an observer in accordance with Rule 44, paragraph two of the rules of procedure.
May I take that the working group agrees to this request decided.
Four specialized agencies and regional intergovernmental organizations have indicated they would like to attend this meeting in accordance with Rule 44, Paragraph four of the rules of procedure.
I would consequently like to propose that the following organizations being granted observer agency status.
One, European Union.
So decided.
Two, International Atomic Energy Agency.
I have to put more glass because I cannot see from here.
Otherwise.
Those chairs don't have wheels.
Russia Thank you very much, Geir.
At the outset, please allow me to welcome you and the other delegations to this session of the working group on shoring up the Biological Weapons Convention.
I would like to wish you and everyone here successful work throughout this session.
The Russian Federation stands ready to confirm our striving to render to you every possible assistance in your efforts and you can count on our delegation.
As regards the question of participation by observers, above all, as regards regional intergovernmental organizations and non governmental organizations, we would like to confirm that the Russian position on this issue remains unchanged.
We have laid it out sufficiently in detail during previous sessions of this same group and we would like to confirm that it remains unchanged during this session also.
Now, in order not to take up too much time, we would like to declare that we do stand ready to approve participation by such observers listed by you on the understanding that their participation will be implemented in full compliance with the rules of procedure.
Above all, as regards Chapter one and Rule 43 of the given rules of procedure.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
You didn't have to wait almost 3 minutes of our time to say that things are the same.
Of course, the whole meeting is going to go according to rules of procedure.
There is no other way to do it.
Because if there is another way to do it, your delegation is going to be the first to complain.
Number two, International Atomic Energy Agency.
So decided.
Three, International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.
So decided.
World Health Organization, decided.
May I take that the working group approves my proposal to grant this organizations observer status? So decided.
While on the subject of participation, I would also like to welcome the national experts from developing countries who are participating in this meeting under the BWC Under the BWC sponsorship program, the ISU has informed me that experts from 33 developing state parties are being supported under the sponsorship program for this session.
Your attendance is an important element of our widely shared desire to widen the participation and diversity of our meetings.
Therefore, I encourage you to participate actively in our deliberations.
In this regard, I would also like to express my appreciation to Canada, France, Kazakhstan, Philippines, and the United Kingdom, as well as member states of the European Union who have contributed financially to the sponsorship of this year.
Now that we have concluded the opening formalities and necessary procedural matters, we will now move to the substantive issues before us at this session.
As at our eighth session in February, it's my intention to focus the rest of our time this week on the draft final report of the working group.
An updated version of the revised final report was circulated to all state parties, as I said before earlier this month's document, BWC dated August sent.
This updated version retains all the texts that was agreed a referendum at our seventh and eighth sessions in which is highlighted in green.
It also includes in yellow text which has been provisionally approved for consideration by state parties at this session of the working group during the six open ended informal consultations held on March 13th, April 14th, May 27th, June 25th, July 15th, and August 5th.
As at our previous sessions in February, my plan is to first focus our attention on this yellow text.
Given that it was considered the open ended informal consultations, it's my hope that this text can now be agreed in this formal plenary and therefore also turn it from yellow into green text, indicating a referendum agreement.
Sorry.
After we have addressed the text in yellow and hopefully turn it all to green text, we will then turn our attention to discussing the text which is not highlighted in either yellow or green with the goal to reach compromises on as many of these pending paragraph as possible during the course of this week.
I would now therefore like to quickly run through the paragraphs currently highlighted in yellow to seek agreement on each of them one by one.
As you will recall, these paragraphs were considered in detail during our six rounds of open ended informal consultations and the text is the result of negotiation, compromise, and flexibility.
As I said earlier, I would prefer that delegations refrain from reopening these paragraphs.
We still have many issues to resolve this week, so I do not want to spend time re discussing issues that have already provisionally agreed upon, and I will not.
Some ground rules before we start.
In my assessment, the most contentious elements remaining relates to two issues.
First, decision making by consensus and second, the role of the meeting of state parties.
In the interests of moving the negotiations forward, I will set these issues aside for now, leaving the Brexit text to be resolved at a later stage.
Setting aside these two issues for now does not mean that I will not be working on them.
I intend to consult with interested delegations to see where common ground might be found.
As always, my door is open and apparently, I have a nice office now, and I would be happy to meet with any delegations to hear your proposals for reaching agreement on these two issues.
In addition, it has become apparent during the recent informal consultations that we may have to consider some interim measures so that the decisions in our draft report can be implemented soon after the recommendations are adopted by the review conference next year.
We cannot be in a situation in which we adopt the recommendations next year, but then have to wait for the 11th review conference to actually implement them.
The text that we are negotiating, particularly on the open ended working group and the two mechanisms are intended to reflect their permanent end state.
We may therefore need to consider bridging steps to allow these bodies to begin operating soon after the tenth review conference.
Such measures could, for example, be included in the final document of the review conference.
Distinguished delegates.
I would like now to turn to Annex one on the recommended measures.
The Secretary will show the text on the screen as we proceed.
We will go first to paragraph six of Section A.
Is paragraph six acceptable? You have the floor.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning.
At first, allow me to outset express my delegation of appreciation to you and the ISU for the undertaking in guiding the work of the working group.
Regarding this para chair, it has been discussed in formal and informal session.
My delegation have no any objection with this para.
But two point that should be raised regarding this parla.
First, that this fracture and details of this discussion should be more clear and explain the text.
The second point is that this par is interlinked and dependent on the rest of the text, particularly regarding the ICA mechanism.
Therefore, at this stage, we cannot accept this par in green line and it's better to remain in the yellow line to be further discussed and in the rest of discussion to common understanding regarding the parla.
Thank you, share.
As I don't know if you listen to my speech, but I repeat it.
I don't want delegations to repeat their positions.
I heard your position before.
So what I want to hear is your compromise.
To hear the same things, we don't have to do this thing.
Another thing that I would ask, I know that you're very happy with my presidency.
You don't have to congratulate me, so we don't have to waste time.
Because if you spend 1 minute, 1 second, we have 100 delegations.
I know that I consider myself congratulated from our delegations.
But what's your proposal? That's what I want.
I don't need you to repeat that this is your position.
Thank you for giving the floor again.
Actually, to my understanding, repetition is part of our business as a diplomat.
I'm here to repeat my national position and we try to make a best effort to reach a common understanding and finally consensus regarding this text.
Regarding this part of my delegation insisted on this point that should remain in yellow color.
Thank you, chair.
It's not my intention to lose time.
Because if everything that's low, if all delegations have the same right.
So if all delegations are going to act like you're acting now, I just prefer to go to Banda Paki.
Okay.
Leave it to yellow and I repeat.
I don't want delegation to repeat national positions.
If that's the case, let's close the meeting.
We don't have anything to do here because diplomats are supposed to find solutions.
We are paid to find language that can be accepted for everybody.
Of course, we have almost 200 countries in the convention, 200 different positions, but we are paid not to lose time and also to produce languages that everybody can be accepted.
As an exception, I accept your comment.
Now, we move on paragraph 14, Section C.
Is the yellow text in paragraph 14 acceptable? So decided.
I also would like to remind Iran and the other delegations that what's yellow is because there was a formal meeting and we agreed a referendum on this language.
What's not to yellow is because nobody agreed.
I cannot stop what we discussed before.
Moving to Section D, is the yellow text in paragraph 16 acceptable? At the back of the room.
I guess.
Who is that? I cannot see from here.
US.
Good morning, Chairman Meyer.
I wanted to thank you again for your time and looking forward to working with you and the delegations.
In the spirit of coming to agreeable language, the United States at this time would request that we keep the entirety of paragraph 16 open ended.
We just have some concerns about the language, but we will work with you and others to come to an agreement.
One of our particular concerns is the legally binding aspect of it.
But let's continue to talk.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
Okay.
Let's I think explain.
We're trying to get the yellow green, which is not yellow, we're not discussing now.
So legally binding, it's not yellow, so it's not to be discussed it to be green.
Can we agree with the yellow that's on paragraph 16 Russia Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Given the comments from the United States of America, we have a clarifying question.
Do we understand correctly that if we turn the yellow text in 16 green, but if we happen to be unable to agree on other sections of 16, Then without any problem, we'll be able to open up those sections and work on them in the light of the results of the work on language that has not been agreed.
Thank you very much.
Let me repeat for the fourth or fifth time.
We are now turning yellow into green.
Is that clear to everybody or should I repeat it again? We are not discussing what's white.
So my question is, can we agree that the yellow on paragraph 16 can become green? Russia? Thank you very much, Chair.
We do understand why we're here, but we would like to reserve our position and to ask whether we can open up the green text in this paragraph as in any other paragraph as a result of the discussions on other paragraphs that are not agreed or language that remains white because this green text for us, can only be agreed on the understanding that the language that remains white will be agreed in a certain manner.
Thank you.
Let me repeat once more.
I think my English is not good.
What is white is not going to be touched.
When we go back to this paragraph on a later stage, then we decided if the white can become green.
But other than that, and as I said in February and I'm going to repeat here, I'm not touching on green paragraphs.
Is that clear for you, Russia? Yes or no? Can I turn the yellow green? So decided, the US 2 minutes.
Chair, we would request that what is yellow in paragraph 16 remain yellow for now we would just prefer the lack of restriction on the language right now.
We could come back to you with something concrete.
Thank you.
Apparently they know I can't get Iran and US to be having the same position.
That's a big goal.
Moving to paragraph 20.
Can we turn 20 into green? Bless you.
So decided.
Now we jump ahead to Appendix one of Annex one, which contains the voluntary guidelines for requesting assistance under Article 7.
Is this short, chapel acceptable? So decided.
Thank you.
To save time, we'll take the subsequent sub paragraphs in groups.
Are subparagraphs A, B, and C acceptable? So decided.
Are subparagraphs G, E, F and F acceptable? So decided.
Are subparagraphs G H and I acceptable? So decided.
Are subparagraphs J, K and L acceptable? So decided.
Are sub paragraphs M, N and O acceptable? So decided.
Thank you.
Finally, in this appendix are subparagraphs P and Q, acceptable.
Decided.
That's the way to work.
Moving to Annex two and its draft decision part is preambler paragraph seven of this part of Annex two acceptable So decided.
I just want to remind you that I'm not trying to be very tough, but the thing is, those things that are white is because we don't have agreement.
Most delegation don't have agreement.
What we have in yellow, it was the result of discussions of all delegations present in the room.
It's not something that fell from the moon.
Is preamble paragraph, what's this one? Yeah.
Is subparagraph one B acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in subparagraph one C acceptable Ase.
Mr.
President.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
We would like to keep this paragraph in yellow for the moment as we discuss the modalities for reviewing the recommendations of the consult group, recalling our position, which is that these recommendations must be considered by the meetings of state parties of the convention.
Thank you.
But discussing for the tenth time, we are not discussing meeting of state parties.
My question is, once more, can you accept the yellow as it is? Yes or no.
Any other delegation agrees with France.
You are alone.
Is the yellow text in subparagraph one G acceptable? Friends again? We would like to keep it yellow.
Thank you.
I'm not going to be like this.
I think if delegations want to keep it join.
Let's go home.
Because your delegation was present in those meetings.
You delegation agreed to be yellow in this meeting and now we don't like yellow anymore.
It's not serious really, it's not serious.
Russia Esteemed Chair.
Given the way the meeting is unfolding, it's not very clear to us what we're actually doing as far as we understand the entire text, which is currently green could be yellow because it's not fully agreed until we have agreement on the entire text as a whole.
We could have the same logic in both cases.
In light of how the discussion will go, we wouldn't like to spend time moving texts from yellow into green, but actually spend time on text in square brackets.
We could agree to keep everything yellow until the end of our discussion.
The logic of this approach is not completely clear to us.
It seemed to us that during the informal.
I'm sorry.
We're doing what we did in February.
Your delegation was present in the meetings in informals and your delegation agreed to have the paragraph yellow as it is.
I'm not playing here.
If your delegation last month agreed to have this part in yellow, I intend that you can agree because all delegations, they have people from Capitol here, including you, that have more power to decide.
Now, if we're going to go on the yellow, saying, we don't agree, we don't agree, we don't agree, what are you doing here? Why do you send delegation for the informal meetings? You just lose my time.
You know, we have the informal meetings to prepare, to find some compromise and that we did.
In some paragraphs, we were able to get compromise from delegations.
Now delegations arrive here, they don't want it anymore when your delegation participate on the discussions, makes no sense to me.
That's the way I'm conducting the meeting.
If you have a better idea, sit in this chair.
Russia.
Chairperson, with respect, we fully agree with your logic, and that is why we took the floor because it's not clear to us the position of delegations which refuse during agreement with language in informal discussions to turn that text green.
For us, yellow text is not clear.
We're seeing it as white text which continues to remain unagreed and that is why we asked the question.
If the goal that we have is to make the text green after discussion in informal discussions, and let's continue that work and we're ready to continue the work to agree the text and turn it green.
But if some delegations continue to apply the logic as for one B one.
The delegations with me.
I control the delegations.
Every delegation here has the right to say whatever they even though I don't agree.
Let's not lose time.
Thank you.
Is the yellow text in subparagraph one D acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in paragraph three acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in paragraph four acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph five acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph six acceptable? So decided.
Appendix one of Annex two is already entirely green, so we do not need to consider it again.
We will therefore move on to Appendix two.
The only pending paragraph in Appendix two is paragraph four.
Is the yellow text in paragraph four acceptable? Netherlands.
Good morning, chair, distinguished colleagues.
For us, it's not acceptable because of the text that is still in white.
We consider that together, so we cannot agree to the first line because the rest of the first line is still between brackets.
Once again, can you accept the yellow? You should have said that during the informs.
And the second part that's in yellow.
Can you accept? You have the floor.
We can accept the second part in yellow.
Thank you very much.
Moving to Appendix three of Annex two, where the only paragraph in yellow is paragraph 16.
Is the yellow text in paragraph 16 acceptable? So decided.
We can now move on to Annex three, where we will find a lot more yellow text which we can hopefully also quickly turn green.
We will start with operative paragraph nine of the draft decision part of Annex three.
Is the yellow text in paragraph nine acceptable? Russia.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Using the same logic as other delegations, we would like to keep this yellow.
Thank you.
You're joining the wrong crowd.
You should join me and help to turn things green.
Moving on to Appendix one of Annex three, is the yellow text in paragraph two acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in subparagraph three B acceptable? In.
Thank you, chair for giving me the floor and we try to join you as a chair to reach a common understanding, hopefully.
Regarding this part of my delegation has a question regarding the states parties here that it means that the MSP meeting every year, I would meeting of state parties, it's where written meeting of state parties.
Here is just written state parties.
Okay.
Chair, regarding this part, that the report should be submitted to the says party.
It means that by the ISU or Secretariat to distribute them on the sales party or is the meeting of assays part different and separate from the MSP.
To my understanding, there is no clarity regarding this par and the wording of the esas parties.
I would be thankful if you have a more clarification on this part.
Thank you.
My clarification is that I said it before to you.
When it's meeting of state parties, it's written meeting of state parties.
When it's just the state parties is written state parties.
That's the difference.
Can your delegation accept that this part gets green? Yes or no.
Chair this no.
Thank you.
Okay.
I think on the informal meetings, those delegations that stick to their positions, they should not come to the informals anymore.
Germany.
Asking for your guidance on this.
We did discuss this paragraph in the consultations and we made our position known that we would accept this paragraph, including the including.
If we accept the yellow now and including is still in square brackets, I'm unsure how to state our position on this.
They cannot be green or yellow if they are white.
We have three stages.
Things that are white are not being touched now.
Yes.
Things that are yellow are things that all delegations are sitting here right now, agreed on a compromise or on the language.
And green, it's when those delegations have the same positions.
Yes, I understand that.
I'm sorry.
We have the position that we can agree to that, if we have including, but if we were discussing including.
Including, we are not discussing the including.
Okay.
Including will be discussed later, including this, okay? France, President.
Thank you, Chairperson.
France is in agreement to move forward on this text, on the understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Thank you.
Very new rule.
I didn't know that.
In my 15 years of multilateral, I never heard that everything is nothing decided until everything is decided.
Thank you for the information.
I will keep your comment in green, okay? Moving on to Appendix one of Annex three, is the yellow text in paragraph two acceptable.
We have this one.
Sorry.
Is the yellow text in paragraph four acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph five acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text on paragraph six acceptable? Somebody here on the back.
Russian.
Yeah.
I cannot.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
What we think is that we could be ready to turn the second sentence green but keep the first sentence yellow.
Thank you.
So you agree after appointed.
Could you repeat what you agree to be green, please? We are ready to make green the second sentence.
That is the last sentence of the paragraph and leave the rest yellow.
Thank you.
Okay.
Is paragraph eight acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in paragraph nine acceptable? In Chair, thank you for giving the floor.
We have no serious problem and objection on this part just we are not clear to my delegation regarding the parties wording here in the same with what has been in previous occasion.
In this regard, we request to remain in yellow on this P nine.
Thank you.
You should give better instructions to your delegation in informal meetings.
Is the yellow text in paragraph ten acceptable So decided.
Is paragraph 11 acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph 12 acceptable? Cited.
Is paragraph 13 acceptable? So decided is paragraph 16.
Acceptable Is paragraph 17 acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in paragraph 18 acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph 19 acceptable? Is the yellow text in paragraph 20 acceptable? Is paragraph 21 acceptable? Is paragraph 22 acceptable? The yellow one.
Can I turn the yellow one green Russia Thank you very much Chairperson.
Taking into account the fact that a number of positions means that this paragraph has not yet been agreed.
We would prefer to keep it yellow.
Thank you.
You cannot agree with a single word in this paragraph.
We could agree with it if the positions on the white text could be turned yellow, but until the white goes yellow, we would like to keep the yellow yellow.
Thank you.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Can we approve paragraph 23? Russian again.
Thank you again, Chairperson.
The same logic here applies as in the previous paragraph.
We would like to keep it yellow until there is agreement on the first square brackets.
Thank you.
I just like to remind you, maybe some of you don't know that we have only nine days to finish our work.
Today and more four days until the end of the week and then in December.
So we either work or it's very easy to say, let's keep this like that, let's keep like that, but we're just putting things under the carpet.
We're not solving.
That's what we are here to.
But anyway, Is the 23.
Is the yellow text in paragraph 24 acceptable? So decided? Is the yellow text in paragraph 25 acceptable? Iran? Chair, we have no objection with this part of 25, but I think in detail should be more discussed on this part.
Now my request is that to remain in yellow one.
Thank you, chair.
If you don't have anything against it, you want to yellow.
Imagine if you want to have something against it.
Really, I really it's not the way to work.
Really, it's not.
You go to the ins, your delegation, go to informals agree with something, and then you arrive here, you don't agree anymore.
It's not serious.
I'm sorry.
Is the yellow text on paragraph 29 acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in paragraph 30 acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph 31 acceptable? So decided.
Is the yellow text in paragraph 32 acceptable? So decided.
Is paragraph 33 acceptable? Is paragraph 34 acceptable? Is paragraph 35 acceptable? Is paragraph 36 acceptable? Is paragraph 38 acceptable? We can now move to Appendix two of Annex three, most of which is already in green.
The only yellow text comes at the very end of this appendix.
Is the yellow text in Rule 7.1 acceptable? Russia.
Thank you very much, Chairs and we would like to keep this text yellow until the text in square brackets is agreed.
Thank you.
Listen, I think it's very dangerous because since my first speech, I said that consensus and meeting of state parties are not going to be discussed.
If you're going to stop the discussion in every single reference to consensus and to meeting of state parties, we have nothing to do here.
We better close the meeting.
I'm trying to do something and I hope that I can be successful.
I know, I hope we can be successful because it's not my conventions, it's our convention.
Delegations that have some problems like Iran, France, Russia, USA, can you suggest some wording for those places that you objected of being yellow to green? You have the floor.
Iran, France, USA, in Russia, in Netherlands, I think, too.
Iran, do you have any suggestion or any comment on this paragraph six that says state parties should organize periodic discussions on the opportunities and obstacles to international cooperation and assistance? With a view to promote the broadest and most effective exercise of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10 and in full compliance with the provisions of the conventions.
Where is your problem and what's your suggestion, Iran In, I'm waiting for your comments.
Thank you, chair for giving the floor regarding this pa, as mentioned in previous occasions that my delegation have no objection on this para, but the language should be more stronger than the current formulation.
The first point is regarding the periodic discussion on this structure venue and the organization of such discussion is not clear.
The second point as mentioned by my delegation, is that what I want from delegations, you, USA, Russia, friends, is that suggestions.
What's your suggestion? What could be acceptable for you? And then I will propose for the other delegations because it's very easy to say I don't agree.
You don't agree.
What do you propose? Chair, thank you very much and with due respect as a chair, please, before conclusion my intervention, don't interrupt me when we are talking in the full compliance with the rule of procedure.
We mentioned that any discussion in informal session should be adopt and discussed informal session.
That is the first point.
The second point is that the principle of nothing is aggregate until everything should be applied.
Regarding this para six, my delegation is one of the most supporter of this para, but we do believe that when we are discussing about periodic discussion on this issue, we should come to a conclusion regarding other pas that are related to the ICA and any discussion on this matter, particularly para seven and eight.
At this stage, we are not in the position to support fully this para.
Thank you, Chair.
USA Chairman Miner, thank you for recognizing us.
With two changes, the United States could favor this paragraph becoming green.
The first change is the inclusion of the bracketed recommendations for, and the second change is the elimination of the bracketed language following the word measures and preceding the word aimed.
With that, the United States would support this being a green paragraph.
Thank you, Chair.
No, we are discussing paragraph six.
State parties should organize periodic discussions and on the opportunities and obstacles.
There is no brackets in this paragraph.
Chair, my apologies.
We'll get to that was for another paragraph, paragraph 16.
My apologies.
So you can accept this as it is.
Thank you.
I think ran, can you provide me not now, but can you provide me with language this afternoon? Thank you.
Okay.
USA, let's go to paragraph 16.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies for doing this at the wrong time.
But now regarding paragraph 16, with the following changes, the US could support this being a green paragraph.
The first would be the inclusion of the first bracketed portion, recommendations four, and the second would be the elimination of the second bracketed portion between the words measures and aimed.
With that, we could support this being a green paragraph.
Thank you, Chair.
Russia, can you accept Press Agus President, please.
Thank you, Chairperson.
In the form proposed by the USA, we are not ready to agree with this paragraph because it is of critical importance to us that it is indicated for what purpose this group will work.
In this case, we fully support the language that you have proposed in order to create a legally binding verification mechanism because this does not predetermine the activities of the group, but lays down guidelines.
For our delegation, the only option for the existence of a verification mechanism is that it exists as a legally binding entity.
There is no other way that we can see the valid existence of such a mechanism.
We would be happy to agree paragraph 16 with the inclusion of a clear indication of your language in order to create a legally binding verification mechanism.
Thank you.
My language, do you mean the white? What's in white? USA, Chairman Meyer, we cannot do that.
Thank you.
Russia and USA, please come to me with some proposed language with a solution, not the problem.
India.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson, and good morning, all colleagues.
Mr.
Chair, we do understand that there is a divergence on the issue of legally binding mechanism and possible legally binding measures.
My idea is not to comment on that, but we do wish to request for an insertion after the brackets on measures, which is that whether this is a mechanism or this is a measures, these should apply in an equal and non discriminatory manner.
My insertion would be which applies in an equal and non discriminatory manner.
For all states parties.
I think this would be the minor edit from our side.
Thank you.
Does anybody have any comment on the Idin suggestion? It's accepted.
Russia.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
We have a question for clarification with respect to the proposal from India.
This language, what does it refer to? Does it refer to the mechanism or to the measures? If it refers to the measures, then we need just apply and not applies, but applies if it refers to the mechanism.
Thank you.
Angel, you have the language.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair for giving my delegation the floor.
As I said, my comments that I've made is without prejudice to the debate we are having also the separate debate on having a legally binding mechanism versus measures.
The emphasis of my edit is to just ensure that whether we have a mechanism or we have measures, these should apply in an equal and non discriminatory manner to all states parties.
Of course, we do understand the edit and comment made by the Russian colleague.
Thank you.
Russia.
Well, generally speaking, we are in agreement with the proposal, but the verb will depend on what exactly we agree, what the language will look like after our agreement in the text which remains in square brackets.
Thank you.
Is the UK in the room? I cannot see.
Canada.
You also speak the language.
Thank you, Chair.
Right now, I'm not going to comment on the India proposal.
I just wanted to comment on the issue of the brackets earlier in that paragraph.
As a bit of in between, we would be happy to accept the first set of square brackets, recommendations for, and then the third, including possible legally binding measures.
We'd be amenable to that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Canada.
Okay.
Apply or applies.
Good morning, colleagues.
Thank you, chair, as always, for putting me on the spot.
I agree with our Russian colleague in this context.
This is purely a matter of singular versus plural and therefore, whether apply or applies applies and that depends on whatever we agree to in the previous square bracket languages.
Our Russian delegate is correct.
Thank you.
So let's go to Annex two, Paragraph seven.
Friends, propose me some language, please.
Cup.
Mr.
President.
Chair, are we already discussing the white sections or are we still on the yellow sections? If we are on the yellow sections, just as we demonstrated flexibility on all the other paragraphs to take them into green, we're ready to do the same here as long as later we settle the matter of the role of the meeting of the states parties.
But if you'd prefer to discuss the white now, let's do so.
Mercy.
So you can agree after we discuss the meeting of state parts, but there are others, you can green it.
Merci La France.
Now, Netherlands.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We are ambitious and we believe in the ICA trust fund, and in order to be effective as a convention, let's be frank.
The trust fund needs money to operate.
We therefore oppose any formulation that hampers the convention in this way from being open to possible sources of funds.
We can live with any language that keeps the possibility open for non state party donors.
But in terms of concrete language fix, our first preference would be to just add the first bracket that is now still white to the text.
Um, and we will be interested to hear from other delegations why it is a problem that we would like to see the possibility that the largest donors out there are able to contribute to the trust funds with funds.
This is an important issue for us.
If we cannot get the possibility, for example, the EU to contribute to the trust fund, the Netherlands will consider the trust funds defunct from the start and we will not supply a bilateral contribution to the fund.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any delegation want to comment on that? Thank you, Chairperson.
If there is a proposal that consists in lifting the brackets before and donors, And starts before including could that achieve the agreement of the group? Would that give us the ICF fund is a trust fund that we receive voluntary contributions from state parties and other donors? Mercy US, can you tell me why you wanted yellow? I Chair, we would like to preserve the ability to discuss the other donors option at another time.
Thank you.
Yeah, we are running off time because you changed position.
You delegation was in favor.
Now you're against.
At least I want to know who you're against.
Chair, we can accept the yellow going to green, but none of the bracketed languages and we'd like to hold off on regarding the language and other donors.
Thank you.
You want to hold the brackets Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
It's okay with me.
So the yellow can be green.
Yes, Chair.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Netherlands.
That's.
Thank you, Chair.
For us, we would like to thank the delegation of France for the suggestion and that is something that we could live with, but we don't want to make the yellow part as it is green at this point in time.
I do not understand why the US does not want to engage in a discussion on this.
We'd be interested to understand the issue here.
Happy to discuss it and see if we can work on text, but if we don't understand it, I don't see how we can find a solution.
Thank you.
We have to find a solution.
Otherwise, we just suspend the meeting.
It's simple.
The thing is, The ICA fund is a trust fund that will receive voluntary contributions from state parties.
You have anything against this, Yes.
Chair.
Thank you.
What are you against? Because the other parties in brackets.
This thing, if your delegation wants the rest of the phrase, we're going to discuss this later.
But now we're discussing just the ICA fund is a trust fund that will receive voluntary contribution from state parties.
Thank you, Chair.
I understand what you are saying, but for the same reason as it is not possible for others to accept the possibility of other donors to chime in.
We don't want to accept a sentence that by itself, in isolation, does not leave that possibility open and implicitly excludes it.
I've explained our position.
I'm now waiting for other delegations to explain their so we can work on a solution.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have Spain and Niger.
Help me and give me a solution.
Thank you very much, chairperson and thank you for your leadership of our work.
We add our voice to that stated by the Netherlands for this to function correctly.
We need to leave the option of other supporters or sponsors contributing voluntarily.
We don't understand why it is that this sentence poses such problems and so we can fully support the French proposal.
Thank you.
Nan President.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
We also congratulate you with your excellent leadership.
We in general are satisfied with what we see on the screen.
Including the yellow and what is in square bares and other donors including.
We would be very interested to hear what is intended behind this language.
What are the reasons why there are positions against the language.
Also because we believe this is and should be a constructive discussion.
We have some superficial comments.
We have multilateral and regional organizations in government organizations.
There's some repetition here.
Intergovernmental organizations, we understand already covers is a part of the multilateral regional organizations, by definition, perhaps is superfluous.
We want to be open for broad participation to get as many possible contributions and donations as possible to assist the ICA fund.
Thank you, Chair any other comment? I see none.
Let's move.
Angel, sorry.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I just wanted to take the floor to support the comments made by my Dutch colleague.
Just want to say that when the discussion started, we were looking at an ICF fund that is based out of assessed contributions.
We have diluted that admission from assessed contributions to voluntary contributions.
Therefore, it is important for us, as is important for many developing countries that were able to take contributions from as many sources as are possible outside states parties.
I also want to underline that the Paragraph four as it stands, has two components.
One is that generally, it will accept contributions from not only states, but also from non state entities and the sentence that is the second last sentence is essentially on a case by case acceptance of contributions from non state entities.
That will still give states who have strong views on contributions from certain entities to come in and, you know, uh, participate in that decision making, even to the effect of, you know, not approving contributions from certain non state entities.
That is a very delicate balance that exists in this paragraph.
And we would suggest that this paragraph as a whole, with the general acceptance of contributions from state and non state entities, as well as giving the states freedom to evaluate contributions on a case by case basis is accepted as such as is proposed by you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, India.
Now, our next three Colombia.
The other room I could see people here cannot see.
Thank you, Chair.
Just to support what colleagues have said about this paragraph, Colombia could support the text in white.
In the way suggested by other colleagues with regards to the funding of this fund for developing countries, this fund is very important.
We need to make it possible for contributions to be received.
We need a strong robust fund and the mentioning of state and act is important so that ICA can happen and especially technical cooperation for developing countries.
Thank you very much.
Now, our next three, Paragraph nine.
Thank you, chair for giving the floor.
I have a question and more clarity regarding the paar 16 regarding the composition of the IC serine group jets we have just adopted the green light.
We have no objection on that and we have no intention to reopen it.
But we have a question regarding the number of the serine group in P four, page 21, it's up to 20%, but in paar 60 page 14 is up to 25%.
I think this big discrepancy, same language exist for both and my delegation in formal and informal sessions support the 25%.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Let me update you.
It was in February was 20, but in the informals it was upgraded to 25.
Russia.
Is that clear, Iran? Thank you, chair.
I think now the composition of ICSine group will be 25 or 20%.
25? You mean that the para six and paravin both para will be 25%, yeah? Up to 25, yes.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Just some technical problems to put alternative to paragraph nine, see if Russia can accept.
Russia, can you accept this version? You have the floor.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
We could be ready to agree this paragraph if it were to be presented in the language indicated on the left.
In our opinion, the version in the left column more precisely reflects what we're talking about if we lift the square brackets from the white text.
In that case, we would be happy to offer our agreement for the text.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I understand if I know you enough by consensus will be left.
Therefore, later discussion.
What you're proposing is on any changes necessary to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Well, it's not quite that.
Well, we would add in the text in the left column in the second square brackets before the terms of reference and the regulations, we would add these decisions.
The decisions in terms of reference and the regulations, and it's important for us to have the first square bracket with a reference to the principle of consensus.
Now, if we follow the same uniform logic in paragraph 16 and in subsequent paragraphs where a number of delegated Let's just discuss paragraph nine.
Let's not mix up.
Well, in that case, we would prefer at this stage, if the first square brackets are not agreed, we would prefer to leave the entire text yellow.
Thank you.
No, Constantin, I'm sorry.
I'm looking for solutions, not for problems.
I'm asking, can you accept what it's proposed on the right side? Yes or no? Down yet.
Well, it could be satisfactory to us, but it could be better to have a reference not to say specifically in terms of reference and the regulations.
But on the whole, this is satisfactory to us.
Thank you.
Can you bring me in the afternoon a proposal? Satya.
So now let's go to Appendix one, paragraph three B to monitor, assess, identify, prioritize, and report to state parties, including upon their request on scientific and technological developments relevant to the convention and their potential applications for the implementation of the convention, including in algia, the following areas.
So we can we turn the yellow into green? I ran.
Thank you, chair.
As more flexibility on this para, my delegation's suggestion that after the states party in first line, we add through the review group, hopefully to reach a common understanding and consensus on this para.
Thank you, chair.
Could you repeat for the Secretariat, please? Yes, exactly as reflected in the.
Thank you.
Can we agree with the Iranian proposal? No, Germany, sorry.
Yes, I think we need a little more time to reflect on that because the whole paragraph is about the functions of the advisory mechanism as a whole.
We're not quite sure about the implications if we limit this through the review group at this point.
I would have to ask for indulgence to give us a little more time to think that through.
Thank you.
Can you sit with Iran and bring me something in the afternoon? Thank you.
Paragraph six, you've seen that we're just going backwards like crabs, and some solutions are found.
Let's try to find solutions before we have to go back to the things.
On paragraph six, The S&T Advisory mechanism is led by a bureau comprised of a chairperson and two vice chairpersons appointed annually by the review group from its members.
They will also serve as the chairpersons and vice chairpersons of the review group and the reporting committee.
I want to ask our UK colleague to help, but I think there's a mistake.
It's on the serve as the chairperson and not chairpersons.
It's green, but in respect the UK, we correct the language.
Any comment on six Russia.
Thank you again, Chairperson.
As regards the first square brackets, which are of critical importance to us, we gave detailed comments previously and given the understanding that we are leaving the question of the consensus principle for discussion later, we will not dwell in detail on this, but we will just reiterate that for us, Article 6 would be acceptable if the square brackets were lifted from the words by consensus.
As regards the second set of square brackets, we would like to focus attention on this and try to find a solution here.
We do not exclude a situation where the chairperson could be appointed for a longer period of time than one year.
In such a case, annual appointment of a chairperson would not be required.
We would even say that it is highly likely that we have a situation where a chairperson would be appointed for more than one year.
Therefore, the addition as appropriate, allows us to elegantly resolve this situation without predetermining what we will have in the future, predetermining a situation and forcing us each year to be engaged in the reappointment of a chairperson.
Without this phrase as appropriate, without any doubt, every year, inevitably, regardless of whether we have agreement of the chairperson remaining for longer or not, we will be forced to engage in that bureaucratic effort to appoint a chairperson.
We believe that is not sensible, and so we approve of the words as appropriate and propose deleting the square brackets.
Thank you.
My question is from what you said, we can green the first yellow phrase, keeping the brackets, which is what we have been doing, or yet? Netsnt I'm afraid it's yet because the square brackets remain around by consensus.
Can you agree that we agree the S&T advisory mechanism is led by a bureau comprised of a chairperson and two vice chairpersons appointed? Can you agree with this? Again, yet, I'm afraid, Chairperson, because on the same logic as the United States is not in agreement to turn the yellow text green in Paragraph 16.
Thank you.
Well, you are using the American logic.
That's quite an improvement on international politics.
Can you agree with the last phrase? Yes, Barba Vg.
Let's go to paragraph nine.
What's your problem with paragraph nine, Russian? Thank you, Chairperson.
Well, we don't have any particular problem with paragraph nine if we lift the square brackets around through written sinus procedure and otherwise, we would also apply the same logic with respect to paragraph six and we would prefer to keep this text yellow.
Thank you.
Repeat for the hundredth time.
What we're discussing here are not the brackets, but the yellow.
My question is, can you green what's in yellow? Have a look.
Well, Chairperson we follow the same logic for all paragraphs.
If in all paragraphs where we have yellow, it will be greened, I guess that we could agree with that.
But while applying a selective approach, we would prefer to keep it yellow.
Thank you.
Stop where we started at 10:00 this morning.
That's not my idea.
I mean, delegation have to be a trying to move because we start at 10:00 with this paragraph like this.
It's 12:00, 2 hours of discussion.
Delegations were the same paragraph like it was.
So why do we spend 2 hours doing nothing? I think, you know, we have to change our pace, our speed.
Otherwise, we're going nowhere Let's move to paragraph 22 and see if we can work on something.
And I also ask those allegations that are putting keeping things on yellow that they come to me this afternoon with some proposal.
Let's go to paragraph 22.
Can we take the first phrase on what's yellow? What's President? Well, Chairperson, under the same logic, we would keep yellow the first sentence, while the second sentence, we are ready to green.
As regards the last set of square brackets, we do stand ready.
The last square brackets.
For 1,000 times, we're discussing turning green turning yellow to green, so there is no need to make any comment on white text and brackets which are in white text.
We cannot lose time.
Paragraph 22.
Can we accept the first sentence without the brackets which are not being discussed? I repeat, which are not being discussed.
Yellow.
Can we accept what's the yellow and turn into green? R? Well, Chairperson, I'm afraid not.
We would prefer to keep this yellow in this particular case.
Thank you.
And the following phrase.
Any comments on the following phrase? It's the members of the reporting committee will serve in their individual capacity as independent experts and will not be eligible for immediate reappointment for two conservative terms.
Can we accept this? So decided.
23.
The review conference, we also decided on a least up to ten experts to serve as potential replacement candidates.
Can we agree with that? Russia President Chairperson, we would like currently to keep this text yellow.
Thank you.
I think my Georgian colleague who is my vice president, I think I'm going to ask him to take the floor because I'm not being successful at all so far on my evaluation.
Georgia, be ready because to go nowhere, I'm not going to do this.
Then we go to paragraph 25.
At least the French ambassador, she is happy because she's not here.
Otherwise, she would take it because las first.
Can we take the Paragraph 25? Yes.
Oh, it's terrible.
I cannot see from here.
Thank you, chair.
We are considering this para and we are consulting with our delegation and my colleagues therefore we request is that you keep it in yellow this para.
Thank you.
Georgia, I really wish you good luck.
Let's go now to White.
Now the color is white.
Paragraph 11.
State parties and all relevant stakeholders are encouraged to make voluntary use of guidelines as well as existing national or international codes of conduct for scientists on responsible biological Research, bioethics, and biosecurity.
In this regard, state parties acknowledge the development of the Tanjin biosecurity guidelines for codes of conduct for scientists drafted by biology practitioners from state parties in all regions of the world.
Any comments? US and Russia.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The United States can accept the entirety of the first sentence but cannot accept the second sentence.
If that second sentence is removed, the United States would favor this being green language.
Thank you.
Thank you, Russia.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Our position is diametrically opposed to that of the United States.
We would ask to put square brackets or better completely around the first sentence and in this regard in the second sentence to lift that, leaving just the second sentence, deleting the rest, leaving just states parties acknowledged from that.
A regards the second sentence, we would request that after the reference to the Tianjin guidelines to put the phrase as a model for voluntary use.
In this case, we would be ready to agree paragraph 11.
We would like particularly to note our support for the work that has been done by the member states and non governmental structures on the Tianjin guidelines.
Thank you.
S.
Any other comments? Cuba, Iran, China, India, C.
Thank you, Chair.
Perhaps some language which might not be the solution, but could provide eventually a solution with something along the lines of lots of state parties and other relevant stakeholders.
There will be an alternative paragraph.
State parties and all relevant stakeholders are encouraged to make voluntary use of guidelines, including the Tianjin biosecurity guidelines for codes of conduct for scientists.
As well as existing national or international codes of conduct for the scientists on responsible biological research, bioethic and biosecurity.
You.
Thank you, Chair for giving the floor.
Actually, my delegation support both proposal.
I mean para 11 11 by the signature from Cuba, but regarding the original text, we support the idea of this para and we have just minor changes regarding the acknowledge.
It should be deleted and we use take notes.
Thank you.
China.
Thank you, Chair.
On this part on the Tianjin guidelines, there is only one country has concerns on the last sentence.
That was what I noted.
I would like to know the reason for that because due to concerns from some countries, we have already agreed to endorse to acknowledge.
This is the maximum compromise that China can agree to.
That is why we still hope to keep states parties acknowledge.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
India, Pakistan, and Emirates.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson.
We've carefully taken note of the views expressed by various states.
I do want to just state that this effort on producing these guidelines was an effort of three non governmental institutions.
Secondly, it was a voluntary effort outside the BWC, and that it involved 20 participants, and many countries were not part of that effort.
Having said this, we are fundamentally not opposed to the reference, uh, uh, to these guidelines, as it is provided over here, but we do have some edits.
We can support the Russian edit of having these guidelines, to be used as a model for voluntary use.
Second, we also want to make a minor edit in the last part of the last sentence, which is that these guidelines were drafted by biology practitioners.
We want to bracket from states parties, and just say that these were from various regions.
One of the reasons why we're doing this is to not lend a misperception that this was an effort which was undertaken in the BWC, and this would make it factually more accurate.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pakistan, Emirates in Canada.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you for your patience during the work as well.
Keeping in view with what has been discussed with this specific point and as said by our colleagues from China, the Tianjin biosecurity guidelines, they have evolved over a period of time, have enjoyed broad consensus, we would like to retain the term of acknowledge as a means of showing that these have evolved during this process.
Thank you.
Thank you, Pakistan, Emirates in Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
Overall, we don't have substantial observations on the guidelines, particularly that it is mentioned that it is voluntary.
I align myself with other member states regarding changing biosecurity guidelines.
It is very important that should not mean providing a special status to these guidelines within the convention.
We should emphasize that it's not binding and voluntary and does not impinge on countries rights to use their own regulations in this regard.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
Just want to note that Canada is happy with the original paragraph there as drafted in its entirety.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comment? Peru Thank you, Jeff.
We'd like to take this opportunity to voice our position on this significant paragraph.
We first believe that the proposal that you made was an acceptable one and it is a balanced wording.
We could also accept what was proposed in terms of changes made by India and the Russian Federation.
Perhaps we could put an alternative on the table in the second sentence instead of as a model for voluntary use, we could say reference to say that in our view, The changing principles are indeed a voluntary tool which could be a useful reference point.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Gracias.
Any other delegation? We're going to meet with some delegations and try to find alternative language.
Russia.
Well, Chairperson, we would ask the Secretariat to precisely reflect our position and put square brackets around the first sentence, including the words in this regard in the second sentence.
Thank you.
Paragraph 14.
We have the first phrase is yellow.
It's a red green.
Should give me a right one.
So let's see the rest of the paragraph.
I think we have in white consider developing, develop as appropriate, and then the whole phrase.
This discussion will take into account in a as appropriate, any relevant documents agreed by the state parties under the convention, as well as proposals already submitted by state parties without prejudice to any decision or position with a view to preparing them for consideration and approval by the 11th review Conference.
State parties are encouraged to consider engaging in additional voluntary transparency measures, including transparency exercises.
The floor is open.
Russia.
Thank you, Chairperson.
First, we have a general comment.
We consider this paragraph to be an attempt to find a compromise solution.
At the same time, we would like to recall that apart from this paragraph, we also had a separate paragraph or a proposal on a certain paragraph where we proposed reflecting certain initiatives proposed by the member states, including the Russian Federation, to modernize the forms of confidence building measures.
We would like to confirm that we stand ready to lift that paragraph only on the understanding that any other references to a number of other initiatives will also be listed.
Concerning issues of transparency, for example, also, and that is why we continue to insist on deleting the last sentence in the paragraph you proposed where there is a reference to the existence of specific initiatives with respect to transparency measures.
Given the absence of concrete proposals to modernize confidence building measures, we consider this sentence to be completely superfluous.
As regards the other square brackets, Given considering develop or, consider developing or develop.
We would prefer the second option, develop.
Because the first phrase, consider developing, we believe does not contain any sense.
Because at the beginning of paragraph 14, at the beginning of that first sentence, we already are encouraged to consider.
If we leave just the verb develop, then the sentence as a whole will be develop are encouraged to consider to develop, which in essence repeats the first sentence.
There is redundancy here and we believe that we need to open up the square brackets.
Next, we would prefer to keep the phrase as appropriate at the end of the first sentence in order to not predetermine whether there will be any other additional proposals with respect to other additional forms of CBM or not.
Any comments from delegations from the Russian proposal? I see Emirates Yeah.
Thank you, Chairperson.
We have an observation, which is that we don't prefer the use of approval.
We are satisfied with full consideration by the 11th review Conference.
The text should not prejudge or presuppose that decisions will be adopted and that it will be adopted in the review conference.
With regards to the remaining text, it is important and should be kept because it reflects the positions of various member states.
Thank you.
Shukran.
Any other comments? Australia, and the US.
Thank you Chair.
From our perspective, it's important that this paragraph does not preempt the work to be done and should not be overly prescriptive.
For that reason, we would prefer consider developing to develop.
As an alternative, I think you could simply say and additional CBM forms to capture the earlier reference to consideration.
Similarly, in the second sentence, we would prefer could over will and would request the deletion of and approval.
On the final sentence, we note comments that this is superfluous, but at the same time, that does no harm, so we would be very comfortable to retain that final sentence.
Thank you.
USA, Cuba, France and Germany.
Chair, thank you.
We would agree with our Australian colleagues regarding preference for consider developing over develop and could over will.
We agree also with our Australian and UAE colleagues regarding deletion of end approval, and we would respectfully request the addition of after the word proposals in between the word proposals and already in the second sentence, the addition of the following words, possible revisions to the CBM.
With those changes, the United States could support this paragraph being green.
Thank you.
Cuba, France, and you.
There's some rationale to Russia's proposal.
We cannot consider the consideration in that respect, we should say develop if we're going to consider that that means develop.
We would have no problem with the will.
The last sentence, admittedly, doesn't matter to substance, especially if we're seeking a certain amount of consensus around phrasings which all delegations can agree upon or see our views reflected therein.
Thank you.
Thank you.
By the way, I'm just noting, I have to ask our UK colleague to help me because I'm just saying that state parties are encouraged to consider further possible revisions and amendments and consideration.
I'm not an English speaking, but sounds very strange to me.
France, Germany, and Japan.
Mr.
President.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
I would like, if I may, to add my voice to what was said previously by our Australian delegate.
We are favorable to consider developing to not predetermine what exchanges there may be in the future.
As regards the proposal for amendment by the United States, We have nothing against it, but we would need a little more time to carefully consider the sentence and see what implications it would have in English.
As regards the last sentence, we would like to keep it that with respect to additional voltage transparency measures, three points.
First, the entire section C does not contain any other transparency measures despite the mandate laid down by the conference in this area.
Second, this is an old proposal and it was broadly supported at the RevC by a trans regional group.
Third, transparency is complementarity.
It's complementary with respect to other measures and that's why we'd like to keep this last sentence.
Thank you.
Merci La France, Germany and Japan.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I can keep it brief because we would like to add our support to the intervention made by Australia and also France just now.
So we are relatively flexible regarding the wording in the first part as long as it's clear that the discussions will remain open and not be too prescriptive, so do not, um, presuppose any outcome.
Like France, we also consider the last sentence importance because CBMs are important transparency measures, but they're not the only ones.
We think it's important to have a reference in this text that additional voluntary transparency measures could be of value as well.
Thank you.
Thanks, Japan, any UK? Thank you, Mr.
Chair, and good morning, almost afternoon to other colleagues.
We would like to our voice to the delegation from Australia, United Kingdom, France and Germany and we would like to prefer consider developing in order not to predetermine, and also we would like to prefer could to W.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
UK and Peru.
Thank you, Chair.
Just responding to your challenge and on the assumption that you are content for me on that basis to reopen yellow language.
I think I have some sympathy for your point around the myriad considerations in this paragraph.
I wonder whether you could actually draft as follows, states parties are encouraged to consider further possible revisions and amendments to existing CBMs, including inter alia, simplifying, expanding, or deleting existing forms, and developing additional CBM forms.
The language is clear that we are only being encouraged to consider those aspects, not being told to do so.
Therefore, I think you can probably drop the subsequent considerations.
To repeat, it would say as drafted up as far as inter alia, and then it would read Iteria simplifying, expanding, or deleting existing forms, and developing additional CBM forms.
Thank you.
I thank you for considering my comment.
Per Thank you chair very briefly.
Three elements, number one.
Consider developing and develop and that choice.
We're flexible on that.
Number two, we support the US's proposal on new language of possible revisions to CPMs.
Three, we'd like to support us keeping the last sentence on the transparency measures As we said previously, this section, CBMs and transparency measures should also embody recommendations pertaining to transparency.
CBMs should embody transparency and given that I have the floor, I would like also to support what the UK has just proposed on the first part.
Thank you.
Peru Niger, President.
Thank you very much Chairperson.
We would like to start by supporting the proposal to reformulate the text as submitted by the United Kingdom.
We think it's not substantive, but it does streamline the text and makes it easier to read.
Second, we would like to support these discussions could rather than will.
Third, we would also like to preparing them for consideration, and we would also like to keep the last sentence, which is in square brackets, the transparency measures.
Thank you.
Thank you, India, Russia and Iran.
Let's make our life easier.
I'm going to do like this.
Can we accept the suggestion made by the owner of the language from the UK? Russia, please consider his suggestion.
Without any doubt, chairperson, as for the proposals from other member states.
But in our opinion, what was proposed? Second, just this thing.
Can delegations accept the phrase that the UK suggested? Russian.
We would be happy to accept it if it was correctly reflected on the screen because what we see on the screen is not what the United Kingdom delegation did actually propose.
I prefer that.
Can the UK repeat it, please, David? Yeah.
Thanks, Chair.
I think I suggested including inter alia, simplifying, expanding, or deleting existing forms, and developing additional CBM forms.
The Russia, can you agree with this first phrase? Das.
Now, let's go to the second phrase.
Does the discussions could will take into account inter alia as appropriate any relevant documents papa, or will? Canada? These guys.
Thank you, Chair.
Our preference would be to stick to could instead of well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I just wanted to support the remark made by the UK Ambassador one.
And second, when we look at the second sentence, it appears that in our consideration for revisions to CBMs, we will only look at the proposals that have already been submitted.
My understanding is that more proposals may be received in the incoming cycle.
So our suggestion would be to expand it in a way that allows states to submit more proposals so that there's a comprehensive consideration at the 11th review conference with a view to their adoption.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Russia and Iran.
Vice sa.
Thank you very much, Chairperson.
For us, the only possible option here is will.
If we're talking about a compromise solution, we would like to be confident that the proposals that are already on the table will be considered by delegations and this will be guaranteed.
That is a problem that can only be resolved with the word will does not resolve that challenge.
We foresee a discussion about what can be considered and what won't be discussed and we want to avoid that and that's why we insist on will.
Thank you.
Iran and Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
My point is regarding the last bracket or last sentence, if I may, my delegation is of the view that there is no added value for this sentence, which is now in the bracket and there is no directly related to the CBMs.
My delegation supports any idea to promote and strengthen the CBMs forms and any measures in this regard.
My delegation suggests to delete the last bracket or last sentence.
Thank you, Chair.
USA? Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank my Indian colleague for pointing out an issue with the language.
We think a solution would be to take to delete the bracketed language that says of possible revisions to CBMs and lower in the sentence where it says, with a view to preparing them, delete them and replace it with possible revisions to CBMs.
We think that might satisfy and we'd be okay with that change.
Thank you.
Can we agree Russia Chairperson, we cannot agree with the proposal of the United States of America because this completely changes the very sense of the compromise solution.
The essence of this compromise solution as we understand it, is to ensure that it will be guaranteed that the proposals will be discussed, the proposals for CBMs that are already tabled.
The language proposed boils us all down to some possible future adjustments and that's not what we were talking about.
In that case, we would prefer to go back to the previous paragraph that we had in this text in A, the text which covered all of the possible initiatives on CBMs.
If we're working to find a compromise solution, then we must talk about guaranteeing consideration of all of the initiatives proposed by member states.
We're happy to discuss around that, but without that, we don't see any point in this direction.
Thank you.
Okay.
So I would ask delegations to come to me with language that can be agreed to all delegations or at least to those that have a different positions.
We have 10 minutes to go, but I don't think we have time to open another discussion.
So let's adjourn the meeting until 3:00.
I would ask delegations that have some problems with my paper to come to me in the afternoon with some proposals so we can move.
Thank you.
Enjoy your lunch.
The Secretariat has something to say.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Good morning.
Well, good afternoon now, ladies and gentlemen.
Just to announce a couple of side events that are taking place during the lunch break.
There is one taking place in Room eight, which is entitled Science for Diplomats Outbreak Unknown, and Interactive simulation on AI enabled biological threats and governance.
That's hosted by UN ODA and AI Safety Asia.
As I said, that's in Room eight.
The other side event taking place will be in there's one that's the Youth for Biosecurity Poster Exhibition, which is taking place just behind us in the Sal de Paper Du during the lunch break as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.