3rd Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Good morning, everybody.
I hope you had a good sleep and some nice dreams or some nightmares.
It depends.
I don't know.
We have now 90.6% of the text in green.
Of course, the most difficult part is bless you.
It's getting the rest of the 9.4% in green.
I have to tell you that I'm very frustrated.
I'm not sure if all the delegations in this room want to finish the work.
That's my feeling and I have to be very honest with you.
Because we have nine days to go and we're still discussing if the comment should be here, should be there, if number two comes after number one or I mean, we have to work and I don't feel that in the room.
So We tried to do with a small group yesterday.
It didn't work because as I told you in the room, I should bring a tape recorder because I'm listening to the same things, although we don't need to keep listening to the same things anymore.
I want to listen to proposals on a that could be accepted to everybody.
Really being very honest with you.
I'm quite fed up with the story about my delegation, my capital, my country.
That's not this.
We have to think as a group, as a collective, so the working group can decide on something and so on.
Because again, we don't need to waste time.
If you don't want to have the thing, let's not do it.
Let's not waste the time of the others.
Let's see.
There is a script I will read, but then I will talk myself.
Excellency, distinguished delegates, good morning.
I would like to welcome you all to this third meeting of the ninth session of the working group on the strengthening of biological Weapons Convention.
As with our meetings yesterday, this meeting is taking place in an in person format in accordance with the regular practice under the convention.
It was a public meeting which is being webcast on UN webTV.
I would first like to inform you that yesterday evening, the Secretariat circulated an updated version of the draft final report, which incorporates all the texts that we managed to turn green yesterday, plus the textual proposals that were made by delegations.
This updated version has been issued as document bw slash wg slash nine slash CRP 0.1 slash rev dot two dated 17th August 2026.
It was sent to all delegations yesterday by email and printed copies are available in the room.
I want one because I don't have one.
This version will be The one on which we work today, in which, and I repeat, I hope we work today, in which the Secretariat will show on the screen.
As necessary, further updated versions will be produced during the course of this week so that delegations always have the latest text available to facilitate our work.
This one.
This one.
I have a copy.
I'm going to try something else.
I would like delegations instead of me proposing paragraphs, I want delegations to propose which paragraph we should discuss now.
Text that is in yellow and texts that are white.
I want you to tell me which one you want to discuss.
Take into account that unilateral measures, consensus, and MSP are not in the least.
So I would like delegations to come forward and suggest me what paragraphs we should discuss now.
I'm waiting or should I understand that you don't want to discuss anything? That's also an option.
Iran, give me a paragraph that you want to discuss.
Thank you, chair, and good morning to all.
Let my delegation break the ice.
Actually, we have any specific paragraph to be discussed, but I do believe that based on the discussion we had yesterday, it's better to start from the white and those paragraph that has any color green or yellow one to be discussed to have a more full and good picture from the whole of the text.
Thank you, chair.
What is the number of the paragraph? Why are you looking for the private friends? Thank you, Chairman.
Good morning to you, and good morning to all.
Without numbering each of the paragraphs, the suggestion that my delegation would be able to make would be to have clusters of various paragraphs on topics which are the most problematic and which require perhaps more in depth work because in fact, this runs through the entire text.
It's not just paragraphs that are detached or isolated from each other, but following several months of discussion, including in an informal setting, We can nevertheless see several major themes emerge.
The first is a cluster of questions which might present an obstacle against the functioning of the mechanism and we are prepared to consider that very openly.
The other cluster of issues would be compliance measures.
The third cluster is the mandate of the open ended working group on verification.
I think there are also solutions that we might look at, taking into consideration the concerns raised by several delegations.
The fourth cluster of questions would be the decision making modalities of the two mechanisms because these are two parallel mechanisms which have decision making modalities that are quite close to each other.
So we would be open to considering these questions in any way that you would wish, either here in the room or in smaller groups as we've done previously, including with the assistance of the friends of the chair.
But I think it might be better establishing these different groups or these different themes to try to isolate the variables, the parameters on which we can work to reach an agreement.
That's my modest suggestion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
But the problem is that I think that that's what we did last year because now we're talking about the language.
If we have a problem with the terms real would or could the four groups as you're mentioning, we're going to be here until 252, when I will be 100-years-old.
Iran, do you have a reply? No, Russia, you have a suggestion for a paragraph to be discussed.
Good morning, Chair.
We don't have any specific proposals for any specific paragraphs on which we could start discussions.
We're prepared to discuss any paragraph according to your wishes or those of other delegations.
We have come prepared for a discussion on the full text and the issues that require solutions.
Thank you.
I once more, I want to repeat that we didn't come here to discuss the full tax because the 90.6% of the tax is already green.
I'm not going to discuss this.
As I always say, the green tax is not to be discussed.
What I'm asking your delegation, if on the 9.4% that is left, does your delegation has a preference to discuss it now? That's my question.
I cannot see from you.
Mejia.
President.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman, it's a question here as to whether we see the glass half full or maybe even three quarters full rather than somewhat empty.
Over 90% in green is good progress and it's a credit to us all in the room here.
We have noted that yesterday there appeared to be a wish expressed by delegations to be able to discuss a text that we have in yellow.
Currently in connection with some text that is still white.
That is the sense that seems to have emerged and we certainly do not wish to usurp your work in guiding this work.
But since you are inviting us to make suggestions, we would like to state that perhaps we could discuss texts in yellow which have some sections in white because there is a connection between the text in yellow and the remainder of the text which remains in white in square brackets.
Perhaps you could permit delegations to make statements on those.
We certainly only have nine days left, it's true, and we believe that there is some space remaining for a dialogue which we hope can be constructive and conducive.
If delegations could speak in the time limit which you might feel appropriate to assign, then that could also leave us some time to discuss a paragraph or a specific theme to see whether we might be able to reach a consensus.
To quote a former chair.
The common sense requires that we select a method that we apply it all the way to the end and to check whether it works.
If it doesn't work, then we have to go back to the drawing board and start over.
Perhaps we could begin by the question of the ICA on the draft establishment of a mechanism to facilitate international cooperation.
My delegation would be prepared to begin discussions on that topic.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Njer.
Now, tell me one paragraph you'd like to discuss.
Switching to English, draft decision for the establishment of a mechanism open to all state parties to facilitate and support the full implementation of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10.
According to the CRP re one.
Just a second.
Let me find it here.
Page 13.
Just a second.
Confirm with me it's annex two D.
Is that it? Annex two, yes.
So I will ask the Secretariat to put on the screen Can we green an international cooperation and assistance advisory group? This part of this phrase, can we make it green? So decided.
Then we have will and could.
Could delegation express their points on will and could? We cannot have both.
So I'd like to hear delegations.
What do you want? Iran.
Thank you for the floor.
My delegation regarding this part, we support the word of will.
Thank you, Sir.
Thank you.
Any comments on Iran's Russia? Thank you, Chairman.
We'd like to support the delegation of Iran.
We would also be in favor of the word will.
Thank you.
Cuba.
Thank you very much.
We also prefer will.
Any other comment? Decided will.
The rest of the phrase of the paragraph, sorry, recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conference, encouraging state parties to provide at least bi annually to provide Annually or bi annually, such information, including the scope and nature of these activities.
Let's go part by part.
Can we green recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conference encouraging state parties to provide at least bi annually appropriate information on how to implement Article 10? Can we green it So decided.
U.
I think that is this problem of biannual and biannually we had in the last meeting, if I'm not mistaken, the owner of the language explained to us.
Thank you and Chair, and good morning, colleagues.
It's perhaps a question for the ISU about how we get through what I think is a muddle in this paragraph.
My understanding talking to colleagues is that the intent in the seventh and eighth review conferences was that we would, as states parties provide appropriate information at least every couple of years.
That is, at least binally, not bi annually.
Um, so I think that language, while faithfully reflecting the outcome documents, does not reflect the intent of the states parties as I understand it.
It also then, I think, sort of complicates slightly sort of the flow of the paragraph that follows.
From my delegation's perspective, we are content just to proceed with that understanding and to move, which I think in the direction that we'd like to all move in, which is to reduce the burden and, um, uh, provide biennial information.
But I come back to the point that that is not any change to what I understand to be the past agreements.
Really it's a question for the ISU around the degree to which we have to reference faithfully the content of the seventh and eighth review conferences or whether we can fix that language to capture what we understand to be the intent.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
First of all, on this issue, as the UK delegation correctly said, binnial implies every other year, whereas bi annual would be twice per year.
I have the same understanding as the UK delegation that the intention at the seventh review conference when this language was agreed, was that the reports would be submitted every other year.
So it should, in a way, it should have been binnial and also, as well as the intention, I can also refer to the practice of states parties since 2011, since the Seventh Review Conference, and the practice of those very limited number of states parties that have submitted these reports is to submit these reports every other year.
So on a binnial basis as well.
So that's, as I understand, that was the intention of states parties back then, and that's also been the practice of states parties back then.
I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that we have never received such reports from a particular state party twice per year.
When we have received these reports and like I said, it's been very limited number of states parties submitting them.
They have always been received every other year.
That's been a practice.
My suggestion, Chair, would be it should be binnial rather than bi annually.
Thank you.
Okay.
Happy Well, I wonder Chair, whether we can therefore just delete the confusing sentence.
I mean, effectively what we are saying in practice is that states are now encouraged to continue the practice we have already in place and to provide the information they already provide to the ICA advisory group.
I don't believe you now need that Stensons beginning recalling the decision.
You could simply say that states parties are encouraged to continue to provide by any such information, including the scope and nature of these activities to the ICA advisory group.
I mean, we are effectively saying continue the practice you have, but provide this information to the ICA advisor group.
So let's focus in on that aspect.
I don't think we need the sentence beginning recalling, particularly if it confuses content with practice.
Thank you.
Ana.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
I agree with what was just proposed by the delegation of the UK, but perhaps we can make a small amendment recalling the decisions.
It is important to know what happened before and what we can delete encouraging state parties to provide.
We will leave the reference to the conference and delete only the part that causes problems.
I wonder if my proposal is understood.
Thank you.
Any comments on the UK and Argentina's proposal? We have to choose one.
So on the second phrase, can we accept Recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, common, encouraging state parties to provide appropriate information on how they implement Article 10.
States parties are now encouraged to provide such information, including the scope and nature of these activities to the ICA advisory group.
Can we accept that? Yeah, Ben So let me repeat.
Recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, encouraging state parties to provide appropriate information on how they implement Article 10, state parties are now encouraged to provide bi annually such information, including the scope and nature of these activities to the ICA advisory group.
Can we accept that, Russia, V.
Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair.
It'll be problematic for us to agree with this proposal because we do not have the mandate in this group to review the decisions that were taken by the seventh and eighth review conferences.
The decisions of these conferences were agreed and they're very specific and they're reflected in the final documents.
In that case, if we try to make any references, To these conferences, we have to reproduce faithfully those decisions.
We can accept perhaps the proposal made by Argentina and in terms of a compromise, we can just have a reference to the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, adding the words that relate to Article 10 of the Convention.
In all of that in the second part, we would prefer to add the words at least before where we provide the deadlines for the provision of such information.
English is not our mother tongue, but in Russian, this should read at least every two years or on a two year basis.
At least every two years.
At least on a bi annual basis.
In that case, we would be able to agree with this text.
Can you repeat, without explanations, but can you repeat your phrase for this word so the Secretariat can write it down and put it on the screen, please.
Recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences related to Article 10 of the convention.
States parties are encouraged to provide at least on bi annual basis.
I text Peden and after that, we will continue with the text that we have already.
Spasse.
Thank you.
Spasse, can we accept the Russian proposal? Durky.
I really cannot see from here.
For the next meeting, I bculs Thanks, Chair, and thank you to our Russian colleague.
I think there's a syntax error now though because we refer to such information without having the earlier reference to information.
I actually was very happy with the language that you proposed, chair.
I don't believe that language that you proposed seeks to reverse or amend the decision of those review conferences, and it retains the focus of this, which is the information that we are sharing.
I would prefer to go back to the language you proposed and I would suggest to our Russian colleague, it doesn't actually have the effect that he is concerned about, I amending or overruling earlier decisions.
Thank you.
Russia, 2 minutes.
Oh, sorry, Germany and then Russia.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We are relatively flexible regarding the exact wording.
We just wanted to point out that if we change the first part of the sentence, which we're willing to consider, we would make sure that the reference to the information to be provided is still clear.
If we change the first part, then we would need to specify such information in the second part of the sentence.
What's your proposal? Well, the proposal depends on what we do with the first part of the sentence and as I said, we're flexible there.
But if we take out the reference to encouraging states parties to provide at least by appropriate information, then the part of that sentence, information on how they implement Article 10 would need to replace the such in the second part of the sentence.
Again, we're flexible how we resolve this issue, just to point out if we change the first part, then we might have to look at the such information just to make sure that we know exactly which information is to be provided.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Russia reaction in 2 minutes to UK and Germany and flexibility.
Thank you very much Chair.
Now, if we keep the first part of the sentence with the square brackets, we'll be happy with that language.
Thank you.
U.
So therefore, the proposal is recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, encouraging states parties to encouraging states parties to provide appropriate information.
States parties are encouraged to I haven't got my glasses on such.
I think it's your proposal chair.
I'm sorry, I can come back to I think I'm basically echoing your proposal.
Recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, encouraging states parties to provide appropriate information on how they implement Article 10, states parties are encouraged to provide at least on a binnial basis such information.
I think that addresses the UK, Russian, and German comments.
Thank you, David, Argentina, 2 minutes.
Thank you, Chair.
We are flexible, but we would like to see which proposal will work for different delegations.
What we could do is leave recording the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences.
Article 10 of the Convention.
State parties are encouraged to provide bi annually or at least on a bi annual basis, abbreviate information on how they implement Article 10.
I think that this is the proposal that simplifies language, makes it more direct and concise and I believe that it takes into account all of the concerns that were made by delegations.
Thank you.
Russia, 2 minutes.
Thank you very much Chair.
We can agree to the proposal that was made by the UK only if we keep the language at least bi annually.
That is part of the decisions that were taken by the seventh and eighth review conferences, and we must have that language.
We can also agree with the proposal made by Argentina.
If in the first part, we will have language related to Article 10 of the convention.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I I I will give you two, but just 1 minute.
I would like to avoid that delegations, keep saying, I'm very flexible, but when you have but I don't know if the UK agrees with me on the English language, but I'm flexible, but you're not being flexible.
India.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair, and good morning to all colleagues.
As we see this seance, this is two parts.
The first one is on what the understanding is, and the second part aims to override that understanding.
Our suggestion would be, which goes in the direction of what the Russian colleague has said, is that we should faithfully capture what the existing understanding is, which means that there should be an explicit reference to at least biannually, which is what we've agreed in the seventh and eighth review conferences.
The second part of the sentence can then focus on overriding that periodicity from at least bi annually to at least binually.
Of course, we are also open to suggestions given by our Argentine colleague.
But we do believe that by removing the brackets in the first part on at least bi annually, this paragraph would be acceptable to us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Nz.
Thank you, Chair.
Though we are Francophone, we would like to also try to join the discussion.
We believe that the proposal by UK is the most appropriate way forward because it already captures what the seventh and eighth review conferences have decided.
Furthermore, we would like to remind delegations that this para is about recalling.
Whether it's here or not, the decisions made by the review conferences still stand.
This just helps delegation better implement this decision by recalling them here.
So since there is no delegation with substantive objection, maybe we can go forward with the proposal by UK.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comment? I would ask Russia, Argentina, and UK, and Asia if you can sit down and give me in the afternoon language for this paragraph.
Yeah.
The secretary is provoking me, saying that if I give him 5 minutes, they can come with something that can be agreeable to all delegations.
So I will concede the ISU 5 minutes.
We're going to put text on the screen that I hope can be suitable for UK, Argentina, Russia, and Niger.
It's basically what's in gray at the moment there is the suggestion.
The suggestion is what is in gray.
We are also introducing a new color.
No more new colors.
Green and yellow are the colors of the Brazilian flag, but gray is not.
Angel.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I think this is what we were fearing earlier when the suggestions were being made.
My delegation's viewpoint is that the first part of the sentence should faithfully capture the periodicity that was agreed in the seventh and eighth review conference.
In this formulation that the Secretariat has provided us, there is no reference to the fact that the information had to be given at least bi annually, as was agreed in seventh and eighth review conference.
So we would request that that point be factually uh, provided in the first part of the sentence.
Of course, the second part of the sentence does override that through another decision of the working group as a recommendation from the working group.
But we do believe that the decisions taken by seventh and eighth review conferences, and the periodicity that was contained should be faithfully reflected in the first part of the sentence.
Thank you.
Any other comment? UK, Russia, Niger.
Can you accept the paragraph as it is on the screen, Argentina to Argentina, yes, Yes, Germany.
This is a very good compromise.
Sorry.
Thank you.
We believe that this is a very good compromise and we would be happy to accept that with the addition of the square brackets.
You either accept a compromise because it's the same thing.
I'm very flexible, but I accept the compromise.
Point out that in the original language, there are still the square brackets of the meeting of states parties.
Listen, once more, consensus meeting of state parties unilateral measures are not going to be discussed.
Wasn't going to discuss the issue.
I was just going to point out that the square brackets are not yet reflected in the gray text and that we would need to add that to the gray text because it's still in the text above.
It's the Secretariat fault is not mine.
I They're telling me that is reflected that you didn't see.
Russia.
Niger.
Yeah, just Secretariat is going to reply to India.
Thank you, Chair, but I see the Indian and UK.
Could you pay attention? He's going to explain to India.
Thanks, ambassador, but they are probably discussing the same issue that I was just going to raise.
But in terms of what the delegate from India said about the periodicity, as I said earlier, it's my understanding that despite the texts, the seventh and eighth review conferences in the English versions, at least, using the word bi annual, which means twice per year, what the intention back then actually was was once every two years.
As I said that if I would like to ask India and UK to pay attention to what we are saying because we were saying something, you don't keep discussing between yourselves, there is no need for us to work.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
I see the delegation, but what I was just trying to explain is that the intention, my understanding is that the intention back then was it would be once every two years.
And certainly, as I said earlier, the practice has been by states parties ever since then that states parties have submitted.
Those that have submitted have done it once every two years.
We have never received this information from any state party twice per year.
So I think it's basically an issue of the wrong word having been used back in 2011, when they said bi annual, when I think the intention and certainly the practice since has always been binnual So on that basis, if I'm correct in that, I don't think we need to actually it's not a question of override or restating a position from 2011 and then having to override it.
I think the decision, the intention in 2011 was always biennial.
And that's the word that we should use here, which I think it was the Russian Federation that suggested earlier, maybe it is actually clearer rather than using the word binnial which even in English people confuse anyway, bi annual and bi annual often get confused in English.
As the Russian Federation suggested earlier, maybe it is just clearer to say at least every two years, I think was the proposal from the Russian Federation.
Then it would be clear in English and I assume it would be clearer in other languages as well.
I haven't obviously consulted the other language texts, but they were probably based on the English language diversion negotiated during a Snth review conference, which, as I said, used the word bi annual.
But as far as I understand, the intention was even then was every two years rather than twice per year.
Thank you.
Thank you, David Angel, you on the floor.
Thank you, Daniel, for his explanation.
But I just can't help myself but question, the fact that we are basing this on an interpretation that you have about a decision that was taken not once but twice in the seventh review conference and then it was further endorsed by the eighth review conference.
It is possible that you have a certain interpretation of it, but maybe some delegations really meant what they were doing then and therefore that decision was again endorsed by another review conference.
So the main issue that we have in front of us is that this would materially not change anything.
What we are saying is that the recalling of the decisions of seventh and eighth review conferences should be done factually.
Then of course, the material change that we are bringing in the periodicity is also there on which I think all of us can agree to and come to a consensus on.
What my delegation is seeking is a reference to what was agreed as such by all the states during a review conference, and that should not change the material difference we are bringing to um, uh, to the periodicity of, uh, the reporting.
So, uh, if this is not, uh, you know, problematic for other delegations, we can at least bring this fact that the seventh and the eighth review conferences had endorsed that the periodicity of, uh, providing information would be, you know, uh, bin, uh, sorry, bi annual.
And from bi annual, we're moving to a biannual basis.
That is the whole point I'm saying we are not against the decision that, uh, you know, that we are taking right now, which is to reduce the periodicity of the reporting.
Thank you.
UK, but my understanding is that we made a mistake and we should be repeating the mistake.
Makes no sense to me.
UK and Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
I have two points.
I think one is that we sought to correct this mistake in the ninth Review Conference, but because the article by article review was dropped from the final outcome document, we did not do so.
Secondly, the effect of what our Indian colleague is suggesting is that the records will show that we have decided to move from a practice of providing this information twice a year.
To providing that information once every two years.
That's a very damaging message from my perspective, when actually we are simply continuing the practice that we have adopted since the seventh and eighth review conferences.
That said, if this issue is of fundamental importance to our Indian colleague, I can live with keeping biannuin there.
It is nonsensical to me and Russia and then Canada.
President.
Thank you very much Chair.
We would prefer to keep the language that was proposed by the Secretariat.
Because in the Russian language, in the documents of the seventh and eighth review conference, everything has been translated correctly, at least biiannually.
In that respect, in order to correct that error, we would prefer to have some general reference to the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences because if we try to quote everything in English, When we translate that into Russia, we would prefer to keep the translation that we had in the final documents of the seventh and eighth review conferences, meaning at least bi annually.
Thank you.
Thank you, Russia, Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
I So echoing a bit of a comment made by my UK colleague.
I'm a little confused as to why we're being held up on this detail when we have the rest of the unagreed upon text to get to.
First off, I just want to confirm as an English speaking country, that mix up often does happen between annually and biannually.
I mean, especially in a format like this where English is not the mother tongue of everyone.
I think we would be even more prone to slight misinterpretations like that.
Um, And I think as well, context matters here.
If the Secretariat is telling us that Luis was clearly the intention to mean bi annually and biannually was said instead, I think we should take that into consideration.
I think that's part of the definition of being flexible here.
Thank you.
Being flexible, but, France, how is it in the French version? Well, the secretary is going to say, but I would like to hear from the other Chinese and Arab countries, what's their translation? The ICU.
Thank you, Ambassador.
We've just been doing a quick bit of research from our side.
In the French and Chinese versions, it refers, and I think I understood from the Russian Federation, also in the Russian, it refers to bi annually, every two years.
In the English and also apparently in the Spanish version, I think it refers to bi annual or in the Spanish version.
I think it specifically says twice per year.
Um, so there is no we haven't looked at the Arabic version yet either, but there is no, um there's no unified interpretation, even in the different official language versions, either.
So I think, again, that shows you that there isn't there wasn't a, um, um, you know, a clear decision back then that it would be every two years, so bi annual.
And I think the majority of the different language translations do refer to as the Russian Federation said at least bi annually.
So every two years, as I said, the French and the Chinese version specifically talk about every two years as well.
Thank you.
So I would ask the Indian delegation to have some flexibility and that I think we're spending too much time on that, but let's correct a mistake because a Worse than having done a mistake is insisting on the mistake.
In 2 minutes.
Well, thank you, Mr.
Chair and Secretariat for providing the information.
I think if that is indeed the case where different languages have reflected it in different ways, we can be flexible in terms of whether we want to capture the periodicity.
But I do want to make a point that what may be nonsensical to some delegation may make sense to the other delegations.
There's a need for h uh, examination of all proposals and, you know, the ideas suggested by PS delegations and my delegation had a view that we should not make what is a decision taken by two review conferences, not by one, a matter of interpretation.
And that would have uh for my delegation would have been damaging because we reduce a decision taken by states parties not in one review conference, but in two review conferences, a matter of interpretation, and that would have been more damaging for us.
But we do take the point which the Secretariat has provided and what you have suggested to us and we would be flexible in taking this forward.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, but I do not just recall and I think this discussion is going too long.
But I have the UA in Algeria that will put the inputs of the Arabi in a very short time.
But just remember that this decision to which you refer, it's English.
The decision in French, as we said, which are also one of the one of the six languages.
In Chinese, you got so it's not a different interpretation.
It's in different language and the Chinese, if I'm mistaken, you correct me.
But anyway, Emirates in Algeria fast.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson.
We find it would be better to maintain at least bi annually.
This is a better formulation if we were to rely on the previously agreed language in the seventh and eighth review conferences where there was an encouragement for submitting the information at least bi annually, and this formulation has also was part of further UN agreements.
Before I give the floor to Algeria, and again, this thing is going too long.
But I have to tell you that you're taking the English as the right way.
Russia, China, Spain.
It's not a question that we're modifying a decision because in Russia, you're not modifying anything in French, you're not modifying anything, so let's be democratic.
Most languages understand that's every two years.
China, Algeria, Tunisia, and China, and I closed the discussion.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair for giving me the floor.
Just to add to this, in Arabic version and after we check the final documents, it said once every two years, so the understanding shared by the ISU was reflected correctly in Arabic version for this end and to avoid confusion between English and other languages, we prefer to maintain the we prefer the language proposed by the ISU as a way forward, so we could recall the decisions in a broader way regarding Article 10, and we could also continue by saying that states parties are encouraged to provide at least binally appropriate information on how they implement Article 10.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Sugran as I think that everybody saw, there was a mistake on the English language, all the other five languages expressed every two years.
Tunisia and the discussion is closed.
Bonjour Good morning.
The use of this adverb.
In order for it to be clear in every language, it's better to construct the sentence by saying once every two years.
L problem The problem is in the use of the adverbs binally or biannually.
Perhaps we just need to reword that sentence completely and that would clarify matters and I fully agree with you and the majority of those who spoke that what needs to be corrected is the error in order to avoid any interpretation errors.
Thank you.
Yeah, Shukran this does not solve the problem because I think the point of India is that the seventh and eighth, they didn't say every two years, they say biannually.
What they want is to keep the wording of the seven and eight, China, and that's it.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
First of all, concerning the issue of languages, we confirm what the Secretariat said is right bi annually concerning the Indian delegates concern.
That is to say in the report, we should reflect the decision of the previous two review conferences.
Maybe we can use a formulation to resolve the issue.
In the second line, states parties for the third time or states parties are again encouraged to provide.
I including the scope and nature of these activities.
Such information will be provided to the ICA advisory group.
I hope this could accommodate the concern of our India colleague.
Thank you.
Can we take the Chinese proposal? Decided.
Now let's go back to the ISU formulation because what we have here and now the discussion is closed.
What we have here is that we have a mistake correct in five languages and a mistake on one language and we are not here to discuss things.
Iraq But really, please.
Thank you, chair for giving the floor.
Any floor does not mean that we are continuing the discussion regarding para.
We are happy with the text, but we have a two editorial proposal.
First is that the hierarchy of this draft decision could be the same as the draft decision for the SNT.
Therefore, my delegation proposed to change the subparagraph order and the subparagraph D come before the C.
I mean.
Also regarding the current subparagraph after the new proposal, can be in separate paragraph to be more.
Just a second.
I'm lost.
Yeah.
Re recalling.
It could be a new paragraph.
Thank you, sir.
Can we accept a random proposal? Can we accept make another proposal.
Chair, just explain my proposal that the subparagraph D come before the C.
As a hierarchy of the same formulation for this draft decision based on the draft decision for SNT to be in the same formulation and hierarchy.
Thank you.
Can you repeat, please? Because we don't understand.
Slowly.
Sure.
Thank you very much.
Actually, I have a two proposals that.
First is that the subparagraph D could be split into two paragraph and the subparagraph D in this formulation could come before the subparagraph C.
Based on the hierarchy and formulation of the draft decision for SNT could be the same as for the ICA decision.
Before CS.
Thank you.
So the Iranian proposal is on the screen.
Can we accept the Iranian proposal? Any comments on the Random proposal? No objection.
So it's decided.
Let's move to paragraph two.
With a view to promoting the fullest and most effective implementation of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10 in compliance with the provisions of the convention, the ICA mechanism shall.
Any comments? Australia, you are close, but you're too far away.
Thank you, Chair.
Look for paragraph two, we would like to seek the deletion of this language.
We feel that the language in the rest of the text provides an adequate mandate and that this text is unnecessary.
On A, we note that obstacles and opportunities language is already reflected in the previous paragraphs.
We cannot accept language on obstacles and challenges without opportunities, language that has been agreed and reflected in earlier paragraphs, including paragraph six of Annex one, Robust controls are vital nonproliferation measures, and we are concerned that this language infers that they are arbitrary obstacles rather than a legitimate method of upholding our BWC obligations.
On B, we cannot accept language on denials.
It is not appropriate for this mechanism to review a country's sovereign decisions, exercise to ensure appropriate safeguards against the proliferation of WMD.
An approval system is not robust without the option to deny.
Denials are contextual and focused on the end user rather than on the country itself.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other delegation on the Australian proposal to delete this paragraph? Cuba.
Thank you, Chair.
We understand that here we are looking at Article 10 that deals with the peaceful uses related to international cooperation.
What we're talking about all the uses that are not allowed by the convention.
So we should increase deny access to increased cooperation will undermine the convention.
What Australia is referring to, if I understand, referring to non peaceful uses.
This is not what we see on the screen.
We can study the proposal to include the opportunity, as in other reference to have an comprehensive analysis of everything that may have an impact on compliance with Article 10 in terms of assistance and cooperations.
We cannot forget We cannot forget the obstacle that prevents us from moving forward to make an analysis, have a careful look on Article 10.
Any other delegation? USA Asia.
Good morning, Chair.
The United States concurs fully with the objections of the Australian delegation and we would also request the full deletion of Paragraph two, including the subsections.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Niger, Canada, and Japan.
Oh.
President.
Thank you, Chairman.
My delegation would like to keep paragraph two, this chat because it defines the mandate of the discussions which are to be held within the framework of the ICA mechanism.
This is an introductory paragraph here, which plays an important role in the definition of what we will do, and that is described in subparagraphs A and B.
With respect to paragraph two, we would like to keep it as it stands.
Thank you, Japan and in Spain.
Thank you, Chair.
My delegation is not going to comment on the preamble paragraph two there or subparagraph A.
We specifically have issues with subparagraph B, especially some of the language in it, to consider and assess denials, as well as recommendations aimed at preventing such denials.
Um, I might be wrong here, but the last time I checked, the BWC is not an export control regime or a sovereign country that makes export decisions.
So we don't see this within the purview of this convention, and we don't see that as being appropriate as this being an appropriate forum for these sorts of discussions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Japan and Spain.
Thank you, Mr..
This paragraph is not necessarily in the context of BWC, and they should be entirely deleted.
Thank you.
Spain Thank you very much, Chair.
We would like to align ourselves with a proposal made by Australia, especially as Canada says, this is not the appropriate environment for the convention.
I cannot see from here.
Venezuela.
Thank you very much Chair.
I'll be very brief.
Venezuela believes that it is important, if not crucial to preserve this paragraph to guarantee the full and effective implementation of Article 10.
Thank you.
Netherlands.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to briefly take the floor to express our support for the proposal by Canada to delete just two B of this paragraph.
Thank you.
Do you keep two A? Yeah, we could live with two A.
Thank you.
Okay.
Dog, where are you? Oh, go.
Mercy President.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Just as previous speakers, in particular, Indyia and Venezuela, we are also of the view that this paragraph is fundamental in terms of the implementation of Article 10, and therefore we would like to have it kept as it stands.
Any other comment? Belarus Thank you, Chairman.
Belarus is also in favor of keeping the wording of this paragraph.
It's an important one and it identifies and with respect to the goals of the BWC, this does not contradict the sovereign rights of states, but if there are any doubts with regard to the full implementation of the BWC, then this in fact relates to the responsibilities of that body.
Thank you.
An? Thank you, Chair.
Regarding this part and its subparagraph, my delegation, support those delegations to keep this part in the text which is fully compliant with the freedom letter of this draft final report of the working group.
My delegation is of the view that based on the language and decision of the ninth Review Conference, implementation of Article 10 should be full, effective and non discriminatory.
Therefore, any discussion and any mechanism regarding the ICA or Article 10 details consideration and assessment of denials in transfer of equipment, materials, and technology for peaceful purposes.
Would not be full and effective.
Therefore, my delegations support to keep such language and we propose to be more Atrngen and more promoted language in this area, which is one of the key area that is very important for many delegations, including mine.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Any other comment? I would ask Australia, Netherlands, and Cuba to sit down and bring something to me in the afternoon.
Thank you.
So let's move to paragraph four.
Oh, no.
Let's try to finish with paragraph three.
We have during, before or after.
I think it's a If my British colleagues can help him because before or after before or after cannot be another choice.
I think the British language does not leave any other option.
Also the other five languages, it's before or after.
But anyway, I would like to hear delegations on having during, before or after.
I'm just being reminded that this has to do with the MSP, forget it.
Four accept the mention to meeting of state parties.
Can we accept paragraph four? Comments? Any comments? So I understand that the question if it's the meeting of state parties or we're going to decide later, I take that we can agree that whoever we decided later will be responsible for taking necessary actions with respect to budgetary, financial, and organizational matters with a view to ensuring the proper and effective operation of the ICA mechanism during the intersectional period.
Can we green this phrase? So this is going better than I thought.
So let's move to Appendix two, Paragraph four.
Russia.
Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair.
Before we turn to annex two Appendix two.
We would like to ask you to come back to paragraph eight of draft decision on the mechanism on cooperation and assistance.
May I continue? No, just a second.
This is the detes Besides that each review conference, no, I'm not talking about green.
I'm not going to open green text.
Yes.
I understand, Distinguished Chair, but we have our national position and we'd like to work a bit more on paragraph eight because as we have said on numerous occasions yesterday, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Agreed until everything is agreed, but I also said that I'm not touching on green text and every country has a position here.
If I'm going to open green text, which I will not, I will not control the room.
I'm sorry.
If it's on eighth, let's move.
I'm not going to discuss it.
Yes.
You have 3 minutes.
A.
Distinguished Chair.
Nevertheless, we would like to use our right as a state party to make some proposal on paragraph eight.
I accept.
No, I'm not accept.
You don't insist.
I'm not going to open green text.
You have a national position, I have my national position, they have their national position and I will not open green text.
In December, you can open it, not now.
Or you could sit in the chair and do it.
But let's move.
If you were asking for paragraph eight, please refrain from talking.
Is it on paragraph eight? Now, let's move.
Let's go to page 18, contributions and sources of funding.
The ICA fund is a trust fund that will receive voluntary contributions from state parties, bracket, and other donors, including United Nations specialized agencies, multilateral and regional organization, intergovernmental organizations, foundations, academia, non government organizations for profit entities.
Comments on this paragraph.
Germany.
Thank you, Chair.
Since you've asked for comment on the part you've just read out for us, this could be text in green.
Thank you.
The paragraph four.
We can green paragraph four for your delegation.
Can you repeat, please? Sorry.
The part you've read out now, I heard that this part ended after for profit entities as it is seen on the screen, and this entire part could be green for us.
Thank you, Chair.
Danish.
Niger, USA and Russia.
Thank you, Chair.
Likewise, my delegation is ready to move the text to green, the part you just read out.
Thank you.
Thank you, Niger, USA and Russia.
Thank you, Chair.
At this time, the United States objects to all the bracketed language regarding organizations other than states parties.
However, we are perfectly fine with the final bracketed portion.
All states parties are encouraged to contribute to the trust fund while taking into account their respective capacities.
Thank you.
Thank you, Russia.
Distinguished Chair.
On paragraph four, we'd like to say that we are ready to accept the paragraph as currently presented, but on record, we'd like to say that we'll be making proposals to paragraph eight of the draft decision and we are ready to provide them in writing and we'll be ready to voice them in December, but that part will require further discussions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Can we agree? No, DRC, in Ireland.
President.
Thank you, Chair for giving us the floor.
My delegation agrees with paragraph four, but would like to make some small clarifications related to other donors.
What are the criteria for these other donors if they're not states parties and whether they are part of accredited organizations? Well, I understand that other donors we cannot lease because I don't know.
Maybe I decided to next year to make a donation if I win the Swiss lottery.
But we have this, let's say, protection when we say that state parties should approve the other donors.
But the list would be all universities all over the world or foundations, all UN agencies, you make a list and then but they have to be approved by the state parties.
Ireland.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
We are in favor of quickly establishing a mechanism that is effective and sustainable.
For this, we believe it's important to allow for our diverse set of donors to contribute to the pot, particularly during this period of broader funding constraints.
For that reason, we support the bracketed language in the first part of the text.
And as you said, in the second part, we do have a safeguard there, we think that this is a good package proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Netherlands and Panama.
Oh, we are here.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to express the Netherlands support for the intervention of Ireland just now.
We would also prefer to keep the first bracket sentence in this paragraph.
Thank you.
Thank you, Panama.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good morning, colleagues.
My delegation would like to use this opportunity to express our support what was said by other delegations speaking before us, including Ireland.
Our preference is to place in green the part related to other donors.
And I believe that the paragraph also provides the necessary safeguards and this will provide consistency with other paragraphs that have already been agreed like paragraph six where we asked support from states parties and other donors.
We accepted that paragraph So we do not see why we cannot accept this here.
Thank you.
Côte D'ivoire.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Two things.
I will also support the green lighting in the first part that we'll be discussing, the bracketed part.
Secondly, I do wish you win the lottery.
Thank you, Chair.
Oh, thank you.
That would be a good thing.
Co devoir President.
Thank you, Chair.
Well calling delegations for flexibility, we support this paragraph.
We believe that through silence procedure, it guarantees that states have the last word in terms of possibilities for funding.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
As my colleagues were served as friend of the chair on the ICA language and have way more expertise than I could ever hoped to in terms of international cooperation and assistance funding, I know their position is very strong on this, that this fund absolutely must be open to entities other than states parties.
Otherwise, we will not have a functional international cooperation and assistance fund.
Um, we would be amenable to slightly altering the language in the first two sets of brackets if absolutely necessary for agreement.
However, the deletion, any proposed deletion of any references to any donors other than states parties is completely unacceptable to us.
Thank you.
Okay.
Australia.
Thank you, Chair.
Australia supports the fund receiving donations from donors more broadly than states parties.
A broad donor basis would ensure that the ICA fund is sustainable, predictable, and able to support practical cooperation and assistance activities.
We want the fund to be successful and we think this is an important aspect of that.
We also note that it is standard practice in other trust funds established by conventions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Australia.
Any other comment? Indonesia and La France.
Thank you, Chair and principle.
Our delegations piece of tonal resources, therefore, we can spread the wordings on the part of f.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Lams in Norway.
Matthews.
Thank you, Chair.
As said yesterday by my delegation and in terms of our capres, we are ready to end the first phrase and other donors.
But as I would like to say, we support the entire sentence that is now in square brackets and other textual elements that will not deprive us or will allow us to have access to different funding that comes from organizations that are ready to support the fund.
Thank you.
Hi in Philippines.
Thank you, Chair.
My delegation supports the text that would allow other entities and states parties to contribute to the fund, which we believe is key for its future success.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Philippines, Austria, and Emirates.
Thank you, Chair.
Our delegation supports putting the first part of this paragraph in green.
We believe that the ICA fund should cast a wider net so as to ensure the sustainability of the fund, and that is important for us as a developing country.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Austria, Emirates, Italy, and Thailand.
Thank you, Chair.
We want to add our support to the retention of the first brexited part of the paragraph, as others have mentioned, to retain a functional and predictable fund, and we believe that the lower part of the paragraph does grant the flexibility that is necessary to still assess contributions.
There's really little argument to, um, that goes against the first part of the paragraph.
We do also add advice to those who support its retention.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Emirates, Italy and Thailand.
We support.
Putting the first paragraph, making it green as far as other donors are concerned, that will be decided by other states parties.
And the acceptance of any financial contributions should be conditioned by an agreement by other states parties.
And as far as the last sentence is concerned, it is important because it provides additional support for the financial contributions by states parties.
Italy, Thailand, and Gambia.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
As already expressed by many of the delegations before us, we believe that the mechanism should retain the greatest possible flexibility in terms of funding resources, and limitation regarding the original funds risks weakening these assistance and cooperation mechanism and ultimately reducing its ability to respond effectively to the actual needs of states parties.
We would therefore favor an inclusive and flexible approach that allows the mechanism to mobilize all available resources in support of its objectives.
Thank you, Chair.
G Thailand and Gambia.
Thank you, S.
We support the diversity and sustainability of the fund, and we see that the part of this paragraph that asked for approval by state parties to a written silence procedures already provides some flexibility and compromise for others like size.
So that's why we wish to support and all the paragraph as drafted.
Thank you.
Thank you, Gambia.
The Gambia is placed to join consensus on the retention of the funding sources.
We believe that the diversity of funding sources is really imperative for the sustainability and the adequacy of the fund and for that reason, we would really join consensus and retaining it.
Of course, we are happy with the guardrails that have been captured in the second part of the paragraph in terms of ensuring that all the funding sources are subject to approval by states parties.
We believe that is an important and necessary guardrail.
Thank you.
I would love to have consensus, but there is one delegation that does not join the consensus Toco in Pakistan.
Mercy President.
Thank you, Chair.
Paragraph four We find that we can accept paragraph four, ensure the sustainability of the financial mechanism.
Thank you.
Pakistan, Algeria, and Colombia.
Thank you, a.
We add our voices on the plurality of the funds and the language to be retained, and we also wish that you win a lottery.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have Algeria and Colombia.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We also join other delegation on the necessity to maintain the first bracketed sentence to ensure the diversity of the funding, as well as the second bracketed sentence, ensuring the acceptance of state parties of those funding to ensure that this process could be continue to be stateless.
We also accept the paragraph as it is drafted by you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Sure, Colombia.
Thank you, Chair.
Columbia supports the paragraph and have a fund that involves the greatest number of actors that will help us with resources.
Thank you.
Any other delegation? Mauritius.
Thank you, Chair.
We would also like to join a consensus with the whole text being in green.
However, we would like to point out that while we are listing all the organization, we're missing, for example, non for profit organization because not all foundations cover the non for profit and also you're missing, for example, banks, regional and multinational banks.
Thank you.
Well, that's why we say other donors because if we can make the, the list would be factories, enterprises, rich people, billionaires.
That's why we use other donors not to have.
But you have a point.
But anyhow, there, I cannot read from here.
Peru Thank you, Chair.
Very briefly, my delegation would like to also join those who expressed their support to the text in yellow and place the first sentences in green.
We do hope that this paragraph will enjoy consensus soon.
Any other Well, I think we have just one delegation opposing to it.
I would like to ask Canada and USA to sit down and give me some language in the afternoon.
Thank you.
Russia.
Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair.
In light of the fact that one delegation is not happy with this paragraph the way it was presented by yourself, we would like to find out why the reasons we would like to better understand the logic why the delegation is against in order to quickly try to find a compromise, our delegation simply doesn't understand the logic.
Thank you.
USA, do you want to reply to Russia or do you prefer to do the bilateral, the meeting with Canada? USA, Chair for the moment, the United States will happily sit down with Canada and discuss this offline, but I think for the moment, we just have some concerns about external pressure flowing from non state related sources of funding for a body that is usually suspect of corporations.
I find it interesting that everyone here is thrilled to have multi billion dollar corporations fund this effort.
Creates massive conflicts of interest for this body and the globe.
But we'll sit down with Canada and we'll probably come up with some language that'll be satisfactory to the chair.
Thank you.
We'll go with Canada and find language.
I amnesia.
Chair, I was going to ask the same question as Russia, but now having listened to the US chair, we have an overwhelming majority in this room that is ready to move to consensus.
Many delegations have highlighted that there is a safeguard in the second part of this paragraph.
Not only that chair, we only have the part that is in green, which says that this fund will serve the purposes set forth in paragraph one, two, three above, meaning to support the implementation of the international cooperation and assistance mechanism.
Furthermore, everything will be done in accordance with the financial regulations and rules of the UN.
We believe that this covers, in our understanding the concern just raised by the US delegation.
You may wish to check again with the US delegation.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Let's close the discussion and Canada and USA will come up in the afternoon with some language for me, please.
Let's go to page 21, paragraph ten.
All state parties that are not already represented on the ICAing group may observe the meetings of the ICA steering group with the right to speak and make written submissions.
Some comments.
Russia Russia.
Thank you very much, Distinguished Chair.
We are in favor of deleting this paragraph in the alternative language because we do not see any logic behind this language.
We have an open ended structure.
We do not need to have a structure that is not open ended to all participants or other donors because this may look like buying seats in the steering group.
All those who would like to wish to express their views, mostly state parties, they'll be able to do that in an open ended structure and present their views there.
Any closed structure will work for four days.
It has its own tasks, but then it will be presented to an open ended structure that at least questions will be considered there.
Thank you.
Spasse, any other comment? Turkey Turkey.
Thank you, Chair.
As I promised in the informal discussion we had on this paragraph to get back to you, I'm taking the floor to also convey this in the formal setting, our position on this paragraph.
We believe the alternative solution that was proposed by the South African delegation during the informal, which is reflected in ten ABS and ten BBs addresses the issues and concerns raised by other delegations in the informals about how to go about having so many observers in the room speaking.
So splitting the states and other donors into two would, we believe address this problem.
But just a caveat, we're happy with this formulation as long as we keep the silence procedure in paragraph four, which we were discussing earlier today because it's directly linked to how we allow other donors to participate in a mainly state driven body.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comment? Korea.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
I concur with our Russian des that the whole purpose of setting up this body with the hybrid format with the small body and the bigger body is defeated through this paragraph.
We oppose and we suggest deleting all paragraph relating to this paragraph ten.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael.
Any other comment? I cannot see I see two Panama and the other one Samoa, sorry.
Samoa and then Panama.
Thank you, Chair.
We do wish to fully agree with the chair's point as provided in the text.
As we all know, small states do not have the capacity to contribute as much nor the human resources to be fully committed to being an ICA steering group member.
Hence, there should be flexibility in allowing for their participation, especially in regards to discussions over the ICA fund and projects they may have submitted.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Panama.
Thank you, Chair.
On this paragraph, we understand the points that were mentioned by the Singh delegation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea.
In other words, in other examples in the arms Trade Treaty, a limited composition group only includes only members of that relevant selection committee.
But in order to be flexible and taking into account the concerns that were raised during informal consultations, my delegation would be able to support the compromise version that was presented by South Africa.
Is South Africa on the room? No.
Sweden and then Coltiva.
President.
Thank you, Chair.
Sorry for Kiva, if I cut the microphone before him.
I would like to support the Korean comments.
Originally, we were in favor of the very first draft of the chair where there was a percentage point in order to give incentives for donors to this funding mechanism because we believe that would be helpful for it to have a sustainable amount of funds that we could draw upon.
I'm hearing that that Way forward might not be possible.
But the whole point of the ICA steering group it is that it's small and sufficient and effective and all member states can apply to be part of the steering group, irrespective if they have provided any funding whatsoever, the steering group will consist of a quotation of a quota of states that makes it representative of the entire globe basically.
So that's why I will concur with my Korean colleague that the suggestion on the screen is not helpful and we should revert back to a steering group that only consists of those I think there was originally 20 members selected amongst member states.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Côte D'ivoire.
Thank you, Chairman.
For the same reason quoted by other speakers, we believe paragraph ten should be deleted.
Thank you.
Yes.
Now it works.
Thank you, Chair.
We can support the proposal made by South Africa in terms of the participation of other states in the discussions of the group and written contributions.
This could be compromises in terms of ten B bis.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Emirates.
Thank you, Chairman.
We prefer the second option.
That is to say to have two paragraphs, ten A and ten B, not the first paragraph.
Since this group is one set up by member states or states parties and it includes them in line with the previous decisions we talked about 20 states parties with an equitable geographical representation.
That is the proposal that we support.
With the members funding the fund.
Thank you.
Any other delegation? Belarus Thank you, Chairman.
Belarus supports Russia, Sweden, and Korea in their positions.
This body needs to be an effective one and should be less dependent on outside factors.
Thank you.
Australia.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
We're not in a position to support these paragraphs.
I think Korea and Sweden both set out the rationale well.
The steering group is responsible for the program management of the ICA fund, and it has deliberately been created as a small group of 25 members to enable it to carry out these functions efficiently.
That membership is open to any state party and we support it having broad geographical representation.
However, we are concerned that these paragraphs open up these meetings to all states parties to participate in, and that will result in inefficient meetings that can delve into political issues, which is not the focus of this group.
We recognize the importance of transparency and inclusivity in how money from the ICA fund is allocated.
This is why we have established the ICA advisory group as a forum for all states parties to oversee the operation of both the steering group and the trust fund.
We should not replicate this group within the steering group.
Thank you.
Thank you, Australia.
Any other delegation? Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just like to endorse the sentiments proposed by my Australian colleague.
Thank you.
Any other Can we delete this paragraph? Is there any delegation that has hard feelings not to delete La France? President.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm only taking the floor now because you had expressed the wish to hear delegations who were against any of the elements in the text here.
My delegation for the time being, is not in a position to approve of the deletion of this paragraph and I'm talking about the first.
I had already stated this in a previous meeting in December, states parties and other donors would not have any decision making power here.
The idea is mainly to observe, to attend these meetings, and to be able to speak, to make comments, but they would have no decision making power.
I don't see how the presence of other stakeholders could have an impact on the modalities and the operations of these meetings.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other? You, as we mentioned on the informal in this paragraph and in some other paragraphs.
I think there is a big confusion between what you have to say and money.
You see, I do agree with some delegations that this is becoming like I pay I go and the steering committee has been mentioned by other delegations, it's not a political thing.
If you have some contribution, intellectual contribution, scientifical contribution, technical contribution, but this is not the case of this steering group.
So we have to make a distinction.
It's not because you pay, you go.
La France, 2 minutes.
Thank you, Chair.
Perhaps it's a compromise.
In the first paragraph, Paragraph ten, we could delete the reference to speak to speak and delete that.
Which perhaps could restrict or lift any ambiguities in the discussion and would allow to have exchanges exclusively between members of the steering group and have observer participants only who can make written submissions only, and perhaps that would make the meetings simpler.
Any delegation react to what France saying to delete to speak.
Australia.
Okay.
Thank you, chair.
We think we could support that compromise.
It would allow states and other donors to put their position forward and observe a meeting without creating the risk that the steering group is unable to carry out its decisions and discussions efficiently.
I would suggest maybe a simpler way to achieve that would just be retaining ten B B, but adding in any other states parties so that it reads, any other states parties or other donors may observe the meeting of the ICA steering group with the right to make written submissions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before I give the floor to Russia, I repeat what I said before because you say any other donor may observe the meetings of the ICQ.
Suppose that a donor has some contribution to make but it doesn't have money.
You see? I think that is, as I said here and there is some other parts of the document, that there is a big confusion between I pay, I go, Russia, Thank you, Chairman.
We fully support the rationale that you've just expressed.
Alongside all other considerations, the proposals of other delegations do not in fact meet the concerns that we had expressed because we do not understand why this kind of provision should be introduced to where essentially the Act the actions of an open structure would be replaced and the question a rises as to the need for such a structure since all states parties or donors would be present within it, even if it's of a limited composition and can present their views.
We are still of the view that these paragraphs should be removed.
They are superfluous.
We have an open group where all of the same written submissions could be presented by all those states who would like to do so.
Thank you.
Spata, any other comment? Belarus.
You have 2 minutes.
I would like to support the comments and explanation of the Russian Federation.
We should moreover understand that the open group is specifically created to be effective and the influence of the closed group onto the open group can take place not only within their bodies, but the closed group is protected from that.
Thank you.
Any comment? I don't know.
La.
Mr.
Chairman, I do apologize for coming back a third time on this topic.
I understand that this is an issue where we have divergences in views, and I would propose that we might discuss these issues in the view of the previous paragraph.
The topics are fairly similar, and we would be prepared to hold an exchange with all states parties in the room here to find a compromise which would cover the entirety of the financial participation.
And the right to observe help by donors.
I would ask France and Sweden to sit down and give me a proposition.
But I insist that I have some resistance to this donor word because the majority of the members of the convention are not rich countries and so maybe some body lost in the middle of the Amazon forest in Brazil, have some contribution, but does not have the money, so he's not allowed.
I think it is not the purpose of this convention to put money by rear.
I would ask France and Sweden, if you can sit down, come with a proposal in the afternoon.
But my suggestion is that the word donor should not be included.
But you sit down and you discuss between yourselves.
Thank you.
India.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We tend to agree with your views as well as the views expressed by the Russian delegation and also by Australia in keeping this steering group very nimble and efficient.
Uh, and we also listened to views expressed by, uh, our French colleague.
Our view is that other donors, outside states parties, should also be incentivized to participate in the discussions of the ICA mechanism.
In that way, we can encourage them to contribute to the ICA mechanism and also in the sense of promoting ownership of these donor entities, which are not just states, but outside states.
And in order to do that, we believe that the paragraph ten B B, instead of, uh, allowing, other donors to observe the meetings of ICA steering group, we can make them observe the meetings of the ICA advisory group because insofar as the text is at this moment, the ICA advisory group is only open to states parties, and it's not open to the non governmental entities who would also have an interest in participating in these discussions.
So one way of settling this, of course, this, we are, of course, pinning our hopes on France and Sweden to get us through on this paragraph.
But our suggestion would be that we could permit other donors such as NGOs and other entities to contribute and also participate in the meetings of the IC advisory group and not the meetings of ICA steering group, which we want to keep them nimble, inefficient, and so that they can efficiently arrive at their decisions.
That would be the proposal from our end.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can you come with a suggestion? Written suggestion? Thank you, Mr.
Chair, we can work with the delegation of France and Sweden to arrive at some understanding.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
On page 22, we have paragraph 18.
The rules of procedure of the review conference will be applicable mutts Mutant to the ICA steering group.
The ICA steering group will make every effort to take its decisions by consensus.
Well, this goes to consensus and once there is no consensus on consensus, so we have to skip this one.
Let's go to page 24, paragraph nine.
Further decides that the review conference will review the work of the S&T advisory mechanism, the decision in its appendices and decided on the renewal of its mandate, including to access the functioning of the S&T advisory mechanism and decide on any changes necessary.
To this decision, the terms of reference and regulations of S&T advisor mechanism to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
Comments on this paragraph, not discussing the consensus thing.
Panama.
Thank you Chair.
On paragraph nine, my delegation is ready to turn the yellow into green.
Thank you.
Gracias, can we agree with Panama and change Russia Chairman, we support the wording which we have in the second pair of brackets as the one in the first set of brackets.
We believe that the second set of brackets are clearer on this point and would allow us to avoid any diverging interpretations in the future.
We believe that similarly, We would need to some extent, correct paragraph eight in the light of Paragraph ten, and that's why we raised this issue.
With respect to Panama's point, we would be prepared to switch the yellow to green when we do so in paragraph 16, for example, of Appendix one.
Thank you.
App one.
Can we green what's in yellow on paragraph 16, our next one? USA USA.
Thank you, Chair.
We're not prepared to green the yellow in Paragraph 16 at this time.
Thank you.
I hope you do before December.
Russia? No, you just didn't ask.
They cited you, Russia.
Are you okay? Thank you, Chair.
Just to set out the UK position on this paragraph as a whole, if we were prepared to remove the words by consensus within square brackets and we judge that is superfluous because the review conference will decide in line with its rules of procedure, we don't need to negotiate that now.
If we could delete that phrase, we could turn the entire paragraph green.
Yeah, but I guess the USA does not want The US? Thank you, Chair.
Apologies for coming in again.
I just wanted to clarify our position.
We support the UK's suggestion on this paragraph nine.
However, we're not prepared on the previous paragraph 16 that was on the screen when I spoke last.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Russia says that if it's not approved the 16, you cannot approve nine.
I hope delegations can be ready to green the text until December.
Although yesterday, as I said, we start at ten and finish at one.
I have a lunch and our colleague, Alonso from Mexico is leaving and I have a lunch at one.
Let's close the meeting and those delegations that I asked them to do some work to bring me in the afternoon, I think you can join this 30 minutes to come with a solution for me, and the meeting is adjourned.
Thank Okay.
Just before you all leave the room, could I just briefly announce the side events that will be taking place during the regular lunch hour, from 1:00.
In Room eight, there is a side event entitled Disinformation as a threat to the BWC, hosted by the government of Canada and the Global Partnership Counter WMD Disinformation Initiative, and in Room nine, there is a side event entitled Mirror Biology Explained Technical Briefing and BWC Considerations, which is hosted by Panama, Peru, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you.
Have a good lunch.