4th Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Excellencies, distinguished delegates.
Good afternoon.
I would like to welcome you all in this fourth meeting of the tieth session of the working group on the strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention.
As with our meeting this morning, this meeting is taking place in an in person format in accordance with the regular practice under the convention.
It's also a public meeting which is being webcast live on UN webTV.
So it's my intention to continue to do the work as we were doing in the morning.
And again, I ask for compromises.
No more my Capitol wants, my delegation wants.
We don't need this anymore.
This is past So 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, and its appendices, and decide on the renewal of its mandate, including to assess the functioning of the S&T advisory mechanism and decide on any changes necessary to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
Any comments? Can we green this part with the yellow Russia Thank you, Chairman.
I believe that we had discussed this before lunch, and our position on this has not changed since then.
If we remove the yellow in paragraph 16, then we are prepared to also turn the yellow into green on this paragraph.
Thank you.
Good.
Any other comments? Constantin, can you take this paragraph in green, having everything except by consensus? Mr.
Chairman, let's go step by step.
Let's first remove the brackets from the second part of the white text.
Can you take it everything except by consensus? On the whole, we would be prepared to do so.
Ba.
Can we green the whole paragraph except by consensus? So decided.
Let's move to Appendix one paragraph three B to monitor, access, identify, prioritize, and reports to the state parties through the review group including upon the request on scientific technological developments relevant to the convention and their potential implications for the implementation of the convention, including inter alia in the following areas.
Comments on that, please.
Can we green what's yellow? Page 25, So that's green.
What's yellow? Let's go to structure.
At the bottom of the page, 25, we have with the du reflection of equitable geographic distribution in regards to gender balance and equal opportunities for participation of men and women.
Comments on that.
Okay.
Russia.
Thank you, Chairman.
On the first set of square brackets, we would be prepared to agree to the text within it.
As to the second set, We would prefer to agree to the wording that we have in the third set of square brackets.
In that form, we could agree to paragraph four as a whole.
Thank you.
You agree with due reflection of ecable geographic distribution.
Let's green it Niger and Cuba.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies.
We would prefer reflecting atable geographical representation.
Cuba and then USA.
Thank you.
Actually, we feel that Njer's proposal makes sense whilst Cuba would rather go for regarding gender balance, which is the most multilaterally accepted language, and We could go for something else if it reached consensus, but with regard to genders, would be acceptable to us delegations that don't know that gender balance is UN language.
USA.
Thank you, Chair.
The United States would prefer that none of the bracketed language is included.
Thank you.
Any other comment? South Africa.
South Africa and Panama.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
I would like to support the inclusion of the word representation, and we would like to retain the reference to gender balance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pan.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Very briefly.
We support South Africa exactly word for word.
We support Niger's proposal to refer to geographical representation, but we would prefer this gender balance.
Both elements, as you said, are standard UN language.
Thank you.
Algeria.
There is a screen.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We join other delegations in supporting the retention of the reference to the equitable geographical representation as also proposed by Niger and also to gender balance.
Thank you.
Shukran.
Any other comment? Thailand.
Thailand.
Thank you, S.
We wish to accor support to the proposal made by Niger easier on representation and also would like to support the UN language on gender balance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other? An.
Thank you, chair for giving the following and good afternoon to all.
My delegation would like to support and echo what has been mentioned by the previous speaker in support of the first bracket, reflection of e geographical representation, which is very important for my delegation, therefore my delegation support to keep it in the text as it is.
Thank you, chair.
Also gender balance.
I Iran, you also support gender balance.
Thank you, chair.
Regarding this last bracket, my delegation support an equal opportunity for participation of men and women.
Therefore, we keep the first and the last bracket and the first bracket with the representation amendment.
Thank you, Sir.
Thank you.
Any other comment? Okay.
China? Thank you, Chair.
We support.
Number one, bracket with due reflection of equitable representation.
And regarding the second and the third brackets, we are flexible.
Thank you.
Let me.
Sorry, can you repeat, please? Because my Chinese is not that good.
Thank you, Chair.
We support the text in the first bracket, which is with still reflection of equitable geographical representation.
And regarding the second or the third bracket, either will work for us.
Thank you.
Si.
Nz.
Thank you, Chair.
Apologies.
My initial comment was not fully reflected.
What we submitted is reflecting equitable geographical representation.
The rationale being that with due reflection is a best effort formulation, we want an actual outcome of equitable geographical representation.
We are proposing reflecting equitable geographical representation.
Thank you.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Any other comment? I Spain.
I had I can take it, as you know for us, it's that be reflected geographic balance and gender balance.
B.
We can join the consensus on this.
Any other I USA, can you join the consensus? Chair, regrettaly we cannot.
Thank you.
I think I'm a little bit older than most of you here, unfortunately, but I am.
Those expressions took many, many years of negotiations for the UN members and I mean UN members to achieve these expressions.
I hope delegations take note of that.
We leave it 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 of its members.
Comments on that.
Can we green what's in yellow? Russia.
Thank you, Chairman.
We could green it when the text in paragraph 16 is also green.
Thank you.
I'm thinking we should stop here because if we don't say the second time that we have to wait for 16.
Once more, I would like to remind you that we have only eight days to finish the work.
Let's go to nine.
The review group in accordance with its mandate, discusses the topics assigned by the review conference as well as any additional topic approved by state parties.
Can we green this part? Russia Mr.
Chairman, we would like to follow a step by step logic.
F and other delegations follow logic.
Well, that's a pity then, but if we green the yellow text here, then all of the yellow text that we have in the document should be switched to green and we're prepared to do so if other delegations are as well.
But for the time being, that's not happening.
And so for the time being as other delegations, we remain with our previous position and we would keep the yellow text as it stands in yellow.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, but I think that your delegation is the only one.
Paragraph ten.
This appointments should be communicated to the implementation support unity within 60 days after they expire of which the review group will begin its work.
Can we green this part? So decided.
Paragraph 14.
In order to carry out its substantive work, the review group will conduct a formal in person meeting in accordance with the regular practice under the convention once a year in Geneva, for brackets days per year.
Any comments on this paragraph? Russian? Mr.
Chairman, We would like to have the texts and the paragraphs on the holding of a meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee or mechanism.
And have that in line with the way the paragraphs are presented with regard to the mechanism under paragraph ten.
That is to say specifically, we would like to include the relevant text in the draft of the decision of the establishment of this mechanism itself.
We would like to have that in paragraph four of this draft decision.
We are prepared to propose specific text to that paragraph four, And as to paragraph 14, in that case, we could delete it completely since we would already have a draft decision on paragraph four on the holding of the meetings.
Thank you.
If you're referring to paragraph four, page 24, it's already green.
Is that what you're referring to? Could you explain the relation with this paragraph four in paragraph 14? President.
With pleasure, Mr.
Chairman.
Paragraphs 4 and 14 are on the same topic.
Moreover, the text is the same.
They are on the holding of the meetings and the duration of the meetings.
The only difference between them is the fact that in paragraph four, which we've already agreed on, it is not said that this meeting will be held in Geneva, in person, in line with established practice within the BWC.
Now, if we add to paragraph 42 references, that is to say in Geneva, and in person, in line with the standing practice of the convention, that would be after the sentence on the holding of the meetings of the review group and after the sentence on the meeting of the reporting committee, Then we could entirely remove what we have in paragraph 14 as it's considered here already in paragraph four, we wouldn't need paragraph 14 anymore.
What we're proposing is to make these additions to paragraph four and to delete paragraph 14 entirely.
Thank you.
Now, I will not change green text.
I told you this morning and I'm going to repeat now.
So what's your suggestion for paragraph 14? Delete Delete it entirely.
Can we delete paragraph 14? Nj do have an agreement on the text in green.
However, yesterday, UK made a proposal on green text, which gathers consensus and allowed us to move forward.
Maybe we can give a shot with the proposal by the Russian delegation, at least see it reflected on the screen.
If it gathers consensus from the room, we may move forward.
If there is objection, we come back to your proceedings.
At first glance, what the Russian delegation is saying makes sense and does not alter the text.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Germany and USA.
Mr.
Chair, we see the duplication in the text, which probably means that we could remove the square brackets around four days because it's already in green in the decision that we will have a meeting of four days.
That would be a suggestion.
Other than that, we think it's useful to have the parameters and the terms of the meeting as clear as possible in advance so we won't have to discuss the question of where it will be and what the practice will be.
We would not want to delete paragraph 14 here.
If we find a solution to cover that somewhere else on the text, I think we're willing to look at that.
But we would want to have the specific information that's in 14 here and also we believe it is a duplication of parts of the paragraph, but it doesn't really hurt to have it in two places either.
We would not agree to deleting paragraph 14 here.
USA.
Chair, we would concur with the Russian delegation for the elimination of Paragraph 14, but would oppose any changes to the all green paragraph four, as I'm sure you would too.
Thank you.
You don't have to oppose.
I won't do it.
Give me a second.
I'm trying to get a solution.
There is a proposal to change paragraph 14 to move paragraph 14 to, to a new five I want reactions from the floor.
China.
Thank you, Chair.
I was going to make the same proposal.
14 14, please.
So it will read at the review group will conduct its meeting in in person in Geneva in accordance with the regular practice under the convention.
Then we could combine this paragraph with paragraph four or as a new paragraph after four.
That's it.
Sisi.
Can we accept the Chinese proposal? Russia? Why's today? Mr.
Chairman.
We could try to have a paragraph instead of paragraph four, or as paragraph five, we could have an additional new paragraph which would read as follows.
The Science and Technology Review Group and reporting committee meetings.
The Science and Technology Review Group and reporting committee meetings.
Will be conducted in person in Geneva in accordance with the regular practice under the Convention.
Can we take the Russian and then we delete the two paragraphs, right? The one above In that case, we would be deleting paragraph 14.
And what we have left is paragraph four in green as agreed.
Can we take the Russian proposal? So decided.
Now, So let's move to page 27, Paragraph 20.
During the intersessional period, the meet I'll take this meeting of state parties.
No.
Let's jump to paragraph 23.
The review conference will also decide on a list of up to ten experts to serve as potential replacement candidates.
Can we green this yellow phrase? Russia Mr.
Chairman, we would be pursuing the same rationale as earlier.
We said that we would be prepared to green yellow text when all of the yellow text is turned into green and when other delegations are also prepared to switch the yellow text in the document to green.
Thank you.
Well, My logic is that we are not discussing consensus.
I've repeated this yesterday, I repeat this this morning.
What I'm asking is the review conference, we also decided on a lease of up to ten experts to serve as potential replacement candidates.
Do you have a problem with this? 2 minutes.
Thank you, Chairman.
In that case, we don't understand where the problem is for other delegations in switching the yellow text to green in paragraph 16 of Annex one, if that text was agreed during informal consultations.
As far as we understand, that delegation doesn't have problems with the yellow text there either, so it can stay yellow and until that one is green, then we will reserve our position if we keep yellow text yellow in those paragraphs.
Thank you.
Rule 25, can we be discussed or you also don't want to Mr.
Chairman, we can discuss the removal of square brackets and I think if we remove the square brackets, then we could switch that to green with no problem.
Thank you.
Paragraph 25.
Thank you.
Can we remove the brackets on paragraph 25? So decided.
Let's go to Paragraph 26.
In the year prior to a review conference, sorry, the reporting committee will submit a consolidated report which reviews and assess scientific and technological developments relevant to the convention and provides state parties with relevant advice and recommendations for consideration by the review conference.
Can we green this paragraph? Russia.
Thank you, Chairman.
In our view, this paragraph is superfluous given the existence of paragraph 25, which we just agreed on, where we have clearly stated that the recommendations and advice would be submitted to the review conference.
And following that logic, these annual reports in the intersectional periods between review conferences would also be submitted with recommendations and advice to the review conference.
Therefore, paragraph 26 loses all its meaning, so we don't need to overburden the closed group with an obligation to draft more reports because we will all graph 26 as being superfluous.
Thank you.
P.
Can we accept the Russian proposal, USA Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our Russian colleagues for pointing out the duplication that now exists in this document.
We appreciate the view towards efficiency.
To solve that problem instead of deleting paragraph 26, I'd like to suggest a couple of textual edits, if that's okay.
Yes.
If it helps? Yes.
Okay.
Apologies.
I'm just doing this off the cuff, so I welcome other edits if there's something I missed.
But instead of in the year prior to a review conference, I would replace that with annually.
Instead of review conference, I would replace that with meeting of states parties.
You are complicated because we are not discussing meeting of state parties.
If you put state parties, it solves a problem.
Thank you, Chair and apologies for introducing another reference to the meeting of states parties.
However, because we're replacing review conference here, I'd like to leave it as meeting of states parties to note which convening of states parties they're reporting to.
Thank you, Chair.
Any comments, Russia? Just a second.
Korea and then Russia.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
Yeah, I raised my flag before.
I think I misunderstood the earlier call to remove the scare brackage in 2025 as erasing the phrase from the paragraph, but actually it's remained for consideration by the rebuke conference.
That's why we have duplication now in 25 and 26.
The first sentence of 25 is preparing annual report to the state parties.
Then in 26 in the prior to review conference, we give the annual report to the review conference.
Now, because there is a consideration by review conference in 2025, there is a duplication.
There are two ways to go about it.
Either we erase the scale break in 25 and leave it as two Sorry to go back to green text, but I misunderstood the year.
Go back to 25 and erase the secret square bracket and leave it as provide to state parties, not mention the meeting of state parties, or we can also support the US suggestion making new paragraph 26.
Now we have new 26, that's annual report to the meeting of state parties.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have Russia, Cuba, and UK.
Vice versa.
Thank you, Chairman.
In our view, the editing proposal of the US delegation merely complicates the situation.
Again, we are in a very contentious decision regarding the powers of the meetings of states parties and which is not a topic we're discussing here.
So we would agree to 25 and we believe that that paragraph, which is agreed on already fully reflects our views and 26 does not, so we would ask for it to be deleted.
Thank you.
Cuba, UK, Iran, France and Germany.
We are currently saying that in 2025, we're going to prepare an annual report.
Therefore, the duplication in 2026 is not needed.
It would be a duplication.
We can't agree that it will be at the meeting of the state's parties.
26, at the end of the day.
Don't make sense given that we seem to be saying the same thing in 2025.
Thank you.
UK, Iran, France and Germany, okay? Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairperson.
I paragraph 25, apologies.
We also did not support inserting for consideration by the review conference.
Sorry for not responding to that in time.
The idea that a mechanism which is designed to advise on you know, emerging scientific issues saves up five annual reports for a review conference, seriously undermines the value of that scientific advice.
So we do not support for consideration by the review conference being added to paragraph 25 for that reason, and if that is going to remain green, which we think is undermines the functioning, then we would support paragraph 26, the US amendments.
Thank you.
You.
Thank you, chair for giving the floor regarding the P 26.
My delegation is of the view that based on the fact and the philosophy behind this mechanism, the reporting committee should any output of the reporting committee should be reflected to the review conference through the review group.
This hierarchy and this order should be reflected in the P 26.
In this regard, my delegation have already sent its proposal in written format and if you allow me to share, I can read it again for further consideration of other delegation.
Please.
Sorry.
Please do.
Yeah.
Is as follows.
In the year prior to a review conference, the reporting committee will submit to the review group for its consideration and consolidated report which reviews and assesses scientific and technological developments relevant to the convention.
Once again, in the year prior to a review conference, the reporting committee will submit to the review group for its consideration a consolidated report which reviews and assesses scientific and technological developments.
Relevant to the convention.
The review group will consider the report and submit its advice and recommendations as appropriate to the review conference.
My last point on this part of my delegation cannot go along the proposal made by previous speaker on annually and the meeting of a six parties both before our proposal.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
I have France, Germany, and Panama.
Mason.
Thank you, chair.
Korea and the UK, we hadn't in 2025 understood that the green part also included the part in brackets.
Apologies for that bad interpretation we made of the situation.
This being said, we would be in favor of keeping 25 as it is subject to the addition of the US proposals, which we feel go in the right direction.
That's all I would say.
Okay.
Germany, Panama, and UK.
Thank you.
We'd like to echo comments made by colleagues about inclusion of the consideration for the review conference, and we think the proposal just made by French colleague is something we would support as we would support the US changes to Para 26.
We think it would be very useful to have more frequent reporting, which is basically what the mechanism is supposed to do, inform states parties about scientific and technological developments.
So, with those changes in Paragraph 26 as proposed by the US delegation, I think the mechanism would become more effective, which is something we've always advocated for.
We obviously need time to consider other proposals just made, but just to point out with the first changes, there might be a very practical problem with the sequence of events if the reporting committee meets after the review group, but before the review conference, it might just not be possible for the review group to consider that report.
Just to point that out, I'm not, um, are commenting on the proposal as such, but just to remind colleagues of the logic and the sequence of meetings and possible practical considerations here.
Thank you.
Panama.
Thank you very much indeed, Chip.
I also would like to apologize.
My delegation misunderstood one thing.
We had understood that the idea was in 2025 to change to green what had been agreed in the informals which had been in yellow, which is why we support what was said by Korea, France, Germany, whereby we should put in white the reference that is in the fourth line which says in the brackets for consideration by the review conference.
If only the review conference is going to consider the reports drafted by this mechanism, then it's not a good thing.
If the idea is that we the safe parties be kept abreast of the developments and things change in such a way that we can't wait five years for us to be kept abreast.
Take the ICA, we don't wait five years to approve the drafts, the projects.
Five years too long.
We think that following that same rationale, states parties, we should be told about progress made in the area of science and technology, which are relevant for the convention and that to happen on a yearly basis.
Thank you.
N.
Niser.
Thank you, Chair.
Chair, we believe that the ideas that are reflected in both para 25 and 26 are important.
However, the following does not coincide.
As Panama said, we cannot have an annual report that is submitted to the review conference which takes place every five years.
The idea in paragraph 26 is a consolidated report, which means that we should have annual report that is submitted either to the meeting of this party or to the review group.
I'm not touching that.
And then we will have a consolidated one the year before the review conference.
Maybe delegations may wish to consider that and fine tune the language so that we can have all the ideas well captured and sequenced.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Spain.
Spain.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr.
Chairman.
Just to support what was said by Panama, we'd be grateful if the part which appears put in brackets for consideration by the review conference be put back into white.
Thank you.
Singapore.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
My delegation will support any formulation which conceptually caters for timely reporting of science and technological developments, which in our view, should be on an annual basis.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Singapore.
Let's keep as many delegations ask for consideration of the review conference.
Russia.
Mr.
Chairman, if we place back brackets that had already been agreed text in green, well, certainly that's something that we could do, but that would be moving away from your principle that we don't reopen green text.
Because I'm lost here with the translation bob button.
Too much technology.
I have Korean, Turkish, Good.
Next.
You can go.
Sorry.
This problem.
No problem.
Mr.
Chairman, if we start putting back square brackets in text that is already agreed on, then for one, we somewhat remove ourselves from the principles that you have put forward and that you were following.
That is to say that we are not reopening green text.
Nevertheless, that would of course be possible.
It appears.
Nevertheless, if the white text is put back, then we would ask that the green be put back to yellow because otherwise the proposal that we made would no longer be valid.
So along with everything else, we would remind delegations who are in favor of the review of such a report on an annual basis that we have Article 12 of the convention, which says at the end with regard to the review of technological and scientific progress at the review conference and the consideration of these technical and scientific advances at the review conference is specifically stated for that purpose.
Now, Article 12 has not changed and the idea of the review of scientific and technological progress within the review conference has not changed.
Minutes over.
You say that if we keep for consideration of the review group, you want to go back to yellow.
We just lost half an hour for nothing.
Paragraph 26.
The 27.
In order to carry out its substantive work, the reporting committee will conduct two formal in person meetings in accordance with the regular practice under the convention twice a year in Geneva for three days each and informal online meetings as often as necessary.
Comment Russian.
Thank you, Chairman.
We had partially already resolved the issue that is addressed in paragraph 27 in our new paragraph five of the draft decision, which alongside paragraph four fully resolves the issue of the organization and the holding of the meetings.
With regard to the issue related to the holding of informal online meetings, in our view, in this case, This question could be addressed within the framework of, for example, paragraph seven of the draft decision, where there is a remark regarding additional activities.
Or in the following paragraphs where we could refer to such additional activities, but we believe that it's fully sufficient.
What we have already in the draft decision is fully sufficient.
Therefore, we would propose the deletion of paragraph 27 as a whole.
Thank you.
Any comments on Russian proposal to delete 27? Korea.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor again.
We oppose deleting paragraph 27 because that's the compromise we had having the meeting in person in regular practice with C, but we want to remain possible to have informal online meetings.
It's like a memory test because we are discussing this paragraph months ago and then now come back, we forgot why it's here.
Imagine we go back and just have a draft decision about the addition activities that doesn't mention about the online meetings that people will not recognize there's possibility of that.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
So you propose the deletion? Yes? No, you oppose.
Any other comment? Can we keep 27 or is there any strong opposition to it? Russia 2 minutes? What's that? Mr.
Chairman, Paragraph 27.
Could be kept in a shortened version where we could say committee the reporting committee will conduct informal online meetings as often as necessary.
Can you accept Michael Cora? What's the drink.
Yes.
Thank you.
Can we accept paragraph 27 as it is? So decided.
Thank you.
Now we go to page 28, paragraph 39.
In the interests of transparency among members of the reporting committee and any temporary working groups, each member should submit a statement of conflicts of interest to the implementation support unit in case of an activity that could affect their impartiality or appearance of impartiality.
This thing about, if you can allow me, but this appearance of impartiality reminds me of a Latin phrase that the wife of Caesar should be honest or at least look honest.
Comments on this phrase.
Russia President.
Thank you, Chairman.
Our position on paragraph 39 is unchanged.
We see no need for this paragraph.
And in order not to make the preparation of the experts excessively bureaucratic within the structure as a compromise version, we would be prepared to consider possible wording, which to greater extent would relate to paragraph 33.
And the absence of conflict of interest here could be referred to either in this paragraph as additional wording, or in a separate form as a criteria on which states parties would need to take into consideration when selecting experts at a national level for participation in the scientific and technical mechanism.
We believe that this option could resolve our concern, but could nevertheless maintain the idea which is important to other delegations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I would ask you if you can give me some language.
And not now, but write and give to me.
France.
Now, Cuba France and Cuba.
Maximus.
Thank you, Chairman.
I do apologize to the delegation of Cuba for having taken the floor just now.
The paragraph as it stands, is a relevant one, in our view, and is in a section on the independence, we believe it's in its proper place as well.
Of course, we could await the language proposed by the Russian Federation.
Nevertheless, it seems to us important to have text directly stating the independence of the experts who will be members of this group.
Otherwise, there would be a risk of seeing a politicization of the debates and the idea is not to replicate what we might have in rooms such as this one where we hear national positions, but rather we want to foster an exchange between independent scientists who are able to interact the most independently possible.
Thank you.
A, before I give the floor to Cuba.
I understand the idea of this paragraph.
For instance, in my Ministry of Foreign Affairs, you cannot be an ambassador unless you write this kind of thing.
This, I can say, uh, conflict that you have no conflict of interest that the place you are going to.
It's it's not something new, at least to me.
But in our case, if there is a conflict of interest and you don't say, you are punished.
What calls my attention in this paragraph is that okay.
I have a conflict of interest and I don't say.
What's going to happen? Are you going to blame the person? Are you going to blame the country? I really have questions about this.
The idea of stating that you have no conflict of interest is not strange to me.
But, you lied.
You have conflict of interest.
You have shares of this big biological company and you don't say what happens? Nothing.
Cuba.
Thank you, check.
It just so happens that what you just said it was what I was going to say.
I remember this coming up in the informal.
There's no way of creating a verification mechanism on conflicts of interest.
There's no way.
We would not in a position to do so.
I echo France is concerned about the independence of the experts.
But that is covered by paragraph 37.
We think that We can hear what others have to say proposed language, but It wouldn't add to the debate because the issue of the conflict of interest and independence of experts is already, as I was saying, covered by previous paragraphs.
We would just be repeating it if we put it here.
Yeah, I understand, but my point is not the question of being repetitive.
The problem is, if you find out that a person declared that it has no conflict of interest and has, who should you blame? The person or the country? Just a question.
Canada Thank you, Chair.
Not entirely sure how many of my fellow delegates around me here have a scientific background, but I do.
And so for some context here, a declaration of a conflict of interest is extremely common in the scientific world.
It is mandatory in most cases, and so there is precedents for this as well, it doesn't tie into somebody's qualifications, and it doesn't tie into, um, Any influence.
I don't agree that it ties into those previous paragraphs that were mentioned by previous countries.
I just wanted to give again some context here that this is extremely commonplace in the scientific world.
Thank you.
I know I in my ministry is, I cannot be an ambassador unless I write it.
But my question is scientist does not declare that he has conflict of interest and he has.
Who do you blame to? The country, the scientist, and also there is no teeth in this.
He can continue to be a member of a group because nobody says that if you lied, you should be punished.
So that's where I let Russia talk and then you talk in France.
Now, let's have Germany and Australia that haven't talked yet, then France and Russia.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
We agree with previous speakers that the topic of conflicts of interest or declarations of conflicts of interest is an important issue here and also one that we believe is in the right place in the section where it is right now.
I agree that there probably wouldn't be consequences, at least not tangible consequences, which actually is why previous versions of this text had different language that addressed this issue, but that's been deleted in the course of our discussions.
I don't really think that this means we shouldn't have some statement of conflict and I agree with my Canadian colleague that this is very common and it's also not very cumbersome to do, so it's not asking a lot.
We believe this is important and it could Um, at least enhance confidence and trust among the members of the group and by implication in the results of the mechanism.
So we don't see why we shouldn't have that and why we shouldn't have it here in this section, we would prefer to retain it as it is.
Thank you.
I understand, but I repeat my point.
In the scientific world, I'm not a scientist, but in the scientific world, you declare that you have no conflicts of interest and nothing happens to you.
Are you fired? Are you I don't know, because here you have two things that you have to pay attention, is that in the scientific world, you are in a group of scientists by yourself.
Here, a government appointed you.
So Are you going to punish Germany because you appointed somebody who didn't declare that had a conflict of interest? That's what I don't see here.
That's why I don't see that you can compare with the scientific world, let's say, because a government, a state that is appointing you has some responsibility, let's say, but he doesn't know that you're a liar and you are a liar.
Then what do you do? That's my point.
Australia and France, Russia, UK, Emirates and Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, Australia supports including this paragraph.
Even if it's imperfect, by including this paragraph, we ensure that we have a procedure that encourages good practice and it builds confidence in this body.
We take your point that there's no way to enforce it or ensure compliance with it.
That doesn't mean that it's not worth doing.
To take your point on conflict of interest, there are degrees of conflict of interest.
So where someone does have a conflict of interest, that does not necessarily mean they shouldn't be on the body.
It means that we might need to put in place procedures to ensure we can mitigate those conflicts or appearances of conflict.
If it became the case that someone lied, That is certainly concerning and maybe it's not something that we can effectively address, but I think if that occurred, what we would do is look to put in place measures to further mitigate that conflict of interest.
It's not about blaming a state or blaming a person, but it's about trying to prevent appearances of impartiality or actual impartiality so that this body can provide reliable reporting to states.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have France, Russia, UK, Emirates and Canada.
President.
Thank you, Chairman.
Your point is certainly a valid one.
What should we do if an expert lies and if we discover there's a conflict of interest, perhaps to go in your direction, we could add to this paragraph and say after each membership, Perhaps add text prior to their appointment and I'll let my English speaking colleagues correct that.
If there's any problem with that text, I repeat.
Submit.
After submitting.
Prior to their appointment, and so states parties would potentially be in a position to verify whether there is a conflict of interest and potentially they could review their decision.
Thank you.
Mercy, Russia, UK, Emirates and Canada.
Thank you, Chairman.
With regard to this paragraph, there are a number of problems.
First of all, varying national practices which exist amongst states parties.
For example, in the Russian Federation in distinction to Brazil, there is no such practice to make a statement regarding the absence of a conflict of interest.
That's the first point.
Secondly, you're quite right with regard to the liability.
In our view, given the procedures that we are establishing on the structure of the group, the responsibility is borne by the government appointing the expert, and so it is the government that would need to take into consideration such factors when appointing their expert.
Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a situation where there is a groundless accusation against certain experts as to a conflict of interest and this could be used in order to block the work of the experts and that's a situation we'd like to avoid.
Thank you.
Yes, UK Emirates.
Every time I say emirates imagine an airplane, Emirates in Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
As the UK, we do think that this conflict of interest mechanism is important, but what we can recommend is it might be possible to combine some of the previous elements that the Russian Federation pointed to as potential duplication and we're prepared to make a textual proposal.
We haven't quite written it yet, but we're happy to give that to you as a way of maybe combining some of these and reducing any possible duplication.
In terms of the sanctions, it's whether the there would be an option where members found to have submitted incomplete or inaccurate statements of conflict of interest should have their membership reviewed by the chair of the revenant body.
This could be a potential option as well.
But we can get you some text.
Thank you.
Again, E.
Thank you Chairman.
We support the content of this paragraph.
Impartiality is important.
It's not a new concept.
Thank you.
The document which preceded this convention referred to the importance of impartiality and the need to avoid any conflict of interest.
But we are concerned by the phrasing in case of any activity, that's not very clear.
We would need more specific language to refer to any clear or possible conflict of interest and that's more in keeping with previous language.
Thank you.
Sra, Canada, India, and Italy.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to clarify perhaps a little bit in science, that the declaration of a conflict of interest is not in the interest of punishing individuals or scientists.
It's more about the principle of things.
It's quite frequent that scientific studies and papers will be released.
There will be no consequences, and there will be a very clear conflict of interest stated at the end.
So wanted to clarify that.
Then as well, I also want to echo the sentiments of both Russian and UK colleagues in that, yes, absolutely.
The onus is on the state party nominating the individual.
As mentioned again by my UK colleague, there are other options to keep tabs on things per se.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have India, Italy, and USA.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair and good afternoon, colleagues.
On this debate on Para 39, we've heard views from both the sides, of course, on one side, Canada, Australia, and France on the necessity of something like a conflict of interest that can prevent and mitigate conflict of interest in the members.
And we've also heard views by the Russian delegation and also by you, Mr.
Chair, on the fact that these members are nominated by states and that they are not nominated in the individual capacity.
We And we also know that there are experiences in some of the other, uh, uh, you know, conventions such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, which may have led to, uh, you know, concerns on, uh, uh, on the conflict of interest and, uh, how that may be politicized.
So in order to overcome that difference, uh, my delegation, believes that we can have the notion of conflict of interest, but that should not be seen as an obligation, but more in terms of a good faith voluntary sharing of information, which would prevent that being scrutinized, the absence of which should not be scrutinized as, uh, you know, uh, uh, as a reason for, uh, you know, uh, members not complying with the good faith practices and also the conflict of interest for the reporting committee.
Our suggestion would be that we could change, the model work should to something which allows this to be seen as a voluntary measure or as a measure in good faith in which states are encouraged to submit a statement of conflict of interest instead of making it as an obligation.
And that I hope would preserve the notion of conflict of interest while not really seeing it, you know, as an element, which has to be scrutinized for disqualifying members.
Thank you.
Thank you, you always with wise suggestions.
Italy and USA.
Thank you, Chair.
We have listened carefully to all previous speakers as well as to the point you rightly mentioned, Mr.
Chair.
We think that at the national level, a declaration of absence of conflicts of interest must necessarily be accompanied by appropriate measures in the event of a false declaration.
At the multilateral level, however, the issue is of a different nature.
It is not primarily a question of disciplinary consequences, but rather one of credibility and good faith among states.
Such declarations are made before all states parties and create a legitimate expectation of transparency and integrity.
If that trust is breached, the consequences may go well beyond the individual case, potentially undermining the credibility of both the person concerned and the states that put that person forward.
In a multilateral setting, we think that this reputational and political responsibility is itself a significant safeguard.
Thank you, Chair.
G USA.
Thank you, Chair.
I think almost every delegation who's spoken on this is in agreement that transparency here is important and that some conflict of interest discussion should happen.
But just two quick things.
Number one, I think Canadian colleagues and others would acknowledge this type of conversation is incredibly common and it doesn't result in disqualification and it's not a punishment.
Indeed, you want people with experience to be in these roles.
You can find someone who doesn't have a conflict, but their input might not be as valuable.
It's just in the name of transparency and highlighting where they come from, where their experience is so that people can judge in context.
But secondly and more importantly, these individuals will be playing advisory roles.
I think member states would do themselves good by making sure that everyone providing advice has given full disclosure on their background so that they can take that into account when they're making their decisions.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Anybody else? Russia, 2 minutes.
President.
Thank you, Chairman.
If the purpose of such a statement on the absence of a conflict of interest is merely to guarantee transparency and trust, then in our view, the best guarantee for such trust is the fact that that expert is nominated by the state party and the state party is responsible for the participation in this convention in good faith and we hope that no one would doubt that fact.
So if that is the purpose and if we do have that guarantee, then we just don't need that paragraph.
The very status of the state party is a guarantee of the fact that the state party will nominate its expert in a personal capacity in a responsible fashion to work within that body and bears full responsibility for that.
Thank you.
Thank you, miss.
I cannot see you from Peru.
Obligo.
We would like also briefly to refer to this paragraph and underscore the importance of transparency and independence rather of the members of the committee and the temporary working groups.
In our view, the addition of this language prior to their appointment, is an important addition.
We would also add to it the following text and throughout their term of office and throughout their term of office.
My delegation considers that a conflict of interest is not a static situation.
It can arise before the appointment, but it could also arise subsequent to the appointment, as occurs in other spheres wherein a person has to declare a conflict of interest.
That happens not only before the appointment, but throughout the term of office.
I hope colleagues will agree with that proposal.
I think it's alphabetic order because Peru, Panama, Poland, Panama.
Much appreciated, Chet.
On 39, we supported the initial proposal.
However, we could accept what was suggested by France and Peru.
However, we do not believe that this declaration should be voluntary.
If it were to be voluntary, that would potentially undermine the mechanism.
Now, you asked us a question a few minutes ago about how Well, whether there'd be any punishment if there was a conflict of interest.
But there are other examples.
Take the Advisory Committee, the rules of procedure, Rule seven on conflict of interest.
It does produce propose a solution if there is a conflict of interest, it says, The member concerned is asked to either abstain from the specific activity generating the conflict of interest or cease from participating in all activities involved or the temporary groups.
With that safeguard, we could accept that language on the understanding that some clearly are reluctant to adopt punitive measures.
But just for you to know that in OPAC this was agreed.
Thank you.
Panama, Poland, Thank you very much.
I'm very happy to be in the company of states beginning with P.
I would like to speak in favor of proposed amendments to this paragraph, including the words prior to their appointment and throughout their term of office.
I think the very essence of this paragraph is to ensure that states parties receive independent and impartial advice.
For me, guarantee for this is that members, although nominated by states parties will serve in their individual capacity.
But this paragraph is also necessary in the text and building on my previous experience, I would like to note that such text is also present in the rules of terms of reference of the Scientific Advisory Board of the OPCW The board has been operating for a number of years and has been really successful.
I haven't seen a case that a state party would abuse language in terms of reference to question the impartiality of members of the board.
In addition, I would also like to note that the language that we are looking at is quite modest because, for example, at the OPCW there is even a a phrase, inviting members of the board to inform about the potential conflict of interest of another member if they are aware of such a conflict.
Here, I think we are looking at very modest language which should serve well the reporting committee.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Do we have any other comment? I would ask some volunteers.
I can also appoint volunteers, but I would like to have two or three volunteers to find a language to this paragraph.
But I heard all of you, but I stress to you my own organization, we have this thing, but it's the relation between me and my organization.
Nobody is appointing me.
It's my organization that appoints me.
What I really don't get is that the scientist is appointed by a country.
If I have a conflict of interest and I don't tell the group should my government be punished? Say your government cannot appoint anybody for the next three years or five years or I don't know.
It's really some curiosity.
Maybe we can get, two or three people that can produce a suggestion a paragraph.
Let's move.
Thanks to our good friend from India.
Now don't look at me.
I will adjourn the meeting for half an hour to try to solve some paragraphs so three or four people can join him and I'll be here waiting.
I suggest that Cuba because we're going to talk to UCMs.
I think Cuba could go.
Germany maybe some European and you have half an hour to make my life easier.
The meeting is adjourned.
Can I just briefly the opportunity.
There is a message from ISU.
Thank you, Chair.
Just to take the opportunity while we break, hopefully many of you hopefully all of you, in fact, received an electronic version of the provisional list of participants earlier this afternoon.
We sent it via email, so you should have received it.
If not, we do have some hard copies.
I think they're ready, but they'll be on the table outside of the room.
It's the provisional list of participants that we've produced based on the note for Vals that you've all submitted.
But please, could you all check through, first of all, obviously, make sure that your delegation is actually included in the list.
And then please check that the members of your delegation are all accurately reflected as well.
If you need to correct or update anything in the list, there is an email address provided in the footnote on the front page, so please send any corrections to that address.
It's bwc un.org with a list of participants in the subject line so we know what it's about and we know how to deal with it.
Thank you.
And refrain from taking paper and so we save the forces.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry, the meeting is not adjourned.
The meeting is suspended for half an hour.
I would like to remind you that in respect of the interpreters, we have only ten more minutes.
So I thank you, India, for the cooperation and they produced a text proposal that will be on the screen now, but we have only 10 minutes.
So I would like you to look at it and Come tomorrow morning after a good breakfast, and you come very energetic and very positive and we discuss this text Ahmed is not here, no? Yeah.
Ahn from Peru is also working with some colleagues and I hope he can produce something until six and we'll discuss tomorrow morning.
Okay.
Any comments? The Secretariat.
Indra, do you want to say something about the negotiation or we discuss that tomorrow? The floor is yours.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and good evening to all the colleagues.
Mr.
Chair, we had a discussion between a small group of countries.
This has not been discussed with everybody.
The idea was that we preserve the structure of the paragraph seven which you had proposed or which was a part of the text.
It was also suggested during the negotiations that we should take language as has been agreed in the previous review conferences.
So what we've done is that we've maintained that structure while heavily drawing upon the language that has been agreed in the BWC in the past.
We have had some understandings in the context of Article 3, as well as in the context of Article 10, and I would not go specifically into what these, uh, understandings were, but they were reiterated in various review conferences.
Likewise, we have had understanding on Article 10 on the review of national measures.
In this structure, as you see, the first part is the preamblar part that talks about restrictions and limitations on transfer of scientific knowledge, technology, equipment, and materials in place of the other words, which existed and in which there were different views.
Uh, and those were contested ideas.
So we've tried to use a word from the lexicon of what has been agreed in the PWC review conferences so that we can convey, uh, you know, that, uh, sense, uh, by keeping it vague instead of talking about any particular measures.
So we've done that.
And on the operative part of, uh, this structure, we are talking about two specific operative parts, which is, uh, operative part A, which heavily draws from the, uh, uh, subparagraph two of Article 11 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which has been accepted in the context of chemical weapons, and so there was a proposal by one of the delegations that we could also use that to, uh, you know, also transpose that in the context of, um, you know, biological equipment, materials, and activities.
The second part comes from what has been agreed, in the BWC, in sixth, seventh and eighth review conferences, we have tried to pick the agreed, language, and we have asked with some nominal change in that language.
Overall, this preserves the structure.
This also preserves the larger concern, but it heavily draws from the language that has been agreed in the past.
This formulation is based on what I heard from different views, different countries, uh, Australia, France, Iran, Cuba, US, and all of them were very supportive in this process and that they were trying to suggest, uh, you know, new language, even though they know that this is a very contentious issue on which countries have deeply held views.
But all of them have been very cooperative and they have, uh, they are trying to help me in presenting to you a language which, you know, all delegations can sort of come around with.
Of course, this is one just language and there is other language within the context of ICA mechanism as such.
This is just on the measure section which lies in AS one.
These two are different issues, but independently seen, I received some very constructive comments and suggestions from delegations from across the aisle, and on the basis of those comments, I've been able to present this to you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you very much.
So, uh, I asked other delegations that were not in the small group to have a good dinner and after having a good dinner, reflect on the text and support it tomorrow morning.
The meeting is adjourned.
Just before you all disappear, reminder about the provisional list of participants.
If you could check through that.
There are, I think, still a lot of copies of it sitting outside this door.
To your right.
If you leave this way, there's a big pile of hard copies, so please pick up one of those or look at the electronic version.
I think we will produce another revised version, Ambassador Chair, if that's okay with you, as we did last night, we will produce another revised version of the draft report.
That this evening you will receive a version which has all of the changes, the new green text that was incorporated today.
All of that will be shown it will be a rev three of the draft final report that we will circulate later on this evening.
Thank you.
Thank you, everybody and have a good night.