6th Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome to the sixth meeting of the ninth session of the working group on the strengthening of the biological Weapons Convention.
As with this morning's sessions, this is a public meeting being held in an in person format in accordance with the regular practice under the convention.
It is also being broadcast live on UN webTV.
Dear colleagues, Before we continue our formal business, as I mentioned this morning, today, August 19th marks World Humanitarian Day as designated by the General Assembly Resolution 63 slash 139 adopted in 2008.
This date marks the anniversary of the bomb attack on the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, Iraq, which killed 22 humanitarian aid orgs.
I mean, killed, no.
They were assassinated, including the UN special representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, my dear friend, Sajwajmel.
My friend and Brazilian citizen, World Humanitarian Day is a time for us all to pay tribute to colleagues who have lost their lives in humanitarian service.
They lost their lives in a very cowardly way.
It's also an opportunity to honor the thousands of aid works who continue to provide much needed support to people suffering from conflicts or disasters across the world.
As the world's humanitarian capital, the city of Geneva plays a central role in bringing together partners to ensure an effective humanitarian response.
To mark this commemoration, I would now like to ask you all to observe a minute of silence to pay tribute to all those colleagues who have lost their lives in human service, humanitarian service.
Thank you.
Many thanks.
A ceremony co organized by the United Nations Office at Geneva and the United Nations Office for coordination of Humanitarian affairs will take place outside this conference room in the Sal de Ps Perdue at 4:00 P.M.
Today for 1 hour.
If we're still in session at that time, I have been requested to refrain from exiting into the sale de Ps Perdue during this time.
Thank you.
I would like now to return to our substantive work.
From what I understand, there were productive, informal discussions on various clusters this morning.
I would like to thank you for engaging proactively in these consultations.
I would especially like to thank those delegates who accepted my invitation to serve as facilitators.
Your commitment is very much appreciated by the chair.
I would now therefore like to allow some time for the facilitators to report back on this consultation to the plenary.
These consultations on the various clusters can, of course, continue, but it would be good to hear brief reports at this stage from the facilitators.
Therefore, I would like to give the floor to India and Norway to report back to consultations on cluster one.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair, and good afternoon to all the colleagues and I join everybody else in honoring the sacrifices and the courage of humanitarian workers, which do their work often at a great personal cost.
Mr.
Chair, you'd tasked me and my colleague from Norway to deal with paragraphs paragraph six and eight in Annex one and paragraph two and the subparagraphs contained in Annex two.
And so I want to just, uh, you know, at the outset, underline that we understand that this is a really difficult issue, and I have no misconceptions of whether we would be able to see this, uh, through, given the diverging, uh, positions that we have.
But our task is to get you a text which has a better chance, uh, of acceptance.
Yesterday, we had consultations on the Annex one, and we were able to propose a language.
This language is based, as I explained yesterday on the languages, uh, previous understandings of the BWC review Conference, and also taking some parts from the Article 11 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
And today we had consultations, not on a particular text, but we generally had open consultations on seeking reactions from various delegations on the activities of the ICA mechanism.
And I want to report to you that there are diverging views.
This would not be a surprise.
There are deeply held views.
But what we tried to, uh, do in those consultations was to listen from all delegations, what their views were once again.
And on the basis of those views, uh, we are working on a proposal.
That proposal, while I would not be able to share the text right now, I would like to run it past delegations and see first what their reactions are before we can display it on the screen.
But this this proposal is based on having the ICA advisory group to be the forum where states parties can use that forum to build trust and confidence regarding Article 10, wherein they will get an opportunity to deliberate in a very systematic and focused manner opportunities and obstacles around international cooperation and assistance in the context of the implementation of convention.
This will also be the forum where they can share their experiences, lessons learned, and best practices, uh around implementation of the convention.
They can also submit national reports and working papers and also, in addition, consider ways and means in which the challenges can be addressed and we can strengthen international cooperation and assistance.
The International Cooperation Advisory Group will, on the basis of these deliberations, can file factual reports on strengthening international cooperation and assistance.
So that is what we are proposing we are aware of the positions that different delegations have, so I will not be outlining or reiterating them over here because these will further consolidate those positions.
But there is a very slim, and a very narrow landing zone, and we are trying to have a text which increases our chances of getting this through.
I also want to underline that this paragraph is like every other paragraph of the report is tied to other parts of the report, and so this entire compromise will come out better once this proposal is linked with the other parts of the report as such.
With this, I'll stop and we will continue having our discussions once the plenary gets over in the same room.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson, once again.
Thank you.
I know it's not easy.
That's why I asked you in our way.
Peru is not in the room.
Skip cluster three.
There will be consultations on this topic shortly.
I will now give the floor to Canada and South Africa on the ICA trust fund.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity to co facilitate the informal consultations alongside the distinguished delegation of Canada, in particular on Cluster four on Appendix two on the TORs of the ICA fund, paragraph four on page 19, and Appendix three on the TORs of the ICA steering group, paragraphs, ten A B and ten B B on page 22.
Um, Chair, we would like to express appreciation to all delegations that participated in this informal consultations for their constructive engagements.
Chair Distinguished delegations.
While most delegations found the paragraph acceptable, there were concerns raised by one delegation regarding these sources of funding, as well as the oversight of this, in particular on the financial contributions from donors.
Um, further indicating that the ICA fund is a state party fund and contributions should be limited to those bound by the convention.
Others also raise concerns about the need to secure adequate, predictable and sustainable funding to ensure the success of the fund.
Some delegations also raise concerns that states contributions are channeled through and intergovernmental organizations, and if donors were prevented from contributing to the fund, that it indirectly limits funding from the states parties.
And due to these divergent views and in an attempt to move forward, we then separated the consideration of contributions by states parties and donors into two separate paragraphs.
I'm not sure if the Secretariat would be able to put the text on the screen.
Chair.
Thank you.
In reality, I'd like to hear from you who are facilitating, and then I will adjourn the meeting and we go back at 5:30 because some delegations have some facilitators are still working very hard to have the thing.
I think we can reconvene at five or 530 so that maybe I hope in Salah, the groups can report with some propositions, if you don't mind.
Thank you, Chair for the clarification.
I'll just run through the process in terms of what we've done.
We were able to separate paragraph two into two sub paragraphs, one focused on contributions by states parties and the second paragraph that focused on donors.
We can go into details later on when the text is on the screen.
Unfortunately, with regards to paragraph ten ABS and ten B bis, we tried to look at ways of coming to some of agreement.
There was a many delegations agreed on ten A B, but with the exception of one or two, and these still remain that section in totality still remains bracketed, so we will try to continue engaging further later on.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
I also want to congratulate you because your delegation keeps having only women as a delegation like France and some other delegations.
They keep having China almost.
There is one man there and some other delegations that you keep enhancing the role of women in the BWC.
Finally, I would like to give the floor to Pakistan on cluster five.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
At the outset, I want to thank you for choosing us for facilitating in the process and also to all the delegations that participated in the informs today.
As you're aware, we are looking after the S&T review mechanism, including AAC three, Appendix one, Para 3 469-142-5206, 207-20-9309, Appendix two Rule 3.2.
We've had a constructive discussion in the first session today.
We've workshops and formulations have taken constructive feedback, and we'll continue doing that in the afternoon and we'll get back to you on the progress.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
I adjourn the meeting.
I will suspend the meeting before Clarissa corrects me.
I will suspend the meeting and 530.
I mean, those groups that have not finished, they have time to until 530.
I hope that you can bring me something.
Do you have five.
Yeah, ICU says that five is better, and so 5:00 we come back here, okay? The meeting is suspended.
Afternoon, colleagues.
Just an update in terms of the meeting rooms.
The consultations on compliance and verification, which will happen this afternoon facilitated by the Netherlands, we'll put those into Concordia one as that room is slightly bigger as well.
Verification and compliance will be in Concordia one.
If the facilitators on the other topics want to continue in the room from this morning, that's obviously also fine.
Thank you.
Apologies, colleagues.
Another update.
We have just been informed that cluster four on the ICA trust fund will not meet this afternoon.
So no meeting on cluster four.
Thank you.
I First of all, I want to thank you facilitators and also those who were in the rooms with the facilitators.
I would ask Norway and India if they can tell me some good news.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson, and good evening to all colleagues.
Mr.
Chairperson, we appreciate and acknowledge your wanting to listen good news from us.
I would only disappoint you at this moment, but we are having discussions and very constructive discussions with delegations on how we can address, what is a very difficult issue, which we have not been able to address in the previous review conferences.
So this is, in a way, a new frontier.
We have worked on some language in, uh, pertaining to standalone independent measures in ACS one.
And we've also worked on some language in Annec two.
I have socialized this language.
I think socialized would be the right word with the delegations.
They've had some initial views to suggest, and we have a language as well, as I shared with you.
We will have to do some more work, but I believe that by the end of the day, I would have something to share with you which would be a better basis of a compromise and a better basis of further negotiations that could take place.
But, uh, so that is where we are.
And the structure of these proposals is, as I said, based on the previously used language.
Also to take into account the red lines of various delegations.
We're also working on that aspect.
The last point that I want to mention is that all delegations that worked with me today on this issue, including from the other coordinator from Norway and other delegations such as Australia, US, Germany, Sweden, and, uh Iran and Cuba, all of them were really constructive in their approach and they've really come forward with very new ideas and language and suggestions which have really helped me and help us really overcome this issue.
I'll be sharing with you some language not right now, but by the end of this plenary today, which will give us more hope in terms of overcoming this challenge which we have not been able to overcome in the past.
With this, thank you, Mr.
Chairperson, and we will continue to have consultations not just with a small group, but with the wider membership to see what would be a possible landing zone.
Thank you.
Thank you once more for your work.
Now, Peru, do you have good news for me? Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson, and good afternoon, colleagues.
I'm afraid like Amal, I will also disappoint colleagues.
However, we have had consultations both bilaterally and also in a small group with interested delegations in Concord number four.
Although I cannot yet report any specific outcome.
I appreciate the constructiveness of delegations and some ideas that have been brought to our attention, the Peruvian team attention, and I think that I hope that I will be able to present something later on as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr.
Sir.
G.
Netherlands, you have good news for me.
Please.
Mr.
Chair, I would like to add my voice to my distinguish colleague from India, my distinguished colleague from Peru, that I would likely disappoint you.
No, all jokes aside.
I wanted to thank the delegations who engaged during the informal conversation we just had on Section D of Annex one, compliance and verification.
I think everybody engaged in good faith and in earnest attempts to resolve problems.
Um, we haven't been able to finish the whole section, so we do intend to continue tomorrow morning.
But so far in paragraph 16, we've discussed the possible legal nature of what we are going to do in the open end working group.
We're working with some texts, but have no, uh, clear or definitive solution as of yet.
Paragraph 17, we spoke about the scope of the measures and possibly to your disappointment, we did find some agreement on a possible 17 B, splitting the paragraph into two.
But I will consult a bit further and see if that is something that actually helps our process here.
We spent a lot of time on paragraph 18 speaking about in particular B possible list of biological agents and toxins.
I think that's a topic where I still see quite firm positions on both sides of the spectrum.
For some delegations.
This is very important in this phrasing for others who would like to see it removed.
We did get some textual proposals that I'm willing to consult on a little bit more and see if we can work on that.
But we will report back to you in due course.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, G.
I have South Africa.
Don't disappoint me.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
My co facilitator will be making this presentation.
Thank you.
Canada.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm wondering if we can the text that we discussed during our informal consultations.
I'm wondering if we can get that up on the screen so that I can refer to it.
No, I want to discuss the text right now.
I think let me go through all the groups.
Were you able to produce something? All right.
We can provide you with a little bit of joy, just a little bit.
Finally, somebody does not disappoint me.
Good.
Pakistan, where are you? Thank you, Chair.
We had a lot of homework given by you, quite a few number of paragraphs.
So we do also have some proposed new formulations, at least on three paragraphs on which, in our view, there was some progress that was made in that paragraph.
We are also ready uh, through you, if you feel it's appropriate, we can also project those alternative formulations, at least on those three paragraphs.
On other paragraphs, the conversation is still continuing and we would need more time to come up with those new compromise bridging proposals.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Canada, can you give the text to? I believe the ISU has access to it.
Yeah.
Can you project on the screen, please, Chris.
Okay.
May I begin? Thank you, Chair.
As my South African colleague had mentioned within paragraph four of Appendix two.
Due to many divergent views and in an attempt to somewhat move forward, we separated the consideration of contributions by states parties and other donors into two separate paragraphs.
I In the first paragraph, the first sentence found consensus during the discussion, which was previously yellow, which we reflected in blue, that was our ad hoc system to denote language that was agreed upon during these informal consultations.
The green text, obviously was agreed by the working group previously, and there was agreement on the last sentence that encourages states parties.
Um, On the second paragraph, there was agreement that it was important to ensure approval of contributions from donors by state parties.
However, there were diverging suggestions on what forum this could take place in, uh, including consideration by the steering group, as well as the advisory group.
Um, Again, more of a conversation on the potential modalities, specifically on the written silence procedure.
Some delegations supported this language as it was seen as an oversight and safeguard mechanism, whilst others felt that a written silence procedure lacks transparency as it does not allow for the sharing of information of those who break the silence procedure.
The group was informed by the ISU that there is no direct mandate for a written silence procedure within the convention.
However, it is common diplomatic practice, and the ISU also acknowledged that any transparency measures built into any written silence procedure would therefore be at the discretion of states parties to negotiate.
Um, Mr.
Chair, we are still awaiting feedback from one delegation regarding overall contributions made by donors.
Therefore, of course, we still have some language in brackets.
And then as well, I will move to Appendix three, para ten ABS and ten B bi.
Thank you.
Chair, on paragraph ten regarding the participation of states parties that are not represented in the ICA steering group as well as donors, we unfortunately were not able to agree on any of the bracketed text.
We had hoped to find agreement on ten ABS as most allegations agreed on the participation of states parties that are not already represented in the ICA steering group.
Um, however, there was a view that the IC steering group is a limited small group and should be tasked to conduct their work independently.
A little bit later in the informal consultations.
There is also the overall sentiment amongst these parties.
There seemed to be appetite for, um, a complete revision of paragraph ten, so just a complete deletion of paragraph ten and then starting over with some new clear text.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Canada very much.
I also would like to say that I'm very happy that we included the blue color because in fact, the Brazilian colors are green, yellow, and blue.
The color that was missing, you put it.
Thank you very much.
Does anybody want to make any comments on the Canadian on the small group led by Canada and South Africa to what they said? If nobody has a suggestion I have one.
I think that we can separate those things and we talk on the first paragraph about state parties, and then we can have a second paragraph on other donors.
And contributions from other donors are subject to approval by the state parties silence procedure.
This written silence procedure, I mean, I'm not an English speaking guy, but for me is funny because if it's silence because it's voice.
If it's written, it's paper.
But anyway, can we accept this paragraph like what's in blue? And what is in green.
Can we also because this is not green yet, can we accept this phrase? All state parties are encouraged to contribute to the trust fund while taking account their respective capacities.
All N.
We would like to thank Canada and South Africa who co facilitated the informal consultations on this issue.
At this stage, my delegation is not in a position to adopt the blue part thereof, we would like to either discuss first what is in the second paragraph in white or Strengthen bolster the last sentence of the first paragraph.
All states parties encouraged to contribute to the trust fund.
First, we will talk about the contribution of the, the other donors, then the part in blue.
Thank you.
Mercy.
Any other comment? So my question is, can we accept all state parties are encouraged to contribute to the trust fund while taking into account their respective capacities? So decided.
Niger.
On this phrase, I'm just talking about this phrase.
Apologies.
I was trying to find my nameplate.
We are not in a position at this stage to adopt to accept that phrase.
So you're against encouraging state parties to contribute.
Is that it? Not against the contribution safes parties.
If we must limit the contribution to the funds to the contribution safes parties, it's not.
I'm not limiting.
I'm asking this phrase only.
Then we're going to talk about the other donors.
In this phrase, there is no limitation as far as I know.
I'm not against the contribution safes parties.
Contributions to this trust fund.
However, at this stage, we are not in a position to validate this sentence you are asking us to approve.
Thank you for your cooperation.
My second question is you are against the first phrase also.
The phrase that in blue, you don't agree also with that? It's it's a matter of logical link between the citizen paragraph.
We're not discussing two paragraphs.
If you can understand that, we can go forward.
I'm saying can we accept the phrase that's in blue? No, sir.
It's difficult.
So far, thanks to Niger, we will have no contributions from state parties and from other donors.
Let's move.
Germany.
We can move.
We just wanted to point out that we can only green this paragraph if the bracket is also being green.
But if we move on without greening anything, that's also okay for us.
Thank you.
Now, we cannot move on if somebody is blocking.
Because my humble suggestion is that we make two paragraphs.
We separate what state parties and other donors, but apparently this is not possible.
No contributions.
Russia, Mr.
Chairman, we support the logic that you're proposing since we are familiar specifically with such a system.
It was discussed during informal consultations.
And there's one subparagraph which is for states parties, another for other donors.
Have we understood that the text in square brackets will be removed from the first paragraph and that this paragraph will have bearing on states parties only.
That is to say, we will not have the phrase and other donors.
Thank you.
Yeah, that's my suggestion that we make separate, but apparently some delegation does not want any contribution.
Let's move.
Canada, you had other, if I'm not mistaken.
Are you referring to the Paragraph ten or we didn't as I had said, we didn't have we had that appetite for just completely just deleting paragraph ten and replacing it with something new, but we didn't have any we weren't given any suggestions per se.
Okay.
Pakistan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
We will request the Secretariat to project on the screen three paragraphs we discussed.
Chair, I'd just like to express that this new language does not represent certainly an agreement among everyone, but this is an effort to make progress and in the limited composition we had in the small group and the discussions in the comments that we had heard, Of course, there were many delegations who were unable to join because they were following the competing clusters.
But the conversation we had, in my view, we made some progress and perhaps there would be some merit in seeking views of this broader room on these three paragraphs.
I would explain that these three paragraphs were considered as cluster.
First is paragraph three B where we're discussing the functions of the S&T advisory mechanism.
And here, there was a very, um, uh, there was a thorough debate on how the mechanism will perform the function of monitoring, assessing, identifying, prioritizing, and reporting to the state parties, uh, whether there is any other way, other than the request from the state parties of doing that, or, we have captured all the scenarios through terms of reference.
We have proposed this new phrase consistent with its terms of reference to highlight that this reporting function, this monitoring and assessing function is being performed in a way by following the process which has been laid out very clearly in this entire document in different places.
And this is not the place where we will be able to outline all the process.
There are other places for doing so.
This brings me to paragraph 24 and 25 as well where we discuss the annual reporting committee, the report by the reporting committee, that the reporting committee will prepare and transmit to state parties, because there was convergence that uh, we should not wait for the review conference five years to get advice on new scientific and technological developments and all the participants in the room were of this view that there should be AWOL update.
Most of the language was already in yellow in this paragraph, but there was this desire, of course, that we should make it explicit that those an reports which are being prepared are not just piling in the cold storage, but are being regularly transmitted to state parties as well as they have been developed.
Then, of course, there is a role of the review conference, which is assigning the topics as well.
Therefore, a new paragraph 25 has been proposed in place of the language that was earlier in the bracket text, which suggests that in the year of review conference, the ISU will simply transmit All the annual reports of that intersectional period in a single document to the review conference for its consideration because review conference will also consider all the other documents as well.
So this is our proposal from our side, and we thought that there is very narrow path of reaching convergence on this difficult issue.
And through you, we would like to request the flexibility and cooperation of all delegations.
We think that we are very close to reaching some sort of agreement and understanding on the issue of reporting of the SNT review mechanisms.
All the other issues through you, we have already solved in terms of appointment of topics, the appointment of themes upon the request of the state parties as well.
And this is, I think the last few remaining bits on the issue of reporting by the mechanisms.
Thank you.
Thank you, Pakistan.
Comments on those two paragraphs.
First paragraph 24.
Oh, sorry, three B, 24 and 25.
Comments on paragraph three B.
O on paragraph three B.
Korea, Michael, Uri.
Thank you for giving me the floor.
I also thank ham and Pakistan for leading the small group on the SNT.
As I remember our discussion this morning, on paragraph B, I think our agreement was that if we include the new phrase consistent with the terms of reference, then we have to delete the upon their request.
I think there was common understanding on that.
I mean, no one from our small group didn't want to touch the green text there, but if we can have more green text or the entire program is green, I think it is wise to make a little change, which is deleting upon their request.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you.
Any comments? Can we accept the Korean proposal? Russia.
Thank you, Chairman.
We could agree with the proposal of the Republic of Korea with the understanding that consistent with its terms of reference will be left in the text.
Thank you.
Michael, I understand that you keep the terms of reference.
Yes.
Can Russia accept Spasse.
Some technical problems.
Yes.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Pakistan, it's just a question.
Forwards through the review group, should we keep it green, delete, or to space? I don't know.
Thank you, Chair.
This was a proposal by one delegation, not in the small group consultations, but before, and we are talking with them.
We are consulting with them.
Hopefully, we will have an update on it.
So far, we have chosen not to include this and the text that you have green should remain in green.
Okay.
So give me an answer, please before Friday.
Iran? Thank you, chair for giving the floor and I would like to appreciate you Chairman Vieira and the facilitator for guiding this discussion regarding this significant part that phrase about the review group is my initial proposal of my delegation in order to have a more happy chair today and as a flexibility, my delegation withdrew our proposal to have a green Subpart B.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Ron, for your cooperation.
Flexibility is arriving the room from the sky.
Thank you.
So It's green.
Let's go to paragraph 24.
Comments on paragraph 24.
Uh huh.
Can we green the yellow paragraph Pakistan, the problem with the part that's is white and transmits to state parties? Was there some problem with this? Thank you, Chair.
In our view, there should not be any problem with it.
We would throw you in white if we can consider greening the entire paragraph, including the text in white.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Can we green the paragraph? So decided.
Let's move to 25.
Comments on paragraph 25, please.
Iran, are you doing this or can we green paragraph 25? So decided.
I like the speed.
So as some informals I have not achieved a final suggestion.
Let's adjourn.
Adjourned, right? Let's adjourn the meeting now and we meet again tomorrow at 10:00 here, and then we open the meeting as we're supposed to do, and then we go on the small groups again.
I hope we can do some progress in the afternoon.
The meeting is adjourned.
Announcement, I had some announcements.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Just admin announcements.
First of all, in the light of what has just been decided, again, as we did on Monday and Tuesday evening, we will issue another revised version of the draft report which incorporates the agreements which had just been reached so that you will receive it will be rev four version this evening, which will have these agreements incorporated into the main report as well so that again, everyone is on the same page with all the agreements incorporated into one document.
I would also like to, given that we are adjourning now, let you know about two side events that will take place tomorrow morning, both starting around 9:00 in the morning, before the main plenary convenes at ten.
In Room eight, there will be a side event hosted by the International Federation of Biosafety Associations entitled Strengthening Global Biosafety and Biosecurity Workforces through Inclusive Practices.
As I said, that's in room eight at 9:00.
And the second side event is taking place in room nine also at 9:00 that is organized by the Simon Institute for Long Term Governance, and that side event is entitled Frontier AI and Emerging Biological Risk.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.