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

Excellencies, Distinguished delegates.
Welcome back to the ntieth meeting of the tieth session of the working group on strengthening of the biological Weapons Convention.
As with our previous meetings, 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, yesterday evening, the Secretariat circulate another updated version of the draft final report, which has been issued as document BWC slash w slash nine slash rp.org slash hevtv and there will be another 61.
It's going to be soon released a new one, so don't pay attention to rev four.
The revs five With the rev six version incorporates the text that we managed to turn green yesterday afternoon.
This version will be the one that we work today, Rev six.
If necessary, one further updated version will be produced before the conclusion of this session later today so that delegations can leave with the latest version incorporating any possible final agreements that we can reach today.
My plan today is to suspend the plenary meeting shortly to allow for the continuation of the informal consultations on the various clusters of pending paragraphs.
As yesterday, there are meeting rooms available downstairs for facilitators who wish to make use of them.
I would like then to reconvene the plenary around 12:00 to give us time to hear back from the facilitators and consider any possible textual proposals before the lunch break at 1:00 P.M.
Depending on the progress made, we may continue the informal for a short time into the afternoon session.
We will then have to devote some time to the consideration and adoption of the procedural report of this session.
A draft I introduced yesterday as document BWC slash wg slash slash Rp dot and was made available in this room and circulated by the Secretariat electronically yesterday evening.
Before we begin, I would like also to take this opportunity to request the delegation of Mexico to pass my sincere appreciation on to Mr.
Alonso Francisco Martinez Ruiz, Minister of In the Permanent Mission and a long time participant in our meetings.
In particular, Alonso has served as one of the co facilitators on the topic of compliance and verification.
I understand that Alonso has actually already left.
I expect him to come here, but he already left Geneva.
But I would like kindly to ask the Mexican delegation to pass on my appreciation and my best wish for his next posting.
He's going to be a deputy head of Mission in London.
So lucky the British.
Thank you.
I will now suspend the meeting, but please come back here at 12:00 when I invite the facilitators to update us on the progress and to share any language proposals.
The meeting is suspended.
Good afternoon.
Yeah, it's after 12.
Good afternoon.
I would like some of the clusters facilitators, if they have good news for us so we can have a good Friday.
Who is first? Netherlands.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair for giving me the floor and let me once again thank delegations for engaging this morning on the topic of compliance and verification, Section D in Annex one.
I think that I have some good news for you.
We have managed to find text for the subparagraphs of 18 that we would like to project here.
If I you could help me show those, I'll say a little bit about and I think we can probably remove the tracks now because they are part of the discussion that we had.
These three paragraphs are intended to replace paragraphs B and C in paragraph 18.
They follow the structure of Article 1 of the convention.
The first one will then cover what for some delegations is understood to be activities that are prohibited under Article 1.
The second one is about agents and toxins, including quantities.
The last one, which I think still contains a slight typo with a is about equipment and means of delivery as in subparagraph 1.2 of the Article 1 of the convention.
We didn't intend to reiterate the convention, nor did we intend to lengthen the text.
But I do think this answers to many of the concerns and ambitions of delegations on what they would like the operative working group to discuss.
We've tried to keep it general in the sense that we don't prescribe too much what experts should talk about in the conducts of verification.
This would then be our proposal to put in the text instead of B and C.
That's it for me.
Thank you.
Thank you, guys, for your effort, and I know that it's not easy and it was not easy.
I would like to hear comments from delegations.
Can we green this text? Comments, please.
I would also ask delegations that our colleague from Netherlands produced is the result of a compromise.
If we can live with, let's accept and not start to as a Christmas tree putting new things, introduction of new paragraphs, new words, and so on and so on.
Can we all live with the suggestion made by Netherlands? So decided, thank you, Netherlands, and I owe you some chocolate.
Any other delegation? Any other facilitator? Peru.
Follow the example of Netherlands.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I will try to follow the example of the Netherlands and I hope that instead of chocolates, I will get Acapedia.
I So Jones aside, I would like to convey to the plenary that following a number of consultations and bilateral contacts with colleagues, I have just proposed as a facilitator, a text that I have sent to your team and the Secretariat.
This follows my technical things.
Yeah.
You can continue, but they're going to show the text with just technical problems.
All right.
So basically, as I was saying yesterday in my partial brief, yes, that looks like the right one.
So this text is the well, it takes into account the text at the top that was already in green in paragraph 14, and it has included As you will see at the end of the first paragraph, language proposal that refers to one proposal for CBMs, and then we have the second paragraph that also captures a number of elements that were proposed and discussed within this working group this week.
Finally, it has last paragraph that refers to transparency.
And it tries to capture also the proposal on transparency measures and exercises that were put forward by a few countries.
So this is basically the text.
It's a proposal following consultations and it's also the best attempt to achieve in a compromise in this in this topic.
I would ask you to have the positive consideration of the plenary.
Thank you very much.
Grass, I always have positive considerations, and I would like to thank you for your work.
The floor is open for comments on this proposal.
Can I green it? Reactions from the plenary.
US.
Thank you, Chair.
We would request more time before moving to agree in this text.
Thank you.
A rule, not everybody has a positive approach.
Any other comment? Iran.
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to thank our colleague from Peru for providing the six.
My delegation is need for their time to discuss with our colleague on these six.
Thank you.
Those meetings are funny because we can have agreement between USA and Iran.
That's an evolution.
Any other delegation? I would like to remind US and Iran that the meeting ends today.
So I would like to know how much time you need to both US and Iran, how much time you need to give a reply to my proposal.
US Thank you, Chair.
I hope we can get back to you this afternoon.
In Shala.
Thank you.
Iran.
Thank you.
I by afternoon.
Okay.
You can come together with their answer.
Be nice to have you and USA coming with the same reply.
Any other comment? Any other facilitator, the game is one and zero.
Netherlands is winning and Peru is losing.
Now, Pakistan, let's have this game two to one, two, zero.
Thank you, chair at the outset, I wanted to thank colleagues in the S&T review mechanism that we are discussing.
We continued the discussions today in smaller formats and larger formats.
We'll request the Secretariat if we have two formulations where we had convergence in the smaller room, so we can take it ahead with the bigger room.
First para nine on the S&T review group.
So we were able to clean Para nine, and I think you can take it ahead with the larger member states on their views.
Thank you, Pakistan.
Can we green what's yellow? So decided.
The whole thing as Can I also green the rest of the phrase? Because it doesn't change what was said before.
So decided.
Annet three, Appendix one, paragraph 23.
Can we g the text? Russia, just a second.
Let me get to this translation thing.
You can go.
Thank you very much, Chair.
At the outset, we'd like to start by expressing our gratitude to all of your friends, the facilitators for the efforts they have deployed to achieve a compromise and for the concrete results that they have already achieved.
Our delegation stands impressed.
As regards this paragraph number 23, we stand ready to agree and green the entire text of paragraph 23, with the exception of the text currently in square brackets, that is, or at the meeting of states parties.
Thank you.
Spasse.
Any other delegation? Iran.
Thank you, chair for giving the floor regarding P 23.
Well, actually my delegation is happy with the first sentence to this end, the implementing support unit will inform all the sales party about any vacancy.
But we have a question that is not clear to my delegation that when we say that the sales party will meet informally to discuss about the structure, venue, and time of such discussion is vague for my delegation.
I would be thankful if the coordinator or maybe the ISU could more clarify on this point.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Pakistan.
Thank you.
Thank you to our colleagues from Iran for the question as well.
Chip, while we were discussing it in the room, the idea was that with the terminology of informally, the idea was not to attribute more cost to it.
Regarding venue it could meet in a virtual format.
So in order to keep the process going and not to create any impediment, we use the word informally so as to not add any further cost and get the process going.
Thank you.
Thank you, Pakistan.
USA.
Thank you, Chair and thank you for all the friends of the chair and the facilitators who have worked on this throughout the day.
We are prepared to support this text, but I just have one suggested editor for clarity, which will be after the word replacement.
Which will be drawn from the review group.
This just clarifies that the pool of experts that we're pulling from for the replacements is the identical pool which we're pulling from to nominate the original group of the reporting committee.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any other comment? Can we green the text and take into account the American suggestion? Russia.
Thank you again, Chair.
In our opinion, the addition by the United States is superfluous because in the first sentence, which is already green, it is set forth very clear that the replacement will be taken from the list of replacement candidates, which would be drawn up separately.
And now, those candidates would not mandatorily be from the review group.
They could indeed be individual separate experts not participating in the review group that could be proposed by various states as a possible replacement under force measure circumstances replacing their experts or in general to help continue the work of the group.
Thank you.
You might say comments on the Russian explanation.
Thank you, Chair and thank you to my Russian colleague for noting the superfluous nature of our edit.
My apologies.
The text is quite small from the back of the room.
We withdraw our suggestion here, although I would like to note that we will need to consider the other texts because we were operating from the understanding that the list of replacement candidates for the reporting committee is drawn from the review group during that procedure.
I appreciate the note on that.
Thank you.
Okay.
But can we green the text? So decided.
Any other facilitator who wants to facilitate my work? India.
India.
Now it's two to zero, so make it three.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair and good afternoon to all colleagues.
Mr.
Chair, we had a small group discussion today where we found some provisional understanding on some paragraphs.
I have shared the text in the paragraphs to the Secretariat so that they can display it on the screen.
Of course, this provisional understanding is A, discussion between a small group of states.
Second, uh, of course, as in multilateralism, we say nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so this applies to it.
And third, uh, uh, the delegation of US had proposed a specific proposal in the plenary discussions last time.
We've had some discussions on how we can locate this, uh, in some other part of the report, which is under section E that addresses national implementation.
That discussion is still underway.
My intention over here is to just look at the paragraphs that you've given me and my friend from Norway to coordinate on.
This only reflects that part, and this is without prejudice to the future discussions we may have on the US proposal that they had made in the last plenary.
With this, I will conclude.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Norway and India.
Can I hear comments on the first paragraph? Si, state parties should organize regular discussions on the opportunities and obstacles to international cooperation and assistance with a view to promote the broadest and most effective exercise of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10.
Can we green it? You run.
Thank you, S for getting the floor.
First, I would like to appreciate our Indiana Northern colleague for providing this text.
I think we had a good progress on this matter and yesterday in plenary and informal session, we discussed part by part of this section.
If you allow me, we can part by part raise our comments, but I have no intention to go into detail and I think we need to see this proposal as a package.
At this stage, I think there is some ambiguity and question regarding this section.
Therefore, I would be thankful to keep it open, this text.
Regarding the proposal made by one delegation yesterday, We do believe that, my delegation is of the view that we need to work on the texts provided by the Indian and Norwegian colleague and original texts of your final report.
If delegation are ready and free to propose new language, my delegation is ready to propose some new paragraph.
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to delegations to refrain to propose more things.
I want to try to honor the work of the facilitators and comment on their work because otherwise, there is no need to have a facilitator.
You had small meetings, you could have proposed this in the small meeting.
That's the reason why we're having those small meetings.
The delegations should put their inputs in this, and then the facilitator would evaluate and balance suggestion for all delegations.
There is no need for them to propose something and come here, delegation start proposing to some more Christmas trees decoration.
My question is, yes or no? Can we accept paragraph six as it is? What's happening? There is some censorship here because my video here and my screen starts becoming black all the time.
Can we take this thing? Iran, yes or no? Thank you, Chair.
In short question, no.
Because we have some question as mentioned yesterday.
No, yes or no.
Let's move to paragraph seven.
Recalling the understanding reached by previous review conferences on restrictions and limitations on transfers of scientific knowledge, technology, equipment and materials that are not consistent with the objective and provisions of the conventions all state parts are.
Can we green this text? Can we green it? So decided.
Let's move to a Urgent to ensure that the implementation of the convention avoids hampering the economic and technological development of state parties and international cooperation in the field of biological activities for peaceful purposes? Can we green it Decided.
B, you did a good work called upon to ensure that their national regulations governing international exchanges and transfer are consistent with the convention, including Inter Alia Article 10.
Can we green it? US.
Thank you, Chair.
Our strong preference would be to retain the language as it was presented yesterday.
Our concern is that mentioning Articles ten without any reference to Articles three or seven creates an imbalance in the text.
Our preference would be that international regulations are consistent with the Convention.
Thank you.
Any comments on the American suggestion? Which is Peters from Uganda, my favorite scientist said yesterday.
When you say convention, you are talking about all the articles and when you are identifying or single out one article, you're just saying that the other articles are not important.
That's my personal opinion that convention means everything.
Iran and Germany France was first, sorry.
Pardon.
Thank you, Chair.
We can support the proposal of the United States.
Thank you.
Mercy, Iran and Germany.
Thank you, chair.
Actually, my delegation would prefer to have a language including Israel Article 10.
The philosophy and reason behind our proposal is that this section is specifically regarding the Article 10.
Such a specified reference to the Article 10 is necessary and is quite appropriate to be here.
Regarding the rest of the par, I think this subpar need to be more discussed among the states party to be ready for adoption.
Thank you, Sir.
Okay.
You have the afternoon to discuss this in the small group.
We have Germany and Cuba.
Thank you.
Also, thank you for all the parties that were included or involved in the conversation we had about this.
We would also like to keep the original wording without the added reference to Article 10, which we already see referenced in the section in Article 6, and we share the view that mentioning one article diminishes the others even if it says I Alia.
Thank you very much.
I share your opinion.
Cuba, India, and Congo.
Thank you, Chair.
I haven't taken the floor.
Up until now, I'd like to thank the delegations of India and Norway for the work that they carried out and the wisdom that they have demonstrated helping us find the right language on paragraph B, I believe.
In order to be able to green it, it will be good to have agreement first on other parts to look at this article as a package.
In this case, we believe that a reference to Article 10 refers directly to the fact that this section refers to international cooperation and assistance.
Just like we did in other sections when we talked about verification, we referred to an article.
So We are talking about many things, but here we are highlighting the fact that we're talking about cooperation.
When we talk about assistance, we can refer to Article 7.
I don't think that this will be in any way redundant to have a reference including interior Article 10.
Thank you.
It says, I have India and Congo.
Mr.
Chair, we just wanted to note two things.
I think first is that the delegation of US said that they strongly prefer.
That's the term they used, which was supported by the delegation of France.
When we were having consultations, all states in the small room said that they could live with this even though this is not a preferred formulation.
So that's point number one.
And secondly, if you see, we have used the word including, but also the word inter alea, suggesting that there are other articles along with Article 10.
So that calibrates the emphasis that we are building over here.
Barring the issue of including export controls, I think that this formulation is was able to find provisional understanding in the small group.
Thank you.
Thank you for your explanation.
Before I give to the Congo, UK, and Japan, my humble point has nothing to do with the BWC.
I'm talking about any international agreement.
When you specify an article, you are highlighting the importance.
I'm not saying this article 10, 12, 13, 32 is not important.
But when you put the focus, just imagine like a table, you put a focus on something, you are diminishing the focus on the other things.
No talking about BWC, I'm talking that if we talk the convention, you are talking about the whole because otherwise, every time that we refer to something in this paper, we have to refer article tag.
I'm talking about in general, does nothing had to do B with Article 10 or with the BWC.
We're talking about the convention so that encompasses everything, all the articles.
But after that, I have Congo, UK, Japan, and Korea.
Congo, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair for giving us the floor.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo appreciates the work carried out by other delegations.
We would like to preserve the first part of the text with a relevance to the relevance of the convention in this particular case.
Thank you.
Japan and Korea.
Thank you, Chair.
I support the US, France, and you in this case in not including the specific reference to Article 10.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Japan and Korea.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Japan also support your ambassador just say about BW Xi is talking about article and they already said they're consistent with the convention, so we do not think we need this included the Article 6 part.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you A Korea, Belarus, and China.
Thank you, Chair, and good morning to all and happy Friday to.
Finally made all the way to today.
I also agree with our colleagues on the last part, but given the Indian explanation and we can consider the last part of it.
But the first bracket about the including export control system, we are not in favor and also we would like to say in record that we support the US suggestion yesterday about the opportunities and the because we are here talking not only obstacles but opportunities, although the text is not shown here, the new paragraph C, we support it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael, Belarus and China.
Good afternoon, colleagues and I'd like to thank you, Distinguished Chair.
The delegation of Belarus supports The arguments presented by the delegation of Iran and we also understand your comment, Distinguished Chair, that the emphasis to Article 10 draws attention to that article, but from a legal point of view, in this language, it is at the same level as other articles, thanks to the words inter aa and it is in the right place here because this group should ensure the resolution of all the problems related to the implementation of Article 10, first and foremost.
Of course, there are some questions related to the text we have in the square brackets, eventually will have to resolve that issue.
Why aren't we trying to do this now in the area of expert control systems, we have to find a compromise here and in the group.
Thank you.
Well, that's what Norway and India are trying to do.
China.
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to thank India and Norway for their efforts regarding this section.
We can agree what has been said by Iran, Cuba, and Belarus.
If we can refer to Article 10 in this section, it does not indicate that we are excluding other articles.
It is because this section is related to Article 10 without referring to Article 10.
Then what are we going? What are we talking about in this section? Therefore, I hope that other delegations can show flexibility.
The current text says, including inter Alea Article 10.
It is not only referring to Article 10 here.
Thank you.
Thank you, Xs.
I would ask, I don't want to create a problem, but I'm curious why we don't mention Article 1, Article 2, Article 3 in the other parts of the text.
We don't the paragraph that refers to an article, we have to refer to the article.
I think it's wrong that we refer and no reference to Article 9 to Article 20 to Article 21 when they are mentioned in the paragraphs.
It's a curiosity from me.
Anyway, A around 2 minutes.
Thank you, Chair for the floor.
Actually, I think this formulation is a compromise solution.
At the first part, we reference to convention as a whole to address your concern on other paragraph in the convention.
After that, we emphasize on the Article 10, which is section related to that article.
I think it covers your concern and concerns of other delegation that we need to address all provisions of the convention.
This formulation is after many discussion among the states parties, I've seen compromise solution.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
But nobody replied to my question.
Why don't we refer to the other articles and the paragraphs that are related to the articles? US.
Thank you, Chair.
In the spirit of flexibility and compromise, I think we could accept the reference to Article 10 in subpar B if we include paragraph C with the following language, encouraged to provide assistance under Article 10 to support implementation of all articles of the convention.
To support the implementation of all articles of the convention, including Iteria Article 3.
Thank you.
Can we accept the American proposal? Indonesia flag raised before.
Indonesia, sorry, I didn't see your and then also.
Indonesia and Mali.
Thank you, Che.
I will comment on Para B, delegation support the proposed by facilitator as basis for further discussion.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Indonesia? No, Mali, sorry.
I cannot see from here.
My Monsieur L.
Thank you, Chair.
This is the first time that my delegation is taking the floor.
During the five days of our work, we would like to congratulate all states and all delegations that made all of these efforts to help us in our work.
The delegation of Mali is in favor of keeping the original text.
In other words, We are in favor of consistent with the convention.
We are not in favor of adding the language in square brackets, including entirely Article 10.
Can we accept the American suggestion? Iran? Thank you, chair.
At this stage, we cannot go along with the proposal made by previous speakers on this matter and we need further time to discuss and work on this proposal.
Thank you, Sir.
People want to give you a lot of work, Norway and India.
They like to work with you.
I have Cuba.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I think the short response will be, no, we cannot accept the proposal made by the United States.
Among the reasons we find that this will seriously complicate our discussions here and it'll open a Pandora's box.
That's something that we are trying to avoid, in other words, making references to articles.
Now, if we keep including inter Article 10, well, there's a reason for that.
It says that we have to be consistent with the convention and it refers to the fact that we are in a section that deals with international cooperation.
This is the reason why we have this reference, adding additional paragraphs will complicate our discussions and will disrupt the balance that we have managed to achieve.
This will not really relate to the specific section.
Thank you.
But I don't understand why you're worried about including Article 3 and not worried about Article 10.
I think the convention means everything, all the articles.
What you refer to Article 3, I think it's also valid for Article 10, in my opinion.
I have China.
Just a little bit because I have to see if my translation, you can go if the translation is working.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank US for the compromised text.
I've just checked Article 10 of the Convention, which has two subparagraphs.
They are entirely about to fully exchange toxin and microbes, materials, and information as much as possible.
Therefore, it's about international cooperation in these areas.
It has no direct relation with Article 3.
Therefore, China does not support US proposal the PC.
We do not believe that a direct link between the two articles is appropriate.
Thank you, Chair.
Any other comment? La France.
Mass.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank the delegation of the United States for making this additional proposal that we can support.
In terms of what was said by previous speakers, I would like to say that I find it difficult to see that we have these references, for example, to Article 1 or two in the convention.
This is why we were supporting paragraph B are consistent with the convention full stop.
So we are in favor of having clear language and we're ready to work within the framework of a working group that was mandated by you.
I'm referring to the small group and we are ready to work with our partners in that small group.
Thank you.
France.
Any other comment? South Africa Africa South Africa.
Help me.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
I'm not sure if I'll be able to help you, but I think in the interest of moving forward, I'd like to propose that we continue to green the blue text right now and park the two open areas for further discussions at a later stage.
Thank you.
You're helping me.
Can we accept the South Africa proposal to green what's in blue? I? Yes or no? Thank you, chair.
At this stage, we are not ready to go along with such proposal and we need to work on the bracket and the rest of the sentence.
It says yes or no.
No.
Chair, we have a new proposal to suggest to be added after subpart C.
If you allow me to read it out to be reflected on the screen Yes.
Here comes the Christmas tree.
Bo.
Thank you.
Encouraged.
Not to use the provisions of Article 3 to impose restrictions or limitations on transfers for purposes consistent with the objectives and provisions of the convention of scientific knowledge, technology, equipment and materials under Article 10.
This is the aggregate language of seventh review conference of the BWC.
Thank you, Sir.
Thank you.
Well, I think we have enough things before other delegations you start proposing another 200 paragraphs.
I would ask my excuses to Norway and to India, but we're going to have the meeting reconvened at 3:00 when the Italian ambassador is coming, and then I would ask you to meet again in small groups and try to solve this problem.
But I'd like to remind you that the idea of the small group is to delegations to discuss, to propose, to agree, to disagree on things.
When the facilitators come here, we have something that we can work with.
Because if they have all this work, trying to find a language and so on, and then delegations come here and start adding things and paragraphs and paragraphs and articles and so on and so on and so on, there is no need to make the small groups.
There is no maybe India and Norway have other things to do and they spend their time and the we start here from zero.
I would like to after we have the Italian ambassador here at 3:00 that we start again with small groups.
I really ask people to be more professionally and your ads, your opposition, your agreement and so on, is already told to the facilitators.
We don't have to start a discussion from here.
Thank you.
I have Australia.
I thought you want to talk.
Please don't propose any other paragraphs.
Well, I can't speak now that you've just adjourned and stop everyone from going to lunch.
Really our suggestion was just that I thought we'd made great progress in our individual groups and our preference would be that we work from where we landed and that we don't make these sorts of new additions, but happy for us all to go and get a sandwich and then deal with it in small groups this afternoon.
Thanks.
Thank you, Australia.
So let's suspend the meeting.
Suspend or adjourn to adjourn? Adjourn.
I have to get some English classes.
Let's adjourn and 3:00, we have a meeting with the Italian ambassador here, and then we're going to have the meetings in small group and please refrain from proposing things on the facilitators come with a solution because I remind you, we have only five days left in December and today we're going to have 3 hours that I hope your capitals just woke up and can produce something that we can finish our work.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
Journalist.
Adjourn.
Colleagues, just before you leave, if I could just quickly have your attention to announce the side events taking place this lunchtime.
In Room eight, there is a side event organized by Rand and Rand Europe on advancing preparedness and deterrence for emerging biological risks.
In Room nine, there is a side event on applied science and technology tools for prevention, risk assessment and bio risk governance under the BWC, organized by Unitair and EISU.
Many thanks.