7th Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome back to the seventh meeting of the ninth session of the Working Group on the 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's also being broadcast live on UN Web TV. Dear colleagues, yesterday evening the Secretariat circulated another updated version of the draft final report, which has been issued document BWC/WG/9/CRP.1/Rev.4 dated 19th of August 2026. It was sent to all delegations yesterday by e-mail and printed copies are available in the room. This Rev.4 version incorporates the text that we managed to turn green yesterday afternoon in annex three. This version will be the one on which we work today. As necessary, further updated versions will be produced during the course of this week so that delegations always have the latest text available to facilitate our work. My plan for 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 then like to reconvene the plenary meeting around 12 o'clock to give us time to hear back from the facilitators and consider any possible textual proposals before the lunch break at 1 p.m. Depending on the progress made, we may continue the informals in the afternoon session. It's worth bearing in mind that we have now passed the midway point of this session of the Working Group. In total, we only have seven full working days remaining until the Working Group concludes in December. The stakes are high, and I urge you all to redouble your efforts and flexibility to find convergence on the remaining areas so that we can grasp this opportunity to strengthen our Convention. So, I will now suspend the meeting, but please come back here at 12 o'clock when we will invite the facilitators to update on the progress and share any new language proposals. The meeting is suspended.

There's no one from the S&T group here yet.

As I said in the morning, I'm going to reconvene the meeting. I was thinking of reconvening the meeting at 12, but a couple of groups asked for more time, so let's convene it in, let's say, In 15 minutes, so 12:20, we reconvene. Thank you. Okay, it's 12:20. I would like to ask the facilitators and if there is any other comment. Two, who is the first who has something to say? India, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and good afternoon to all the colleagues. Mr. Chair, we had suggested and we had promised in the last briefing that I provided that we are in a position to propose a certain text which I have also shared with the secretariat. So with your agreement I would request the secretariat to maybe place that text for everybody's knowledge and awareness so that they can participate in this consultation in the plenary format. I want to share that me, that myself and my friend from Norway, we've been working on finding a better basis of further discussions and negotiations on this very contentious paragraph. So we have had three consultations, although we did not need to convene today, but on 18th we had one discussion and on 19th, which is yesterday, we had two consultations. and through those consultations we've been able to listen to, uh, various delegations, their red lines, uh, both from a conceptual perspective and also from a textual perspective and, uh, we were able to, through these discussions, uh, identify, uh, some, uh, landing zone that, uh, is, uh, helpful, uh, in finding a way towards a possible compromise. I also want to remind that the text that was given to us as coordinators to me and my friend from Norway, this was based on a proposal by one delegation. So it has not by then been sufficiently socialized and there was no engagement at that point. So we've had to move the text a fair bit from that point to where it is right now. And of course I had shared details about what was our basis of proposing this in our previous briefings, but I will once again reiterate that the idea is to make sure that we use as much as agreed language from BWC review conference and also from the sister disarmament treaty of Chemical Weapons Convention and related parts of that convention. We also wanted to preserve the concern that some delegations have with respect to obstacles and challenges to international cooperation and assistance, uh, and, uh, have that concern, uh, be reflected, uh, through the use of a language which is positive, which is balanced, uh, so that views of all sides can be incorporated and reflected. Uh, and we have also taken due note of views of some delegations who, uh, feel that, uh, national decisions, and national sovereignty on these decisions should not be compromised through, you know, such discussions. And so we have proposed an ICA in the annex two, we have proposed the ICA advisory group to be a forum for building transparency and promote confidence between states where they can do a variety of things including systematic deliberations on opportunities and obstacles. on sharing their experiences, lessons learned and best practices as well as submitting national reports and working papers. And also importantly, consider ways and means to address challenges that come in the way of international cooperation and systems. The IAEA advisory group would also have, would be in a position on the basis of these deliberations, provide factual report on strengthening international cooperation and systems. my view is that this proposal has a better chance than the previous text that we had on, on the display and we are very clear eyed about, you know, about how much, you know, this will go through given the strong positions that states have and we thought that this is also the right time to socialize this language that we have proposed with a wider set of states with the plenary who were not able to participate in these smaller set of our smaller group discussions. I also want to urge delegations to make a distinction between what is essential for their interest and what they would desire and prefer in a text. And I think this distinction is really important. I think that this text in my understanding preserves what is essential to all delegations. Of course it might not be able to cover what everybody might want to see in this text and what they prefer and what they desire. And I will urge delegations to look at this text from that perspective. And before I end I also want to say that I am fully cognizant of the fact that this is one contentious issue and there are many other contentious issues so many delegations cannot be seen as giving in without understanding how much they will get in other parts of the wider text. So this is a systemic problem and not a problem of the issue with the language that I have suggested as such. So with this, I will stop, Mr. Chairperson, and I would urge all delegations to interact and engage and share their views on the text that we have proposed. Thank you.

Thank you, India, and thank you, Norway, for your hard work, and I know this is not easy. So I open the floor to comments on paragraph 6, which is on the screen. Can we green it? USA.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to our colleagues for organizing these discussions. We're very happy with the progress that's been made on these paragraphs. We think we're going in the right place. However, at this point, we're not prepared to agree to this text. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I would like to remind delegations, first, we are in the spirit of compromise, and obstruction is in the past. But anyway, we have 91.8% of the text agreed. And also I would like to remind delegations, for those who don't have practice, that nothing is decided until everything is decided, or nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. So, which means that we have only six days left to finish the work. And I have, with my humble experience, I have no doubt that in December delegations will open the green text. So it's not delegations should have in mind that Because the text are green doesn't mean that we're going to arrive in December and have the text approved. So once again, if people want to finish the work with, I think it's the majority of the delegations here, we should be having some flexibility on my own as a way. So let's go to seven. Comments on paragraph seven. Oh, Australia, sorry, you're too far away. You're close but far away.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, distinguished colleagues. Just couple of comments on paragraph six as it stands at the moment. The first would be that can we make a suggestion that rather than obstacles we use the word challenges? We think that in this context that might be more appropriate. And a minor grammatical change maybe just for consistency in the text between opportunities and obstacles instead of the ampersand maybe we just type out and. But I also do appreciate the intervention made by our colleagues from the US and I think that ultimately we would like to see how the rest of the paragraphs play out before we agree to this. I think looking at them as a package is probably a good way forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia. Any comments on Cuba, six or seven?

Responding to your request, I'm going to speak of both and to react to the proposal made by the distinguished delegation of Australia. My understanding is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but this paragraph we had made progress on, just to remind you. It had been yellowed, so to speak. Challenge, we think, could also be included in our view without deleting the word obstacles. It would improve the paragraph and encapsulate all the concerns, especially those of developing countries. I think the debate here has focused on, or people have wanted to focus chiefly on UCMs. That's one aspect indeed, but this paragraph is an opportunity for all developing countries to highlight the obstacles, the challenges, but also the opportunities that could apply within the context of international cooperation. On seven now, I would like, first of all, thank the delegation of India and Norway for having sought to achieve a consensus on an issue which admittedly is pretty controversial. We could work on and salvage some language without it becoming a problem for other delegations and thus would be describing what we want to describe on this issue. Thank you very much indeed, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

And we would like to thank the delegation of India for their efforts in finding compromise language on what is a difficult topic. We would like to support the amendment made by our Australian colleagues in paragraph six in changing obstacles to challenges. We feel that better captures the discussions one might have in this context, but again we'd like to see how this plays out in relation to the other paragraphs as well before finalizing this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other delegation? I just was called my attention that obstacles was already in yellow, but anyway. Any other comment? Belarus.

Thank you, Chairman. We would like to support what the delegate of Cuba said. and we also believe that we should keep the word obstacles. And of course, we would like to thank the delegation of India for the work carried out on this part of the text.

Australia, can you accept obstacles and challenges as a compromise? you have the language.

Thank you chair um I think that as we and and others recall that it would just be good to look at these paragraphs in full and so it's certainly something that that we could consider but but it would be good if we could continue working through the text that our um colleagues from India and Norway have provided us first thank you okay.

Can we, can I hear some comments on seven? No comments? Can I green it? Iran.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor regarding this package. My delegation is of the view that in considering these two sections that have been prepared by distinguished colleagues from India and Norway is as a package and at this stage we had some progress and good discussion on this matter in Yesterday, but I think now the text is premature and needs to be more discussed to work out the concerns and comments of my delegation and other delegations in this regard. Just a short comment regarding the proposal made by Australia regarding the obstacles and challenges. We will support the idea made by Cuba and Belarus that both wording obstacles and challenges can be together as a compromise solution and we would like to see the flexibility of the supporter of this proposal. Thank you, Chair.

We can discuss later, but you know that the meeting ends tomorrow. So let's move to A. Urge you to ensure that implementation of the Convention avoids hampering the economic or technological development of State parties and international cooperation in the field of biological activities for purpose not prohibited under this Convention. Comments on this paragraph? India and Cuba.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify one of the reasons why I used the word opportunities and obstacles. We have on page 15 of the report under para one sub para c, where we have already greened the text, on using the term opportunities and obstacles to international cooperation and assistance and that was the basis on which I proposed the two terms opportunities and obstacles. Thank you.

Good comment. Cuba.

Briefly in seven. in A instead of for purposes that are not prohibited under this convention perhaps we could simplify and say for peaceful purposes which would be more correct. We have other suggestions we can make later, but at this stage this is to simplify the text.

Gracias. But I tend to stick to the text that it is because who defines what is peaceful purpose? So I think that it's much easier if we just see prohibited under this convention. And then you don't have a definition. Maybe what's peaceful for me is not peaceful for you. So as a suggestion of compromise, let's leave like India, Norway proposed.

Thank you, Chair. kindly I would request I I believe that article 10 reflects this it actually says for peaceful purposes I would kindly request we keep it.

Any comments on the Cuban suggestion Iran.

Thank you chair actually I would like to Echo what has been said by my distinguished colleague from Cuba that I think the familiar language in this regard is better to use for peaceful purposes because this section is for ICA and is better to use a positive language in this matter. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Belarus.

Thank you, Chairman. Does the section purposes not prohibited under this convention relate to?

What's important is.

To avoid any ambiguity regarding this section of the text and to what noun it refers to because it relates to a restriction beyond the boundaries, beyond the scope of the Convention, that's one option, or does it refer to activities which should not be prohibited?

Any other comment? Can we accept the Cuban proposal? So decided. So finally we can have some green. B, called upon to ensure that their national regulations governing international exchanges and transfers are consistent with the objective of the provisions of the Convention. Any comment on that? Russia.

Thank you, Chairman. On the whole, we have no general objection to this subparagraph. We would simply propose that the end be changed.

Here with the channel in English. It's too much technology for me. Yes, thank you. Sorry.

Thank you, Chairman. On subparagraph b, the idea reflected in it does not lead to any position from us. However, we would propose that the end of this subparagraph be changed. and we would remove the phrase the objectives and provisions of so the end would read are consistent with the convention thank you U.S.

Thank you chair we are happy to support the Russian delegation suggestion of deletion of objectives and provisions we'd also like to suggest paragraph C encouraged to note that national measures controlling the transfer of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological-- or sorry, scientific and technical information are important to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons and to promote international security. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, S.A. So can I understand that B, we can accept with the Russian and supported by the USA? Belarus and Iran. We are running of time, so if you agree, with this thing, you don't have to say anything. Silence is agreed. Do you disagree, Belarus? Yes or no? Down yet?

In this wording, no. Because it means that any national measure aiming for the non-proliferation of this type of equipment, who will be deciding on that?

I'm talking about B. There is no word proliferation in B, I'm sorry.

I was talking about the text in red.

And I'm talking if delegations agree with the proposal by Russia which was supported by the USA. Can we agree with that?

The black text, yes.

So decided. China.

Our delegation cannot agree with para B because we want to change the second line. are consistent with Article 10 of the Convention, not the objectives and the provisions, that would be too broad. Thank you.

But then only Article 10 and all the other articles.

Because under the context of this para, The para C has been included by our US colleague.

No, we're not discussing para C. We're discussing para B.

That's why I have to include Article 10 in para B.

Okay. Iran and France.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding the subpara B, my delegation support the idea made by a colleague from China. I think this subpara is most related to the Article 10, but maybe can complete the sentence that are consistent with Article 10 of the Convention. Regarding the previous bracket objectives and provision, we need further time to work on this proposal to be deleted or not, and we have some suggestion after transfers, We can add including export control regimes. Yes, thank you.

India and France.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I wanted to just comment on the observations by the delegation of China and Iran. When I had proposed this, then we did not have the proposal C by the delegation of the US, which may have, you know, caused some issues to be raised. While we have C and I think we are working on it, we do not know whether there would be movement in that direction. But I think in order to overcome the issue which the Chinese delegation has pointed out, we could also perhaps say that this should be consistent with the objectives and provisions of the convention, including Article 10. So that will find, Article 10 will find a reference while we make a general reference to the convention as such. I think that could be a way in which we can bridge this difference at this stage. Of course, I do understand that paragraph C will also have to be separately analyzed and scrutinized and so, but this will give more room for ensuring that we are looking this, while we're looking at the context of the convention as such, we are also including the convention, we are looking at article 10, so that would provide a basis for a compromise. Thank you.

Thank you, India. France.

Thank you, Chairman. I'm delighted that the delegation of India was able to speak before me. The proposal in subparagraph b seems a good compromise option and I'm I have trouble understanding how one could be consistent with the whole Convention without being consistent with Article X. We would like to support what was proposed by China. Again, the Convention is far broader than simply Article X and includes it. Similarly, for the proposed addition of Iran, it seems restrictive. The Indian initial proposal was broader. and would include export control regimes. With respect to paragraph c. Just a moment.

Before we move to paragraph c, I understand the suggested by China, but I think that when we mean provisions of the Convention, we are talking about the 200 articles of the Convention. You know, and to me, again, we have to check with our British colleagues, but when you say including, it implies that you are excluding the other articles. So when you're talking provisions of the Convention, why you have to say including Article 10? Are you excluding the others? So when you say the Convention that includes Article 10, is there any doubt? Is it necessary because we have to take into account that we are not in December, so it's not Christmas time, so we don't have to put things on the Christmas tree, you know, put decorations one more. So I think that what was suggested by India and by Norway takes the thing every time you do again, if are consistent with Article 10 and can be inconsistent with the other articles. Sounds to me very strange. On this B, we have China, Germany, Russia and Uganda. China.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to propose as a compromise language to change including to particularly.

No, so I think that what she's saying that we can delete including because she suggested, so she's replacing including by particular, so we can delete including. Germany. Thank.

You very much from our delegation to the delegations of Norway and India for the very fruitful discussions we've had. We would prefer to stay with the original wording since this discussion also was already part of the previous discussion and we think it's very clear that if the convention as a whole is to be followed that article 10 is included and we would just like to keep it simple in the original wording thank you.

Thank you Russia and.

Uganda thank you chairman as a compromise so we would also be preference of having this text as broad as possible and in this connection we would propose the following wording.

Upon to ensure that their national regulations are consistent with the convention.

Thank you, Chair. So

-- You can go, Peter.

Yeah, I just needed some clarity on insisting on Article 10. There are other articles, for example, Article 7. So I think that if a Member State is involved in Article 7 activities, This particular paragraph is still relevant to those activities because ideally we would want that the recipients of assistance would have their national regulations governing all these kinds of international exchanges and transfers still to be consistent with the convention to avoid issues during the implementation. So I also agree that we should try to remain as broad as possible to cover all the particular scenarios. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. Iran.

Thank you, Chair. Just I would like to echo what has been said by my distinguished colleague from China. I think now this specification for article 30 is necessary because this part will be located in annex one section regarding the article 10. So I think such magnification or emphasize an article is necessary and we can promote the text. Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, I understand, but I try to agree with Peter. We should do it as broad as possible. We are kind of focused in Article 10. We have other articles in the Convention. So, Cote d'Ivoire.

Chair, thank you. We commend the facilitators for the text initially proposed, which in our view brought all positions together. All these new additions, in our view, only overcomplicate and restrict the provision. So we would be in favour of us reverting the text originally proposed by the facilitators. Thank you.

I have somebody in the back that I cannot Tunisia? No. Uganda.

Just again to clarify, so I quickly went to Article 7, but unless we are going to go through every section of the report duplicating particular paragraphs so that under each reading of each section, the particular information appears, I think it would be counterproductive. So while I appreciate that this is under ICA, I give a very clear example. If you're participating in an outbreak response in Uganda and it is linked to Article 7, if you limit this to only Article 10, so the question is, should Uganda follow this guidance because it's under an Article 7 situation. So let's remain broad and not like my colleague from Cote d'Ivoire said, let's not overcomplicate things. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. It's already one o'clock and one minute. I will give to Tunisia and close and we continue in the afternoon. Tunisia.

Thank you, Chair. We also support the proposal to revert back to the initial text. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the facilitators because at the end of the day many articles are involved here. Why are we keeping Article 10 if we speak about transfer? Article 3 also comes into play. So I think it would make more sense to just get rid of the reference to Article 10.

Thank you, Tunisia says the chair.

India, I'm all but We have to take care of the interpreters. Be fast, short.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify for the information of all delegations that we have agreed this language as is displayed in para b in the sixth, seventh and eighth review conference and that was the basis of the language that I proposed. it heavily draws upon the language as is agreed and in that language we do not have a reference to any particular article and secondly these national regulations as is suggested governs international that is the scope of you know that is mentioned in the previous understanding so my urge to all delegations would be to look at the previously agreed language and base their comments on the basis of what has been agreed in the BWC review conferences previously. Thank you.

Thank you. So the meeting is suspended. Right? Adjourned. Adjourned. And ISU has some some comments and some information, and I really wish that you have a good lunch and you can come back more relaxed and more in view of compromise.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly to announce the side events taking place at lunchtime in room eight, there will be a side event on the operationalization of Article seven of the BWC organized by the United States of America and taking place just next door in room nine is a side event on designing a science and technology advisory mechanism for the BWC insights from other scientific advisory bodies organized by UNIDIR and the implementation support unit. Thank you, Mr. Chair.