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 ninth 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 is also a public meeting which is being webcast live on UN Web TV. So it is my intention to continue to do the work as we were doing in the morning. And again, I ask for compromises. No more my capital wants, my delegation wants. We don't need this anymore. This is past. So, let's go to page 24, paragraph 9. 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? Which is 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 in this paragraph. Thank you.

Good. Any other comment? 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.

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 report to the state parties through the Review Group, upon their 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, let's green what's yellow. Let's go to the structure. At the bottom of the page 25, we have with the due reflection of equitable geographic distribution in regards to gender balance and equal opportunities for participation of men and women. Comments on that?

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. And in that form we could agree to paragraph four as a whole. Thank you.

So you agree with due reflection of equitable geographic distribution. Okay. Let's green it. Niger and Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. Apologies. We would prefer reflecting equitable geographical representation.

Cuba and then USA.

Chair, thank you. We would be-- actually, we feel that Niger's proposal makes sense. Whilst Cuba would rather go for regarding gender balance, which is the accepted, most multilaterally accepted language. I mean, we could go for something else if it reached consensus, but with regard to gender balance would be acceptable to us.

Delegates that don't know, the 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. 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. Panama.

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. See you, 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. Any other comment? Thailand.

Thank you, Chair.

We wish to echo 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? Iran.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor 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 equitable 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.

And also gender balance. Iran, you also support gender balance.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding this last bracket, my delegation supports an equal opportunity for participation of men and women. Therefore, we support to keep the first and the last bracket, and the first bracket with the representation amendment. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other comment? 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.

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 due reflection of equitable geographical representation. And regarding the second or the third bracket, either will work for us. Thank you.

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. So we are proposing reflecting equitable geographical representation. Thank you.

Sorry. Thank you. Any other comment? Spain. No.

I hadn't asked for this role, but I can take it. As you know, for us, it's important that be reflected. balance and gender balance, both. We can join the consensus on this.

Gracias. Any other? USA, can you join the consensus?

Chair, regrettably, 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. So I hope delegations take note of that. So 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, it's the second time that we have to wait for paragraph 16. I just, you know, 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.

Few 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 10. These appointments should be communicated to the Implementation Support Unit within 60 days after the expiry 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? Russia.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to have the text 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 10. 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. and 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 fourteen, 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? But could you explain the relation with this paragraph four and paragraph 14?

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 4, which we have 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 4 two references, that is to say, in Geneva and in person, in line with the standing practice of the Convention, and 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 4, so we wouldn't need paragraph 14 anymore. So, what we're proposing is to make these additions to paragraph 4 and to delete paragraph 14 entirely. Thank you.

No, 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? Niger.

Chair, we 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. So that would be 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. So we would not want to delete a paragraph 14 here. If we find a solution to cover that somewhere else in 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 it is a duplication of parts of the paragraph but it doesn't really hurt to have it in two places either so 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 4 as I'm sure you would too. Thank you.

You don't have to oppose, I won't do it. Mr. President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent report. Give me a second, I'm trying to get a solution. There is a proposal to change paragraph 14 to move paragraph 14 to five, please. To a new five. I want reactions from the floor. Oh, China.

Thank you, Chair. I was going to make the same proposal.

14, please. So it will read as the review group will conduct its meeting in person in Geneva in accordance with the regular practice under the Convention. And then we could combine this paragraph with para 4. or as a new para after four.

That's it. Can we accept the Chinese proposal? Russia.

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.

Slow, slow.

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?

In that case.

We would be deleting paragraph 14. And what we have left is paragraph 4 in green as agreed.

Can we take the Russian proposal? So decided. No. So let's move to page 27, paragraph 20. During the international, the intercessional period, the meet, I know, 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. President.

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. So what I'm asking is the review conference will also decide on the list of up to 10 experts to serve as potential replacement candidates. Do you have a problem with this? Two 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 1 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.

Do 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, 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 intersessional periods between review conferences would also be submitted with recommendations and advice to the review conference, and 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 draft 26 as being superfluous. Thank you.

Ms. Patsiba. Can we accept the Russian proposal? USA.

Thank you, Chair. And 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.

Okay.

If it helps, yes.

Okay. Um, and apologies, I am just doing this off the cuff, so I welcome other edits, um, if there's something I missed. Uh, but instead of in the year prior to a review conference, I would replace that with annually. And instead of review conference, I would replace that with meeting of States Parties.

You are complicating 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? No, just second. Korea and then Russia. And you okay?

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Yeah, I raised my flag before. So I think I misunderstood your earlier call to remove the square brackets in 25 as erasing the phrase from the paragraph, but actually it's remained for consideration by the review conference. That's why we have duplication now in 25 and 26. So the first sentence of 25 is preparing annual report to the state parties. And then 26, prior to review conference, we give the report, annual report to the review conference. Now, because there is a consideration by review conference in 25, there is a duplication. So there are two ways to go about it. Either we erase the square bracket in 25 and leave it as a to, Sorry to go back to green text, but I misunderstood your call. So go back to 25 and erase that square bracket and leave it as provide to state parties. So not mentioning the meeting of state parties. Or we can also support the US suggestion making new paragraph 26. Now we have new 26 that annual report to the meeting of state parties. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Russia, Cuba and UK.

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, 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 25 we're going to prepare an annual report. Therefore, the duplication in 26 is not needed. It would be a duplication. And we can't agree that we will be at the meeting of the States Parties. 26 at the end of the day.

Does not make sense, given that we seem to be saying the same thing in paragraph 25.

Thank you very much, chairperson. In paragraph 25, we also did not support inserting for consideration by the review conference. sorry for not responding to that in time, the idea that a science, 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 inserted, being added to paragraph 25 for that reason. And if that is going to remain green, which we think undermines the functioning, then we would support paragraph 26, the US amendments. Thank you.

Iran.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. Regarding the paragraph 26, my delegation is of the view that based on the fact and the philosophy behind this mechanism, the reporting committee should any outcome 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 part 26 and in this regard my delegation have already sent this proposal in written format and if you allow me chair I can read it again to for further consideration of other delegation And please do sorry, sir.

Please do.

Yeah. Is as follows in the year prior to the to a review conference, comma, the reporting committee would 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. And my last point on this Part of my delegation cannot go along the proposal made by previous speaker on annually and the meeting of assess parties both per I could be for our proposal. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I have France, Germany, and Panama.

Thank you, Chair. Like Korea and the UK, we hadn't in 25 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 favour of keeping 25 as it is, subject to the addition of the US proposals which we feel go in the right direction. And 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. So 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 para 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, um, there might be a very practical problem with the, the sequence of events if the reporting committee meets after the review group, um, 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, uh, commenting on the, on the proposal as such, but, uh, just to remind colleagues of the logic and the sequence of meetings and possible practical considerations here. Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed, Chair. 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 States 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. 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.

Niger Niger.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, we believe that the ideas that are reflected in both para 25 and 26 are important. However, the flowing 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 para 26 is a consolidated report which means that we should have annual report that is submitted either to the meeting of States parties or to the review group I'm not touching that and then we will have a consolidated one the year before the review conference uh so maybe delegations may wish to consider that and fine tune the language so that we can have uh all the ideas well captured and sequenced thank you.

Thank thank you oh 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 between 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. So let's keep, you know, as many delegations asked, for consideration of the review conference. Russia.

Mr. President, if we place back brackets that had already been in 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 button. Too much technology. I have Korean, Turkish. Okay, you can go, sorry.

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 are 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 favour 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. So we don't...

Minutes over. So you say that if we keep for consideration of the review group, you want it to go back to yellow. Okay, we just lost half an hour for nothing. Paragraph 26. Then 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. Comments.

Russia.

Thank you, Chairman. We had partially already resolved the issue that is addressed in paragraph 27 in our new paragraph 5. of the draft decision which, alongside paragraph 4, fully resolves the issue of the organisation 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 the BWC but we want 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? Oh, you oppose. Any other comment? So can we keep 27 or is there any strong opposition to it? Russia, two minutes.

Mr. Chairman.

Paragraph 27 could be kept in a shortened version where we could say.

"The Reporting Committee will conduct informal online meetings as often as necessary.".

Can you accept, Michael, Korea?

Yes.

Thank you. So, can we accept paragraph 27 as it is? So decided. And thank you. Now we go to page 28, paragraph 39. In the interest 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 any 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 a Latin phrase that the wife of Caesar should be honest or at least look honest. Comments on this phrase.

Russia.

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 this structure, as a compromise version, we would be prepared to consider possible wording which to a 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 kind of 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, not now, but write and give it to me. France, no, Cuba and France and Cuba.

Thank you, Chairman. and 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, so 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.

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, conflict of interest that the place you're going to. So it's very, 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're 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 feel, you know, I really have questions about this. So the idea of stating that you have no conflict of interest is not strange to me, but Okay, you lied, you have a conflict of interest, you have shares of this big biological company and you don't say. What happens? Nothing. Cuba.

Thank you, Chet. 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. So I echo France's concern about the independence of the experts, but that is covered by paragraph 37. So we think that We can hear what others have to say about 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.

I understand, but my point is not the question of being repetitive. The problem is If you find out that a person declared that 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 not-- there is precedence for this. And as well, it doesn't tie into somebody's qualifications, and it doesn't tie into any sort of influence, so I don't agree that it ties into those previous paragraphs that were mentioned by previous countries. So I just wanted to give, again, some context here that this is extremely commonplace in the scientific world. Thank you.

I know. I say in my ministry it is, I cannot be an ambassador unless I write it. But my question is, the science, the 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. So he can be going on, continue to be a member of a group because nobody says that if you lied, you should be punished. So that's where I don't Now let Russia talk and then you talk. And 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. So 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 so we believe this is important and it could 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. So we would prefer to retain it as it is. Thank you.

Okay, I understand, but I repeat my point. In a scientific world, I'm not a scientist, okay, but in the scientific world, you declare that you have no conflicts of interest and you have. 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 the group, a group of scientists by yourself. Here a government appointed you. So, Are we gonna punish Germany because you appointed somebody who didn't declare that had a conflict of interest? That's what I don't see here. And that's why I don't see that you can compare with the scientific world, let's say, you know? 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. And 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. And 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.

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 member should submit.

A declaration of interest. 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.

After submit 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.

Thank you, 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 among 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. So that's the first point. Secondly, you are 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. That is a situation that we would like to avoid. Thank you.

Yes, UK, Emirates, every time I say Emirates, I imagine an airplane, Emirates and 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 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 relevant body. This could be a potential option as well, but we can get you some text. Thank you.

Again, Emirates.

Thank you, Chairman.

We support the content of this paragraph. Impartiality is important. It's not a new concept. 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. Canada, India and Italy and USA.

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. Um, it's quite, uh, frequent that, um, scientific studies and, and papers will be, uh, released, uh, there will be no consequences and there will be a, a very clear conflict, conflict of interest stated at the end. So just wanted to, uh, clarify that. Um, and then as well, I also want to, um, echo, uh, the sentiments of my, uh, both Russian and, uh, UK colleagues in that, yes, absolutely, uh, the onus is on the state party, dominating the individual, um, um, and as mentioned again by my UK colleague, um, there are other options to sort of keep tabs on things, per se. Thank you.

Thank you. I have India, Italy and USA.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, uh, to colleagues. Uh, on this, uh, debate on para 39, we've heard views, uh, from, uh, both the sides, of course on one side Canada Australia and France on the necessity of 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 and also by you Mr chair on the fact that these members are nominated by states and not and that they are not nominated in the individual capacity so we and we also know that there are experiences in some of the other you know, conventions such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, which may have led to, you know, concerns on the conflict of interest and how that may be politicized. So in order to overcome that difference, 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, you know, as a reason for, you know, members not complying with the good faith practices and also the conflict of interest for the reporting committee. So our suggestion would be that we could change the model work should to something which allows this to be seen as 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 as 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.

Grazie. 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 sort of 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 could 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 what they where they come from where their experience is so that people can judge in context but secondly and more importantly these individuals would be playing advisory roles I I think member states would 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 uh anybody else Russia

Two minutes.

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. Can I cannot see you. Peru, ahead.

We would like also to briefly to refer to this paragraph and underscore the importance of transparency and independency 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, quote unquote, is an important addition. We would also add to it the following text,

and throughout their term of office, repito, 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. and that happens not only before the appointment but throughout the term of office. I hope colleagues will agree with that proposal.

I have I think it's alphabetical order because Peru, Panama, Poland, Panama.

Much appreciated, Chair. 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 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. So 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.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm very happy to be in the company of states beginning with P. I would like to speak in favour 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. And I haven't seen a case that a state party would abuse language in terms of reference to question the impartiality of members of that 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 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. So 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 some two or three volunteers to find a language to this paragraph. But I still, I heard all of you, but I still, and I stress to you, my own organization, we have this thing, But it's the relation between me and my organization. Nobody's appointing me. It's my organization that appoints me. And what I really don't get is that the scientist is appointed by a country. So if I have a conflict of interest and I don't tell the group should my government be punished say like your government cannot appoint anybody for the last for the next three years or five years or I don't know it's it's really some curiosity so maybe we can get three people two or three people that can produce Let's move on to the next item. Thanks to our good friend from India. No, 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, and 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 give you the opportunity? Yeah. There is a message from ISU.

Thank you, Chair. Just to take the opportunity of 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 e-mail, 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. So it's the provisional list of participants that we've produced based on the note verbals 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 e-mail address provided in the footnote on the front page so please send any corrections to that address it's bwc@un.org with 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, a plastic plate, so we save the forests. 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 ten 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, okay? ahead is not here no yeah ahead from Peru is also working with some colleagues and I hope he can produce something until six and we will discuss tomorrow morning okay any comments so the secretariat. India, do you want to say something about the negotiation or we discuss that tomorrow? The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good evening to all the colleagues. Mr. Chair, we had a discussion between a small group of countries. This is 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 and 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 understandings were, but they were reiterated in various review conferences. Likewise, we have had an understanding on Article 10 on the review of national measures and in this structure as you see, the first part is the preambular part that talks about restrictions and limitations on transfer of scientific knowledge, technology, equipment and materials in place of the other words that were, you know, which existed on which there were different views and those were contested ideas. So we try to use a word from the lexicon of what has been agreed in the BWC review conferences so that we can convey that you know, that sense by keeping it vague instead of talking about any particular measures. So we've done that. And on the operative part of this structure, we are talking about two specific operative parts, which is operative part A, which heavily draws from the 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, you know, also transpose that in the context of, you know, biological equipment, materials and activities. And the second part comes from what has been agreed in the BWC in sixth, seventh and eighth review conferences. So we have tried to pick the agreed language and We have asked, we have made some nominal change in that language. So 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. And this formulation is based on what I heard from different views, different countries, Australia, France, Iran, Cuba, US, and all of them were very supportive in this process and that they were trying to suggest, 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 are trying to help me in presenting to you a language which all delegations can sort of come around with. Of course, this is one language and there is other language within the context of ICA mechanism as such. This is just on the measure section which lies in annex one. So 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 I ask other delegations that were not in the small group to have a good dinner. And after have 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 and I would also 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 so that this evening you will all receive a version which has all of the changes, the new green text that was incorporated today, all of that will be shown in the, it will be a rev three of the draft final report that we will circulate later on this evening. Thank you.

Okay, thank you everybody and have a good night.