8th Meeting, 6th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Sorry to be two minutes late. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome to the eighth meeting of the sixth session of the Working Group on Strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention. This is a public meeting being held in an in-person format in accordance with the regular practice under the Convention. From what I can see, we appear to have exhausted our discussions on measures on scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention in the morning, unless there is another intervention to be delivered on the topic. If that's not the case, As I have mentioned and have also reflected in my informal indicative timetable, I will follow a rolling agenda approach whereby discussions on the next topic will begin once a topic has been exhausted in order to make most efficient use of time. I'm therefore suggesting that we continue in a formal plenary now on measures on confidence building and transparency to be followed by a second informal consultation on assistance, response and preparedness. Is this suggestion acceptable to everyone? Yes. Thank you. We will now therefore begin our formal discussions on the topic of measures on confidence building and transparency. We have already discussed this issue at previous sessions. So much work has already been done. It also, it has also been on the agenda of previous BWC intercessional programs. As you know, the BWC Implementation Support Unit is mandated to conduct specific activities in relation to CBMs. In this regard, the ISU has also prepared a background information documents on measures on confidence building and transparency which has been issued on BWC/WG/6/2 dated July 16, 2025. I have therefore requested the Chief of the ISU, Mr. Daniel Fix, to provide a presentation on relevant ISU activities. Mr. Fix, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. So as the chair has just mentioned, we for this session have provided a background information document on CBMs on this topic to help you to prepare for this session, to provide you with the most up-to-date statistics and the most up-to-date information, particularly from activities that we have been conducting within our mandate as it relates two CBMs. Now, if I could just have the presentation on screen. So we will now with these slides provide you with some information. We have done similar presentations to earlier meetings, both of this working group and previous BWC meetings as well. We were doing this now particularly in relation to the topic that we are beginning to discuss at this stage of the working group proceedings. So first of all, just some very basic information, some basic reminders about the aims and the objectives of CBMs. I'm sure what you see here on the screen is very familiar for all of you. You can see in the box at the top of the screen here, the overall objective of the system of confidence building measures as decided by the second review conference back in 1986. The main aim of CBMs being to prevent or reduce the occurrence of ambiguities, doubts and suspicions, and also in order to improve international cooperation in the field of peaceful biological activities. That was as decided by States Parties at the Second Review Conference. You will also no doubt be aware that subsequent review conferences, using slightly different wording, but have either urged or called upon all States Parties to submit annual CBM reports. In addition to that, the annual resolution of the General Assembly on the BWC has also used similar wording, again urging and calling upon States Parties to submit CBM reports annually. CBMs are the only formal tool under the Convention for promoting transparency and building confidence amongst States Parties. They are therefore a valuable source of information on potential assistance and cooperation opportunities, but it is also important to remember that CBMs are neither declarations nor a substitute for verification. They cannot be considered as tools, and they were not designed to be tools for assessing compliance with the Convention. A brief timeline of the history of CBMs, again, I'm sure this is very familiar to all of you. As I mentioned, the initial decision to establish the CBM system was taken by States Parties at the Second Review Conference in 1986. The actual modalities of how that information exchange would take place was developed by a ad hoc group of scientific and technical experts which met during 1987. The first major update to the CBM system was agreed by the third review conference in 1991, where the number of forms was increased, the system was expanded to basically the really the current system that we still have today, the current CBM system with some slight modifications was pretty much set out way back in 1991. In 2006, the sixth review conference agreed on some improvements to the mechanisms for submitting and also distributing the CBMs, for example, the electronic submission of CBMs, a secure website, and also mandated specific tasks to the newly established implementation support unit in 2006. The last time any changes were made at all to the CBMs, and it was only very minor changes, was in 2011, at the seventh review conference where revised reporting forms were adopted, parts of various other forms were deleted, one form, form D, was deleted in its entirety and some other modifications were made as well. Since then, since 2011, there have been no other modifications or updates to the CBM forms. Since then, there have been discussions on the topic of confidence building measures. regularly during previous intercessional programs. So from 2012, in 2012 and 2013, States Parties addressed the topic of how to enable fuller participation in the CBMs. Again, from 2018, 2020, the topic of CBM submissions in terms of quantity and quality was addressed in the annual meeting of experts on strengthening national implementation. In 2018, we in the ISU established a first CBM electronic platform. This was thanks to some voluntary contributions that we received and that was introduced at the meeting of experts in 2018. The ninth review conference, as you will all recall, and the reason why we are discussing this topic here today is that the ninth review conference agreed that this working group Amongst the seven topics it would address, one of those would be measures on confidence building and transparency. And then finally, we upgraded and basically completely overhauled the electronic CBM platform last year, again with voluntary contributions, and that was made available in March of last year and is now the main vehicle, the main platform for electronic submission of CBMs. You can see here on the screen the six CBM forms. As I already mentioned back in 2011, the seventh review conference decided to delete form D, which is why you will not see form D listed on the screen, but you can see the six remaining forms listed here, A, B, C, E, F, and G. Some basic facts relating to confidence building measure reports. They cover the activities of the previous calendar year. So CBM reports that we are receiving this year are describing and declaring information on activities that were conducted last year in 2024. The CBMs include the six forms that I just mentioned. A, B, C, E, F and G. They also include a summary form, a form that we call form zero, which summarizes everything else included and is really a kind of a cover sheet for every CBM submission. CBMs are to be submitted by the 15th of April every year. That was the submission date that was first decided back in 1986, '87. And that's been the same ever since then. CBMs can be submitted in hard copy. They can be submitted as electronic documents. They are generally these days submitted to us in electronic format, either via e-mail as attachments or via the electronic, the online electronic CBM platform that I already mentioned. And CBMs can also be submitted in any one of the six official UN languages. In terms of the accessibility of CBMs, there are two options for States Parties. They can either be submitted to us on a restricted basis, which means that they will be made available only to other States Parties, so accessible via a password, or they can be made publicly available, which means that we will put them on the CBM platform without the password so that anyone, including members of the public, can access them. So in terms of the submission track record since the very beginning of the CBM system, you can see here on the screen, obviously the numbers were fairly low in the beginnings back in 1987, but I think one thing to focus on here in particular, and we've heard this referenced several times already during this week, is there's been a significant increase in the number of CBMs being submitted in recent years. You can see quite a strong upwards curve over the last few years with the highest ever number of CBMs being received last year. That was 113 CBMs being received. We have already at this stage this year received I think 102 CBMs already this year and that's quite a few in advance of what we had at the same time last year so I would anticipate that the record number that we received last year will be exceeded again this year. In terms of the tasks that you, that States Parties have mandated to us in the ISU in relation to CBMs, you can see those listed here on the screen. We are to receive and to distribute CBMs to and from States Parties. We send information notices to States Parties regarding their annual submissions. We compile and distribute data on CBMs and inform on participation, similar to what we are doing now. We are also mandated to develop and maintain the secure website that I've referred to. We serve as an information exchange point for assistance related to preparation of CBMs. I'll return to that topic in a moment. And we also facilitate activities to promote participation in the CBM process as agreed by States Parties. Again, I'll return to that topic shortly as well. So in terms of the support that we have provided to requesting states parties on the preparation and submission of CBMs, a few points on this issue. We are, our support focuses on states parties that have, for example, requested such assistance under Article 10, have expressed their interest in such capacity building activities, and have never or have irregularly submitted CBM reports. Since 2022, we have conducted 55 CBM training activities at the request of States Parties. In those events, we have trained 1,888 participants from 145 States Parties and one State not Party. Through these events, we help to raise awareness of the relevant stakeholders on the importance of CBMs, We provide guidance on the completion and submission of the forms, and also we provide tailored support for the preparation or the enhancement of national CBM reports themselves. In addition to the advice that we provide, we've also, through these different activities, had national experts from 22 States Parties who have contributed to these activities by sharing their national report preparation practices and the exchange of lessons. And for those of you who just attended a side event downstairs, you will have heard experts on the panel there describing how they themselves have actually been providing such assistance to other countries, and in that case, in relation to countries in Africa. And just one point to make here, as you can see at the bottom of the screen, the number of States Parties that have never submitted a CBM report has dropped now quite dramatically as well, from 62 States in 2020 that had never submitted a CBM report, almost by half to 35 States Parties as of the 15th of August this year. So some of the CBM assistance that is available, and this is obviously all tailored to the needs and this is obviously at the request of States Parties. We have a CBM guide that's available, that's been translated into all six official UN languages. There is now an e-learning module on CBMs that's available. We can provide online briefings. As I mentioned already, there are three offers of assistance in the Article 10 database on CBMs from Cuba, from the UK, and from the US. We can also help countries again upon request with preparing an aide memoire, providing some feedback to them. As I've mentioned already, we can also conduct in-person workshops in States Parties again at their request. In terms of the electronic CBM platform that I've referred to a couple of times, as I mentioned already, this was launched in March 2024. This now serves as the primary repository for all of the CBMs that have been submitted. So we've now received over the years since 1987, over 2,300 individual CBM reports. All of those CBM reports are accessible via the electronic CBM platform. The key features of the new platform are it has a simplified electronic submission of reports, again, in all six UN languages. It has enhanced search functionality. More detailed statistics can be provided through that platform. There is a notification mechanism for when a CBM has been submitted. There's an optional translation feature, again, if you need to translate a CBM out of the language in which it was submitted into another of the UN languages. And we are also now implementing what's technically known as a single sign-on feature, which means that instead of needing separate passwords for different BWC platforms and databases, that you will have, you will be able to use the same password to access, for example, the NCP platform that we have and also this electronic CBN platform. In terms of the use of the electronic CBN platform, you can see the stats at the bottom here. We have more than 440 registered users from 126 States Parties. Obviously, we have to control access given the information that is there, so we have to go through a registration process. Again, many of you will be familiar, many of you will be among these 440 registered users that we have now. There have been more than 34,000 page views and more than 13,000 visitors to the eCBM platform. Just a snapshot of CBM submissions for this year. I already mentioned that we have so far received 102 CBM submissions, which is actually 14 more CBM submissions than we received at the same time last year. So assuming that all of those states parties that submitted CBMs last year also submit, we will be well, we will well exceed the number that we received last year, which as I said already was a record number last year. So we certainly anticipate receiving even more CBMs this year than we received last year. In terms of CBM participation, this is some of the statistics that we've drawn from the electronic CBM platform. There has been a fairly steady increase in the number of States Parties that are submitting their CBM reports by the 15th of April deadline, increasing from 39 in 2020 up to 67 this year. You can see also the number of first ever CBM report submissions since 2020. We had one new CBM back in 2020. This year we have already received nine CBMs from countries which have never previously submitted CBMs. I think it has already been mentioned either here or in side events that really the most difficult step in a way when it comes to submitting CBMs is actually the first CBM submission. So the fact that we're receiving so many new CBM submissions is also a very positive sign that countries are actually able to do that first CBM submission and then also keep submitting in the years after that as well. In terms of consistency of reporting, you can see across the top here, there are now a large number, again, this information is since 2020, so over the last kind of six reporting years, there are quite a large number of countries which are now regularly submitting CBMs. You can see 63 states parties have submitted CBMs in every one of the past six years, for example. Down the bottom is a graph which shows you the mode in which States Parties are submitting them. We still, as I mentioned, receive most CBMs via e-mail, usually as PDF attachments to emails, but you can see in green the number of States Parties that are submitting via the electronic CBM platform is also gradually increasing as well. 30 CBMs submitted via the platform so far this year. In terms of the restriction level that States Parties choose for their CBM, you can see that most States Parties, those are the ones shown in the columns in blue on the top graph, most States Parties choose to submit their CBM in a restricted format, which means that it's only available to other States Parties. Slightly fewer, it's usually round about 60, 40, this year at the moment, 65% are requesting restricted. and 35% as publicly accessible. And in the pie chart at the bottom, you see the language breakdown of submitted CBMs as well. So the large majority of countries submit their CBMs in English. That's the blue segment you can see there. But as I said, it's also possible to submit CBMs in any of the other five UN languages. So we have some, as you can see, submitted in those other five UN languages as well. I'm now going to show you a few slides that relate to an event that we held last year just before the BWC meetings at the end of last year. We had a global workshop here in Geneva for NCPs, for national contact points from around the world. We had roughly, I think, 90 states parties participating in that particular workshop. We did some live polling kind of survey questions for the participants. We had around about 60 of the 90 participants that participated in the survey. So these next few charts just give you an illustration of the views of that particular group of people. So it's not necessarily a pure or accurately representative group, but given that these were from 90 States Parties, I think the results from the survey give a fairly interesting overview of the views of experts on these particular issues. So first of all, we have some basic information. This was a question we asked the participants in the workshop, how long had they been involved in preparing CBMs in their particular country. You can see that the majority, 42%, had only been involved for one to two years. There was not so many who had been involved in the CBM process for much longer than that. In terms of the question we asked about how long the NCP spends on preparing their country's CBM, you can see the percentages here as well. So most would be spending anywhere from two weeks, that was 20%, to more than two weeks as well, 33% who would spend more than two weeks preparing that. In terms of how well prepared the NCPs felt for the report preparations, there was some, 18% who feel confident and already knew what needed to be done, likely those whose countries were regularly submitting CBMs, 33% who said they have a reasonable understanding and could manage, 39, the largest percentage, were those that said they had a basic knowledge but needed some further guidance. And then a smaller percent, 10%, who said they didn't feel comfortable with the task and would need significant assistance. So this just shows that there is a demand there, almost half of the participants, in fact, feeling that they need at least some form of assistance or guidance in the submission of CBMs. So just to start to wrap up now, some of the challenges that we have been informed about and that we have observed from the various interactions and activities that we have been conducting with respect to the preparation of CBM reports, there's a few points to raise here as well, and maybe those of you in the room involved in these processes may have other points that you could add to this list as well. But there does appear to be a lack of technical knowledge about and familiarity with the CBMs, including wider aspects of BWC implementation. Many countries at the national level, there is a lack of a legal mandate and/or any institutional authority to actually go to other relevant national stakeholders and require the information that the national contact point needs in order to accurately fill in the CBM report. Others talked about a lack of human resources or the fact that there were other competing priorities which presented them with a challenge. Also, some mentioned that there is insufficient time to prepare the CBM report by the 15th of April deadline. And others also pointed to a lack of a coordinated structure at the national level to facilitate report preparations. Just going back to some other observations from the survey that we conducted during the NCP workshop, we asked a question of the participants as to whether they review CBM reports from other States Parties as well. Like I said, via the electronic platform, all States Parties have the possibility to access the CBM reports of other States Parties, even those which are restricted, States Parties themselves can access all of them. So 29% said they don't look at all at any other States Parties CBMs, 30% said they hardly look at them, 34% said sometimes, and only 7% said they would regularly look at CBM reports from other States Parties. We also asked a question to the participants in that workshop whether they perceived any value in some kind of collective discussion of CBM reports as well. Of the people that answered the survey, 77% said that they would indeed see value in that kind of a collective discussion of CBM reports taking place. Also now some observations from our side on the CBM forms themselves. I mentioned already that the reporting forms were adopted back in 1987, revisions were made in 1991, only minor revisions in 2011. Since then, since 2011, and although discussions on CBMs have taken place in the two intersessional programs, as I already mentioned, no changes have been made to the CBM forms. So the CBM forms themselves, as has quite frequently been pointed out, have not been modified, like I said, in a minor way in 2011, but more significantly, they've not been modified since 1991. We've also observed some different reporting practices in some of the forms as well. So the information that we receive, particularly via the cover page, form zero of the CBMs allows us to see that there are different ways in which states parties answer the questions that are on particularly on form zero, but also in some of the other forms as well. And then States Parties, as is being discussed here in the working group, may wish to consider updating modalities in some of the forms as well or clarifying the information that is provided in some of the forms. We have provided in the background paper that I referred to, submitted to this session of the working group, particularly in section six of that background paper, we have provided more detail on these observations that we have and including some suggestions in there for possible updates of a technical nature to the CBM forms as well. So by way of conclusion, CBM reports have, as I mentioned, have considerably increased over recent years. That's very much the result of increased outreach funded largely through voluntary contributions that we have been conducted, as well as a heightened interest in participation by states parties. We've not really received much information besides the, the observations I've just provided to you from states parties that have not participated regularly in the CBMs or have never participated on the specific reasons why they do not participate. We would obviously like to express our appreciation for the voluntary contributions that we've received in support of the activities I've mentioned, as well as to the experts from the 22 states parties that have contributed to those activities by sharing their own national practices and experiences. We would also like to make the point, and it's more of a general point on voluntary contributions, as I said, generally, that they do not provide sustainable and predictable funding. although they are obviously very welcome, but the progress achieved in recent years on CBMs could be reversed if voluntary contributions were not to continue. Therefore, and as we've seen in the Chair's rolling text, for core activities such as support for the submission of CBMs, States Parties may wish to consider an element of funding for these activities from assessed contributions. I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, but obviously very happy to respond to any comments, answer any any question that delegations may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel. Does any delegation want to make any comment? Germany, you have the floor.

Thank you, Daniel, for the comprehensive presentation on the CBM reporting. I have a question for States Parties that have acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention during a certain year. which their first CBM report be due for the previous year or for the year they joined the Convention? Thanks.

Thanks, Germany, for the question. It's partly dependent on the States Parties themselves, I think, how they would want to address that issue. We have, as I was just being reminded, we have for some States Parties which joined fairly recently, in fact, as well. Some have already worked on CBMs and submitted CBMs as well. So it's really, I don't have a precise answer for you. We can probably dig out the statistics and see, you know, in terms of the recent, because we've had Quite a number of States Parties joined fairly recently as well, so we could look into how many of those have fairly quickly submitted a CBM as well. But we do have at least a couple of examples that come to mind of fairly new accessions to the Convention which have then also submitted CBMs quite soon as well. I hope that slightly helps to answer the question. Thanks.

Thank you, Daniel. Any other? Canada.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. Um, we can be very brief, but, uh, we didn't want to miss this opportunity to thank the ISU for all the work that they've put into, uh, uh, CBMs in terms of promoting CBMs, collecting the information, reporting back to us. Canada very much values CBMs and the work that the ISU is doing in that respect. So we just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Canada. USA.

Thank you, Chair. Similar to my Canadian colleague, I simply wanted to thank the ISU for all the hard work that is clearly paying off for many States Parties. And to also thank them for preparing the helpful background paper on this issue, particularly as we're getting up to speed, it's helpful to know the full history of the CBMs, where they came from, and why we take the time and effort to prepare them every year. I also want to say that it's fantastic to see the record-breaking trends multiple years in a row. I think that really says something about the energy and the Biological Weapons Convention. and the work of the ISU. And I also want to congratulate those countries who've submitted for the first time in recent years. Thank you.

Thank you, USA. Any other? Then I have a question. When you say the electronic CBM platform, is it operational? optional machine translation feature. Does it mean translation in other languages than the six?

Just consulting, Chair, but I think from what we understand, it's all six UN languages. You were going to ask about Portuguese?

No, because I've heard here so many people saying that things should be in all six languages so more people can have accessibility. And I think that today it's very simple to have a machine translating in more than the six, and I don't think there is any big cost on that. And if we are going to have the documents in six languages, I think that optional machine translation feature makes no sense because the documents are already in six languages. So anyway, I would suggest that we can have machine translation in more than six languages.

And just to follow up, just to clarify, the platform itself, so the kind of software that is in the six UN languages, so you can use the platform itself in any of those six UN languages. You can also use it to translate, for example, a CBM report that's in English. You can use it to translate that from English into Spanish or French, any of the other six UN languages. It may be possible to go beyond that as well. That would be a technical question. We can get back to you.

I don't want to be annoying, but you say simplified electronic submission of reports on all six official languages. So they are already in the six languages. Am I wrong?

So States Parties can submit in any of the six. So as you saw from, I think, one of the pie chart we had, most States Parties submit in English, but then some are submitting in the other five languages as well. So each country submits in generally in one language. We do have a couple of countries that will submit in two languages, but generally most countries submit in their own national language if it's one of the UN official languages. But so each CBM report is generally only in one language, but there is through the platform the option to translate it from that one language into one of the other five UN languages.

Thank you. Any other comment? I think the heat in Geneva is really putting people a little bit slow. Well, once we have no more, we can now therefore move on hearing statements and interventions on the measures on confidence building and transparency. In line with our usual practice, I will give the floor first to States Parties speaking on behalf of group of States and then to States Parties wishing to make national intervention. I would like to focus our discussions on the draft measures contained in section C of the rolling text as contained in BWC/WG/6/CRP1, date August 7, 2025. Please raise your nameplates and the Secretary will add you to the list of speakers. I ask the Secretary to put on the screen the text of section C. Ireland, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Ireland thanks you for your efforts in preparing the section on confidence building and transparency. To ensure a world free of biological weapons is maintained and the BWC is further strengthened, it is essential to enhance trust. As we know, this was recognised early by States Parties when we agreed during the second review conference to establish CBMs. We strongly encourage all States to complete their CBM returns in full as a means to strengthen further transparency and ultimately trust. The quality of those returns also matters. So, we believe it is incumbent on all of us who have submitted full returns as States Parties to also continue to review and improve our own information sharing. As we heard from the ISU, and I'd like to take this opportunity as well to thank them for their informative presentation, we are encouraged by the record-setting levels of CBM submissions, and we hope that this trend continues unabated. Chair, we fully support the establishment of a training program for States that shares requirements and best practices in completing CBMs. How this would be sustainably financed would be good to clarify and the scope fleshed out, including how comprehensive it should be. For efficiencies and sustainable financing, we think such a program could and should, as it does in other areas, take advantage of digital and virtual tools where feasible to complement in-person training and cooperation. We also fully support the suggestion of establishing and maintaining a CBM assistance network as a means to assist states who are facing challenges but are working towards completing CBMs. We recognize and strongly welcome that work on strengthening cooperation and assistance between states parties on the CBM process is ongoing, and we commend the ISU for its work in this regard. We think such an assistance network should match states parties based on similar national or regional profiles, legislation, and/or industry and academic makeup. It should also focus on the critical aspect of sharing best practice in national reporting structures and capture best practices and setups of highly functional national contact points. On the CBMs themselves, we recognize the important efforts of States Parties and the ISU to bring streamlined enhancements and increased transparency over decades, including through the launch of the online platform. However, it has been 14 years since the last revision of the CBMs. We continue to support further work in identifying potential streamlining in the reporting process, while at the same time keeping firmly in focus the need to ensure CBMs capture technological developments. In that regard, we agree that there is much value in a systematic review process and note the suggestion of five years. We also think there can be value in not precluding an interim review should there be a clear need identified. How the review committee would be constructed, as well as modalities of voting and approving, would be useful to clarify once the process itself is agreed. Finally, Ireland fully supports work that identifies trends, particularly where such analysis can identify best practice and common challenges that lead to the identification of needs which can assist States in enhancing their CBM returns. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ireland. I have Russia.

Distinguished Chair, the Russian Federation attaches special importance to strengthening confidence-building measures under the BWC, and we believe that the presentation of such data by all States Parties to the Convention is one of the most important factors strengthening the BWC. Since the introduction of CBMs in 1987, my country has been participating in the exchange of such information on an annual basis. Moreover, The data submitted by Russia on its own initiative includes additional information that go beyond the initiating criteria for CBMs. In the absence of a verification mechanism under the BWC, the development of which we fully support, confidence building measures are a very important tool to include confidence in compliance and transparency of activities that has a bearing to the Convention. And all of that may not be considered as something that replaces a legally binding verification mechanism of compliance with obligations under the BWC or be a method for assessing compliance with the Convention by any state. At the same time, we believe that the format of confidence building measures should be in tune with the times in order to justify its existence and respond to the challenges that arise in the areas connected to the Convention. A particular risk factor in this respect is the military medical biological activities carried out outside of national territories. Unfortunately, states that -- states parties that carry out such activities unfortunately do not provide any information about such activities as part of existing CBMs. This is sufficient deficiency of the existing measure, regime of confidence building measures because the lack of any transparency in this respect does not contribute to increasing predictability in the context of compliance with obligations under the Convention. In light of what I just said, the Russian Federation proposes that we add to the format of confidence-building measures in form A, part II, small Roman II, a new form that would be entitled Military Medical Biological Activities Carried Out by States Parties on the territories of other countries. We believe that it is also necessary to update the form of the declaration of sites for the production of vaccines, form G, adding information related to sites for the production of vaccines for the protection of animals. now Russian Federation circulated a relevant working document during the fifth session of the working group in December 2024 and all of you can get acquainted with that document on the internet portal of the convention thank you.

Thank you any other delegation want to take the floor Iran?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And let me take the opportunity to express our appreciation to the ISU for their presentation as well. Iran also attaches great importance to the CBMs, and in the meantime, we would like to emphasize that CBM is not a substitute to verification. And definitely, we need a legally binding instrument on verification. And when it comes to the rolling text, we have some observations and suggestions starting from paragraph 16. We were one of the delegations suggesting to add participation in international assistance and cooperation as part of CBMs. However, So from our perspective, the wording of the paragraph does not reflect exactly that purpose. So we need to rephrase the paragraph to read, the working group recommends that States Parties and implementation support unit promote and integrate reporting on participation in international assistance and cooperation program and projects as part of CBMs. So this is a clear understanding and meaning of the purpose. And luckily it was agreeable and that's why it is reflected in the preamble of the mechanism on ICA. But we had a clear -- we needed a clear language here. On paragraph 17 C and D, we think that the proposals here have financial implications, and therefore, in order to go after the most economical option to realize the proposed activities here, first, we need to have online training meetings, training program. We don't need necessarily to have in-person training on how to issue the CBMs and the online format definitely can help. And in subparagraph d, we think that the source of the financial source of this suggested activity is not clear and we believe that having voluntary funds would be enough to support this program. So we suggest to add using voluntary funds in the beginning of the sub-paragraph. On paragraph 18, we think that the second sentence of the paragraph is going to establish a new channel to update the forms. But we know that in practice this purpose is being done automatically and therefore we don't need to establish a new mechanism to update the forms. So we think that deletion of this sentence would serve the purpose. And finally, on paragraph 19, there is a reference to factual information and we need a bit more clarification on the source of the information. And we do believe that it should not include open sources, for well-known reasons that we have explained before. So we need to modify the language here in a way to be as much as clear possible. I thank you.

Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Let me join others in thanking the ISU for the comprehensive presentation we just received. Chair, we hope that everyone would agree that information sharing and transparency to increase confidence between states parties is useful if not necessary. In the context of the BWC, we consider that confidence building as well as transparency measures play a key role when it comes to enhancing confidence in the implementation of its provision and preventing or reducing the occurrence of ambiguities, doubts and suspicions. While we acknowledge such measures cannot replace a robust verification regime, we note that there's a close relationship between measures on confidence building and transparency and the topic of compliance and verification. In this regard, we want to underline the following central points. Strengthening CBMs and making progress towards verification are not mutually exclusive, but rather reinforcing. Secondly, there is no clarity at this stage whether we will move forward on the elaboration of a verification measure in the context of the VWC and should we decide to move in that direction, how much time will be needed to arrive at a substantial result. This implies that CBMs and other transparency measures will remain as important as they are today for the convention in the years to come and should remain at the center of our attention. If we move forward towards elaboration of declarations as a part of a verification regime for the BWC in the years to come, there will be value in assessing then if some of the existing CBMs should take a legally binding form. Let me add that the value of the BWC CBMs in our view has been underlined by the increased number of States Parties, excuse me, submitting them. Having said this, we generally see merit in the draft recommendations contained in section C of the rolling text. As you have heard in the past, submitting CBMs can be a substantive challenge, in particular for smaller States Parties. Therefore, we see value in the proposals contained in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16. We are also grateful to the ISU for all the efforts they already undertake to promote and provide support towards the submission of CBMs. Paragraph 17 provides structure to those efforts and is therefore welcome. Regarding paragraph 18, we believe in the usefulness of exploring how to best improve existing CBMs. We would see value in looking at each form in detail to assess whether they should be amended and also consider developing additional ones. We are flexible regarding the exact process to review existing CBNs and considering new ones. Coming back to my earlier comment, however, we would note that such a process should be coordinated with our deliberations concerning the topic of compliance and verification. In particular, and as said before, we should consider if there's value in transforming some of the CBMs into a set of declarations which could be the basis of a robust verification regime. A particularly valuable proposal is contained in paragraph 19. The annually submitted CBMs represent a vast collection of information relevant to the BWC. To better use this information, we believe it will be useful to States Parties if the ISU could be tasked to compile and make available factual information on CBM submissions. The report produced by the ISU at this stage is purely of a statistical nature, that is on the number of reports submitted. We believe that there could be value in a report undertaken by the ISU having also a qualitative dimension. enabling us to better track trends under the Convention, challenges for the implementation or needs to that effect. Lastly, looking at all proposals under section C, it seems that it does not contain proposals related to transparency measures specifically. Such measures have been discussed extensively over the past years and in our view proven their value. We are referring in particular to voluntary transparency exercises which should, in our view, be reflected in this section. A useful overview on this topic, including potential language proposals, can be found in working paper 35 submitted to the A3U conference by a number of states parties. I thank you.

Thank you, Switzerland. I have Panama, Algeria, and Japan.

Thank you very much, Chair. On section C, measures on confidence building and transparency, we believe in general the submission of annual reports on CBMs is a very important tool as we move in our attempts to strengthen the convention and its obligations. Well, indeed, this is not a replacement for a verification mechanism. Now, having said that, we believe that CBMs can contribute to the design of a verification mechanism, for example, as declarations or indications for on-site inspections. Now, the other day, The group of Latin American group of countries stated that we support the different measures to strengthen CBMs and also to give the ISU the mandate to maximize the impact of the information submitted by States Parties and we see that all of those ideas are duly reflected in section C. And also we see that some other very important elements for developing countries like mine have also been included. Our countries are facing challenges to prepare and submit such reports. And we see that the references in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 are very important since they are aimed at ensuring that the ISU continues in its important work in supporting countries, but also it gives the opportunity to have a gradual approach to the submission of reports on CBMs for countries that have never submitted such reports or those countries that face difficulties in submitting annual reports. Also, we see references to the links that exist between CBMs and requests for international cooperation and assistance. and also the measures to ensure that CBMs are more user-friendly while promoting capacity building and workshops to help countries that need such a support to complete their CBM reports. On paragraph 18, we believe that it contains great value added because we have been discussing for several years to revise and update the CBMs and have been many proposals on how to update it, these CBMs and perhaps add additional forms. But this obviously should be part of a process based on a professional and detailed consideration. And while the paragraph is general in its nature, we believe that at this stage we do need to be prescriptive and that is something that can be done during a review conference because we will be looking at how we will be working during the next intersessional period. Now, if we will be Continuing with the working group on the strengthening of the convention, this work can be done in the working group by allocating more time to the question of CBMs. Now on paragraph 19, we support the initiative reflected in this paragraph. And we have to also keep in mind what will be the impact in terms of financial and human resources and the difficulties that the ISU may face in terms of the format and language of the forms. Now, if indeed a solution is found, my country will be very happy to see what are the trends that can be identified on the basis of the information submitted by States Parties. Thank you.

Can you put on 17. Yeah. No, just a comment. I was looking with my, I'd like my Swiss colleague to excuse me, but as we can read on the papers, Geneva is, if not the most, it's one of the most expensive seats in the world. So, hold or coordinate regular training course on CBNs in Geneva, it's going to be quite costly. I agree with my Iranian colleague when he says we can do it virtually. And virtually, maybe we can do those courses in regions and then get many countries. I think that if you make a this kind of course in Latin America, in Africa or Asia even, if you get a group of countries, it's going to be much cheaper than do it in Geneva. Thank you. Sorry, Algeria, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to all distinguished delegates. Mr. Chair, let me begin by commending your skilled stewardship in facilitating this working group's substantive deliberation, a critical effort as we advance our shared objectives under the convention, and we appreciate the efforts made by the ISU in preparing the background paper. Algeria fully acknowledges the role of CBMs in fostering predictability and reducing misperceptions among state parties. These mechanisms contribute meaningfully to a cooperative security environment. Nevertheless, we must emphasize that CBMs, by their voluntary and non-verifiable nature, inherently lack the authority and permanence required to address core compliance concerns. They cannot supplement the urgent need for a legally binding instrument with robust, universally applicable verification provisions. the only credible foundation for enduring trust. Mr. Chair, in strict adherence to our convention obligations and as a demonstration of our commitment to transparency, Algeria prioritizes the annual completion and timely submission of comprehensive CBM reports to the ISU. We view this as a fundamental contribution to our collective security architecture. To maximise the utility and accessibility of the CBM process, we welcome the following enhanced recommendations based on the rolling text. First, accelerate development of the electronic CBM platform, incorporating intuitive design to ensure equitable access for all States parties. Second, establish dedicated technical assistance to provide sustained needs-based support for states facing challenges in CBM preparation and submission. Third, institutionalized a tiered training program, including advanced technical workshops and simulation exercises in person or virtually, as you just said. And then tailored national level training for relevant ministries and agencies. and fourth, identify possible overlaps and synergies with national or international frameworks in order to reduce the reporting burden for further considerations by States Parties. Algeria views progress on CBMs as the pursuit of a binding verification instrument, not Sorry, I'll go again. Algeria views progress on CBMs and the pursuit of a binding verification instrument not as sequential steps, but as mutually reinforcing parallel tracks. One fosters cooperation, while the other guarantees accountability. We stand ready to engage constructively on both fronts. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Japan, Germany, Bhutan, Belarus, South Africa, Argentina, United Kingdom, and Austria.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And also, my delegation would like to extend appreciation to this ISU for this very comprehensive report in this chamber. First of all, Mr. Chair, confidence building measures provide transparent evidence of each party's compliance and promoting the submission of CBM report is quite essential for the strengthening of BWC itself. So we welcome the fact that the submission rate of the CBM report is rising. and also welcome the eight state parties submitting their first CBM reports. At the same time, Mr. Chair, we realize that some state parties still feel difficulties for the preparation of CBM reports. For that reason, government of Japan advocates a step-by-step approach in which, rather than aiming for perfection from the outset, But CBM reports are first submitted, and even if they are limited in contents, and then gradually enhanced in context or contents. So in that sense, my delegation support of this paragraph 15 under the chapter C measures on confidence building and transparency. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Obrigado.

Arigato. Germany. Bhutan, Belarus, South Africa, Argentina, United Kingdom, Austria, and France. Germany, you have the floor.

Thank you. Germany would also like to congratulate you on this paragraph. It's very comprehensive. It reflects all the discussions we have had, and especially the comprehensive training program supported by financial in-kind and expert contributions and carried out by the ISU has proven to be very valuable for States Parties to submit, compile and submit their CBM reports because we have also seen a lot of demand for this. The ISU has received requests by States Parties. We have also been supporting for a long time the step by step approach where states parties can provide an initial report that is only partial and include more information in the following reports. Also para 17 that talks about the electronic platform and making the reporting more user friendly is very valuable as well as the technical assistance to states parties. We also noted the observations and suggestions regarding the CBM formats in the background paper provided by the implementation support unit, which are very valuable because they show that states parties report in the forms, but they are also kind of, there is scope for making these reports more aligned so that you can easily compare the information. We also are of the view that a CBM review process open to all interested states parties receives attention and that this would be a good chance to look at the forms and to see what else can be updated since the last update has been in 2011. The factual information on CBM submissions as in para 19 that is provided by the ISU has certainly raised the awareness of States Parties for CBMs and also underlined the political importance that CBM reporting has. And it's probably also the cause of the positive trend we are seeing in submissions of CBM reports. Chairman, you would also see a merit in adding voluntary transparency measures in addition to the reporting. This could be peer reviews of legislation, it could be visits to laboratories. I think this would be also of value as a complementary to the CBM reporting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Germany. I have Bhutan.

Chair. And thank you to the Implementation Support Unit for the most informative presentation on CBMs just made. Chair, we thank you for the comprehensive draft and in particular welcome the focused attention given to confidence building measures in paragraphs 14 to 19. For small developing states such as ours, CBMs are not only an important tool for enhancing transparency and building trust, but also a critical entry point into active engagement with the convention. We strongly support the proposal to develop a comprehensive CBM training program and establish a CBM assistance network. For many states parties with limited technical infrastructure or institutional continuity, the primary challenge is not lack of political will, but lack of sustained technical capacity. We therefore urge that the proposed training modules be made available online, translated into all official UN languages, and tailored to the needs of smaller or capacity-constrained States. In-country and regional training options would also be greatly beneficial. We particularly appreciate the flexibility envisioned in paragraph 15 to allow for phased or partial CBM submissions. This is a pragmatic and realistic approach that recognizes different starting points while promoting progressive engagement. We would welcome additional guidance from the ISU on how such submissions can be structured and updated over time. We also welcome the proposal to integrate CBM participation into international assistance frameworks under Article 10. This is an innovative way to incentivize reporting and to embed CBM support within broader capacity building programs. On the proposed review of CBMs, we agree that such an exercise is timely. However, we believe that any revision of CBM formats or content should be informed by the lived experience of small states. We recommend that the ISU undertake targeted consultations or surveys with state parties that currently struggle with CBM reporting in order to ensure that any updates make the process more, not less, practical and accessible. Finally, we support the idea of the ISU compiling factual information on CBM trends to help identify patterns and needs. Such reporting should be analytical and supportive, focused on learning and shared improvement rather than compliance benchmarking. In conclusion, Chair, we are committed to enhancing our CBM participation, but to do so meaningfully, we must ensure that the tools and support structures are fit for purpose, inclusive, and adaptable to the realities on the ground in smaller states. Thank you.

Thank you, Bhutan. I have Belarus, South Africa, Argentina, UK, Austria, France, Australia, Korea, and Denmark. So, Belarus, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, distinguished Chair, distinguished members of the working group. First of all, I'd like to thank the Implementation Support Unit for the development and support given to Member States on implementation of the Convention and the report that's been drawn up. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and their Destruction is an important instrument in ensuring global security. Biological weapons as weapons of mass destruction are no less dangerous than nuclear weapons. The Republic of Belarus categorically condemns any attempts to develop or bacteriological weapons. What's necessary is mutual trust between States Parties to the Convention in order to avoid a catastrophe. Mutual trust between States Parties to the Convention requires joint coherent professional actions and of course a shift away from the paradigm of global rivalry which hinders constructive work in many multilateral disarmament forums. We welcome all attempts within this Working Group on the Strengthening of the Convention to seek a compromise and to move forward with the practical implementation of the objective and goals of the BWC. Since trust is key to the success of the BWC, it is logical that issues relating to verification and transparency are exceptionally important. Belarus supports the development of a legally binding mechanism for verification of the implementation of obligations under the Convention. In conditions of growing planetary military stress, it is becoming more acute. What is becoming more acute are issues relating to transparency of processes for the creation of States Parties to the by States Parties to the Convention on Advanced Biological Laboratories. This is particularly fair for States that are neighbors. We need a mechanism under the BWC that would avoid any suspicion of potential misuse of these facilities and that would give responses to questions that arise. Belarus, for example, in a constructive manner, would like greater clarity, information and transparency regarding what was built in Lithuania, one of the largest and biotechnology parks, Biocity. It was scheduled to begin operating in 2025. Particular attention was paid during the construction of Biocity to ensuring the safety of its facilities, at least BSL level three, used when working with agents transmitted by aerosol. It's important for Belarus to be sure that At this centre, there is no possibility of dual use developments. We hope that Lithuania, following the opening of this park, will provide the necessary information on confidence-building measures agreed upon at the second and third review conferences of the BWC. Thank you.

Thank you. I have South Africa. South Africa. Just to tell you, we have to the formal session ends at 4:30 and then we can continue tomorrow morning because at 4:30 we have informals with Argentina and Denmark. So South Africa.

Thank you very much, Chair, for giving me the floor. I think I just you kind of clarified, but maybe let me still ask first. I just wanted to check with you, Chair.

Sorry, I was, you know, doing some administrative things. Can you?

Yes, thank you. Thank you. So sorry for that. I thought I should wait. Thank you, Chair. Chair, I think my brain is slightly slow this afternoon. So I just wanted to check with you if this is the opportune time for me to deliver the statement on behalf of the African Group. If I could be allowed.

Yes, of course.

Okay, thank you very much. Chair, the Republic of South Africa has the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African group. At the outset, allow me to thank the ISU for their comprehensive report. The Africa Group views confidence building and transparency measures, including the submission of CBM reports, as an important mechanism for the exchange of information and updates on relevant facilities and activities. These measures contribute to fostering openness and mutual understanding among state parties. We support the proposal for the ISU to assist to simplify the CBM submission process, and to provide the necessary support to States Parties as requested. While the Group acknowledges that CBMs promote transparency in the implementation of the Convention, we stress that they cannot serve as a substitute for a legally binding instrument with verification provisions. The CBMs alone are not sufficient to assess or ensure compliance with the Convention. The importance of transparency within the framework of the Convention underscores the need for States Parties to pursue pragmatic cooperation and to continue utilizing CBMs as a means to build trust and support the full implementation of the Convention. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. I have Argentina.

Thank you, Chair. For my country, confidence building and transparency measures are crucial to generate trust and reduce suspicions in this area. Understanding the dual nature of developments, we welcome the submission of reports. Even though we're not necessarily at the expected level of submissions, we welcome the efforts of the Secretariat in terms of circulating the results, and we understand the situation, and we urge all countries to participate in this mechanism. In the absence of a verification mechanism, And we see that on the basis of the debates, it will be difficult to achieve at this stage. We believe that CBMs are a valuable tool to generate trust and transparency between states, and we should always give it special importance and move towards a system that is not limited to simply submission of reports, but also to ensure that relevant analysis is carried out. We note the need to improve the quality of information to avoid inconsistencies and have better clarity, which represent an institutional challenge in order to reach out to the relevant sectors, including academia and the private sectors. We believe that most recent developments are indeed very positive and this will help improve the information submitted and one of them is the platform that is referred to in paragraph 18 and this helps us in the simplified presentation of reports and statistical data. We appreciate the language of paragraph 17a to make the platform more user friendly and also the proposals contained in Paragraph 15, we also believe that the crucial work of the ISU in terms of training is something that will help countries, as I mentioned earlier, the quality of the information that is presented. Madam Chair, Argentina presents on a regular basis measures related to confidence building, and we're open to cooperate in this respect. I would like to mention that we have explored jointly within the Organization of American States to participate in the process of peer review process at the regional level. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair, for the elements provided in the rolling text, which all look very straightforward and all things we can hopefully all get behind. The UK supports initiatives to improve CBM participation including training and the incremental reporting. We would support a review process to consider amendments and revisions to some CBMs. Under a new review process, we could favour simplifying form O and expanding forms A, E and G, which would align with transparency and the One Health framework. And in the spirit of transparency, we would welcome increased public submissions. In terms of CBM training, we would support efforts to improve CBM participation. Perhaps there are synergies to be gained from how other ISU units approach the reporting requirement training, but it is important to ensure that there is no duplication with other training packages that already exist. On incremental reporting, we think the partial or step-by-step reporting has the advantage of increasing the visibility in the absence of full reporting, and we note that this is already possible within the eCBM platform. And I'll just stop there. Thank you.

Thank you, UK. I have in my list Austria, France, Australia, Korea, Denmark, and China. And we continue tomorrow. And I thank you. Now I leave you in the hands of Argentina and Denmark. And this formal session is adjourned.