5th Meeting, 8th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome back to the fifth meeting of the eighth session of the Working Group on the strengthening of the Convention. As with our meetings yesterday, this meeting is taking place in an in person format, in accordance with the regular practice under the Convention. It's also a public meeting which is being webcast live on UN Web tv. I would like to express my appreciation to all delegations for their availability and constructive engagement during yesterday evening's informal consultation. And today we're going to repeat.

I also wish to inform delegations of my intention to convene another round of information consultations open to all State parties this evening, again from 8pm until 10pm to avoid clashing with another reception, the same arrangements for access to the Palais. We will apply again this evening. So, returning to our substantive work, I would like once more to thank Hushan Ahmed of Pakistan for the consultations he held on my behalf yesterday morning, which led to revised versions of paragraphs 5, 30, 36 and 45 of Annex 1 presented during yesterday afternoon's formal session. I would like us to consider those four paragraphs again this morning. I therefore hope that you have all had time to consider these revised paragraphs and to receive instructions from your capitals.

I would again like to see if the room is in a position to agree on these four paragraphs. Therefore, I'd like to ask. Everyone can leave with this package as a compromise, as shown on the screen.

Not this one, Just one moment, because technical problems.

Okay, thank you. I would ask Ushan to give some explanation.

Thank you. Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues. Chair. I would like to thank everyone again for their constructive engagement on these set of the set of issues contained in this package.

And last time this was presented on the floor, we recall that there was a request for additional time for the consideration of this. And in addition to that, there were some changes that were proposed in this paragraph. So I would just like to say that out of the changes that have been proposed, the two there the first change to insert Article 10 of the convention, in my view, it is an editorial proposal and it could make the paragraph in fact more consistent, since we already have the reference of Article 7 in paragraph 36. So I would propose that we accept this change under Article 10 of the convention. Similarly, when we talk about capacity building in law enforcement functions, I would just like to note that the word national is there in paragraph 36, but it was missing from this paragraph.

So for the consistency reason, we can support its addition. However, we would be hesitant to make any further to entertain any further changes in the Text. And we would urge that no text edits are inserted again. So we understand that there is a delegate balance. And therefore we would like to request retention of the original language of the last sentence which start with these examples are illustrative and any offers made by the state parties.

So our suggestion would be that we consider the package with these two editorial edits only accepting the word national and accepting the word article 10 and then putting it to the floor. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And thank you once again for your hard work. Before I listen to comments from delegations, I would like to recall you that this was a very hard work from our Pakistani colleague.

And I just would like to urge delegations not to start making it Christmas tree. So the text was negotiated and talked with all delegations. And so I really think delegations, in this raining morning to be flexible, professional and accept the package of those four paragraphs. The floor is open.

Oh, sorry, canada.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Our delegation would like to thank our colleague Husham for his hard work in arriving at this compromise, which we can accept, keeping in mind, however, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We clearly see this as a compromise which goes beyond this particular paragraph. We also want to see some flexibility in other areas, keeping in mind what has been agreed here.

So keeping that in mind, we are prepared to go along with this. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Canada. Any other delegation?

Can we take the inclusion of Article 10 of the Convention as suggested by Pakistan?

So decided. And thank you.

Can you. Can we accept the suggestion by Pakistan to include national law enforcement?

So decided.

Now on the last suggestion by Pakistan, on the last phrase. Any comment?

La france.

Thank you, Chair. We've negotiated length informally on these paragraphs. And.

At some stage in negotiations, parties have to understand that we have to strike this delicate balance, That the negotiations, at least as regards my delegation, requires a great deal of flexibility.

And I think we've really pushed to the limit the flexibility that we can give. We can't go further regarding the package. I'm still waiting for my capital's response on this. As you no doubt know, there is G7 meeting in Paris, so all the experts have been mobilized for that particular mobilization in Paris. Thank you.

You can hire Pakistan as an expert because he's doing a lot, a great job.

But any comment on this last phrase?

Yes. On what we discussed yesterday? I mean, we can't at the last minute suddenly accept new phrases. Very straightforward. Can you accept this, the last phrase, yes or no?

It will be the absolute limit that we could accept.

Russia flexibility, please.

Thank you, distinguished Chairman. You know fine well that the Russian Federation is always ready to show that level of flexibility that other delegations demonstrate.

Like previous delegations, we'd like to point out that we of course view this paragraph in conjunction with paragraph 30.

And. Dependent on the discussions on paragraph 30, we reserve the right to return to discussing this paragraph 5.

Now, as to this last bit of wording here, like with France, yesterday evening was. It was a hard evening working with Moscow, especially as in Moscow, it was even later still. What's more, it was a public holiday yesterday.

Nevertheless, the Moscow's limits when it comes to flexibility aren't limitless either. Same as with Paris. And it seems to us we do need to try and reach some kind of common denominator in terms of these limits on this last phrase seems to us it's the balanced wording. It's compromised wording which seems to blend. The two proposals that were made yesterday would be as follows.

It would read these examples of the. Above mentioned deployable capabilities.

I think we've got a sort of high bit of hybrid wording there. It blends together, it mitigates the concerns of both sides and should be able to. That all delegations should be able to live with. Thank you.

Pakistan.

Thank you, Chair. Chair. As you would know that in our national capacity, we are flexible. We don't have a problem. If the delegations find that there is additional language with some changes that could garner convergence and consensus in this room, we will happily support that.

But I would just like to recall that our proposal was to use similar phrasing not just in this paragraph, but in paragraph 36, where we are saying these examples are illustrative. Similar phrasing in paragraph five, where we should say these examples are illustrative. And similarly in paragraph 30 where we say that such information could include. So we think that there was delegate balance that has been proposed from our side. And we think that by not adding any new language, we are not losing anything.

This sentence refers to whatever appears before all the list of examples, whether we call them deployable capabilities, whether we call them anything else. A reader would not discern anything different on this. So our proposal was based on that premise. So that would be our submission that we retain the language as originally proposed and request delegations to consider it as package, since delegations continue to see interlinkages between these four paragraphs. Thank you.

Thank you, Pakistan. Once more, Germany.

Thanks. We would also like to keep the language as it is suggested by Pakistan. These examples as Article 10 is not limited to deployable kind of technology or techniques. For instance, in the past we have also equipped a hospital room for intensive care patients, for instance, in one country in Africa. And they also offers an assistance for the long term in the health sector that are not going to be moved around like a mobile laboratory.

Dankation, any other comment?

Norway.

Thank you very much. Just to fully also support the Pakistani proposal, I think this is where the compromise lies as it will not detract or add anything that nobody can agree to. It does cover everything that is in the above mentioned paragraph. So I would also just support Pakistan and say thank you for all the hard work you've done on this paragraph. Thanks.

Thank you.

Uk.

Thank you, Chair and good morning. I think we would also prefer to just keep as examples because as Germany says, not everything in that list or anything that even is offered under Article 10 is a deployable capability. So it just doesn't make sense to say that everything above is a deployable capability because they're not. So we would prefer to simplify and keep these examples and we've discussed this quite a lot and now we're making more changes. Again, thank you.

Thank you. Any other delegation?

Russia, in the spirit of compromise and flexibility, can we stay with the proposal by Pakistan? Yes or no?

Thank you, Chairman. We for now would leave our proposal in square brackets and move to discussing paragraph 30. Thank you.

The discussion is for a package. So the four paragraphs.

Yes.

We have no objection to a package consideration, but that doesn't restrict us. That doesn't mean that we can't come back later to this paragraph and discuss the package. But for now move to discussing Paraceti. Thank you.

Well, friends, how. How much time you need? Remember that the meeting closes at Friday. On Friday.

Chair, I've been in touch yesterday and this morning. Of course I will give you an answer as soon as I get it and I'm sure it won't be too long in coming. Inshallah. Let's go to paragraph 30.

Any comment?

Well, it's my understanding that the acceptance of the four paragraph as a package, it's accepted as long as we have the French reply to this thing. So I'm going to go and move. Okay, And thank you and thanks once again to Rushan for facilitating this work. Now I'd like to turn to Annex 3 on the Science and Technology Advisory Mechanism. During the informal consultations held yesterday evening, some paragraphs were provisionally agreed and therefore highlighted in yellow in the text.

Given that this text was considered at open ended informal consultations it's my hope that it can now be agreed in this formal plenary and therefore also turned from yellow into green. Text indicating ad referendum agreement. So, first, here is the text of the new paragraph three.

Sorry. Thank you. So first, here is the text of new paragraph 3. Is paragraph 3 acceptable? 1 minute.

For technical reasons.

It.

So paragraph 3. Can we take it?

So decided. Paragraph four.

Can we take it?

Paragraph five.

Canada.

Thank you, Chair. Similar to the intervention we made previously, we can accept the language in this paragraph for now, but we will have to have a look at the complete package, particularly in respect of whether the experts are really going to be independent. Because if they are just representatives of States, we are not funding State representatives normally to attend meetings. So with that, keeping that in mind, once we have a look at the whole package at the end, there may be a need to come back to this or not. But for now we are good with it.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

5.

Six.

Thank you.

Where we.

I was told that BASS needs a little more time, so we are going to move to section E on recommended measures on national implementation of the convention. Paragraph 29 has been significantly streamlined and I therefore hope that it can now be accepted. Is paragraph 29 accepted?

So decided. Thank you. Moving to section G on organizational, institutional and financial arrangements. Paragraph 40 addresses the possible expansion of the Implementation Support Unit, although the exact numbers of additional and total staff numbers given in the two last sentences will have to remain in square brackets until we have a clearer sense of overall resource requirements. Is the rest of the paragraph acceptable?

Us.

Thank you, Chair. Just one small technical comment for consistency on language throughout the report. In the very last line it should say, consequently, the Implementation Support Unit should consist of. Since this is the report from the Working Group and it's the REVCON that would actually decide that. I think that's how generally the recommendations are framed.

Thank you.

Can you take the American proposal?

Accepted.

Can we take paragraph 40 as it is now?

Help me. Good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm really sorry that I need to request you to go Back to paragraph 48.

No, it's for T On your text. Yeah.

On the staff for the S and T mechanism. It is very important for us to have same and aligned approach for both mechanisms. We would like to know how many staff would be allocated to ICA mechanism. So we would like to keep this paragraph open and see that what will actually happen to the ICA mechanism. I.

Thank you.

As I just said, the total staff members given into the last sentence will have to remain in square brackets. I have already said that until we have a clearer sense of the overall resource requirements, so we don't need to go back, pay attention to what I say.

Is the rest of the paragraph acceptable?

Yes.

Thank you. We have now reached the end of paragraphs in Annex 1 that I wanted to discuss today. So.

I'm gonna circulate a paper that I would like you to look at it and give your approval immediately. Thank you.

I'll give you like 10 minutes so you can digest.

I just would like for your information that right now we have 70% of the paper in green. So it's your responsibility to get the 30 green. Again. Again. Now.

Now.

As some patients are asking for more time to digest this paper, my idea is that.

My idea is that at tonight we discuss this paper, which is not an official paper, and the secretariat can explain the logic of this thing. So let's move on and you can have lunchtime and dinner time to digest this paper.

We're going to very soon suspend the meeting so Thomas and Hope can produce some negotiations like Ushan did. And I hope not making a game of words, I hope that Hope can come with something very, very good. So the meeting is adjourned.

Just a correction in my English. The meeting suspended. Not adjourned.

It.

I think I was right. Meeting is not suspended. The meetings adjourned until 3 o'. Clock.