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

Hello. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, welcome back to the sixth meeting of the eighth session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the 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. Before we resume our substantive discussions, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 to promote equal participation of women and girls in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I would therefore like to acknowledge all the women scientists in the room and their increasing participation in our meetings. However, women continue to be underrepresented in research worldwide, constituting less than one third of all researchers, according to UNESCO. So we still need to strive for greater participation of women in science to drive scientific, technological, and innovative progress that's more ethical, inclusive, and responsible to societal needs. Before I give the floor to Daniel, I would highlight the presence of some delegations which are 100% women. I see South Africa, I see Belgium so far, I see Germany, France, Well, he's a trainee, but it's France. What else? Germany, Qatar, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Australia, Ireland, Mexico, Canada, no, Panama, of all our great. Hope, our hope. And so China has always been only for women, but now there is an intruder in the group. So the Brazilian, we have just one. So congratulations. And by the way, as a curiosity, this avenue that used to be called Avenue de France. Now it's called Berta Lutz. And Berta Lutz was a Brazilian scientist. She was one of the four women who signed the charter of the United Nations and was responsible for including women in the charter. So after my little propaganda. Mr. Fiks, would you like to make a brief related announcement? Daniel, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Just a brief announcement that the Office for Disarmament Affairs, we're happy to announce that we have just opened today the call for applications for the fourth edition of our youth for biosecurity fellowship programme, which has been running since 2019. As many of you will know, the programme provides training to young scientists from the global south on issues related to the BWC and wider topics related to biosecurity through webinars and a study visit. It's open to those under the age of 35 and all details will be available on the disarmament education website and shared with States Parties. You'll get this information anyway, shared with you for your visibility. Please do share with candidates that you would see as a strong fit for this. And I'd also like to thank the European Union for its support to the Youth for Biosecurity program as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. As you know, Thomas and Hope brought together interested delegations this morning to discuss certain paragraphs relating to the ICA mechanism. I would therefore like to give the floor to Thomas and Hope for an update on their consultations. You have the floor. Ladies first or men first, you decide.

Thank you, Chair. Of course, I was going to give ladies first the floor, but unfortunately, the news are not particularly great, so I understand if ladies don't want to go first this time. We were able to agree on paragraph 5 amongst the paragraphs that you charged us with discussing. We made some minor modification to it, and I think the ISU has the text somewhere. But that so that one could be turned in yellow based on small group discussions. But unfortunately, at least it's my impression that the fundamentals of the ICA mechanism remain very much an area of disagreement. Delegations had an opportunity to once again let us know where they stand, but We will need some more innovative thinking and flexibility and compromises to actually make this happen. There was a lot of restatement of very familiar positions, unfortunately. So, despite your efforts to provide us with some language to move forward, the rest of the language that was not agreed upon remains in brackets and further discussions. will be required and if Husham would like to lead those, he will be very much invited on behalf of our delegation to do so. Thank you.

Okay, where is the problem? Where are the problems?

Thank you, Chair. I could provide a long list of the problems, but just to give you a little bit of of a flavour. There was a bit of disagreement on the format. For example, should we elaborate in annex 1, paragraph 1, some of the details that are currently contained in those paragraphs, or should we leave that for inclusion later? Those are small format issues. More on the substance. There was no agreement as to whether the trust fund should be funded through voluntary or assessed contributions. There was no agreement on the membership of the small group, whether it should be 20 members, up to 20 members, 25 members. There was no agreement whether the International Cooperation and Assistance Advisory Group should be part of the Meeting of States Parties or self-standing. I could go on and on, but I think we all know the positions that have been traditionally expressed. They have remained essentially the same for the most part, I would say. And then, of course, the funding formula, whether we should have funding completely voluntary or through assessed contributions. or whether we should have voluntary SS contributions is still very much under discussion. And then we made a little bit of, I think we reached a bit more of an understanding among some states parties on paragraph 10, which we traditionally call the co-financing paragraph, which encourages recipient states to make an in-kind and a financial contributions to the financing of projects. Some delegations were thinking out of the box, and there was a bit of a rapprochement, but there were still some delegations who wouldn't want to see any of that, and other delegations who would want to strengthen the language. So, once again, far apart from an agreement. So, I don't know if this is going to be a matter of finding an agreement at the end, or whether we can somehow bring delegations closer together. We can propose a little bit of language on the non-agreed paragraphs, and some of us are still developing that language, so we might bring it in later. But there's no agreement by all States Parties to that, just something we can explore further. So, unfortunately, as I said during the meeting, you know, if we don't, to quote you, if we are not going to be more flexible, on these issues and willing to compromise, we might end up with nothing and, as usual, make the best in the views of delegations. Everyone wants the best for themselves, but that might, the way it looks now, still be very much the enemy of the doable, unfortunately. Thank you.

So 100% unflexibility.

still too much inflexibility, but hope can hopefully put a more hopeful spin on this whole thing. Thank you.

Hope, give us hope.

Yes, Chair, that was what I want to try to do, but just echoing Thomas' observations and also adding my own. What I observed from the consultation a while ago, and thank you to all those delegations that participated is that it would be I think it would be also helpful to have a better understanding on the rationale behind some of the concepts or words that were introduced in these paragraphs, maybe from the chair's team, as it is the chair's paper, or maybe from the ISU. But I think the gap also lies on the the insufficient insufficient or maybe more understanding from from the delegations and that could help us come up come to an agreement on some of the uh provisions in this paragraphs uh for example as Thomas mentioned in paragraph 10 there might be a need to understand better how un finance financing regulations work in terms of assessed contributions or voluntary contributions. So that could help us better understand and look at possible alternative language that could lead us to an agreement or to a yellow or green paragraph at the soonest time. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. But do you think that if we give you more time? No? Okay, no. But thank you for your efforts. I have also asked from Peru, and from Switzerland, to consult with delegations on the outstanding paragraphs in section C on transparency and confidence building. I would therefore like to allow them some time to continue to conduct consultations, so I will shortly suspend the meeting. Before doing so, I would like to inform you that when I resume the meeting and after hearing from Ahen and Laurent, we will move to Annex 3 and consider the outstanding paragraphs that annex on the SAT mechanism, advisory mechanism. Our discussions will be based on Annex 3. as contained in document BWC/WG/8/CRP1/HEV1, dated February 7th, 2026. The informal paper that was circulated this morning sought to extract and organize those elements of CRP1/HEV1 that relate specifically to composition and responsibilities of different components of the mechanisms. It was intended to cluster these structural elements in one place as a subject-oriented reference to facilitate clear consideration by delegations. Delegations can therefore consider this paper as a navigational tool and as a way to identify and examine the structure components of the review group, the reporting committee, and any temporary working groups, while to continue to work on the basis of the existing text. So I will suspend the meeting now for about one hour to allow Angel and Laurent to consult, and then we will resume with discussion on Annex 3. The meeting is suspended. Let's restart. We have on the screen paragraph 5, which is yellow, and I would urge you to agree that it can be green. Any comments? And just to remind you why I hope that you can accept, because this was the paragraph negotiated by Thomas and Hope. So it's my hope that we can put it in green. So decided. Now I give the floor to Laurent from Switzerland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. So just to provide you a quick feedback on paragraph 12 of the draft report that addresses the issue of CBMs. As requested by you, with my colleague from Peru, we approached a number of delegation to see whether we could have traction or how we could proceed with that paragraph. First, I have to flag that we have focused our discussion not on the first part of the sentence that addresses the issue of compliance and verification. For that first part of the sentence, we will wait to see what the consultation held by our Dutch colleagues on that issue of compliance and verification moves so that we can align that part of the paragraph with what he ends up with, to make sure that we align the different texts on that specific question and do not have specific standards. On the remainder of that paragraph, we looked at different options that may enable us to move forward on that question. At this stage, we do not have, we were not able to reach something that is conclusive. There are different views among delegations as to how we could or how we should reflect specific proposals made in the context of this working group for further discussion. There are different views as to how and whether we should reflect that element and flag that those proposals should be further considered at a later stage. So our suggestion would be that you give us some more time to hold further consultation, potentially tomorrow, to see whether we can merge the several options that we have on paper at this stage and whether we can land on a language that is agreeable to all. I'm not saying that this would be an easy endeavor, but I suspect that there's value in seeking to take this forward to see whether there's any possibility that we come up to some agreement on that specific paragraph. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Laurent. Okay, I'll give you the time, and I really ask delegations to cooperate with Lohan, and that we can solve and go forward with this text. Okay, thank you. So, as I announced it earlier, I would now like to move to Annex 3 of document BWC/WG/8/CRP.1/Have.1, which deals with the S&T advisory mechanism. Most of the introductory section is already in green text. Of the paragraphs not yet green, operative subparagraph 1 is related to subsequent paragraphs about the appointment process for members of the Reporting Committee. The subparagraph is in yellow, but nonetheless, nonetheless contains square brackets. We can either leave it as it is, or we could decide to simplify it by removing any reference to the appointment process, given that is already addressed later, and neither subparagraph A or C go into such details. It's also worth recalling that In a similar paragraph in the introduction of Annex 2 on the ICA mechanism, albeit still not in green text, we do not specify the appointment process of the ICA Steering Group. Therefore, we could delete "nominated by State Parties, appointed by the Rio Conference" and so that the subparagraph would simply read, "A Science and Technology Reporting Committee of up to 25 members drawn from the Science and Technology Review Group." Would this be acceptable to delegations? France.

Thank you, Chairman. We just have a question. When developing this paragraph, did we take into consideration the possibility of the review conference not manage to reach agreement on the 25 members, in which case we would have to wait for another five years before those experts could be nominated again. The first thought that strikes me is to provide for a plan B if the revcon is unable to agree on the nomination of 25 members.

Yeah, this is going to be dealt later. My point now is just to simplify this paragraph. Can we take it as it is? So decided. One more green. I think this terrible gray weather should incentivize us to have more and more green things. There was a proposal from the Russian Federation for an additional subparagraph here, which I show on the screen in square brackets. Given that this deals with the issue of consensus, I will skip it for now as it's linked to wider discussions. This morning, we agreed additional new paragraphs, which are now shown here in green. Finally, the last paragraph in this section was discussed last night and is still the subject of consultations, so we will also skip that for now. Instead of turning straight to Appendix 1, I will now move to Appendix 2, which contains the regulations of the Science and Technology Advisory Mechanism. This appendix has only a small number of unresolved paragraphs. Hopefully, we may be able to resolve some or even all of them now. Yesterday, we discussed Rule 2.2. I think that most of this rule was acceptable, except for the period of advance notice. Would it be acceptable if we include the text "as far in advance as possible" and with a timeframe of 60 days but with the addition of a final sentence at the end of the paragraph, which would read, "The period of advance notification may be shorter if an emergency meeting is required." Can we take it? Russia.

Thank you very much distinguished chairman and first of all the ball thank you very much for the proposal as an attempt to reach a compromise that the last part of the new proposal made that you just made in our opinion the tail end should slightly be supplemented. So instead of an emergency meeting is required, we would suggest adding the phrase, if decided by States Parties, and the wording that you propose as being the tail end, we propose putting it at the start. That way it would read as follows.

As an emergency meeting is required.

Thank you. I think that English native speakers might help us to make sure that the grammar is right or the words are right. The thrust of our proposal is to put the end at the start and to add additional language that would condition the decision to provide advance notification, make it shorter and condition it on a decision by the member states by the states parties thank you.

Thank you I'm not English speaking but I don't think the English correct so you okay you're correct.

Thank you chair I was slightly panic at testing my English as I'm from Yorkshire I just don't understand why we need to decide this by States Parties, because it's the chairperson of the temporary working group who is going to be notifying each member of a planned meeting in advance. So why do we then have to go back to a meeting of States Parties to decide if we need a shorter length of time or are we calling a special conference? Are we waiting until a revcon? I just think that that whole addition at the end is not necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. And about the English? Thank you. Any other comment? US, correct the English.

Thank you, Chair. We have some questions about what an emergency meeting would be. We would suggest shortening the period of advance notification may be shorter if the members of the temporary working group agree to it. These are 15 scientists, experts who understand their schedules, and if they're able to make a meeting happen in less than 60 days, we shouldn't preclude that from happening. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other comment? Germany.

Thank you. Yeah, just to echo what my colleague from the U.S. just said, I think we are not talking about additional meetings, but just shortening the meeting times under, I don't know, whatever circumstances may arise. And I also think that the experts would know if it's necessary or not, or if it's feasible or not. And we would -- we're flexible as to the exact wording, but we would like to see the threshold for that not higher than really necessary. So put it as low as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Canada and Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. Since there was a bit of a silence, we raised our flag to support what the U.S. proposed. This seems very sensible to us. If the members can agree to meet on short notice, let them do it. Thank you.

Thank you. Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. We think your proposal is relevant to save the situation from you know, in terms of holding an emergency meeting, if the decision should be with the states parties, ultimately it's the states parties are going to decide if there is an emergency and they also define the need to convene such a meeting and violate or not violate, and it will be they who decide to make much shorter time, place, I think this is convenient solution that could suit all parties, and it gives the states parties the flexibility to take such a decision. Thank you.

Any other comment? Russia, you have two minutes.

Thank you, distinguished chairman. To be honest, our delegation doesn't quite understand what's this emergency meeting What is behind that? The mechanism, or rather the temporary working group, that will be addressing scientific issues in the context of the BTWC could be... I mean, we understand such a meeting could be in the context of implementing article 7 or it could be in the context of implementing article 6. But in the context of discussing scientific advances, what could be an emergency here? I'm trying to imagine what an emergency could be, but what could possibly the emergency nature of such a meeting be for what's meant to be a purely scientific mechanism? especially if we are talking about waiting for a month or holding it a month earlier. In terms of science, nothing can change in the space of just a month. Therefore, what we are trying to understand is, if other delegations can give some clarity, that would help but for now we are rather at a loss as to what we're talking about here with an emergency thank you.

Australia.

Thank you, Chair. I do appreciate that the term "emergency" could have different interpretations and for some could be set at quite a high standard. I think the intention behind this provision is that we want to allow for efficiency. This is a temporary working group set up to deal with a very specific issue, and we want them to be able to meet efficiently while So I think maybe we could simply say the period of advance notification may be shorter if the members of the temporary working group agree to it without having to have that caveat of emergency meeting. And from our perspective, it makes sense for that to be agreed to by the 15 members of the working group rather than all states parties in the interests of efficiency and given they'll have a better appreciation of their own schedules than all states parties. Thank you.

Thank you. Pakistan and Norway.

Thank you, Chair. We also agree. I think the rationale that has been presented by my colleague from Australia, I think what the US delegation has provided could solve the problem because the questions that the Russian delegation has raised, what would be the emergency? I think these are valid questions and we do not have to qualify what would be the situation which would qualify as an emergency. So it's better we avoid that debate and we just list it as it appears on the screen. The period of advance notification may be shorter if the members of the temporary working group agree to it. We are not in favor of that decision to be taken by the entire states parties. We think that composition of temporary working group is much smaller. That decision should rest within the temporary working group, the members that body. Thank you.

Thank you. Norway and Korea.

Thank you, Chair. The interventions by Australia and Pakistan made my intervention basically more or less redundant, but we fully support those approaches. We should not go into discussions on how to define emergency meetings and so on. That would just lead to a very, very long discussion. But we support the idea of the US to allow some flexibility for the group and there should not be any need to consult the States Parties to convene meetings with less than 60 days notice. And if the chair of the working group wants to have a meeting 59 days before for some special or good reason, then they should have that possibility without any extensive consultations. Thank you.

Thank you, Norway. Michael, Korea.

Thank you, Chair. Uh, I also support the, uh, intervention made by our Australian colleague that we don't need to specify emergency meeting, we just go into the, the period of advanced notification. And to explain why this is important is that the temporary working group is temporary, meaning that they have a given specific time frame that we don't want to lose time for them to discuss this issue. That's why we want to give them efficiency and the flexibility. So if they can decide to meet early, then we can have that arrangement. And also about the decide by stage parties. to remember this temporary working group will be set up by upon the decision by the state party so we don't need to put this state party here again here it is just about the members of this working group decide among themselves about their schedules so we support the the decide by the members of the temporary working group thank you.

Thank you any other comment Australia, can you pass your suggestion to the -- so we can put on the screen?

Send that in, but I think it is on the screen. It would simply be deleting "if an emergency meeting is required" so that it reads "the period of advance notification may be shorter if the members of the temporary working group agree to it." Thank you.

Russia, can you accept? As a compromise, the suggestion by Australia. Thank you very much for the cooperation. 2.2 becomes green. Okay. Moving to 3.1 -- sorry, 3.2. My understanding is that this rule allows for written inputs from an expert unable to attend a meeting of the review group to be transmitted to the group for an observer from the same State Party to attend the meeting. Are there any Objections to rule 3.2 as appears in the screen? Russia.

Thank you, distinguished Chairman. Overall, we're ready to take the first sentence from that paragraph. But we see no need for the second sentence, because we have 3.1, which already explains how participation of observers should take place. In addition, there's the first sentence of 3.2, which goes into the specific special case for the participation of such observers. So the second sentence seems to us to be entirely redundant. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we agree with the Russian proposal?

U.S.?

Thank you, chair. We would prefer to retain the second sentence. We think that this provides an opportunity for states parties whose experts are not available to attend the group to submit or convey their views from expert in writing to the review group. We do not view this as being covered under section 3.1, as that refers to other types of observers in our view, whereas the second paragraph refers to states parties sending an observer. Thank you.

Thank you. But my question is just curiosity. Having so many electronic developments, if the views are sent by video, for instance, and it's not writing, we cannot accept? Just a question. Any other comment? Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation has a question of clarification. Something here in 3.2 is not very clear for us. As far as we understand, the review group is the open-ended body of the mechanism and each state party can designate an expert to participate. And we really don't understand that if a state party cannot designate a representative to be present there, so why they need to designate an observer to participate in the meeting. It is not very clear for us, and we would appreciate if you or any of the delegations could clarify that for us. Thank you.

So Bozhay is sick. Any other comment? And I again put my question on the table, because if we are saying that may submit the views in writing, that includes that the observer sends on video and we cannot accept. Canada.

Thank you, Chair. We sympathize with you thinking about the technologies that might be available. On the other hand, we think that is probably sufficient opportunity for States Parties to submit scientific views if they can do so in writing. Otherwise, it might get a bit more complicated. One would always have to have equipment to show videos in the room, et cetera, et cetera. It's probably sufficiently easy to submit views in writing to make those known and allowing for other technologies, while indeed it's with the spirit of the time, it might simplify things just to keep it in writing. To date, writing probably remains sufficiently current to allow the conveyance of views. In the future, maybe writing will become obsolete, but for now it might still do the trick. So to keep things simple, it might just be sufficient, would be our view at this point, to facilitate the lives of our colleagues from the ISU so that they don't always have to make video equipment available to view video messages or other kinds of technologies. That would be our view, but of course, on this one, we can be flexible. Thank you.

No, I understand, but otherwise you also, it's, I understand that you have a review group where people are discussing. So I think that would be much more reasonable that you have people discussing on a video than writing, because then it's not discussing. You're just giving one point of view and you don't hear the, thing. Okay, Canada.

Thank you, Chair. You're right. I was actually thinking of video messages at a conference on this element that are pre-recorded, but fair enough. We are certainly not against participation by video conference, assuming that these discussions are not classified, which I would expect they wouldn't be. That said, for us that works well. I don't know if other delegations would again insist that everything be done in person and whatever, you know. But for us, this is good. Yeah, perfectly fine. If an expert can only participate by video conference, we are certainly very much open to that.

Thank you. Thank you.

Mexico.

Thank you, sir. Well, to begin, we would like to say that we support the inclusion of this second sentence. We understand that the participation of observers would not be understood merely as passive participation. They should be granted an opportunity to somehow contribute to the work of the review group. We are flexible, though, and we know traditionally this has been done by presenting working documents. We won't discard the possibility of having a working document online having links to additional information, and that could be a link to, say, another information mechanism. But I believe that here, the goal is to draw a distinction in saying that they would not be able to participate on an equal footing as the formal members of the group. And so, from that point of view, we agree with the paragraph. Through traditional means, Through working documents, we could refer to other input. We are flexible, though, if the reference -- well, the reference should be broader. But what is important is that we recognize certain active participation of observers. Thank you.

Gracias. And if we delete in writing, so we leave it open. State Bar, San Diego, may submit views. from their expert to the review group. Because I'm just to know from my point of view, if this review group, I think they're going to be debating. And if an observer sends in writing, that's not a debate. Russia.

Thank you, chairman. First, regarding the presentation in writing, in our opinion, that is the form in which this should stay, for a number of reasons. First, let us not forget that a meeting of such a mechanism will be of a closed-door nature. That is enshrined in the relevant paragraph. In view of that, the written form is the maximum that we could allow for certain observers to make their opinions known, if necessary. considered necessary by the relevant structures of such a mechanism. Furthermore, observers shall not take part in discussions. Observers can facilitate that discussion through their opinions and their alternative points of view, which can be factored in, or maybe will not be factored in, in a final but as per a final decision of the members of the structures that compose such a mechanism. Furthermore, observers, if they're going to be submitting their points of view in writing, will not waste time from that meeting that will be devoted to the work of the members of structures working under the mechanism. Therefore, only in writing, writing is the optimal form of doing this, therefore in writing should stay.

Germany.

Thank you. First of all, we share the understanding of the US that the observers in 3.2 are not the same observers as in 3.1, and we also share the the view expressed by Mexico that observers should have a different status than the experts. About that last sentence, I'm just thinking, we say States Parties may submit views from their expert in writing or in whatever form, and we're flexible about that. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to the nature of the group to say experts? who are not able to participate may submit their views in whichever way, because it's not a meeting of states parties. It's not, we're not submitting positions of states where even though states nominate their experts, but it's still a meeting of experts. So we might want to emphasize that it's the experts who should be able to express or to somehow transmit their views to the meeting so that we have as much expertise as possible for the technical discussions that we want in that mechanism.

Thank you. France.

Thank you. We believe that the sentence that has just been proposed by Germany is more precise. We would like to add to that suggestion that experts that are unable to participate can present their views in writing or orally. The observers can present observations through the expert representing them by writing or orally. Yes, indeed, they have a different status, and that means that the observations made by them would be considered sovereignly or not by the members of the plenary in the group but as we see it they ought to be able to present their observations in writing and/or orally but in the best way possible so that as Mexico said their contribution can really provide added value to the group and be able to stand in for the person who was unable to attend thank you.

USA, two minutes, and Russia, two minutes.

Thank you, chair. And thank you to our German colleagues for that suggestion. We feel that that solves the problem that we were trying to point out. We would just have two minor edits. We suggest instead of experts, we refer to them as members as once they are members of the review group, they're referred to that way earlier in the text just for consistency's sake. And then we suggest deletion. their expert and say may submit their views. Sorry, from their, yeah, submit their views and deletion on from their expert for clarity. Thank you, Chair.

Russia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We apologise that we have to take the floor again. Last time around, the microphone was cut off for me before I was able to conclude my statement, even though I had just over a minute left. I will just say a couple of sentences regarding the last sentence. We continue to insist on it being fully deleted because we have an open-ended structure where all states participate, in the context of which all states are able to state their views as broadly as they want on whatever topic is to be covered by the review group. What is more, those considerations will then be transmitted in writing to the review group for further consideration and to be taken into account during its work. Therefore, that sentence is redundant. What a number of delegations are trying to do now is to convert the review group into another open-ended group. We are categorically against that, and we urge you to delete the final sentence in paragraph 3.2. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other delegation? Let's move. Moving on to rule 3.3, if the observers take in the place of an expert from a particular state party, it stands to reason that the observer would be from the same state party or not. A possible example could be an expert cannot attend a meeting of the review group in Geneva and someone from his or her permanent mission here attends as an observer instead. In this case, they would clearly be a citizen of that state party. Any comments on Rule 3.3? Mexico.

Thank you. Though it would most likely be a citizen of the state party, I think it really is left to the discretion of the state party itself whoever they want to appoint as an observer, especially if technical skill is required. We believe that here each state party should have the discretion to appoint their observer. Thank you.

I just would like to remind that only eight state parties are not members of the convention. So it's a lottery game if the chosen one is not a member of the convention. And then also, I want to give the numbers of the lottery. Canada.

Thank you, Chair. We agree with Mexico that we shouldn't really interfere with the sovereign rights of states in terms of whom they may wish to appoint. But along the lines of what you said, as a matter of compromise, we can accept the idea of citizenship of states parties in the plural. meaning that one state party can appoint somebody who has citizenship of another state party, excluding those who are not citizens of states parties. But we would not want to see this interpreted as a state party can only appoint a citizen of its own country as an expert. Exactly. So under that understanding, we can accept this. We would prefer Mexico's solution, but we remain flexible on this. Thank you.

Thank you for your flexibility. Australia.

Thank you. I think that some confusion has arisen here because under rules, I read rule 3.3 as relating to either 3.1 or 3.2, and under 3.1, an observer could, for instance, be the World Health Organization, and that cannot be a citizen of a state's party, it is an entity. So while the individual representing that organization may be a citizen of a state's party, the observer is, cannot be. So perhaps if this is intended to only relate to rule 3.2, we could say that specifically, observers under rule 3.2 must be citizens of states parties to the convention. If I've misunderstood the intention of rule 3.3, happy to discuss that language further. Thank you.

Yeah, you see, I don't see a state party appointing somebody from WHO. This is a state party. It's a state game. So not no off player can be on the field. Your microphone.

My apologies. Am I right in understanding that this also relates to rule 3.1, where an observer is not necessarily appointed from a state? It could be broader than that.

Thank you, distinguished chairman. In our opinion, in this case here, it seems to us an important issue or question has been raised about who of the States Parties that do not participate in the review group can take part as an observer. For us, the situation would be very strange if any State Party was to, as an observer, appoint a citizen of a different country.

It's not very strange. You have a lot of countries like my country. In Brazil, you can have 200 nationalities. So it's not in some countries with one single nationality can be the case. In other countries, no. So the idea of this rule is that Let's say, as I mentioned before, is that the observer is not from one of those eight countries that are not members of the Convention. Is that clear?

Thank you, Chairman, for that clarification. But we're talking here not about nationality or ethnicity. We are hearing about citizenship.

Many citizenships, in other countries too.

That may be so, but in any case, the issue of citizenship, with respect to which state is sending the person, is a question of jurisdiction. and responsibility of the specific person to that state that is sending him. If, for example, instead of the Russian Federation, a citizen of a different state is sitting in the seat of the Russian Federation as an observer, then, formally speaking, that citizen is not obliged to even account or report to the Russian Federation because he is not under their jurisdiction. For us, such a situation would be extremely strange. Thank you.

Thank you. It would not be strange in Brazil. I'm lost. Canada and Australia. Oh, sorry, he crossed it out. Sorry.

We actually have experience with intergovernmental processes where these kind of situations arise. I mean, if you have an intense intergovernmental process in Europe where countries are quite small, and if you have expert bodies where you actually send someone who is an expert working at a university or even by a national institution, like on a specific scientific topic, It's not uncommon, at least in Austria, that there are people sitting there from other countries, since we have a very big neighbor which speaks the same language. So there are many Germans in Austrian institutions, and it's not uncommon that they are also, because of their specific expertise, are sent to intergovernmental bodies, for example, in the Council of Europe, where my experience comes from. It's a quite common thing. The rules that we are seeing here, I also know it from different conventions. This is mostly because you also have conventions where not everyone is a part of. The BWC is quite universal, so this is a specific situation that we are having. But in other cases, you would have more European-centric conventions, where you, for example, cannot bring in citizens from outside, especially if it's a more sensitive information. So the question is, do we need this rule? at all, as you have pointed out. Otherwise, I mean, we would have many situations where we could bring in a university professor, someone in on a specific topic which works in a university or somewhere else in Austria, but is not a citizen of Austria.

Thank you. Canada and Australia.

Thank you, Chair. Of course, we have discussed this before and we are doing it again. And I remember one delegation mentioned that they may wish to send one of their locally engaged staff from a mission which may not necessarily have the citizenship of the country. I also want to endorse your statement in relation to Brazil as also applying to Canada. In Canada, we don't force citizenship on residents. They might be permanent residents for decades. without being citizens, but it's up to our government whether we want to appoint a permanent residence who doesn't have Canadian citizenship or not to take up this particular task. So our view, as we said, would be to agree with Mexico and get rid of this rule, which creates, as we can see, all kinds of funny problems. In our view, it's completely unnecessary, but, yeah, fair enough. If it's needed to make a compromise, we are prepared to accept it, but it clearly shows that this is creating more confusion and complication than we need at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. Australia.

Thank you. I think Austria and Canada have really captured the essence of this point. We may in any state, I think, should have the sovereign decision to send who they want. That may be an academic who has the particular expertise that would be most useful to observe this meeting, and for Australia we have plenty of academics, so we're not necessarily going to be citizens. So we consider it should really be left to the state to decide who to send as an observer. We can live with this current language if it's specifically tied to rule 3.2, but we agree that we don't see it as necessary. Thank you.

Thank you. Ireland, France, and China.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to give them perhaps a more concrete example. For example, I myself am not a citizen of Ireland. But if this mechanism is set up and our nominated experts cannot attend, it would be-- I am a citizen of one of the states parties of the convention, which is-- so the point raised by Andreas from Austria, I think, stands.

Just for curiosity, which one?

Well, I have a French citizenship and American citizenship and Mexican citizenship.

Regardless, we just want to-- At the airport, you choose your passport as you choose cards.

My point is that we also don't see the purpose of this line, but if we do keep it, then we would support the proposal made by our Australian colleague. Thank you.

Yeah. Well, I think it's-- I'm not talking about anything private. But I'm also married to a Chinese who doesn't have a Brazilian citizenship. France and China.

Thank you. Seeing that there are differing opinions, could we not simply replace must with may? simply because observers will ultimately be appointed by the state parties that participate regularly in the group who will be appointing the observers so ultimately it will be the state party who will sovereignly choose and appoint the observer so couldn't we include that there is an alternative knowing that it would be ultimately the state who will decide. Thank you.

Thank you. China.

Thank you, Chair. We would very much like to have this para stay in the text like it is, as you proposed. We are flexible as to which national to send. to be sent by the States Party if it's from their own country or it's from another country of the States Parties to the Convention. But we think this rule is very important to avoid any unnecessary politicization of this discussion and to keep the technical nature of our work here. Thank you.

Germany.

I think we don't need the paragraph. I understand the particular thoughts behind from the states parties that have not recognized certain other states. So there is an ambiguity, but just the problem would not be solved by this phrase as also people have double citizenship. So I mean, technically, if you hold a citizenship of one state party and another non-state party, technically you would be able to be an expert. So I think the politicization comes with that 3.3 para, while if we take it out, we would leave the politicization out. Like the thought should be the qualifications of the expert. And the natural thing is that you have in research institutions, even in our Robert Koch Institute, lots of different people with different citizenships. We went on one project mission to Morocco, and the experts that carried out the project from our institute were holding citizenships from Argentina, Ecuador, Italy, and UK, and Germany.

Thank you. I think there's been a confusion here, because one thing is that some countries have a different law from others. So countries accept many citizenships, others don't. That's why I think so. But I think the objective of this paragraph is that we observers should not come from countries that are not members of the Convention, which for me makes a little bit of sense because If a person has a citizenship of a country that's not a member of the Convention, maybe he doesn't even know the articles of the Convention. I don't know. So I think that we should not complicate things. I think that the, and I urge countries to be flexible. So I see observers must be citizens of state parts of the Convention. That's the question. If you have two, three, if your country allows 10 nationalities, I mean, our Irish colleague with 200 passports and so on, you know, Russia.

Thank you, distinguished chairman. In our opinion, so as to not to prolong this lengthy discussion, I think Nobody has come out against the original text that was proposed. At least we didn't notice anyone objecting to it. It seems to us, instead of trying to play with words, it's better to go back to the original and once more consider the possibility of adopting 3.3 in the form it was presented by you. Thank you.

Thank you for the flexibility. Cuba, support.

Thank you, Chairman. Yes, thank you. We support your original proposal. As you've been saying, there are only eight nationalities that aren't countries that aren't parties. It gives sufficient flexibility, the text that you presented, and it would allow us to make progress in a discussion which we think shouldn't prolong too much. As I recall, only 30% of the paragraphs are still not agreed.

Language? Mexico and Australia, please. Mexico.

Thank you. I followed with interest all the positions of delegations and I understand that, okay, we'd be excluding those that aren't state parties to the convention, there's only eight states, but in terms of Mexico, what makes full complete sense is the Australian idea to keep ourselves to 3.2 because 3.1 is open to observers who aren't necessarily going to be from States Parties and could be from other specialized agencies and obviously the who represents international organisations, their nationality does not matter. They are there to represent international organisations, without there being any other kind of consideration of their citizenship. That is why the idea of referring Australia to point 3.2 makes complete sense, or we could take it But as I say, we can live with the, we can live with completely black, but we will also live with the clarification that refers to 3.2.

Australia, make my life easier.

I was going to say the same thing as Mexico. The way I see it, rule 3 sets up two types of observers. Under rule 3.2, States Parties can send an expert as a matter of course who may submit views. Under 3.1, with written approval, there could be other observers such as agencies, and they may be invited to submit their views. The way that I understand it, rule 3.3 only relates to rule 3.2, so I think that we need that clarity.

What is your suggestion? If everybody can live with the original language, I think that would make life easier for everybody. Does anybody have an objection of the original language? Canada.

Thank you, Chair. With the sentiment that we are excluding a certain number of states, we as Canada are still running a risk that we may not be able to appoint the right person. So we are willing to take that risk, but in terms of the point that Australia is making, we do indeed want that clarification that Australia provided. It was an oversight of ours that we didn't notice it ourselves earlier, but it makes perfect sense to include that. If that's not included, I suggest we get rid of the whole thing.

Australia.

Well, under 3.1, observers could be an agency. An agency cannot be a citizen of a state's party, so by leaving 3.3 open in that way, I think we create confusion at best, or really narrow 3.1 to only very limited observers. So I think we're happy to accept the original wording with the addition of under rule 3.2.

Okay. Can we accept? Russia, two minutes.

Thank you, distinguished Chair. We would not like to prolong this discussion, but by the looks of things, in view of the comments from Australia, we are going to have to, since these comments create a new problem. I repeat, we're ready to go with your original text, but if we're going to have to start introducing categories of observers under 3.2, observers under 3.1, then we need to resolve the problem with observers under 3.1, because then for us it's clear that observers or representatives of those observers who will be taking part in the work of that review group should be citizens of a state of the States Parties. In view of the nature of those meetings, especially as they're going to be closed door meetings, And we fully support the position of the Chinese delegation that all participants in those meetings, including observers, should be citizens of States Parties. Thank you.

Thank you. China.

Thank you, Chair. Again, we do have strong feelings in retaining the para 3.3, as you suggested, and we think the explanations by the Russian Federation is very eloquent. But if other delegations do insist in inclusion under rule 3.2, we would ask the whole para be in brackets, and we would need to seek instructions. Thank you.

Chair Let's not spend much more time, but I would ask again as a question of compromise, can we accept the original language? Does anybody have strong feelings concerning the original language? Canada, you don't accept now. You accept in the beginning.

Thank you, Chair. As we said, it was an oversight of ours not to recognise the problem that Australia correctly identified. When we have international organisations that may be observers, to suddenly start selecting the staff members of international organisations based on membership is going to create significant problems. Are we going to say, you know, UNODA staff have to always be citizens of states parties of this or the other treaty?

We are not discussing them. We are discussing just the BWC and we are discussing eight countries that are not members. That's it.

Representatives of international organizations that would be observing here at the BWC could be sending citizens that are the appropriate representatives for those organizations that belong to these eight states. And we don't want to start creating a precedent of telling them that their staff members belonging to those eight states cannot be those observers. That is a correct problem pointed out by Australia, and we believe that's very important. Thank you.

Thank you. Australia.

Actually, beyond that issue of whether or not the person representing observers of an agency is a particular nationality, actually the comments by the Russian delegation bring up a broader issue, which is who are we talking about when we talk about observers under rule 3.1? Is it in fact limited to states parties, or are we looking to include international agencies or organisations? From Australia's perspective, there is value in there being an opportunity for those entities to be able to observe those meetings where approval has been given and we're invited to submit their views. I think the bodies that we are creating may find value in seeking the views of particular agencies such as the World Health Organization, and we want to provide that opportunity. We think that would provide greater flexibility in this provision. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's move. Finally, on rule 15 minutes on rule 7.1, the original text had the regulations being able to amend by the review conference as the body which adopted the regulations. However, some States Parties have suggested adding the meeting of States Parties. We discussed this issue last night in relation to the paragraph of the introductory section of this annex and were unable to agree. However, this paragraph is under consultation, so we should probably leave this one and wait and await the outcome of those consultations and see if they help the resolution of this paragraph. We have now reviewed Appendix 2 of the Science and Technology Advisory Mechanism. So, I would like to turn back to Appendix 1, which contains the terms of reference of the S&T Advisory Mechanism. and where we still have a lot of unresolved paragraphs. Paragraph 1 is already in green, so we can move to paragraph 2. Is paragraph 2 acceptable? Russia.

Thank you, Chairman. We would like to propose a slight amendment. In other words, go back to the original language that you proposed, which means adding after the word "considers" "upon request of the States Parties". We think it's important to do that. in view of the nature of the mechanism, where non-State parties will not be participating but experts will be participating in an individual capacity. Therefore, it is very important for us, and entirely justified, to flag the fact that the mechanism will carry out its activities not on its own account but upon the request of the States parties. It is a purely factual affirmation, just to properly reflect how and on the basis of which that mechanism will function. With respect to that paragraph, our request would be to bracket the reference to by consensus. As you said this morning, that is part of a consultation that goes beyond this paragraph. I also mention the fact that, within the rest, we can agree to what was originally proposed but without the reference to by consensus. We also realise that that is subject to a subsequent consultation.

Thank you. Any comment on the Panama proposal? Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. We would like to echo the addition proposed by Russian Federation. And on the proposed deletion by Panama, we cannot go along that, and we would like to retain the reference to the consensus. Thank you.

Thank you. Germany and Canada. Italy, Germany, and Canada.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to support Panama's proposal. As correctly pointed out, the addition of "by consensus" concerns several parts of this text, and there is not consensus in the room. There is a discussion going on, so we would like to retain the part in square brackets. Thank you.

Thank you. Germany and Korea. Germany, Canada and Korea.

Thank you. We fully agree with Panama and Italy on the question of consensus. We can't tell the Review Conference how to conduct its business here. And as for the addition upon request of the States Parties, I'm not sure this is really necessary because, I mean, it's explained how the whole S&T Advisory Mechanism is set up and it's clear that it's been mandated by States Parties and we just would want to make very clear that the mechanism doesn't need like repeated requests by states parties to conduct its work. So a bit concerned that the request could be could be ambiguous and we don't want that. So it's it's mandated by states parties in the first place and then it carries out its work as mandated, but it doesn't need more requests by states parties to do its work. So that should be absolutely clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Korea, USA and Norway.

I think Canada was before me.

Canada.

To AROK for agreeing to let us speak. We agree with Germany. The subsequent sentence deals with the review conference providing input on the topics issue. We don't need to constantly repeat upon the request of States Parties. The first sentence we basically see as an expression of the general purpose of the S&T Advisory Mechanism. So there's no need to add upon request of States Parties. We also disagree with regular attempts by some States Parties to amend the Rules of Procedure. We have Rules of Procedure. There's no need for constant amendments providing for the introduction of consensus. Thank you.

Thank you, Canada. Korea, USA and Norway.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad I let Canada speak before me because Canada explained what I was going to explain. The first sentence here is a general nature of the mechanism. They considers development as technical developments. And the second sentence is talking about review conference deciding the broad theme, and the third sentence is about the mechanism, all States Parties that proposed the topic. So I think the Russian addition is unnecessary and redundant here. And we also support the Panama suggestion to delete by consensus. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. USA and Norway.

Thank you, Chair. I'm in the same boat as my colleagues who previously spoke, being glad that they said what we were planning to say. Similarly, we were wondering if the Russian Federation could clarify if they view this upon request differently than the later points where States Parties engage with this mechanism. Thank you.

Thank you. Norway, Austria, and Spain.

Thank you, Chair. We do not support the addition of, upon request of the States Parties. We believe that the Advisory Mechanism should have the freedom to look at developments by themselves and that we as States Parties should give the Advisory Group this flexibility to work efficiently and improve their work. We also support the points made by other delegations on consensus, that we do not need that in this para, especially the arguments made out by Canada that we should not try to undermine the rules of procedure. Thank you.

Scientists are only allowed to look into things where you tell them to look. You will not see everything. You will just see what you want to hear. And this is definitely a damage to the whole mechanism. Second point, and this is probably one of the real red lines that we are having here. If we are adding by consensus here, we are trying, or some are trying to change the rules of procedures that we are having via backdoor. This is not how the Review Conference works and not how its rules of procedures works, as Canada has already pointed out. It would be a specification for something where it is not even needed or necessary. So this is definitely not something we can accept.

Thank you. I have Spain, Cuba, Nicaragua and France and five minutes left. So be concise. Spain.

Thank you very much, Chairman. I'll be brief. We'd like to join those in favour of the proposal of Panama to delete by consensus, as others have said. We've already looked at this issue and we're not in agreement to adjust the rules of procedure. Therefore, we also we can't support the Russian proposal, for upon request, the experts should be free to propose their own ideas and initiatives. Thank you.

Thank you. Cuba, Nicaragua, France, Japan, in five minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, we, the scientific community, does work by consensus, and the science community has built consensus on many topics. It should not frighten us today that the advisory mechanism should function under the rule of consensus. That should not be a problem. At the same time, we think that both mechanisms are guided and respond to the needs and requirements of States Parties, and therefore we see no problem. with the proposal of the Russian Federation. It's in the interest of all Member States that the mechanism should function properly. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

Nicaragua.

Thank you. Brief Firstly, with regards the keeping by consensus in the paragraph, we support Iran and we also support the proposal for the addition as made by the Russian Federation. Thank you.

Thank you. France and Japan, and three minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to make a proposal for an add. In the paragraph, it is stated that certain specific themes are proposed, but there is no word as to how they are adopted. I would like to add the following phrase: "Specific topics.

Are submitted for adoption to the MSP or through a silence procedure."

Now, the explanation is simply that in the event these specific topics are proposed, the idea would be for basically on the ground, in the field, a new topic might emerge as part of the greater theme proposed by the The idea is to develop that theme swiftly, within a year, so that the advisory mechanism can consider that new topic as soon as possible and not lose time, and so that we can have advice as soon as possible. Without that possibility, specific themes that are proposed might become obsolete at a time when the REV Conference adopts them and would therefore no longer be relevant? Thank you.

Thank you. Japan, we have one minute.

Thank you, Chair. We prefer the original text proposed by you and also as a delegation of Panama proposed and delegation of Canada elegantly illustrated, we support the deletion of by consensus. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I urge delegations that if we come now at 8 o'clock on a rainy, terrible day, let's be flexible and in a disposition to agree on text. Otherwise, we better stay home. So if delegations are willing to be flexible, let's meet at 8:00.