3rd Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Good morning, everybody. I hope you had a good sleep and some nice dreams or some nightmares, it depends. I don't know. So we have now 90 6.6% of the text in green. Of course, the most difficult part is getting the rest of the 9.4% in green. I have to tell you that I'm very frustrated. not sure if all the delegations in this room want to finish the work. That's my feeling, and I have to be very honest with you. Because we have nine days to go, and we're still discussing if the comment should be here, should be there, if number two comes after number one, or, I mean, We have to work and I don't feel that in the room. So, we tried to do with a small group yesterday. It didn't work because as I told in the room, I should bring a tape recorder because I'm listening the same things, although I don't We don't need to keep listening the same things anymore. So I want to listen to proposals that could be accepted to everybody. So, really, being very honest with you, I'm quite fed up with the story about my delegation, my capital, my country, you know, that's not this. We have to think as a group, as a collective, so the working group can decide on something and so on. Because, again, We don't need to waste time. If you don't want to have the thing, okay, let's not do it. Let's not waste the time of the others. So, let's see. There is script I will read, but then I will talk myself. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, good morning. I would like to welcome you all to this third meeting of the ninth session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the Biological Weapons 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 is also a public meeting, which is being webcast on UN Web TV. I would first like to inform you that yesterday evening the Secretariat circulated an updated version of the draft final report which incorporates all the text that we managed to turn green yesterday plus the textual proposals that were made by delegations. This updated version has been issued as document BWC/2017/001. WG slash nine slash CRP point one slash rev dot two dated 17th August 2026. It was sent to all delegations yesterday by e-mail and printed copies are available in the room. I want one because I don't have one. This version will be the one on which we work today and which and I repeat, I hope we work today, in which the Secretariat will show on the screen. As necessary, further updated versions will be produced during the course of this week so that delegations always have the latest text available to facilitate our work. This one? Yeah, this one. So I have a copy. I'm going to try something else. I would like delegations to, instead of me proposing paragraphs, I want delegations to propose which paragraph we should discuss now. All those, all that text that is in yellow and text that are white. I want you to tell me which one you want to discuss. Take into account that unilateral measures, consensus and MSP are not in the list. So I would like delegations to come forward and suggest me what paragraphs we should discuss now. I'm waiting. Or should I understand that you don't want to discuss anything? That's also an option. Iran, give me a paragraph that you want to discuss.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning to all. Let my delegation break the ice. Actually, we have no specific paragraph to be discussed, but I do believe that based on the discussion we had yesterday, it is better to start from the white and those paragraphs that have no color, green or yellow one, to be discussed to have a more full and good picture from the whole of the text. Thank you, Chair.

What's the number of the paragraph? Why are you looking for the France?

Thank you, Chairman. Good morning to you and good morning to all. Without numbering each of the paragraphs, the suggestion that my delegation would be able to make would be to have clusters of various paragraphs on topics which are the most problematic and which require perhaps more in-depth work because in fact this runs through the entire text. It's not just paragraphs that are detached or isolated from each other, but following several months of discussion, including in an informal setting, We can nevertheless see several major themes emerge. The first is a cluster of questions which might present an obstacle against the functioning of the mechanism, and we are prepared to consider that very openly. The other cluster of issues would be compliance measures. The third cluster is the mandate of the open-ended working group on verification, and I think there are also solutions that we might look at. taking into consideration the concerns raised by several delegations. The fourth cluster of questions would be the decision making modalities of the two mechanisms, because these are two parallel mechanisms which have decision making modalities that are quite close to each other. We would be open to considering these questions in any way that you would wish, either here in the room or in smaller groups, as we have done previously, including with the assistance of the Friends of the Chair. But I think it might be better establishing these different groups or these different themes to try to isolate the variables, the parameters on which we can work to reach an agreement. That's my modest suggestion. Thank you.

But the problem is that I think that that's what we did last year, because now we're talking about the language. So if we have a problem with the terms will, would, or could--.

Group, the-- like the-- the four groups as you're mentioning, we're going to be here until 252, when I will be 100 years old. Iran, do you have a reply? No, Russia, you have a suggestion for a paragraph to be discussed.

Good morning, Chair. We don't have any specific proposals for any specific paragraphs on which we could start discussions. We're prepared to discuss any paragraph according to your wishes or those of other delegations. We have come prepared for a discussion on the full text and the issues that require solutions. Thank you.

Once more, I want to repeat that we didn't come here to discuss the full text because 90.6% of the text is already green, so I'm not going to discuss this. As I always say, the green tax is not to be discussed. So what I'm asking your delegation, if on the 9.4% that is left, does your delegation has a preference to discuss it now? That's my question. I cannot see from you. Niger.

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, it's a question here as to whether we see the glass half full or maybe even three quarters full rather than somewhat empty. Over 90% in green is good progress and it's a credit to us all in the room here. We have noted that yesterday there appeared to be a wish expressed by delegations to be able to discuss a text that we have in yellow currently in connection with some text that is still white. That is the sense that seems to have emerged and we certainly do not wish to usurp your work in guiding this work, but since you are inviting us to make suggestions, we would like to state that perhaps we could discuss texts in yellow which have some sections in white because there is a connection between the text in yellow and the remainder of the text which remains in white in square brackets so perhaps you could permit delegations to make statements on those we certainly only have nine days left it's true and we believe that there is some space remaining for dialogue which we hope can be constructive and conducive and if delegations could speak in the time limit which you might feel appropriate to assign then that could also leave us some time to discuss a paragraph or a specific theme to see whether we might be able to reach a consensus. To quote a former chair the common sense requires that we select a method that we apply it all the way to the end and to check whether it works. If it doesn't work, then we have to go back to the drawing board and start over. So perhaps we could begin by the question of the ICA on the draft establishment of a mechanism to facilitate international cooperation my delegation would be prepared to begin discussions on that topic. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Niger.

Now tell me one paragraph you would like to discuss.

Switching to English. Draft decision for the establishment of a mechanism open to all state parties to facilitate and support the full implementation of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10. According to the CRP Rev 1, it.

Is -- Just a second. Let me find it here. Page 13. Just a second. Confirm with me, it's Annex II D. Is that it? One D. Annex II, yes. So, I will ask the Secretariat to put on the screen. So, can we green an international cooperation and assistance advisory group? This part of this phrase, can we make it green? So decided. Then we have will and could. Could delegation express their points on will and could. We cannot have both. So I would like to hear delegations, what do you want? Iran.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. My delegation, regarding this part, we support the word of will. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any comment on Iran, Russia?

Thank you, Chairman. We'd like to support the delegation of Iran. We would also be in favor of the word "will." Thank you.

Cuba.

Thank you very much.

We also prefer "will."

Any other comment? So decided will. The rest of the phrase, of the paragraph, sorry, recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conference, encouraging state parties to provide at least biannually, to provide annually or biannually such information, including the scope and nature of these activities. Let's go part by part. Can we green, recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conference, encourage state parties to provide at least bi-annually appropriate information on how to implement Article 10? Can we green it? So decided. UK. UK, I think there is this problem of biennial and biennially we had in the last meeting, if I'm not mistaken. So the owner of the language explain to us.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. It's perhaps a question for the ISU about how we get through what I think is a muddle in this paragraph. My understanding talking to colleagues is that the intent in the seventh and eighth review conferences was that we would as States Parties provide appropriate information at least every couple of years that is at least biennially not bi-annually And so I think that language, while faithfully reflecting the outcome documents, does not reflect the intent of the States Parties as I understand it. It also then, I think, sort of complicates slightly sort of the flow of the paragraph that follows. From my delegation's perspective, we are content just to proceed with that understanding and to move which I think in the direction that we'd like to all move in which is to reduce the burden and provide biennial information but I come back to the point that that is not any sort of change to what I understand to be the past agreements so really it's a question for the ISU around the degree to which we have to reference faithfully the contents of the seventh and eighth review conferences or whether we can fix that language to capture what we understand to be the intent.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Yeah, first of all, on this issue, as the UK delegation correctly said, biennial implies every other year, whereas biannual would be twice per year. I have the same understanding as the UK delegation that the intention at the seventh review conference when this language was agreed was that the reports would be submitted every other year. So it should, in a way, it should have been biennial. And also as well as the intention, I can also refer to the practice of States Parties since 2011, since the seventh review conference, and the practice of those very limited number of States Parties that have submitted these reports is to submit these reports every other year, so on a biennial basis as well. So that's, as I understand, that was the intention of States Parties back then and that's also been the practice of States Parties back then. I'm pretty sure that I can safely say that we have never received such reports from a particular State Party twice per year. when we have received these reports and like I said it's been very limited number of States parties submitting them they have always been received every other year so that's been the practice so my suggestion Chair would be it should be biennial rather than biannually thank you.

Okay UK happy.

Well I wonder Chair whether we can therefore just delete the confusing sentence I mean if a sect effectively what we are saying in practice is that states are now encouraged to continue the practice we have already in place and to provide the information they already provide to the ICA advisory group I don't believe you now need that sentence beginning recalling the decision you could simply say that states parties are encouraged to continue to provide biennially such information including the scope and nature of these activities to the ICA advisory group I mean we are effectively saying continue the practice you have but provide this information to the ICA advisory group so let's focus in on that aspect we don't think I don't think we need the sentence beginning recalling particularly if it confuses content with practice.

Thank you.

Argentina. Thank you, Chair. I agree with what was just proposed by the delegation of the UK, but perhaps we can make a small amendment recalling the decisions it is important to know what happened before and what we can delete encouraging state parties to provide so we will leave the reference to the conference and delete only the part that causes problems I wonder if my proposal is understood thank you.

Any comments on the UK and Argentina's proposal? We have to choose one. So, on the second phrase, can we accept recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, common, encouraging state parties to provide appropriate information on how they implement Article 10. States parties are now encouraged to provide such information, including the scope and nature of these activities, to the ICA Advisory Group. Can we accept that?

You need the biennial.

Yeah, biennial. So let me repeat. Recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences encouraging state parties to provide appropriate information on how they implement article 10, state parties are now encouraged to provide biennially such information, including the scope and nature of these activities to the ICA advisory group. Can we accept that? Russia.

Thank you very much, distinguished Chair. It'll be problematic for us to agree with this proposal because we do not have the mandate in this group to review the decisions that were taken by the seventh and eighth review conferences. The decisions of these conferences were agreed and they're very specific and they're reflected in the final documents and in that case if we try to make any references to these conferences we have to reproduce faithfully those decisions we can accept perhaps the proposal made by Argentina and In terms of a compromise, we can just have a reference to the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences, adding the words that relate to article 10 of the Convention. And in all of that, in the second part, we would prefer to add the words "at least" before where we provide the deadlines for the provision of such information. English is not our mother tongue, but in Russian this should read at least every two years or on a two-year basis. So, at least every two years. at least on a biannual basis. And in that case we would be able to agree with this text.

Can you repeat please without explanations, but can you repeat your phrase for this word so the Secretariat can write it down and put on the screen, please?

Recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences related to Article 10 of the Convention, States Parties.

Are encouraged to provide at least.

On a biannual basis.

And after that we will continue with the text that we have already. Thank you.

Can we accept the Russian proposal? Turkey? UK. No, UK, sorry. I really cannot see from here. I need for the next meeting, I need binoculars. Okay.

Thanks, Chair, and thank you to our Russian colleague. I think there's a syntax error now though, because we refer to such information without having the earlier reference to information. I actually could have, was very happy with the language that you proposed, Chair. I don't believe that language that you proposed seeks to reverse or amend the decision of those review conferences and it retains the focus of this which is the information that we are sharing so I would prefer to go back to the language you proposed and I would suggest to our Russian colleague it doesn't actually have the effect that he is concerned about i.e amending or overruling earlier decisions thank you.

Russia, two minutes. Oh, sorry, Germany and then Russia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are relatively flexible regarding the exact wording. We just wanted to point out that if we change the first part of the sentence, which we're willing to consider, we would make sure that the reference to the information to be provided is still clear. So if we change the first part, then we would need to specify such information in the second part of the sentence.

What's your proposal?

Well, the proposal depends on what we do with the first part of the sentence, and as I said, we're flexible there, but if we take out the reference to encouraging States Parties to provide at least biannually appropriate information, then the part of that sentence information on how they implement Article 10 would need to replace the such in the second part of the sentence. And again, we're flexible how we resolve this issue. Just to point out, if we change the first part, then we might have to look at the such information just to make sure that we know exactly which information is to be provided.

Thank you. Thank you. Russia reaction in two minutes to UK and Germany. and flexibility.

Thank you very much, Chair. Now, if we keep the first part of the sentence with square brackets, we'll be happy with that language.

Thank you. Okay.

So I think therefore the proposal is recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences encouraging States Parties to provide at least sorry encouraging States Parties to provide appropriate information States Parties are encouraged to provide I can't I haven't got my glasses on such information I think it's your proposal chair, sorry I keep coming back to I think it's I think I'm basically echoing your proposal. So recalling the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences encouraging States Parties to provide appropriate information on how they implement Article 10, States Parties are encouraged to provide at least on a biennial basis such information. I think that addresses the UK, Russian and German comments.

Thank you, David. Argentina, two minutes.

Thank you, Chair. We are flexible, but we would like to see which proposal will work for different delegations, what we could do is leave recalling decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences.

Article 10 of the Convention, State Parties are encouraged to provide biennially or at least on a biennial basis appropriate information on how they implement Article 10.

I think that this is the proposal that simplifies language, makes it more direct and concise, and I believe that it takes into account all of the concerns that were made by delegations. Thank you.

Russia, two minutes.

Thank you very much, Chair. We can agree to the proposal that was made by the UK only if we keep the language at least biennially. That is part of the decisions that were taken by the seventh and eighth review conferences and we must have that language. We can also agree with the proposal made by Argentina if in the first part we will have language related to Article 10 of the Convention. Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to, India, I give you two, but just one minute. I just would like to avoid that delegations keep saying, I'm very flexible, but. So when you have but, I mean, I don't know if the UK agrees with me on the English language, but I'm flexible, but you're not being flexible. India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to all colleagues. As we see this sentence, this is two parts. The first one is on what the understanding is, and the second part aims to override that understanding. So our suggestion would be, which goes in the direction of what the Russian colleague has said, is that we should faithfully capture what the existing understanding is, which means that there should be an explicit reference to at least biannually, which is what we've agreed in the seventh and eighth review conferences. And the second part of the sentence can then focus on overriding that periodicity from at least biannually to at least biennially. and of course we are also open to suggestions given by our Argentinian colleague, but we do believe that, you know, by removing the brackets in the first part on at least biannually, this would be, this paragraph would be acceptable to us. Thank you.

Thank you. Niger.

Thank you, Chair. Though we are francophone, we would like to also try to join the discussion. We believe that the proposal by UK is the most appropriate way forward because it already captures what the seventh and eighth review conferences have decided. Furthermore, we would like to remind delegations that this para is about recalling, whether it's here or not, the decisions made by the review conferences still stand. This just helps delegation better implement this decision by recalling them here. So since there is no delegation with substantive objection, maybe we can go forward with the proposal by UK. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comment? I would ask Russia, Argentina, and UK, and Niger, if you can sit down and give me in the afternoon language for this paragraph. Yeah, the Secretary is provoking me, saying that if I give him five minutes they can come with something that can be agreeable to all delegations. So I will concede the ISU five minutes.

Play the trailer of the movie, The Kapil Sharma Show.

We're going to put text on the screen that I hope can be suitable for UK, Argentina, Russia, and Niger.

So it's basically what's in grey at the moment there is our suggestion.

The suggestion is what is in grey. So we are also introducing a new color. Green and yellow are the colors of the Brazilian flag, but gray is not. India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is what we were fearing earlier when the suggestions were being made. My delegation's viewpoint is that the first part of the sentence should faithfully capture the periodicity that was agreed in the seventh and eighth review conference. formulation that the secretariat has provided us, there is no reference to the fact that the information had to be given at least biannually as was agreed in seventh and eighth review conference. So we would request that that point be factually provided in the first part of the sentence. Of course, the second part of the sentence does override that through another decision of of the working group as a recommendation from the working group. But we do believe that the decisions taken by seventh and eighth review conferences and the periodicity that was contained should be faithfully reflected in the first part of the sentence. Thank you.

Any other comment? UK, Russia, Niger, can you accept the paragraph as it is on the screen? Argentina too. Argentina, yes. UK? Yes. Germany.

This is a very good compromise. Thank you. We believe that this is a very good compromise and we would be happy to accept that with the addition of the square brackets.

You either accept a compromise because it's the same thing, I'm very flexible, but I accept the compromise as the compromise.

Point out that in the original language there are still the square brackets of the meeting of states parties.

Listen, once more, consensus, meeting of states parties, unilateral measures are not going to be discussed.

I wasn't going to discuss That's the issue. I was just going to point out that the square brackets are not yet reflected in the gray text and that we would need to add that to the gray text because it's still in the text above.

It's the secretariat fault, it's not mine. They're telling me that is reflected that you didn't see. Russia, okay. Niger. Okay. Yeah, just Secretary is going to reply to India. India.

Thank you, Chair, but I see the-- India and UK.

Could you pay attention? He's going to explain to India.

Thanks, Ambassador, but they are probably discussing the same issue that I was just going to raise. But in terms of what the delegate from India said about the periodicity, as I said earlier, it's my understanding that despite the text, the seventh and eighth review conferences in the English versions, at least, using the word biannual, which means twice per year, what the intention back then actually was, was once every two years. And as I said that--.

I mean, I would like to ask India and UK to pay attention to what we are saying, because if we are saying something, you don't keep discussing between yourselves, there is no need for us to work. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. And I see the delegation, but what I was just trying to explain is that the intention, my understanding is that the intention back then was it would be once every two years. And certainly, as I said earlier, the practice has been by States Parties ever since then. The States Parties have submitted, those that have submitted have done it once every two years. We have never received this information from any State Party twice per year. So I think it's basically an issue of the wrong word having been used back in 2011 when they said biannual when I think the intention and certainly the practice since has always been biennial. So on that basis if I'm correct in that I don't think we need to actually, it's not a question of override or restating a position from 2011 and then having to override it. I think the decision, the intention in 2011 was always biennial. And that's the word that we should use here, which, and if it's, I think it was the Russian Federation that suggested earlier, maybe it is actually clearer rather than using the word biennial. which even in English people confuse anyway biannual and biennial often get confused in English as the Russian Federation suggested earlier maybe it is just clearer to say at least every two years I think was the proposal from the Russian Federation then it would be clear in English and I assume it would be clearer in in other languages as well I haven't obviously consulted the other language text but they were probably based on the English language the version negotiated during the seventh review conference which as I said used the word annual, but as far as I understand the intention was even then was every two years rather than twice per year. Thank you.

Thank you. David Angel, you're on the floor.

Well, thank you, Daniel, for his explanation. But I just have -- I just can't help myself but question the fact that we are we are basing this on an interpretation that you have about a decision that was taken not once but twice in the seventh review conference and then it was further endorsed by the eighth review conference. So it is possible that you have a certain interpretation of it but maybe some delegations really meant what they were doing then and therefore that decision was again endorsed by another review conference. So the main issue that we have in front of us is that this would materially not change anything. What we are saying is that the recalling of the decisions of seventh and eighth review conferences should be done factually. And then of course the material change that we are bringing in the priority is also there on which I think all of us can agree to and come to a consensus on. What my delegation is seeking is a reference to what was agreed as such by all the states during the review conference. And that should not change the material difference we are bringing to the periodicity of the reporting. So if this is not problematic for other delegations, we can at least bring this fact that the seventh and the eighth review conferences had endorsed that the periodicity of providing information would be, you know, uh, biennial, uh, uh, sorry, biannual. And from biannual, we are moving to a biannual basis. That is the whole point I'm saying. We are not against the decision that, uh, you know, the, uh, that we are taking right now, which is to reduce the periodicity of, uh, uh, the reporting. Thank you.

Uh, UK, but my understanding is that we made a mistake and we should be repeating the mistake. makes no sense to me UK and Canada uh.

Thank you chair I have two points I think one is that we sought to correct this mistake in the ninth review conference but because the article by article review was dropped from the final outcome document we did not do so uh secondly the effect of what our Indian colleague is suggesting is that the records will show that we have decided to move from a practice of providing this information twice a year providing that information once every two years that's a very damaging message from my perspective when actually we are simply continuing the practice that we have adopted since the seventh and eighth review conferences that said if this issue is of fundamental importance to our Indian colleague I can live with keeping biannual in there it is nonsensical to me.

Russia and then Canada.

Thank you very much, Chair. We would prefer to keep the language that was proposed by the Secretariat because in the Russian language, in the documents of the seventh and eighth review conference everything has been translated correctly at least biannually and in that respect in order to correct that error we would prefer to have some general reference to the decisions of the seventh and eighth review conferences because if we try to quote everything in English. When we translate that into Russia, we would prefer to keep the translation that we had in the final documents of the seventh and eighth review conferences, meaning at least biannually. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia. Canada.

Thank you, Chair. So, echoing a bit of the comment made by my UK colleague, I'm a little confused as to why we're being held up on this detail when we have the rest of the unagreed upon text to get to. First off, I just want to confirm as an English speaking country, that mix up often does happen between biannually and biannually. I mean, especially in a format like this where English is not the mother tongue of everyone. I think we would be even more prone to slight misinterpretations like that. And I think as well context matters here. If the Secretariat is telling us that it was clearly the intention to mean biannually and biannually was said instead, I think we should take that into consideration. I think that's part of the definition of being flexible here. Thank you.

Being flexible, but France, how is it in the French version? Well, the Secretary is going to say, but I would like to hear from the other Chinese and Arab countries what's their translation. the ICU.

Thank you, Ambassador. We've just been doing a quick bit of research from our side. In the French and Chinese versions, it refers, and I think I understood from the Russian Federation also, in the Russian, it refers to bi-annually, so every two years. In the English and also apparently in the Spanish version, I think it refers to bi-annual, or in the Spanish version, I think it specifically says twice per year. So there is no, we haven't looked at the Arabic version yet either, but there is no, there's no unified interpretation even in the different official language versions either. So I think again, that shows you that there isn't, there wasn't a, you know, a clear decision back then that it would be every two years, so biannual. And I think the majority of the different language translations do refer to, as the Russian Federation said, at least biannually. So every two years, as I said, the French and the Chinese version specifically talk about every two years as well. Thank you.

So I would ask the Indian delegation to have some flexibility and that I think we're spending too much time on that, but let's correct a mistake because worse than having done a mistakes is insisting on the mistake. India, two minutes.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Secretariat for providing the information. I think if that is indeed the case where different languages have reflected it in different ways, we can be flexible in terms of whether we want to capture the periodicity. But I do want to make a point that what may be nonsensical to some delegation may make sense to the other delegation, so there's a need for examination of all proposals and the ideas suggested by various delegations. And my delegation had a view that we should not make what is a decision taken by two review conferences, not by one, a matter of interpretation. And that would have, for my delegation, would have been damaging because we reduce a decision taken by states parties not in one review conference, but in two review conferences. a matter of interpretation and that would have been more damaging for us. But we do take the point which the Secretariat has provided and what you have suggested to us and we would be flexible in taking this forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. But I would like just to recall and I think this discussion is going too long, but I have the UAE and Algeria. that will put the inputs of the Arabi in a very short time but just remember that this decision to which you refer it's English the decision in French as we said and which are also one of the language one of the six languages so in Chinese You got a different, so it's not a different interpretation. It's in different language and the Chinese, if I'm mistaken, you correct me. But anyway, Emirates and Algeria fast.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. we find it would be better to maintain at least biannually. This is a better formulation if we were to rely on the previously agreed language in the seventh and eighth review conferences where there was an encouragement for submitting the information at least biannually and this formulation has also as part of further UN agreements.

Before I give the floor to Algeria, and again, this thing is going too long, but I have to tell you that you're taking the English as the right way. Russia, China, Spain, it's not a question that we're modifying a decision. because in Russia it was not you're not modifying anything in French and you're not modifying anything so let's be democratic most languages understand that that's every two years China Algeria Tunisia and China and I close the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Just to add to this in Arabic version and after we checked the final documents, it said once every two years. So the understanding shared by the ISU was correct in our reflected correctly in Arabic version for this end and to avoid confusion between English and other languages, we prefer to maintain the we prefer the language proposed by the ISU as a way forward so we could recall the decisions in a broader way regarding Article 10 and we could also continue by saying that States Parties are encouraged to provide at least biennially appropriate information on how they implement Article 10. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Shukran. As I think that everybody saw there was a mistake on the English language. All the other five languages express every two years. Tunisia, and the discussion is closed.

Good morning.

The use of this adverb, In order for it to be clear in every language, it's better to construct the sentence by saying once every two years. the problem is to you is in the use of the adverbs biennially or biannually so perhaps we just need to reword that sentence completely and that would clarify matters and I fully agree with you and the majority of those who spoke that what needs to be corrected is the error in order to avoid any interpretation errors thank you.

Yeah but shukran but this does not solve the problem because I think the point of India is that the seventh and eighth they didn't say every two years, they say biennial. So what they want is to keep the wording of the seventh and eighth. China, and that's it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, concerning the issue of languages, we confirm what the Secretariat said is right. biannually. Concerning the Indian delegate's concern, that is to say, in the report we should reflect the decision of the previous two review conferences, maybe we can use the formulation to resolve the issue. In the second line, States Parties for the third time or States parties are again encouraged to provide.

Including the scope and nature of these activities, period. Such information will be provided to the ICA Advisory Group. I hope this could accommodate the concern of our India colleague. Thank you.

Can we take the Chinese proposal? So decided. Now let's go back to the the ISU formulation because what we have here and now it's the discussion is closed what we have here is that we have a mistake in five line correcting five language and a mistake in one language and we are not here to discuss things But really, please.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. And any floor is not mean that we are continuing the discussion regarding part of we are happy with the text, but we have a two editorial proposal. First is that the hierarchy of this draft decision could be the same as the draft decision for the SNT. Therefore, my delegation proposed to change this sub paragraph order and the sub paragraph D come before the C. I mean after the and also regarding the current sub paragraph D after the new proposal recalling can be in can be in separate paragraph to be more.

Just a second I'm lost.

Yeah recalling could be a new paragraph thank you chair.

Can we accept the Iranian proposal? Can we accept? Iran, I will make another proposal.

Chair, just to explain my proposal that the sub-paragraph D come before the C as a hierarchy of and the same formulation for this draft decision based on the draft decision for S&T to be in the same formulation hierarchy. Thank you, Chair.

Can you repeat, please? Because we don't understand. Slowly.

Can I? Chair, thank you very much. Actually, I have two proposals. First is that the sub-paragraph d could be split into two paragraphs, and the sub-paragraph d in this formulation could come before the sub-paragraph c. Based on the hierarchy and formulation of the draft decision for S&T could be the same as for the ICA decision, draft decision. Before CES. Thank you.

So, the Iranian proposal is on the screen. Can we accept the Iranian proposal? Any comments on the Iranian proposal? No objections, so it is decided. So, let's move to paragraph two. With a view to promoting the fullest and most effective implementation of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10, in compliance with the provisions of the Convention, the ICA mechanism shall. Any comments? Australia, you are close but you are too far away.

Thank you, Chair. Look, for paragraph 2, we would like to seek the deletion of this language. We feel that the language in the rest of the text provides an adequate mandate and that this text is unnecessary. On A, we note that obstacles and opportunities language is already reflected in the previous paragraphs. We cannot accept language on obstacles and challenges without opportunities, language that has been agreed and reflected in earlier paragraphs, including paragraph 6 of annex 1. Robust controls are vital non-proliferation measures and we are concerned that this language infers that they are arbitrary obstacles rather than a legitimate method of upholding our BWC obligations. On B, we cannot accept language on denials. It is not appropriate for this mechanism to review a country's sovereign decisions exercised to ensure appropriate safeguards against the proliferation of WMD. An approval system is not robust without the option to deny. Denials are contextual and focused on the end user rather than on the country itself. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other delegation on the Australian proposal to delete this paragraph? Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. We understand that here we are looking at Article 10 that deals with the peaceful uses related to international cooperation. So what we're talking about, all the uses that are not allowed by the convention. So we should increase deny access to increased cooperation will undermine the convention. So what Australia is referring to, if I understand, referring to non-peaceful uses. So this is not what we see on the screen. We can study the proposal to include the opportunity as in other reference to have an comprehensive analysis of everything that may have an impact on compliance with Article 10 in terms of assistance and cooperations. We cannot forget the obstacle that prevents us from moving forward to make an analysis, have a careful look on Article 10.

Any other delegation? USA and Niger. USA and Niger.

Good morning, Chair. The United States concurs fully with the objections of the Australian delegation and would also request the full deletion of paragraph two, including the subsections. Thank you.

Thank you. Niger, Canada, and Japan.

Thank you, Chairman. My delegation would like to keep paragraph two, this chapeau, because it defines the mandate of the discussions which are to be held within the framework of the ICA mechanism. So this is an introductory paragraph here, which plays an important role in the definition of what we will do. And that is described in subparagraphs a and b. So with respect to paragraph two, we would like to keep it as it stands.

Thank you, Nisha. Japan and Spain.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation is not going to comment on the preamble paragraph two there or subparagraph A. We're going to, we specifically have issues with subparagraph B, especially some of the language in it, to consider and assess denials as well as recommendations aimed at preventing such denials. I might be wrong here, but the last time I checked, the BWC is not an export control regime or a sovereign country that makes export decisions. So we don't see this within the purview of this convention, and we don't see that as being appropriate, as this being an appropriate forum for these sorts of discussions. Thank you.

Thank you. Japan and Spain.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, this paragraph is not necessary in the context of BWC and it should be entirely deleted.

I thank you.

Arigato. Spain.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Chair. We would like to align ourselves with the proposal made by Australia, especially as Canada says this is not the appropriate environment for the convention.

I cannot see from here. Venezuela. Venezuela.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'll be very brief. Venezuela believes that is important, if not crucial, to preserve this paragraph to guarantee the full and effective implementation of Article 10. Thank you.

Netherlands.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to briefly take the floor to express our support for the proposal by Canada to delete just 2 of this paragraph.

Thank you.

You keep 2.

Yeah, we could live with 2a.

Thank you. Okay.

Togo, where are you?

Oh, go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as previous speakers, in particular Niger and Venezuela, We are also of the view that this paragraph is fundamental in terms of the implementation of Article 10 and therefore we would like to have it kept as it stands.

Any other comment? Belarus.

Thank you, Chairman. Belarus is also in favour of keeping the wording of this paragraph. It's an important one and it identifies and with respect to the goals of the BWC, this does not contradict the sovereign rights of states, but if there are any doubts with regard to the full implementation of the BWC, then this in fact relates to the responsibilities of that body. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding this para and its sub-paragraph, my delegation supports those delegations that to keep this para in the text, which is fully compliant with the freedom letter of this draft final report of the Working Group. My delegation is of the view that based on the language and decision of the ninth 90 review conference implementation of the article 10 should be full effective and non-discriminatory therefore any discussion and any mechanism regarding the ICA or article 10 we have consideration and assessment of denials in transfer of equipment materials and technology for peaceful purposes would not be full and effective therefore my delegation support to keep such language and we propose to be more strengthened and more promoted language on this area, which is one of the key area that is very important for many delegations, including mine. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other comment? So I would ask Australia, Netherlands and Cuba to sit down and bring something to me in the afternoon. Thank you. So let's move to paragraph four. Oh no, let's try to finish with paragraph three. We have during, before, or after. I think it's, if my, British colleagues can help him because before or after, I mean, before or after cannot be another choice, no? I think the British language does not leave any other option. Also, the other five languages, it's before or after. But anyway, I would like to hear delegations on having during, before or after. Oh, I'm just being reminded that this has to do with the MSP, so forget it. So, four, accept the mention to meeting of state parties. Can we accept paragraph four? Comments? Any comment? So, I understand that the question, if it's the meeting of state parties, who we're going to decide later, I take that we can agree that whoever we decided later, will be responsible for taking necessary actions with respect to budgetary, financial and organization matters with a view to ensuring the proper and effective operation of the ICA mechanism during the intersessional period. Can we take this, can we green this phrase? So decided. It's going better than I thought. So let's move to Appendix 2, paragraph 4. Russia.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much, distinguished Chair. Before we turn to Annex II, Appendix II, we would like to ask you to come back to paragraph eight of draft decision on the mechanism on cooperation and assistance. We know May I continue?

No, just a second. This is the decides that each review conference, no, I'm not talking about green. I'm not going to open green text. Yes.

I understand, distinguished Chair, but we have our national position and we would like to work a bit more on paragraph 8 because, as we have said on numerous occasions yesterday, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Read until everything is agreed, but I also said that I'm not touching on green text. And every country has a position here. If I'm going to open green text, which I will not, I will not control the room. So I'm sorry. If it's on eighth, let's move. I'm not going to discuss it. Yes, you have three minutes.

Distinguished Chair. Nevertheless, we would like to use our right as a state party to make some proposals on paragraph eight.

Not accept. No, I'm not accept. You don't insist. I'm not going to open green text. You have your national position. I have my national position. They have their national position. And I will not open green text. So in December, you can open it, not now. Or you could sit in this chair and do it, but let's move. If you're asking for paragraph eight, please refrain from talking. Is it on paragraph eight? No, let's move. Let's go to page 18, contributions and sources of funding. The ICA fund is a trust fund that will receive voluntary contributions from state parties. bracket and other donors including United Nations, specialized agencies, multilateral and regional organization, intergovernmental organizations, foundations, academia, non-government organizations for profit entities. Comments on this paragraph? Germany. And Niger?

Thank you, Chair. Since you've asked for comment on the part you've just read out for us, this could be text in green.

Thank you.

The paragraph four. We can green paragraph four for your delegation. Can you repeat please?

Sorry.

The part you have read out now, I heard that this part ended after for profit entities as it is seen on the screen and this entire part could be green for us.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Niger, USA and Russia.

Thank you, Chair. Likewise, my delegation is ready to move the text to green, the part you just read out. Thank you.

Thank you, Niger, USA and Russia.

Thank you, Chair. At this time, the United States objects to all the bracketed language regarding organizations other than States Parties. However, we are perfectly fine with the final bracketed portion, all States Parties are encouraged to contribute to the trust fund while taking into account their respective capacities. Thank you.

Thank you, Russia.

Distinguished Chair, on paragraph four, we would like to say that we are ready to accept the paragraph as currently presented, but on record we would like to say that we'll be making proposals to paragraph eight of the draft decision. We are ready to provide them in writing and we'll be ready to voice them in December, but that part will require further discussions. Thank you.

Okay. Can we green, no, DRC and Ireland?

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor. My delegation agrees with paragraph four, but would like to make some small clarifications related to other donors. What are the criteria for these other donors if they're not states parties and whether they are part of accredited organizations.

Well, I understand that other donors we cannot lease because I don't know, maybe I decided to next year to make a donation if I win the Swiss lottery. But we have this, let's say, protection when we say that state parties should approve the other donors. So, but the list, you know, would be all universities all over the world or foundations or UN agencies, you make a list. And then, but they have to be approved by the state parties. Ireland.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We are in favor of quickly establishing a mechanism that is effective and sustainable. And for this, we believe it's important to allow for a diverse set of donors to contribute to the pot, particularly during this period of broader funding constraints. So for that reason, we support the bracketed language in the first part of the text. And as you said, in the second part, we do have a safeguard there. So we think that this is a good package proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Netherlands and Panama. Oh, we are here.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to express the Netherlands support for the intervention of Ireland just now.

We would also prefer to keep the first bracket of sentences, sentence in this paragraph. Thank you.

Thank you. Panama.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. My delegation would like to use this opportunity to express our support for what was said by other delegations speaking before us, including Ireland. Our preference is to place in green the part related to other donors. I believe that the paragraph also provides the necessary safeguards and This will provide consistency with other paragraphs that have already been agreed, like paragraph six, where we asked support from States parties and other donors. So we accepted that paragraph, so we do not see why we cannot accept this here. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Two things. I will also support the green lighting in the first part that we'll be discussing, the bracketed part. And secondly, I do wish you win the lottery. Thank you, Chair.

Oh, thank you. That would be a good thing. Cote d'Ivoire.

Thank you, Chair. Well, calling delegations for flexibility, we support this paragraph. We believe that through a silence procedure, it guarantees that states have the last word in terms of possibilities for funding. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. as my colleagues were served as friend of the chair on the ICA language and have way more expertise than I could ever hope to in terms of international cooperation assistance funding. I know their position is very strong on this, that this fund absolutely must be open to entities other than states parties. Otherwise, we will not have a functional international cooperation and assistance fund. we would be amenable to slightly altering the language in the first two sets of brackets if absolutely necessary for agreement. However, the deletion, any proposed deletion of any references to any other, any donors other than States Parties is completely unacceptable to us. Thank you.

Okay, Australia.

Thank you, Chair. Australia supports the fund receiving donations from donors more broadly than states parties. A broad donor basis would ensure that the ICA fund is sustainable, predictable. and able to support practical cooperation and assistance activities. We want the fund to be successful and we think this is an important aspect of that and we also note that it is standard practice in other trust funds established by conventions. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia. Any other comment? Indonesia and France.

Thank you, Chair. In principle.

Our delegation supports a broad piece of donor sources, so therefore we can support the wordings on the first part of paragraph 4. Thank you very much.

Thank you. France and Norway.

Thank you, Chair. As said yesterday by my delegation and in terms of COMPREZ, we we are ready to end the first phrase and other donors but we as I would like to say we support the entire sentence that is now in square brackets and other textual elements that will not deprive us or will allow us to have access to different funding that comes from organizations that are ready to support the fund thank you and Philippines.

Thank you, Chair. My delegation supports the text that would allow other entities than States Parties to contribute to the Fund, which we believe is key for its future success. Thank you.

Thank you. Philippines, Austria, and Emirates.

Thank you, Chair. Our delegation supports the putting the first part of this paragraph in green. We believe that the ICA fund should cast a wider net so as to ensure the sustainability of the fund and that is important for us as a developing country. Thank you.

Thank you. Austria, Emirates, Italy and Thailand.

Thank you, Chair. We want to add our support to the retention of the first Brexit part of the paragraph.

As others have mentioned, to retain a functional and predictable fund. And we believe that the lower part of the paragraph does grant the flexibility that is necessary to still assess contributions. So there's really little argument to -- that goes against the first part of the paragraph.

So we do also add our voice to those who support its retention.

Thank you.

Thank you. Emirates, Italy, and Thailand.

We support putting the first paragraph making it green. As far as other donors are concerned, that will be decided by other States Parties. and the acceptance of any financial contributions should be conditioned by an agreement by other States Parties. And as far as the last sentence is concerned, it is important because it provides additional support for the financial contributions by States Parties.

Thank you, Chair.

As already expressed by many of the delegations before us, we believe that the mechanism should retain the greatest possible flexibility in terms of funding resources. Any limitation regarding the region of funds risks weakening this assistance and cooperation mechanism and ultimately reducing its ability to respond effectively to the actual needs of States parties. We would therefore favour an inclusive and flexible approach that allows the mechanism to mobilise all available resources in support of its objectives. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thailand and Gambia.

Thank you, Chair. We support the diversity and sustainability of the fund. we see that the part of this paragraph that asked for approval by state parties to a written science procedures already provides some flexibility and compromise for others like size. So that's why we wish to support and all the paragraph as drafted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gambia.

Gambia.

Is pleased to join consensus on the retention of the funding sources.

We believe that the diversity of funding sources is really imperative for the sustainability and the adequacy of the fund.

And for that reason, we would really join consensus in retaining it.

Of course, we are happy with the guardrails that have been captured in the second part of the paragraph in terms of ensuring that all the funding sources are subject to approval by States Parties. We believe that is an important and necessary guardrail.

Thank you.

I would love to have consensus, but there is one delegation that does not join the consensus. Togo and Pakistan.

Thank you, Chair. Paragraph four, we find that we can accept paragraph four, we can ensure the sustainability of the financial mechanism. Thank you.

Pakistan, Algeria and Colombia.

Thank you, Jaya.

We add our voices on the plurality of the funds and the language to be retained.

And we also wish that you win a lottery.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have Algeria and Colombia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We also join other delegation on the necessity to maintain the first bracketed sentence to ensure the diversity of the funding, as well as the second bracketed sentence ensuring acceptance of state parties of those funding, so to ensure that this process could be continue to be stateless. So we also accept the paragraph as it is drafted by you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Colombia.

Thank you, Chair. Colombia supports the paragraph and have a fund that involves the greatest number of actors that will help us with resources. Thank you.

Any other delegation? Mauritius.

Thank you, Chair. We would also like to join our consensus with the whole text being in green.

However, we would.

Like to point out that while we are listing all the organization, we're missing, you know, some, for example.

Non-for-profit organization because not all foundations cover the non-for-profit.

And also you're missing, for example, banks, regional and multinational banks. Thank you.

Well, that's why we say other donors, because if we can make the list, the list would be factories, enterprises, so rich people, you know, billionaires. So that's what we use other donors to not to have, but you have a point. Anyway, there, I cannot read from here. Peru.

Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, my delegation would like to also join those who expressed their support to the text in yellow. place the first sentences in green and we do hope that this paragraph will enjoy consensus soon.

Any other? Well, I think we have just one delegation opposing to it. So I would like to ask Canada and USA to sit down and give me some language in the afternoon. Okay, thank you. Russia.

Thank you very much, distinguished Chair. In light of the fact that one delegation is not happy with this paragraph, the way it was presented by yourself, would like to find out why, the reasons. We would like to better understand the logic why the delegation is against in order to quickly try to find a compromise. Our delegation simply doesn't understand the logic. Thank you.

USA, do you want to reply to Russia or do you prefer to do the bilateral, I mean the meeting with Canada? So USA.

Chair, for the moment, the United States will happily sit down with Canada and discuss this offline, but I think for the moment we just have some concerns about external pressure flowing from non-state related sources of funding for a body that is usually suspect of corporations. I find it interesting that everyone here is thrilled to have multi-billion dollar corporations fund this effort. It creates massive conflicts of interest for this body and the globe. But we'll sit down with Canada and we'll probably come up with some language that will be satisfactory to the chair. Thank you.

Okay, so we'll go with Canada and find language. I have Niger.

Chair, I was going to ask the same question as Russia, but now having listened to the USA, Chair, we have an overwhelming majority in this room that is ready to move to consensus. Many delegations have highlighted that there is a safeguard in the second part of this paragraph. Not only that, Chair, we only have the part that is in green, which says that this fund will serve the purposes set forth in para 123 above, so meaning to support the implementation of the international cooperation and assistance mechanism. Furthermore, everything will be done in accordance with the financial regulations and rules of the UN. So we believe that this covers, in our understanding, the concern just raised by the US delegation. You may wish to check again with the US delegation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. So let's close the discussion. And Canada and USA, you come up in the afternoon with some language for me, please. So let's go to page 21, paragraph 10. All State Parties that are not already represented on the ICA Steering Group may observe the meetings of the ICA Steering Group with the right to speak and make written submissions. Some comments? Russia.

Thank you very much, distinguished Chair. We are in favor of deleting this paragraph and the alternative language because we do not see any logic behind this language. We have an open-ended structure. We do not need to have a structure that is not open-ended to all participants or other donors because this may look like buying seats in the steering group. So all those who would like to wish to express their views, mostly state parties, they'll be able to do that in an open-ended structure and present their views there. Any closed structure will work for four days. It has its own tasks, but then it will be presented to an open-ended structure. Then at least questions will be considered there. Thank you.

Any other comment?

Turkey.

Turkey.

Thank you, Chair. As I promised in the informal discussion we had on this paragraph to get back to you, I'm taking the floor to also convey this in the formal setting, our position on this paragraph. We believe the alternative solution that was proposed by the South African delegation during the informals, which is reflected in 10 bis and 10 bis, addresses the issues and concerns raised by other delegations in the informals about how to go about having so many observers in the room speaking. So splitting the states and other donors into two would, we believe, address this problem. But just a caveat, we're happy with this formulation as long as we keep the silence procedure in paragraph four, which we were discussing earlier today, because it's directly linked to how we allow other donors to participate in a mainly state-driven body. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comment?

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. I concur with our Russian delegates that the whole purpose of setting up this body with the hybrid format with a small body and a bigger body is defeated through this paragraph. So we oppose and we suggest deleting all paragraph relating to this paragraph 10. Thank you.

Thank you, Michael. Any other comment? I cannot see. I see two, Panama and the other one? Samoa. Samoa, sorry. Samoa and then Panama.

Thank you, Chair.

We do wish to support, fully agree with the Chair's point as provided in the text. As we all know, small states do not have the capacity to contribute as much nor the human resources to be fully committed to being an ICA Steering Group member. Hence, there should be flexibility in allowing for their participation, especially in regards to discussions over the ICA Fund and projects they may have submitted.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Panama.

Thank you, Chair. On this paragraph, we understand the points that were mentioned by the delegation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea. In other words, in other examples in the Arms Trade Treaty, a limited composition group only includes only members of that relevant selection committee. But in order to be flexible and taking into account the concerns that were raised during informal consultations, my delegation would be able to support the compromise version that was presented by South Africa.

Is South Africa on the room? No. Sweden and then Cote d'Ivoire.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry for Cote d'Ivoire if I cut the microphone before him. I would like to support the Korean comments. Originally, we were in favor of The very first draft of the chair where there was a percentage point in order to give incentives for donors to this funding mechanism because we believe that would be helpful for it to have a sustainable amount of funds that we could draw upon. I'm hearing that that way forward might not be possible, but the whole point of the ICA Steering Group. It is that it's small and sufficient and effective. And all member states can apply to be part of the Steering Group, irrespective if they have provided any funding whatsoever. The Steering Group will consist of a quotation, sorry, of a quota. of states from that makes it represented representative of the entire globe basically so that's why I will concur with my Korean colleague that the suggestion on the screen is not helpful and we should revert back to a steering group that only consists of those I think there was originally 20 members selected amongst member states thank you chair.

Thank you, Cote d'Ivoire.

Thank you, Chairman. For the same reason quoted by other speakers, we believe paragraph 10 should be deleted. Thank you.

Yes, now it works. Thank you, Chair. We can support the proposal made by South Africa in terms of the participation of other states in the discussions of the group and written contributions. This could be a compromise in terms of 10B bis. Thank you.

Thank you. Emirates.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Chairman. We prefer the second option, that is to say, to have two paragraphs, 10 and 10 not the first paragraph. since this group is one set up by Member States or States Parties and it includes them in line with the previous decisions we talked about, 20 States Parties with an equitable geographical representation. So that is the proposal that we support with the members funding the fund. Thank you.

Any other delegation? Belarus.

Thank you, Chairman. Belarus supports Russia, Sweden and Korea in their positions. This body needs to be an effective one and should be less dependent on outside factors.

Thank you. Australia.

Thank you, Chair. We're not in a position to support these paragraphs. I think Korea and Sweden both set out the rationale well. The Steering Group is responsible for the program management of the ICA Fund, and it has deliberately been created as a small group of 25 members to enable it to carry out these functions efficiently. That membership is open to any state party and we support it having broad geographical representation. However, we are concerned that these paragraphs open up these meetings to all states parties to participate in and that will result in inefficient meetings that can delve into political issues, which is not the focus of this group. We recognize the importance of transparency and inclusivity in how money from the ICA fund is allocated. This is why we have established the ICA advisory group as a forum for all states parties to oversee the operation of both the steering group and the trust fund. We should not replicate this group within the steering group. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia. Any other delegation? Canada.

Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to endorse the sentiments proposed by my Australian colleague. Thank you.

Any other? Can we delete this paragraph? Is there any delegation that has hard feelings not to delete? La France.

Thank you, Chairman. I am only taking the floor now because you had expressed the wish to hear delegations who were against any of the elements in the text here. My delegation, for the time being, is not in a position to approve of the deletion of this paragraph, and I am talking about the first. I had already stated this in a previous meeting in December. States parties and other donors would not have any decision-making power here. The idea is mainly to observe, to attend these meetings and to be able to speak, to make comments, but they would have no decision-making power. And so I don't see how the presence of other stakeholders could have an impact on the modalities and the operations of these meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other? You see, as we mentioned on the less informal, in this paragraph and in some other paragraphs, I think there is a big confusion between what you have to say and money. You see, I do agree with some delegations that this is becoming like I pay, I go. And the steering committee, as has been mentioned by other delegations, it's not a political thing, it's not a, you know, it's not a, if you have some contribution, intellectual contribution, scientific contribution, technical contribution, but this is not the case of this Syrian group. So we have to make a distinction. It's not because you pay, you go. La France, two minutes.

Thank you, Chair. Perhaps as a compromise, in the first paragraph, so paragraph 10, we could delete the reference to speak, to speak and, delete that, which perhaps could restrict or lift any ambiguities in the discussion and would allow to have exchanges exclusively between members of the steering group and have observer participants only who can make written submissions only and perhaps that would make the meetings simpler.

Any delegation react to what France is saying, to delete, to speak? Australia.

Thank you, Chair. We think we could support that compromise. It would allow States and other donors to put their position forward and observe a meeting without creating the risk that the steering group is unable to carry out its decisions and discussions efficiently. I would suggest maybe a simpler way to achieve that would just be retaining 10 bis but adding in any other States parties so that it reads any other States parties. or other donors may observe the meeting of the ICA Steering Group with the right to make written submissions. Thank you.

Thank you. Before I give the floor to Russia, I repeat what I said before, because you say any other donor may observe the meetings of the ICA Steering Group. So suppose that a donor has some contribution to make, but doesn't have money. You see, so I think there is, as I said, here and there is some other parts of the document that there is a big confusion between I pay, I go. Russia.

Thank you, Chairman. We fully support the rationale that you've just expressed. Alongside all other considerations, the proposals of other delegations do not, in fact, meet the concerns that we had expressed because we do not understand why this kind of provision should be introduced where, essentially, the actions of an open structure would be replaced And the question rises as to the need for such a structure since all States parties or donors would be present within it, even if it's of a limited composition and can present their views. So we are still of the view that these paragraphs should be removed. They are superfluous. We have an open group where all of these same written submissions could be presented by all those States who would like to do so.

Thank you. Any other comment? Belarus. You have two minutes.

I would like to support the comments and explanation of the Russian Federation. We should moreover understand that the open group is specifically created to be effective and the influence of the closed group onto the open group can take place not only within their bodies but the closed group is protected from that.

Thank you. Any comment?

Mr. President, I apologise for coming back a third time on this topic. I understand that this is an issue where we have divergences in views, and I would propose that we might discuss these issues in view of the previous paragraph, the topics are fairly similar and we would be prepared to hold an exchange with all States parties in the room here to find a compromise which would cover the entirety of the financial participation and the right to observe held by donors.

I would ask France and Sweden to sit down and give me a proposition. But I insist that I have some resistance to this donor word because the majority of the members of the convention are not rich countries and so maybe somebody lost in the middle of the Amazon forest in Brazil have some contribution but does not have the money. So he's not allowed. So I think it is not the purpose of this convention to put money barrier. So I would ask France and Sweden if you can sit down, come with a proposal in the afternoon But my suggestion is that the word donor should not be included. But you sit down and you discuss between yourselves. Thank you. India.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We tend to agree with your views as well as the views expressed by the Russian delegation and also by Australia in keeping this steering group very nimble and efficient. And we've also listened to views expressed by our French colleague. Our view is that other donors outside states parties should also be incentivized to participate in the discussions of the ICA mechanism. In that way, we can encourage them to contribute to the ICA mechanism and also in the sense of promoting ownership of these donor entities, which are not just states but outside states. And in order to do that, we believe that the paragraph 10B bis instead of allowing other donors to observe the meetings of ICA steering group, we can make them observe the meetings of the ICA advisory group because insofar as the text is at this moment, the ICA advisory group is only open to states parties and it's not open to the non-governmental entities who would also have an interest in participating in these discussions. So one way of settling this, of course, this, you know, we are, of course, pinning our hopes on France and Sweden to get us through on this paragraph. But our suggestion would be that we could permit other donors such as NGOs and other entities to contribute and also participate in the meetings of the ICA Advisory Group and not the meetings of ICA Steering Group which we want to keep them nimble and efficient and so that they can efficiently arrive at their decisions. So that would be the proposal from our end. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you come with a suggestion, written suggestion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can work with the delegation of France and Sweden to arrive at some understanding. Thank you.

Thank you very much. On page 22, we have paragraph 18. The rules of procedure of the review conference will be applicable mutatis mutandis to the ICA Steering Group. The ICA Steering Group will make every effort to take its decisions by consensus. Well, this goes to consensus. And once there is no consensus on consensus, so we have to skip this one. Let's go to page 24, paragraph 9. Further decides that the review conference will review the work of the S&T advisory mechanism, this decision and its appendices, and decided on the renewal of its mandate, including to access function, the functioning of the S&T advisory mechanism and decide on any changes necessary to this decision, the terms of reference and regulations of S&T advisory mechanism to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. Comments on this paragraph? not discussing the consensus thing. Panama.

Thank you, Chair. On paragraph nine, my delegation is ready to turn the yellow into green. Thank you.

Gracias. Can we agree with Panama and change Russia?

Dear Madam Chairperson, we support the wording which we have in the second pair of brackets as the one in the first set of brackets. We believe that the second set of brackets are clearer on this point and would allow us to avoid any diverging interpretations in the future. And we believe that similarly, we would need to to some extent correct paragraph 8 in the light of paragraph 10 and that's why we raised this issue. With respect to Panama's point, we would be prepared to switch the yellow to green when we do so in paragraph 16 for example of appendix 1. Thank you.

Annex one.

Can we green what's in yellow on paragraph 16 annex one? USA.

Thank you, Chair. We're not prepared to green the yellow in paragraph 16 at this time. Thank you.

I hope you do before December. Russia. No, you didn't ask. They said you, Russia. UK.

Thank you, Chair. Just to set out the UK's position on this paragraph as a whole, if we were prepared to remove the words by consensus within square brackets and we judge that is superfluous because the review conference will decide, in line with its rules of procedure we don't need to negotiate that now if we could delete that phrase we could turn the entire paragraph green.

Yeah but I guess the USA does not want US.

Thank you, Chair. Apologies for coming in again. I just wanted to clarify our position. We support the UK's suggestion on this paragraph nine. However, we're not prepared on the previous paragraph 16 that was on the screen when I spoke last. Thank you.

Yeah, and Russia says that if not approved the 16, you cannot approve nine. So I hope delegations can be ready to green the text until December. Although yesterday, as I said, we start at 10 and finish at 1, I have a lunch on our colleague Alonso from Mexico is leaving and I have a lunch at 1. So let's close the meeting and let's, so those delegations that I asked them to do some work to bring me in the afternoon, I think you can join this 30 minutes to come with a solution for me. Okay? And the meeting is adjourned.

Just before you all leave the room, could I just briefly announce the side events that will be taking place during the regular lunch hour, so from one o'clock. In room eight, there is a side event entitled Disinformation as a Threat to the BWC hosted by the Government of Canada and the Global Partnership Counter WMD Disinformation Initiative. And in room nine, there is a side event entitled Mirror Biology Explained, Technical Briefing and BWC Considerations, which is hosted by Panama, Peru, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Have a good lunch.