1st Meeting, 9th Session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the BWC

Good morning, everybody. As usual, we start 10 p.m. Welcome those from capitals and welcome colleagues from Geneva.

Before I start, I have to tell you that I'm very happy to be in this room.

Sorry.

And.

I hope that this room brings some good vibes because some years ago, and I mean lots of years ago, it was in this room that Brazil was presiding the convention on tobacco control and we were able to finish our work. And you can imagine how hard it was to make Convention on Tobacco. So I think this biological is a little bit easier, inshallah.

So, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I would like to welcome you all and declare open this ninth session of the Working Group on the Strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention. As agreed by the ninth review conference, 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. A word of appreciation for the Implementation Support Unit with a very small team and a demanding agenda, the ISU has supported this working group with quite professionalism and impressive stamina. Thank you. Their institutional memory and technical rigor have helped keep our discussions anchored in reality while we try to design something.

New.

Distinguished delegates, We have made progress since our last session back in February, not as much as I would like though. At each of the informal consultations that I have convened since then, we have managed to highlight more text.

In yellow, which I'm hoping we'll be able to quickly turn to green later today.

However, our progress has not been quick enough. We therefore need to further accelerate our work and make maximum use of the remaining time available. We only have ten working days, and I repeat, we only have ten working days. left in which to finalize the report for adoption at our session in December, as required by the ninth review conference. I therefore prefer the delegations refrain from repeating national positions.

We all know them.

We have repeatedly heard sorry.

Heard the national positions of many delegations.

We have listened to this and incorporated them into the latest version of the draft report.

I just, instead of listening to national positions, let's listen to compromises. That's what I want. I think that everybody wants.

We now need to find compromise to allow us to collectively craft a final document reflecting our common interests. The growing risks posed by biological weapons can only be managed by working together. Even since we last met in February, There have been significant scientific advances which are of direct relevance to our discussions and which serve to remind us of the necessity for a successful outcome in December. For example, you may have seen the recent reports on the use of artificial intelligence to design new viruses not previously seen in nature. This demonstrates that the convergence of AI and biology is creating new security challenges, while also opening important opportunities for scientific and medical progress. The issue for the convention is that a gap may emerge between this rapidly advancing capabilities and our collective ability to understand, govern and prevent their misuse. Closing that gap is precisely why our work here matters. Distinguished delegates, With regards to our working methods, as at our previous sessions, I intend to run our meetings efficiently and punctually. We will start and finish on time. Morning sessions will start at 10:00 and finish at 13:00, and afternoon sessions will start at 15:00 and finish at 18:00. Our overriding focus at this session will be on the updated version of the revised draft final report, which was circulated earlier this month as document BWC/WG/9/CIRP.1/HEV.1. dated August 6, 2026. This document is based on extensive discussions and consultations, including at our previous session in February, and the many rounds of informal consultations since then. I have met bilaterally with many delegations, and I have also met with several groups of States Parties as well. To keep our pace, our delegation will have up to three minutes for a first intervention on any paragraph. Should further interventions be required after new language is proposed from the floor, A second intervention on the same paragraph may not exceed two minutes. Silence during our reading will be taken as agreement with my draft. If you support a paragraph, you do not need to take the floor. I invite delegations-- sorry. sorry, I invite delegations that face difficulty with any formulation to propose clear and concrete alternatives wording every time. Only in this way can we maintain a steady negotiation rhythm and avoid losing time that we do not have. We must not be distracted from our primary mission to focus on our mandate to conclude our work. I therefore call on all of you to heed my call and to refrain from raising issues which.

Do not, and I repeat, do not fall within the mandate of this working group. The microphone is going to be cut.

Distinguished delegates, in accordance with the decision of the Ninth Review Conference, the first session of the Working Group confirmed as its rules of procedure, mutatis mutandis, the rules of procedure of the Ninth Review Conference. as contained in document BWC/CONF.9/2. We have successfully used these rules of procedure for the first eight sessions of this Working Group, and they are.

The same rules as used for the previous BWC meetings.

In accordance In accordance with these rules of procedure, we need to turn briefly to the subject of attendance at this particular session of the Working Group. The ISU has received a request from one State Party, Israel. to attend this meeting as an observer in accordance with Rule 44, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure. May I take that the Working Group agrees to this request?

So decided.

Four specialized agencies and regional intergovernmental organizations have indicated they would like to attend this meeting in accordance with Rule 44, paragraph 4 of the Rules of Procedure. I would consequently like to propose that the following organizations be granted observer agency status.

One, European Union.

So decided.

Two, International Atomic Energy Agency.

I have to put on my glasses because I cannot see from here, otherwise... Those chairs don't have wheels.

Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairman.

At the outset, Please allow me to welcome you and the other delegations to this session of the Working Group on Shoring Up the Biological Weapons Convention. I would like to wish you and everyone here successful work throughout this session. The Russian Federation stands ready to confirm our striving to render to you every possible assistance in your efforts, and you can count on our delegation. As regards the question of participation by observers, above all, as regards regional intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, we would like to confirm that the Russian position on this issue remains unchanged. We have laid it out sufficiently in detail during previous sessions of this same group, and we would like to confirm that it remains unchanged during this session also. Now, in order not to take up too much time, we would like to declare that we do stand ready to approve participation by such observers listed by you on the understanding that their participation will be implemented in full compliance with the rules of procedure, above all as regards chapter one and rule 43 of the given rules of procedure.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

You didn't have to wait almost three minutes of our time to say that things are the same. Of course, the whole meeting is going to go according to rules of procedure. There is no other way to do it because if there is another way to do it, your delegation is going to be the first to complain. Number two, International Atomic Energy Agency.

So decided.

3. International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.

So decided.

World Health Organization.

So decided.

May I take that the Working Group approves my proposal to grant this organization observer status?

So decided.

While on the subject of participation, I would also like to welcome the national experts from developing countries who are participating in this meeting under the BWC sponsorship programme. The ISU has informed me that experts from 33 developing state parties are being supported under the sponsorship programme for this session. Your attendance is an important element of our widely shared desire to widen the participation and diversity of our meetings. Therefore, I encourage you to participate actively in our deliberations. In this regard, I would also like to express my appreciation to Canada, France, Kazakhstan, Philippines and the United Kingdom, as well as Member States of the European Union, who have contributed financially to the sponsorship of this year. Now that we have concluded the opening formalities and necessary procedural matters, we will now move to the substantive issues before us at this session. As at our eighth session in February, it's my intention to focus the rest of our time this week on the draft final report of the working group. An updated version of the revised report, final report, was circulated to all state parties, as I said before, early this month's document.

BWC dated August 2010.

And this updated version retains all the text that was agreed at referendum at our seventh and eighth sessions and which is highlighted in green. It also includes in yellow text which has been provisionally approved for consideration by State Parties at this session of the Working Group during the six open-ended informal consultations held on March 13, April 14, May 27, June 25, July 15 and August 5. As at our previous session in February, my plan is to first focus our attention on this yellow text. Given that it was considered at the open-ended informal consultations, it's my hope that this text can now be agreed in this formal plenary and therefore also turn it from yellow.

Into green text, indicating other referendum agreement.

Sorry.

After we have addressed the text in yellow and hopefully turned it all to green text, we will then turn our attention to discussing the text which is not highlighted in either yellow or green, with the goal to reach compromises as on as many of these pending paragraphs as possible during the course of this week. I would now, therefore, like to quickly run through the paragraphs currently highlighted in yellow to seek agreement on each of them one by one. As you will recall, these paragraphs were considered in detail during our six rounds of open-ended informal consultations, and the text is the result of negotiation, compromise and flexibility. As I said earlier, I would prefer that delegations refrain from reopening these paragraphs. We still have many issues to resolve this week, so I do not want to spend time re-discussing issues that have already provisionally agreed upon, and I will not. Some ground rules before we start. In my assessment, the most contentious elements remaining relate to two issues. First, decision making by consensus and second, the role of the meeting of state parties. In the interest of moving the negotiations forward, I will set these issues aside for now, leaving the bracketed text to be resolved at a later stage. Setting aside these two issues for now, does not mean that I will not be working on them. And I intend to consult with interested delegations to see where common ground might be found. As always, my door is open, and apparently I have a nice office now, and I would be happy to meet with any delegations.

To hear your proposals for reaching agreement on these two issues.

In addition, it has become apparent during the recent informal consultations that we may have to consider some interim measures so that the decisions in our draft report can be implemented soon after the recommendations are adopted by the review conference next year. We cannot be in a situation in which we adopt the recommendations next year, but then have to wait for the eleventh review conference to actually implement them. The text that we are negotiating, particularly on the open-ended working group and the two mechanisms, are intended to reflect their permanent end state. We may therefore need to consider bridging steps to allow these bodies to begin operating soon after the tenth review conference. Such measures.

Could, for example, be included in the final document of the review conference.

Distinguished delegates, so I would like now to turn to Annex I on the recommended measures. The Secretary will show the text on the screen as we proceed. We will go first to paragraph 6 of section A. Is paragraph six acceptable?

Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning. At the first, allow me to express my delegation's appreciation, Chair, to you and to the ISU for the first undertaking in guiding the work of the working group. Regarding this para, Chair, it has been discussed in formal and informal session. My delegation has no objection with this para, but two points that should be raised regarding this para. First, that the structure and details of this discussion should be more clear and explain the text. The second point is that this para should is interlinked and dependent on the rest of the text, particularly regarding the ICA mechanism. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot accept this para in green line and it's better to remain in the red line, yellow line to be further discussed and in the rest of discussion to come to common understanding regarding the para. Thank you, Chair.

As I don't know if you listened to my speech, but I repeat it, I don't want delegations to repeat their positions. I heard your position before. So what I want to hear is your compromise. To hear the same things, we don't have to do this thing. And another thing that I would ask, I know that you're very happy with my presidency. You don't have to congratulate me, so we don't have to waste time, because if you spend one minute, one second, we have 100 delegations, so I know that you-- I consider myself congratulated from all delegations. But what's your proposal? That's what I want. I don't need you to repeat that this is your position.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again. Actually, to my understanding, repetition is part of our business as a diplomat, and I'm here to repeat my national position, and we try to make a best effort to reach a common understanding and finally consensus regarding this text. Regarding this part of my delegation insisted on this point that should be remain in yellow color. Thank you.

Okay, it's not my intention to lose time because if everything that's yellow, if all delegations have the same right, so if all delegations are going to act like you're acting now, I just prefer to go to bande paqui. So leave it yellow and I repeat, I don't want delegations to repeat national positions. If that's the case, let's close the meeting. We don't have anything to do here because diplomats are supposed to find solutions. We are paid to find language that can be accepted for everybody. Of course, we have almost 200 countries in the convention, 200 different positions, but we are paid not to lose time and also to produce language that everybody can be accepted. As an exception, I accept your comment.

Now we move on paragraph 14, section C. Is the yellow text in paragraph 14 acceptable?

So decided.

And I also would like to remind Iran and the other delegations that what's yellow is because there was a formal meeting and we agreed at referendum on this language. So what's not yellow is because nobody agreed. So I cannot stop what we discussed before.

Moving to section D, is the yellow text in paragraph 16 acceptable?

Who is that? I cannot see from here.

U.S.

Good morning, Chairman Meyer. I wanted to thank you again for your time and looking forward to working with you and the delegations. In the spirit of coming to agreeable language, The United States at this time would request that we keep the entirety of paragraph 16 open-ended. We just have some concerns about the language, but we will work with you and others to come to an agreement. One of our particular concerns is the legally binding aspect of it, but let's continue to talk. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, let's, I think, explain. We are trying to get the yellow green. What's not yellow, we are not discussing now. So legally binding, it's not yellow, so it's not to be discussed to be green. Can we agree with the yellow that's on paragraph 16? Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Given the comments from the United States of America, we have a clarifying question. Do we understand correctly that if we turn the yellow text in 16 green, but if we happen to be unable to agree on other sections of 16, then without any problem we'll be able to open up those sections and work on them in the light of the results of the work on language that has not been agreed.

Thank you very much.

Let me repeat for the fourth or fifth time, we are now turning yellow into green. Is that clear to everybody? Or should I repeat it again? So we are not discussing what's white. So my question is, Can we agree that the yellow on paragraph 16 can become green? Russia.

Thank you very much, Chair.

We do understand why we're here, but we would like to reserve our position and to ask whether we can open up the green text in this. paragraph as in any other paragraph as a result of the discussions on other paragraphs that are not agreed or language that remains white because this green text for us can only be agreed on the understanding that the language that remains white will be agreed.

In a certain manner thank you.

Let me repeat once more i think my english not good what is white is not going to be touched. So when we go back to this paragraph on a later stage, then we decide if the white can become green. Other than that, and as I said in February, and I'm going to repeat here, I'm not touching on green paragraphs. Is that clear for you, Russia? Yes or no? So can I turn the yellow green?

So decided.

The US, two minutes.

Chair, we would request that what is yellow in paragraph 16 remain yellow for now regarding We would just prefer the lack of restriction on the language right now and we could work, come back to you with some, something concrete. Thank you.

Oh, apparently, you know, I can get you Iran and US to be having the same position. That's a must. That's a big goal.

Uh, moving to paragraph 20.

Can we turn 20 into green?

Bless you.

So decided.

Now we jump ahead to appendix one of annex one which contains the voluntary guidelines for requesting assistance under Article 7. Is this short chapeau acceptable?

So decided.

Thank you. To save time, we'll take the subsequent sub-paragraphs in groups. Are sub-paragraphs a, b and c acceptable?

So decided.

Are sub-paragraphs d, e, f and f acceptable?

So decided.

Are sub-paragraphs G, H, and I acceptable?

So decided.

Are sub-paragraphs J, K, and L acceptable?

So decided.

Are subparagraphs M, N, and O acceptable?

So decided.

Thank you. And finally, in this appendix, are subparagraphs P and Q acceptable?

So decided.

That's the way to work. Moving to Annex II and its draft decision part, is preamble paragraph seven of this part of Annex II acceptable?

So decided.

I just want to remind you that I'm not trying to be very tough, but the thing is, Those things that are white is because we don't have agreement. Most delegations don't have agreement. What we have in yellow, it was the result of discussions of all delegations present in the room. So it's not something that fell from the moon, you know, is preamble paragraph.

Is this one now?

Yes.

Is subparagraph 1 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in subparagraph 1 acceptable? France.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

We would like to keep this paragraph in yellow for the moment as we discuss the modalities for reviewing the recommendations of the consultative group, recalling our position, which is that these recommendations must be considered by the meetings of the State Parties of the Convention.

Thank you.

We are not discussing for the tenth time, we are not discussing meeting of state parties. So my question is once more, can you accept the yellow as it is? Yes or no? Any other delegation agrees with France? Okay, you are alone.

Is the yellow text in subparagraph 1 acceptable? France again.

We would like to keep it yellow. Thank you.

I'm not going to be like this.

I think if delegations want to keep it, John, okay, let's go home.

Because your delegation was present in those meetings, your delegation agreed to be yellow in this meeting, and now you don't like yellow anymore. It's not serious, really, it's not serious.

Russia.

So, esteemed Chair, given the way the meeting is unfolding, it's not very clear to us what we're actually doing. As far as we understand, the entire text which is currently green could be yellow because it's not fully agreed until we have agreement on the entire text as a whole. So we could have the same logic in both cases. In light of how the discussion will go, we would not like to spend time moving text from yellow into green, but actually spend time on text in square brackets. We could agree to keep everything yellow. until the end of our discussion. So the logic of this approach is not completely clear to us. It seemed to us that during the informal-- I'm sorry.

We are doing what we did in February. Your delegation was present in the meetings in informals. And your delegation agreed to have the paragraph yellow as it is. I'm not playing here. I mean, if your delegation last month agreed to have this part in yellow, I intend that you can agree because all delegations they have people from capital here, including you, so that have more power to decide. Now, if we're going to go on the yellow saying, we don't agree, we don't agree, we don't agree.

What are you doing here? Why do you send delegation for the informal meetings?

You just lose my time. You know, we have the informal meetings to prepare, to find some compromise, and that we did. In some paragraphs, we were able to get compromise from delegations, and now delegations arrive here, they don't want it anymore, when your delegation participated on the discussions. Makes no sense to me. And that's the way I'm conducting the meeting, if you have a better idea, sit in this chair.

Mr. President, we fully agree with your logic and that is why we took the floor, because it is not clear to us the position of delegations which refuse, during agreement with language in informal discussions, to turn that text green. For us, yellow text is not clear. We're seeing it as white text, which continues to remain unagreed. And that is why we ask the question: if the goal that we have is to make the text green after discussion in informal discussions and let's continue that work and we're ready to continue the work to agree the text and turn it green but if some delegations continue to apply the logic as for 1B1C.

The delegation's with me okay I control the delegations every delegation here has the right to say whatever they they even though I don't agree see so let's not lose time Thank you.

So, is the yellow text in subparagraph 1 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph 3 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph four acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph five acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph six acceptable?

So decided.

Appendix 1 of annex 2 is already entirely green, so we do not need to consider it again. We will therefore move on to appendix 2. The only pending paragraph in appendix 2 is paragraph 4. Is the yellow text in paragraph four acceptable?

Netherlands.

Good morning, Chair, distinguished colleagues.

For us, it is not acceptable because of the text that is still in white. We consider that together, so we cannot agree to the first line because the rest of the first line is still between brackets.

Once again, can you accept the yellow? You should have said that during the informants.

And the other And the second part that's in yellow, can you accept? You have the floor.

We can accept the second part in yellow.

Thank you very much.

Moving to appendix three of annex two, where the only paragraph in yellow is paragraph 16. Is the yellow text in paragraph 16 acceptable?

So decided.

We can now move on to annex three.

Where we will find a lot more yellow text, which we can hopefully also quickly turn green.

We will start with operative paragraph nine of the draft decision part of annex three. Is the yellow text in paragraph nine acceptable? Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairperson. Using the same logic as other delegations, we would like to keep this yellow.

Thank you.

You're joining the wrong crowd. You should join me and help to turn things green.

Moving on to Appendix 1 of Annex 3, is the yellow text in paragraph 2 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in subparagraph 3 acceptable?

Iran.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. And we try to join you as a Chair to reach a common understanding, hopefully. Regarding this part of my delegation has a question regarding the States Parties here that it means that the MSP meeting every year.

I would be-- No, no. Meeting of States Parties, it's where written Meeting of States Parties. Here is just written States Parties.

Chair, regarding this part that the report should be submitted to the States Party, it means that by the ISU or Secretariat to distribute among the States Party or is the Meeting of States Party different and separate from the MSP? And to my understanding, there is no clarity regarding this para and the wording of the States Parties. I would be thankful if you have more clarification on this para. Thank you.

My clarification is that I said it before to you. When it's meeting of States Parties, it's written meeting of States Parties. When it's just the States Parties, it's written States Parties. That's the difference. Can your delegation accept that this part gets green? Yes or no?

Chair, at this stage, no. Thank you.

Okay. I think on the informal meetings, those delegations that stick to their positions, they should not come to the informals anymore. Germany.

Just asking for your guidance on this. We did discuss this paragraph in the consultations and we made our position known that we would accept this paragraph including the including. So if we accept the yellow now and including is still in square brackets, I'm unsure how to state our position on this.

They cannot be green or yellow if they are white. We have three stages. Things that are white are not being touched now. Yes. Okay. Things that are yellow are things that all delegations are sitting here right now agreed on a compromise or on the language. And green, it's when those delegations have the same positions.

You know.

Yes, I understand that. Oh, sorry. We have the position that we can agree to that including, if we have including, but if we.

-- We're not discussing the including. Including, we're not discussing the including.

Okay.

Including will be discussed later. Including this. Okay? France.

Thank you, Chairperson.

France is in agreement to move forward on this text on the understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Thank you.

It is a very new rule. I didn't know that. In my 15 years of multilateral, I never heard that everything is nothing decided until everything is decided. Thank you for the information.

And I will keep your comment in green, okay?

Moving on to appendix one of annex three, is the yellow text in paragraph two acceptable?

We have this one first.

Paragraph four.

We have this.

That's this one.

I think we have to go back.

Sorry.

Is the yellow text in paragraph four acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph five acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text on paragraph six acceptable?

Somebody here on the back.

Yes.

Russian.

Russian. Yeah. I cannot.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

What we think is that we could be ready to turn the second sentence green but keep the first sentence yellow.

Thank you.

So you agree after appointed?

Could you repeat what you agree to be green, please?

We are ready to make green the second sentence, that is the last sentence of the paragraph, and leave the rest yellow.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is paragraph eight acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph nine acceptable?

Iran.

Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. We have no serious problem and objection on this part, just we are not clear to my delegation regarding the States parties. wording here in the same line with what has been in previous occasion in this regard we request to remain in yellow on this para nine thank.

You you should give better instructions to your delegation on the informal meetings.

Is the yellow text in paragraph 10 acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph 11 acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph 12 acceptable?

Decided.

Is paragraph 13.

Acceptable? So decided.

Is paragraph 16 acceptable? Is paragraph 17 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph 18 acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph 19 acceptable? Is the yellow text in paragraph 20 acceptable? Is paragraph 21 acceptable? Is paragraph 22 acceptable?

The yellow one. Can I turn the yellow one green?

Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Taking into account the fact that a number of positions mean that this paragraph has not yet been agreed, we would prefer to keep it yellow.

Thank you.

You cannot agree with a single word in this paragraph.

We could agree with it if the positions on the white text could be turned yellow, but until the white goes yellow, we would like to keep the yellow yellow.

Thank you.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Can we approve paragraph 23? Russian again.

Thank you again, Chairperson.

The same logic here applies as in the previous paragraph. We would like to keep it yellow until there is agreement on the first square brackets.

Thank you.

I just like to remind you, maybe some of you don't know, that we have only nine days to finish our work. Four days, I mean today and more four days until the end of the week and then in December.

So we either work.

Or it's very easy to say let's keep this like that, like keep it like that, but we're just putting things under the carpet, we're not solving, that's what we are here to. But anyway, is the, so the 23, yeah, is the yellow text in paragraph 24 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph 25 acceptable?

Iran.

Chair, we have no objection with this paragraph 25, but I think in detail should be more discussed on this paragraph. Now, my request is that to remain in yellow one. Thank you.

If you don't have anything against it you want yellow imagine if you wanted to have something against it really I really gonna it's not the way to work really it's not you know you go to the informals your delegation go to informals agree with something and then you arrive here you don't agree anymore it's not serious I'm sorry Is the yellow text on paragraph 29 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph 30 acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph 31 acceptable?

So decided.

Is the yellow text in paragraph 32 acceptable?

So decided.

Is paragraph 33 acceptable? Is paragraph 34 acceptable? Is paragraph 35 acceptable? Is paragraph 36 acceptable? Is paragraph 38 acceptable? We can now move to appendix 2 of annex 3, most of which is already in green. The only yellow text comes at the very end of this appendix. So is the yellow text in rule 7.1 acceptable?

Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

We would like to keep this text yellow until the text in square brackets is agreed.

Thank you.

Listen, I think it's very dangerous because since my first speech, I said that consensus and meeting of state parties are not going to be discussed. If you're going to stop the discussion, in every single reference to consensus and to meeting of state parties, we have nothing to do here. We better close the meeting. I'm trying to do something and I hope that I can be successful. I know, I hope we can be successful because it's not my conventions, it's our convention. So delegations that have some problems like Iran, France, Russia, USA, can you suggest some wording? for those places that you objected of being yellow to green, you have the floor. Iran, France, USA, and Russia, and Netherlands, I think, too. Iran, do you have any suggestion or any comment on this paragraph six that says state parties should organize periodic discussions on the opportunities and obstacles to international cooperation and assistance? with a view to promote the broadest and most.

Effective exercise of international cooperation and assistance under Article 10 and in full compliance with the provisions of the conventions.

Where is your problem and what's your suggestion? Iran. Iran, I'm waiting for your comments.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. Regarding this para, as mentioned in previous occasion, that my delegation have no objection on this para, but the language should be more stronger than this, the current formulation. The first point is regarding the periodic discussion on this, the structure, venue, and the organization of such discussion is not clear. The second point as mentioned by my delegation is that...

Okay, what I want from delegations, you, USA, Russia, France, is that suggestions. What's your suggestion? What could be acceptable for you? And then I will propose for the other delegations. Because it's easy, it's very easy to say I don't agree. Okay, you don't agree, so what do you propose?

Chair, thank you very much. And with due respect, as a chair, please, before conclusion, my intervention, don't interrupt me when we are talking in the full compliance with the rule of procedure. We mentioned that any discussion in informal session should be adopted and discussed in formal session. That is the first point. The second point is that the principle of nothing is agreed until everything agreed should be applied. Regarding this para six, my delegation is one of the most supporter of this para, but we do believe that when we are discussing about periodic discussion on this issue, we should be, we should come to conclusion regarding other para that related to the ICA and any discussion on this matter, particularly para seven and eight. And at this stage, we are not in the position to support fully this para. Thank you, Chair.

USA.

Chair Minor, thank you for recognizing us. With two changes, the United States could favor this paragraph becoming green. The first change is the inclusion of the bracketed recommendations for, and the second change is the elimination of the bracketed language following the word measures and preceding the word aimed. With that, the United States would support this being a green paragraph. Thank you, Chair.

No we are discussing paragraph six state parties should organize periodic discussions and on the opportunities and obstacles there is no brackets in this paragraph.

Chair my apologies we'll get to that was for another paragraph paragraph 16 my apologies.

So you can accept this as it is Thank you.

At least one.

Iran, can you provide me, not now, but can you provide me with language this afternoon? Thank you.

USA, can you -- let's go to paragraph 16.

Thank you, Chair. Apologies for doing this at the wrong time. But now regarding paragraph 16, with the following changes, the US could support this being a green paragraph. The first would be the inclusion of the first bracketed portion, recommendations for. and the second would be the elimination of the second bracketed portion between the words measures and aimed. With that we could support this being a green paragraph. Thank you, Chair.

Russia, can you accept?

Thank you, Chairperson.

In the form proposed by the USA, we are not ready to agree with this paragraph because it is of critical importance to us that it is indicated for what purpose this group will work. In this case, we fully support the language that you have proposed in order to create a legally binding verification mechanism. because this does not predetermine the activities of the group, but lays down guidelines. For our delegation, the only option for the existence of a verification mechanism is that it exists as a legally binding entity. There is no other way that we can see the valid existence of such a mechanism. So we would be happy to agree paragraph 16 with the inclusion of a clear indication of your language in order to create a legally binding verification mechanism.

Thank you.

My language you mean the white what's in white?

USA.

Chairman Meyer, we cannot do that. Thank you.

So Russia and USA, please come to me with some proposed language, with a solution, not the problem. India.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and good morning all colleagues. Mr. Chair, we do understand that there's a divergence on the issue of legally binding mechanism and possible legally binding measures. My idea is not to comment on that, but we do wish to request for an insertion after the brackets on measures which is that whether this is a mechanism or this is a measure, these should apply in an equal and non-discriminatory manner. So my insertion would be which applies in an equal and non-discriminatory manner for all states parties. I think this would be the minor edit from our side. Thank you.

Does anybody have any comment on the Indian suggestion?

So it's accepted.

Now Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

We have a question for clarification with respect to the proposal from India. This language, what does it refer to? Does it refer to the mechanism or to the measures? If it refers to the measures, then we need just apply and not applies, but applies if it refers to the mechanism.

Thank you.

India, you have the language.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving my delegation the floor. As I said, my comments that I've made is without prejudice to the debate we're having on also the separate debate we're having on legally binding mechanism versus measures. The emphasis of my edit is to just ensure that whether we have a mechanism or we have measures, these should apply in an equal and non-discriminatory manner to all states parties, and of course, we do understand the edit and the comment made by the Russian colleague. Thank you.

Russia.

Well, generally speaking, we are in agreement with the proposal, but the verb will depend on what exactly we agree, what the language will look like after our agreement in the text which remains in square brackets.

Thank you.

Is the UK in the room? I cannot see. Canada, you also speak the language.

Thank you, Chair. Right now, I'm not going to comment on the India proposal. I just wanted to comment on the the issue of the brackets earlier in that paragraph as a bit of a in between we would be happy to accept the first set of square brackets so recommendations for and then the third so including possible legally binding measures we'd be we'd be amenable to that thank you.

Thank you Canada UK apply or applies?

Good morning, colleagues. Thank you, Chair, as always, for putting me on the spot. I agree with our Russian colleague in this context. This is purely a matter of singular versus plural and therefore whether apply or applies applies and that depends on whatever we agree to in the previous square bracketed languages. So our Russian delegate is correct.

Thank you. So let's go to Annex II, paragraph seven. France, propose me some language, please.

Mr. President, are we already discussing the white sections or are we still on the yellow sections? If we are on the yellow sections, just as we demonstrated flexibility on all the other paragraphs to validate them into green, we're ready to do the same here as long as late we settle the matter of the role of the meeting of the states parties but if you prefer to discuss the white now let's do so.

Merci so you can agree when after we discuss the meeting of state parts but the others?

You can green it ah merci beaucoup.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are ambitious and we believe in the ICA Trust Fund, and in order to be effective as a convention, let's be frank, the Trust Fund needs money to operate. We therefore oppose any formulation that hampers the convention in this way from being open to possible sources of funds. We can live with any language that keeps the possibility open for non-state party donors. But in terms of concrete language fix, our first preference would be to just add the first bracket that is now still white to the text. And we will be interested to hear from other delegations why it is a problem that we would like to see the possibility that the largest donors out there are able to contribute to the trust funds with funds. This is an important issue for us. If we cannot get the possibility for, for example, the EU to contribute to the trust fund, the Netherlands will consider the trust fund defunct from the start and we will not supply a bilateral contribution to the fund. Thank you.

Thank you. Any delegation want to comment on that?

France.

Thank you, Chairperson.

If there is a proposal that consists in lifting the brackets before and donors and starts before including, could that achieve the agreement of the group? Would that give us the ICA fund is a trust fund that we receive voluntary contributions from state parties and other donors.

Merci. U.S., can you tell me why you wanted yellow?

Chair, we would like to preserve the ability to discuss the other donor's option at another time. Thank you.

Yeah, but we are running out of time because you changed position. Your delegation was in favor, now you're against. At least I want to know why you're against.

Chair, we can accept the yellow going to green, but none of the bracketed language, and we'd like to hold off on regarding the language and other donors. Thank you.

You mean just you want to hold the brackets?

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

It's okay with me. So the yellow can be green.

Yes, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, thank you very much.

Netherlands.

Thank you, Chair. For us, we would like to thank the delegation of France for the suggestion and that is something that we could live with, but we don't want to make the yellow part as it is green at this point in time and I do not understand why the US does not want to engage in a discussion on this. We'd be interested to understand the issue here, happy to discuss it and see if we can work on text, but if we don't understand it, I don't see how we can find a solution. Thank you.

Oh, we have to find a solution, otherwise we just suspend the meeting. It's simple. The thing is, the ICA fund is a trust fund that will receive voluntary contributions from state parties. You have anything against this?

Yes, Chair. Thank you.

What are you against?

Because the other part is in brackets.

So this thing, if your delegation wants the rest of the phrase, we're going to discuss this later.

But this now we're discussing just the ICA.

Fund is a trust fund that will receive voluntary contribution from state parties.

Thank you, Chair. And I understand what you are saying, but for the same reason as it is not possible for others to accept the possibility of other donors to chime in. We don't want to accept a sentence that by itself, in isolation, does not leave that possibility open and implicitly excludes it. I've explained our position. I'm now waiting for other delegations to explain theirs so we can work on a solution. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have Spain and Niger.

Help me and give me a solution.

Mr. President, thank you very much for your leadership of our work.

We add our voice to that stated by the Netherlands for this to function correctly, we need to leave the option of other supporters or sponsors contributing voluntarily. We do not understand why it is that this sentence poses such problems and so we can fully support the French proposal?

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

We also congratulate you with your excellent leadership. We in general are satisfied with what we see on the screen, including the yellow and what is in square brackets and other donors including. We would be very interested to hear what is intended behind this language, what are the reasons why there are oppositions against the language also because we believe this is and should be a constructive discussion. We have some superficial comments. We have multilateral and regional organisations, intergovernmental organisations. There is some repetition here. Intergovernmental organisations, we understand, already covers multilateral is a part of the multilateral and regional organisations by definition. so perhaps it's superfluous. We want to be open for broad participation to get as many possible contributions and donations as possible to assist the ICA Fund.

Thank you, Chairperson.

Any other comment? I see none. Let's move.

Oh, India, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to take the floor to support the comments made by my Dutch colleague. Just want to say that when the discussion started, we were looking at an ICA fund that is based out of assessed contributions. We have diluted that admission from assessed contributions to voluntary contributions. And therefore, it is important for us, as is important for many developing countries, that we're able to take contributions from as many sources as possible outside States Parties. I also want to underline that paragraph 4 as it stands has two components. One is that generally it will accept contributions from not only States but also from non-State entities and the sentence that is the second last sentence is essentially on a case by case acceptance of contributions from non-state entities that will still give states who have strong views on contributions from certain entities to come in and participate in that decision making even to the effect of not approving contributions from certain non-state entities. So that is a very delicate balance that exists in this paragraph. And so we would suggest that this paragraph as a whole, with the general acceptance of contributions from state and non-state entities, as well as giving the states the freedom to evaluate contributions on a case-by-case basis, is accepted as such as is proposed by you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, India. Now annex three. Oh sorry, Colombia.

The other room I could see people here cannot see.

Thank you, Chair. Just to support what colleagues have said about this paragraph, Colombia could support the text. in white in the way suggested by the colleagues with regards to the funding of this fund for which, for developing countries this fund is very important. So we need to make it possible for contributions to be received and this We need a strong, robust fund, and the mentioning of state and non-state actors is important, so that ICA can happen, especially technical cooperation for developing countries. Thank you very much.

Now annex three, paragraph nine.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. Just I have a question of more clarity regarding the para 16 regarding the composition of the IEC Steering Group that we have just adopted in to be green light. We have no objection on that and we have we have no intention to reappoint it. But just we have a question regarding the number of the sitting group that in para in para four page 21 it's up to 20 percent but in para 60 page 14 is up to 25 percent I think this a bit discrepancy same language as it for both and my delegation in formal and informal sessions support the 25 percent.

Thank you thank you.

Yeah, let me update you.

It was in February, it was 20, but in the informals, it was upgraded to 25.

So Russia.

Sorry, sorry.

Is that clear, Iran?

Thank you, Chair. I think now the composition of ICES in group will be 25 or 20 percent? 25. 25? You mean that the para 60 and para 80, both para will be 25 percent, yeah.

Up to 25, yes.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Just some technical problems to put alternative to paragraph nine. So see if Russia can accept.

Okay, Russia, can you accept this version? You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

We could be ready to agree this paragraph if it were to be presented in the language indicated on the left.

In our opinion.

The version in the left column more precisely reflects what we're talking about if we lift the square brackets from the white text in that case we would be happy to offer our agreement for the text thank you.

Thank you so I I understand if I know you enough by consensus will be left therefore.

Later discussion.

So what you're proposing is on any changes necessary to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.

Yes.

Thank you. Well, it's not quite that. Well, we would add in the text in the left column, in the second square brackets, before the terms of reference and the regulations, we would add these decisions. These decisions, terms of reference and the regulations.

And.

It's important for us to have the first square bracket with a reference to the principle of consensus. Now, if we follow the same uniform logic in paragraph 16 and in subsequent paragraphs where a number of delegates...

Let's just discuss paragraph 9.

Let's not mix up.

Well, in that case we would prefer at this stage, if the first square brackets are not agreed, we would prefer to leave the entire text yellow.

Thank you.

No, no, Konstantin, I'm sorry, I'm looking for solutions, not for problems. I'm asking, can you accept what is proposed on the right side? Yes or no? Down yet?

Well, it could be satisfactory to us, but it could be better to have a reference, not to say specifically terms of reference and regulations. But on the whole, this is satisfactory to us.

Thank you.

So can you bring me in the afternoon a proposal?

So now let's go to Appendix I, paragraph 3b, to monitor, assess, identify, prioritize and report to state parties, including upon their request, on scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention and their potential applications for the implementation of the Convention, including inter alia the following areas.

So can we turn the yellow into green? Iran.

Thank you, Chair. as a more flexibility on this para my delegation's suggestion that after the States party in first line we add through the review group hopefully to reach a common understanding and consensus on this para thank you chair.

Could you repeat for the secretariat please?

Yes exactly has been reflected in the yeah thank you.

Can we agree with the Iranian proposal? No, Germany, Germany, sorry.

Yes, I think we need a little more time to reflect on that because the whole paragraph is about the functions of the advisory mechanism as a whole. So we're not quite sure about the implications if we limit this through the review group at this point, so I would have to ask for indulgence to give us a little more time to think that through. Thank you.

So can you sit with Iran and bring me something in the afternoon? Thank you.

Paragraph six, you've seen that we're just going backwards like crabs, you know, and some solutions are found. So let's try to find solutions before we have to go back to the things. So on paragraph six, the S&T advisory mechanism, is led by a Bureau comprised of a Chairperson and two Vice-Chairpersons appointed annually by the Review Group from its members. They will also serve as the Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of the Review Group and the Reporting Committee.

Just, I want to ask our UK colleague to help me, but I think there's a mistake. It's on the serve as the chairperson and not chairpersons. It's green, but in respect to the UK, we correct the language.

So any comment on?

Russia.

Thank you again, Chairperson.

As regards the first square brackets, which are the first two paragraphs of the resolution, are of critical importance to us. We gave detailed comments previously, and given the understanding that we are leaving the question of the consensus principle for discussion later, we will not dwell in detail on this, but we will just reiterate that for us Article 6 would be acceptable if the square brackets were lifted from the words "by consensus". As regards the second set of square brackets, we would like to focus attention on this and try to find a solution here. We do not exclude a situation where the Chairperson could be appointed for a longer period of time than one year, and in such a case annual appointment of a chairperson would not be required. We would even say that it is highly likely that we have a situation where a chairperson would be appointed for more than one year. Therefore, the addition 'as appropriate' allows us to elegantly resolve this situation without predetermining what we will have in the future. predetermining a situation and forcing us each year to be engaged in the reappointment of a chairperson. Without this phrase as appropriate, without any doubt, every year, inevitably, regardless of whether we have agreement of the chairperson remaining for longer or not, we will be forced to engage in that bureaucratic effort to appoint a chairperson. We believe that is not sensible, and so we approve of the words as appropriate and propose deleting the square brackets.

Thank you.

My question is, from what you said, we can green the first yellow phrase.

Keeping the brackets, which is what we have been doing, right? Da ili.

Nije.

I am afraid it is nije because the square brackets remain around by consensus.

Can you agree that can we agree The S&T Advisory Mechanism is led by a Bureau comprised of a Chairperson and two Vice-Chairpersons appointed. Can you agree with this?

Again, no, I'm afraid, Chairperson, because on the same logic as the United States is not in agreement to turn the yellow text green in paragraph 16.

Thank you.

Well, you're using the American logic.

That's quite an improvement on international politics.

Can you agree with the last phrase?

Yes.

Baba, Bog. Let's go to paragraph 9. What's your problem with paragraph 9, Russia?

Thank you, Chairperson.

Well, we don't have any particular problem with paragraph 9 if we lift the square brackets around through written silence procedure. Otherwise, we would also apply the same logic with respect to paragraph 6 and we would prefer to keep this text yellow.

Thank you.

I repeat for the hundredth time, what we are discussing here are not the brackets, but the yellow. So, my question is, can you green what's in yellow?

Well, Chairperson, we follow the same logic for all paragraphs. If in all paragraphs where we have yellow it will be greened, I guess that we could agree with that. But while applying a selective approach, we would prefer to keep it yellow.

Thank you.

So we start, we stop where we started at 10 o'clock this morning. And that's not my idea. I mean, delegation have to be trying to move because we start at 10 o'clock with this paragraph like this. It's 12 o'clock, two hours of discussion. Delegations want the same paragraph like it was. So why do we spend two hours? doing nothing. I think, you know, we have to change our pace, our speed, otherwise we're going nowhere.

Let's move to paragraph 22 and see if we can work on something.

And I was also asked those delegations that are putting keeping things on yellow that they come to me this afternoon with some proposal.

Let's go to paragraph 22.

Can we take the first phrase on what's yellow?

Well, Chairperson, under the same logic, we would keep yellow the first sentence while the second sentence we are ready to green. As regards the last set of square brackets, we do stand ready...

The last square brackets.

For... A thousand times we are discussing turning yellow to green. So there is no need to make any comment on white text and brackets which are in white text. We cannot lose time.

So paragraph 22, can we accept the first sentence? without the brackets, which are not being discussed.

I repeat, which are not being discussed. So, yellow. Can we accept what's yellow and turn into green?

Russia.

Well, Chairperson, I'm afraid not. We would prefer to keep this yellow in this particular case.

Thank you.

And the following phrase, any comments on the following phrase? It's the members of the reporting committee will serve in their individual capacity as independent experts and will not be eligible for immediate reappointment for two consecutive terms. Can we accept this?

So decided.

23. The Review Conference will also decide on a list up to ten experts to serve as potential replacement candidates.

Can we agree with that?

Russia.

Chairperson, we would like currently to keep this text yellow.

Thank you.

I think my Georgian colleague, who is my Vice President, I think I'm going to ask him to take the floor because I'm not being successful at all so far on my evaluation. So Georgia, be ready because to go nowhere, I'm not going to do this.

Then we go to paragraph 25.

At least the French ambassador, she's happy because she's not here. Otherwise, she would take it because ladies first.

Can we take the paragraph 25?

Yes.

Oh, Iran. It's terrible. I cannot see from here, you know.

Thank you, Chair. We are considering this para and we are consulting with our delegation and my colleagues that under therefore we request is that to keep it in yellow this para. Thank you.

Georgia, I really wish you good luck. Let's go now to white. Now the color is white. Paragraph 11. State parties and all relevant stakeholders are encouraged to make voluntary use of guidelines as well as existing national or international codes of conduct for scientists, on responsible biological research, bioethics and biosecurity. In this regard, State Parties acknowledge the development of the Tianjin Biosecurity Guidelines for Codes of Conduct for Scientists, drafted by biology practitioners from State Parties.

In all regions of the world. Any comments?

U.S.

And Russia?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States can accept the entirety of the first sentence, but cannot accept the second sentence. If that second sentence is removed, the United States would favor this being green language. Thank you.

Thank you.

Russia.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Our position is diametrically opposed to that of the United States. We would ask to put square brackets or better completely around the first sentence and in this regard in the second sentence to lift that, leaving just the second sentence, deleting the rest, leaving just states parties acknowledged from that. And as regards the second sentence, we would request that after the reference to the Tianjin guidelines, to put the phrase as a model for voluntary use. In this case, We would be ready to agree paragraph 11 and we would like particularly to note our support for the work that has been done by the Member States and non-governmental structures on the Tianjin Guidelines.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

Cuba.

Iran, China, India, Cuba.

Thank you, Chair. Perhaps some language which might not be the solution but could provide eventually a solution with something along the lines of state parties and other relevant stakeholders. It would be an alternative paragraph.

State parties and all relevant stakeholders are encouraged to make voluntary use of guidelines including the Tianjin biosecurity guidelines.

For codes of conduct for scientists, as well as existing national or international codes of conduct.

For the scientists on responsible biological research, bioethics and biosecurity.

Gracias.

Iran.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. Actually, my delegation supports both proposals. I mean, para 11.11 bis by the Cuban delegation, but regarding the original text, we support the idea of this para and we have just minor changes regarding the acknowledge, it should be deleted and we use take note.

Thank you.

China.

Thank you, Chair. On this part, on the Tianjin guidelines, there is only one country has concerns on the last sentence that was what I noted. I would like to know the reason for that. Because due to concerns from some countries, we have already agreed to change endorse to acknowledge. This is the maximum compromise that China can agree to. That is why we still hope to keep States parties acknowledged. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

India, Pakistan, and Emirates.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. We've carefully taken note of the views expressed by various states. I do want to just state that this effort on producing these guidelines was an effort of three non-governmental institutions. Secondly, it was a voluntary effort outside the BWC and that it involved 20 participants and many countries were not part of that effort. Having said this, we are fundamentally not opposed to the reference to these guidelines as it is provided over here. But we do have some edits. We can support the Russian edit of having these guidelines to be used as a model for voluntary use. Second, we also want to make a minor edit in the last part of the last sentence. which is that these guidelines were drafted by biology practitioners. We want to bracket from states parties and just say that these were from various regions. And one of the reasons why we are doing this is to not lend a misperception that this was an effort which was undertaken in the BWC and this would make it actually more accurate. Thank you.

Thank you.

Pakistan, you, Emirates and Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your patience during the work as well. Keeping in view with what has been discussed with this specific point and as said by our colleagues from China, the DDT anti-biosecurity guidelines, they have evolved over a period of time, have enjoyed broad consensus. So we would like to retain the term of acknowledge as a means of showing that these have evolved during this process. Thank you.

Thank you. Pakistan, Emirates and Canada.

Thank you, Chair. Overall, we don't have substantial observations on the guidelines, particularly that it is mentioned that it is voluntary. I align myself with other Member States regarding changing biosecurity guidelines. It is very important that this should not mean providing a special status to these guidelines within the convention. We should emphasize that it is not binding and volunteering and that not impeach on countries' rights to use their own regulations in this regard. And thank you.

Thank you.

Canada.

Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to note that Canada is happy with the original paragraph there as drafted in its entirety. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comment? Peru.

Thank you, Jett. We would like to take this opportunity to voice our position on this paragraph, significant paragraph. We first believe that the proposal that you made was an acceptable one and it is a balanced wording. We could also accept what was proposed in terms of changes made by India and the Russian Federation. Perhaps we could put an alternative on the table in the second sentence instead of "as a model for voluntary use", we could say as a useful reference. All that to say that in our view, the changing principles are indeed a voluntary tool which could be a useful reference point. Thank you.

Thank you. Gracias. Any other delegation?

We're going to meet with some delegations and try to find alternative language.

Russia.

Well, Chairperson, we would ask the Secretariat to precisely reflect our position and put square brackets around the first sentence, including the words 'in this regard' in the second sentence.

Thank you.

That's done.

Paragraph 14. We have the first phrase is yellow.

It's already green.

It's already green? Should give me a right one. So, let's see the rest of the paragraph. So we have in white, consider developing, develop, as appropriate, and then the whole phrase, This discussion school will take into account inter alia as appropriate any relevant documents agreed by the state parties under the convention as well as proposals already submitted by state parties without prejudice to any decision or position with a view to preparing them for consideration and approval by the 11th review conference. State parties are encouraged to consider engaging in additional voluntary transparency measures, including transparency exercises.

The floor is open.

Thank you, Chairperson.

First, we have a general comment. We consider this paragraph to be an attempt to find a compromise solution. At the same time, we would like to recall that apart from this paragraph we also had a separate paragraph or a proposal on a certain paragraph where we proposed reflecting certain initiatives proposed by the Member States including the Russian Federation to modernise the forms of confidence building measures and we would like to confirm that we stand ready to lift that paragraph only on the understanding that Any other references to a number of other initiatives will also be listed concerning issues of transparency, for example, also. And that is why we continue to insist on deleting the last sentence in the paragraph you proposed, where there is a reference to the existence of specific initiatives with respect to transparency measures. Given the absence of concrete proposals to modernise confidence-building measures, we consider this sentence to be completely superfluous. As regards the other square brackets, given 'considering develop' or 'developing', consider 'developing' or 'develop', we would prefer the second option, 'develop'. because the first phrase 'consider developing, we believe' does not contain any sense, because at the beginning of paragraph 14, at the beginning of that first sentence, we already have 'are encouraged to consider'. And if we leave just the verb 'develop', then the sentence as a whole will be: are encouraged to consider to develop, which in essence repeats the first sentence. So there is redundancy here and we believe that we need to open up the square brackets. Next, we would prefer to keep the phrase as appropriate at the end of the first sentence. in order to not predetermine whether there will be any other additional proposals with respect to other additional forms of CBM or not.

Any comments on the from delegations from the Russian proposal?

I see Emirates.

Yeah.

Thank you, Chairperson. We have an observation, which is that we don't prefer the use of approval. We are satisfied with for consideration by the 11th review conference. The text should not prejudge that or presuppose that decisions will be adopted and that it will be adopted in the review conference. With regards to the remaining text, it is important and should be kept because it reflects the positions of various member states. And thank you.

Any other comments?

Australia and the US.

From our perspective, it's important that this paragraph does not preempt the work to be done and should not be overly prescriptive. For that reason, we would prefer consider developing to develop. As an alternative, I think you could simply say, and additional CBM forms to capture the earlier reference to consideration. Similarly, in the second sentence, we would prefer could over will and would request the deletion of and approval. On the final sentence, we note comments that this is superfluous, but at the same time that does no harm, so we would be very comfortable to retain that final sentence. Thank you.

USA, Cuba, France and Germany.

Chair, thank you. We would agree with our Australian colleagues regarding preference for consider developing over develop and could over will. We agree also with our Australian and UAE colleagues regarding deletion of end approval. And we would respectfully request the addition of after the word proposals, in between the word proposals and already in the second sentence, the addition of the following words, possible revisions to the CBM. With those changes, the United States could support this paragraph being green. Thank you.

Cuba, France, and Germany.

Thank you, Chair. There's some rationale to Russia's proposal. We cannot consider the consideration, I mean that. in that respect we should say develop if we're going to consider that that means develop we have would have no problem with the will and the last sentence admittedly doesn't add to substance especially we are if we're seeking a certain amount of consensus around phrasings which all delegations can agree upon or see our views reflected therein. Thank you.

Thank you. By the way, I'm just noting, I mean, I'll have to ask our UK colleague to help me.

Because I'm just saying that state parties are encouraged to consider further possible revisions, amendments and inter alia consideration consider consideration.

I mean, I'm not an English speaking, but sounds very strange to me. France, Germany and Japan.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

I would like, if I may, to add my voice to what was said previously by our Australian delegate. We are favourable to Consider developing to not predetermine what exchanges there may be in the future as regards the proposal for amendment by the United States. We have nothing against it, but we would need a little more time to carefully consider the sentence and see what implications it would have in English. As regards the last sentence, we would like to keep it that with respect to additional voluntary transparency measures, three points. First, the entire section C, does not contain any other transparency measures, despite the mandate laid down by the conference in this area. Second, this is an old proposal and it was broadly supported at the RevCon by a trans-regional group. Third, transparency is complementarity. It's complementary. with respect to other measures and that's why we would like to keep this last sentence.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can keep it brief because we would like to add our support to the intervention made by Australia and also France just now. So we are relatively flexible regarding the wording in the first part as long as it's clear that the discussions will remain open and not be too prescriptive so do not presuppose any outcome and like France we also consider the last sentence important because CBMs are important transparency measures but they're not the only ones so we think it's important to have a reference in this text that additional voluntary transparency measures could be of value as well. Thank you.

Japan and UK.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, almost afternoon to all the colleagues. So we would like to add our voice to what the delegation from Australia, United Kingdom, France, and Germany, and we would like to prefer the consider developing because you want to not to predetermine and also we would like to prefer could to will.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Just responding to your challenge and on the assumption that you are content for me on that basis to reopen yellow language. I think I have some sympathy for your point around the myriad considerations in this paragraph, and I wonder whether you could actually draft as follows. States parties are encouraged to consider further possible revisions and amendments to existing CBMs, including inter alia, simplifying, expanding or deleting existing forms and developing additional CBM forms. the language is clear that we are only being encouraged to consider those aspects not being told to do so and therefore I think you could probably drop the the subsequent consideration so to repeat it would say um as drafted up as far as interalia and then it would read interalia simplifying expanding or deleting existing forms and developing additional CBM forms thank you.

I thank you for considering my comment Peru.

Thank you, Chair, very briefly. Three elements. Number one, on consider developing and develop and that choice, we're flexible on that. Number two, we support the US's proposal on new language. of possible revisions to CBMs. And three, we'd like to support us keeping the last sentence on the transparency measures. As we've said previously, this section, CBMs and transparency measures, should also embody recommendations pertaining to transparency. CBMs should embody transparency. Given that I have the floor, I would like also to support what the UK has just proposed on the first part. Thank you.

Thank you, Peru. Niger.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

We would like to start by supporting the proposal to reformulate the text as submitted by the United Kingdom. We think it's not substantive, but it does streamline the text and makes it easier to read. Second, we would like to support these discussions could rather than will. Third, We would also like to keep for consideration, preparing them for consideration, and we would also like to keep the last sentence, which is in square brackets, the transparency measures.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nizar. India, Russia, and Iran. Let's make our life easier. So I'm going to do like this. Can we accept the suggestion made by the owner of the language from the UK? Russia.

Please consider his suggestion.

Without any doubt, Chairperson, as for the proposals from other Member States, but in our opinion, what was proposed...

Just this thing, can delegations accept the phrase that the UK suggested?

Russia.

We would be happy to accept it if it was correctly reflected on the screen, because what we see on the screen is not what the United Kingdom delegation did actually propose.

Can the UK repeat it please, David?

Thanks Chair, I think I suggested including Interallia simplifying, expanding or deleting existing forms and developing additional CBM forms.

Russia, can you agree with this first phrase? Now, let's go to the second phrase. These discussions could, will take into account interalia as appropriate any relevant documents, could or will? Canada.

Thank you, Chair. Our preference would be to stick to could instead of will. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to support the remark made by the UK Ambassador, one. And second, when we look at the second sentence, it appears that in our consideration for revisions to CBMs we will only look at the proposals that have already been submitted and my understanding is that more proposals may be received in the incoming cycle so our suggestion would be to expand it in a way that allows states to submit more proposals so that there's a comprehensive consideration at the 11th review conference with a view to their adoption thank you.

Thank you.

Russia and Iran.

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

For us, the only possible option here is will. If we're talking about a compromise solution, we would like to be confident that the proposals that are already on the table will be considered by delegations and this will be guaranteed. And that is a problem that can only be resolved with the word will. Could does not resolve that challenge. We foresee a discussion about what can be considered and what won't be discussed, and we want to avoid that, and that's why we insist on will.

Thank you.

Iran and Canada.

Thank you, Chair. My point is regarding the last bracket or last sentence. If you, if I may, my delegation is of the view that there is no added value for this sentence, which is now in the bracket, and there is no directly related to the CBMs. My delegation supports any idea to promote and strengthen the CBMs forms and any measures in this regard. So my delegation suggests to delete the last bracket or last sentence. Thank you, Chair.

USA.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank my Indian colleague for pointing out an issue with the language. We think a solution would be to take, to delete the bracketed language that says of possible revisions to CBMs and lower in the sentence where it says with a view to preparing them, delete them and replace it with possible revisions to CBMs. We think that might satisfy and we'd be okay with that change. Thank you.

Can we agree?

Russia...

We cannot agree with the proposal of the United States of America because this completely changes the very sense of the compromise solution. The essence of this compromise solution, as we understand it, is to ensure that it will be guaranteed that the proposals will be discussed the proposals for CBMs that are already tabled the language proposed boils this all down to some possible future adjustments and that's not what we were talking about and in that case we would prefer to go back to the previous paragraph that we had in this text, in the text which covered all of the possible initiatives on CBMs. If we are working to find a compromise solution, then we must talk about guaranteeing consideration of all of the initiatives proposed by Member States. We are happy to discuss around that, but without that we don't see any point in this direction.

Thank you.

Okay, so I would ask delegations to come to me with language that can be agreed to all delegations, or at least to those that have different positions.

We have ten minutes to go, but I don't think we have time to open another discussion. So let's adjourn the meeting until 3:00. And I would ask delegations that have some problems with my paper to come to me.

In the afternoon with some proposals so we can move. Thank you, enjoy your lunch.

The Secretariat has something to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, well, good afternoon now, ladies and gentlemen. Just to announce a couple of side events that are taking place during the lunch break. There is one taking place in room eight, which is entitled Science for Diplomats, Outbreak Unknown, an interactive simulation on AI-enabled biological threats and governance. That's hosted by UNODA and AI Safety Asia. As I said, that's in room eight. The other side event taking place will be in There's one in that's the Youth for Biosecurity poster exhibition which is taking place just behind us in the Salle des Papadoux during the lunch break as well. Thank you.