BTWC Meeting of Experts on Institutional Strengthening of the Convention - EU key messages

Mr Chair,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union.

The Candidate Countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia^*, Montenegro^*, Serbia^* and Albania^*, the country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia align themselves with this statement.

I would like to thank you for approaching Institutional Strengthening of the Convention in a comprehensive manner and assure you of the EU and its Member States' full support.

The EU continues to promote a robust set of achievable options that could contribute to an increase in confidence in compliance with the Convention and to the effective implementation of the object and purpose of the BTWC. While verification remains a central element of a complete and effective disarmament and non-proliferation regime, we recognise that there is no consensus regarding verification at this stage.

We invite all States Parties to support continuing efforts to enhance transparency and building confidence in compliance, including through necessary revisions to the current Confidence-Building Measures. States Parties should be able to demonstrate compliance, inter alia, by means of interactive information exchanges, such as mandatory or voluntary declarations, as well as through enhanced transparency about their capabilities, activities and actions, including voluntary and other on-site measures.

Other transparency measures

The EU continues to support and actively promote the concept of non-intrusive transparency measures, such as peer reviews and voluntary visits to relevant facilities. These are valuable tools for fostering and sustaining cooperation as well as helping to increase transparency between States Parties. The sharing of best practices, raising stakeholder awareness of implementation requirements, and increasing international cooperation contribute to strengthening national implementation and enhance confidence in compliance with the BTWC.

We encourage all States Parties to consider conducting, or participating, in peer review initiatives and other voluntary transparency exercises with a view to further strengthening the BTWC. Although discussed earlier in the week in MX3 on national implementation, such initiatives are also relevant to discussions on approaches and options to further strengthen the Convention in MX5. In this respect, we welcome the latest peer review exercise which Morocco organised with EU support in Rabat and in Casablanca in May 2017 and the upcoming peer review exercise in Tbilisi, Georgia in November 2018.

We should also consider enhancing the effectiveness of the consultative procedures under Article V of the Convention with a view to building and sustaining confidence in compliance. This could be achieved through updating the procedures for multilateral consultations that have been previously agreed, but also reaching agreement on other mechanisms, drawing from the options outlined in the EU working paper circulated ahead of the Eighth Review Conference (BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.16). If these types of measures were to be adopted, this might allow States Parties to select a method of consultation commensurate to the gravity of the problem identified.

The EU working paper lists a number of options that may be considered by States Parties:

Bilateral options

• CBM clarification procedures in which a State Party could contact another State Party’s national focal point requesting consultations on ambiguous or seemingly omitted CBM data.

• Procedures for private bilateral consultations could be developed by reviewing the scope, timelines and informational requirements employed in other treaties and adapting these to develop a system suited to the BTWC.

• Voluntary bilateral visits arranged by mutual consent to clarify and resolve matters amongst the States Parties concerned.

• Facilitated bilateral consultations could be also developed.

  Multilateral options

• Updating and reaffirming the procedures for multilateral consultations developed at the Third Review Conference.

• Peer review activities have included a consultative process in some form or other, in some cases including facility visits.

• Voluntary multilateral visits mutually agreed between multiple States Parties could also be employed as a means of enhancing consultation and cooperation.

• Integrate consultations into future meetings through the inclusion of Article V consultations on the agenda.

• A Consultative Committee of Experts could be established to "make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problems which may arise in relation to the objective of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention". Such a model was proposed by Sweden at the First and Second Review Conferences.

• Appeal to the UN Secretary-General to "facilitate the clarification requested". Such an option would be reserved for the most serious issues, such as allegations of the development or production of biological weapons.

UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism

The EU would like to underline the continued relevance of the UN Secretary-General's Mechanism for investigation of alleged use of chemical and biological weapons. Further strengthening the operational capabilities of this mechanism will contribute to strengthening Article VI and indirectly Article VII of the BTWC. In this context, the EU provides financial support to UNSG's Mechanism related training activities which are implemented by the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) in New York in the framework of EU Council Decision 2016/51/CFSP. We look forward to working together with the UN Secretary-General to develop a stronger international capacity to investigate any alleged use of biological or toxin weapons and to ensure that any illegal acts will be quickly detected.

Article VII on assistance, response and preparedness

We support efforts to strengthen the Convention in order to ensure an adequate and timely response to any possible biological attack. There is already a broad consensus on the need to operationalise the provisions of Article VII of the BTWC in order to provide and coordinate assistance upon request by a State Party in the case of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons. We welcome the proposal by France and India to establish a database for assistance in the framework of Article VII of the BTWC, as well as South Africa’s proposal on guidelines that would aid a State Party when submitting an application for assistance.

Implementation Support Unit (ISU) / financial situation

Despite financial constraints, the ISU has provided important support to States Parties for the implementation of their Treaty obligations and the intersessional work programme. We have advocated the strengthening of the ISU’s role and the inclusion of further activities in its mandate, such as a standing science and technology advisory and liaison function, coordination of universalisation activities, and support to national points of contacts in compiling and submitting CBM-forms.

Timely and full contributions to the BTWC budget are the essential requirement for a well-functioning and strengthened Convention and to maintain the modest institutional arrangements that we have to help sustain the Convention. We urge all States to fulfil their financial obligations under the Convention, and for those in arrears to pay up without further delay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

[1] EU key messages will be delivered under agenda item 4 Measures to improve transparency, including existing CBMs, possible proposals for broadening of the existing set of CBMs, and other possible transparency measures and Measures to address questions and concerns

^* The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.