Statement by India on CBMs during the meeting of the Working Group on the
strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), Geneva
Chair,
Thank you for giving me the floor.
CBMs serve as an important transparency measure. They have played, and continue to play an important role, in building trust, given the absence of adequate verification under the Convention.
India believes that CBMs, consistent with the mandate, have the objective to “prevent or reduce the occurrence of ambiguities, doubts and suspicions and to improve international cooperation in the field of peaceful biological activities”.
India supports further strengthening of the CBMs by possible expansion of the information sought, based on a consensus consideration. In this connection, we take note of the several proposals made in this review cycle, as well as those made in last review cycle.
We also note that the information provided by States differ in details and precision. The exchange of data, where possible, could be made more uniform.
India also notes the importance of improving the quality of responses in the data collected through CBMs.
We are pleased to note the number of CBM submissions, while historically low, have steadily increased in the recent past indicating a positive trend in their submissions. We appreciate and acknowledge the efforts of the ISU in this regard.
While CBMs are currently voluntary in nature, India supports making CBMs mandatory.
However, we would like to clarify that, given their specific mandate, CBMs are not a tool to assess or scrutinize compliance. They help to promote transparency and should be seen as such unless, there is consideration to expand its functions.
My delegation also believes that CBMs cannot be looked in an isolated manner. Aspects pertaining to CBMs are intrinsically linked with other aspects on strengthening of our convention, particularly those on compliance and verification.
The question as to what functions CBMs should perform, what information it should seek, and what structure it should have would, to a large extent, depend on, or be influenced by, comprehensive consideration of possible measures on compliance and verification.
*****
Chair,
On the Measures on CBMs as contained in the Rolling Text, our views are as follows:-
My delegation, in principle, supports the idea of the envisaged activities of the ISU, which could help States that face challenges in preparing CBMs, in receiving technical assistance, as outlined in para 14, 15, 16 and 17, upon their request.
This technical assistance could be in terms of training programme, submission of partial reports, making e-CBM platform user friendly, and regular training courses.
However, we would like to underline that this assistance should be demand driven, with the request initiated by States that need such assistance.
While we are not opposed to the idea of CBM assistance network to support States Parties, our view is that it will duplicate the functions that ISU might perform, as outlined in Para 14 through 17.
My delegation, in principle, can support the idea of CBM review process, once in a five year review. However, we would like to clarify that reviews of CBMs are, even now, an intrinsic element of the existing review cycle. The inter-sessional discussions do not, in any way, impede new proposals on amending CBM forms.
My delegation is also broadly positive in assigning ISU the function to compile and make available factual information on CBM submissions. We would however like to note that this information should be:
-
Factual
-
Consistent with the existing CBM mandate
-
Identify overall trends
*******
