Thank you Chair, for giving me the floor. 
Let me begin by thanking you for your able leadership in guiding this working group’s deliberations. The Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the statement by the European Union and I deliver this statement in our national capacity.

Chair,
The Netherlands attaches great importance to international cooperation and assistance (ICA) for peaceful purposes under Art. X of the BTWC. We are also mindful of the fact that such activities support national implementation of the BTWC as per Art. IV of the Convention.
While a large number of international cooperation and assistance efforts take place in fora outside the Convention, the Netherlands deems it important that we take steps to further strengthen and institutionalize international cooperation and assistance under Art. X of the BTWC. The Ninth Review Conference has tasked this working group to do two things in this regard. One is broad: to develop measures and make recommendations to strengthen and institutionalize the Convention in all its aspects, including ICA. The second is more specific: to make recommendations for the establishment of an ICA-mechanism.

On draft measures in section A of the Rolling Text 
Thank you, Chair, for providing us with the opportunity to comment on section A of the Rolling Text. In our view, this section is generally headed into the right direction. Removing the references to the ICA-mechanism has cleaned up the text considerably, and has helped separate those discussions from the measures now proposed in section A. At the same time, we have a few concerns that I would like to raise here. 
First, we feel the current version of the text contains a lot of detail. In particular paragraphs, 3, 4 and 5 would benefit from streamlining. As an example, the references in paragraph 3 to the specific types of teaching materials are in our view unnecessary and could be omitted without losing its essence.  
Second, in those same paragraphs, we note the possible institutional and financial implications of setting up an International Biosecurity Education Network, a Laboratory Network, a Laboratory Twinning Programme and a capacity-building programme. While we are not opposed to these ideas and see the merit and mutual coherence between them, I would like to point out that the ISU will need adequate resourcing to organize this. The same potentially applies if the ISU is tasked with cooperating with and advising States Parties in developing or updating national implementation strategies. 

On an ICA Mechanism
Thank you Chair, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the latest state of play of an ICA mechanism, and for providing a structure to this discussion in the indicative timetable circulated last week. My delegation stands ready to continue our discussion on the basis of CRP1, dated 8 December 2024.

As indicated before, we support the establishment of an ICA mechanism. We believe that the BTWC’s ICA Steering Group should be inclusive and representative, yet compact enough to remain effective. 20 members from 20 States Parties, as extensively discussed before, would in our view meet those criteria. 

The Netherlands also supports the establishment of an ICA Advisory Group of the Meeting of States Parties that will consider and approve the ICA Programme. The Advisory Group would also serve as a forum for States Parties to exchange views on the operation of the ICA Mechanism and to raise any broader issues concerning the implementation of Article X.

In our view the primary task of such a mechanism should be to oversee and administer an ICA Trust Fund, which is to be funded through voluntary contributions. A number of examples of such funds exist in the disarmament world, such as the Arms Trade Treaty VTF and the Technical Cooperation Fund of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As was discussed previously, it would be useful to have the Review Conference agree on setting targets for the amount of money to be raised through voluntary contributions. 

More generally, in order to ensure that States Parties fulfil their financial obligations, the Netherlands would like to propose to impose consequences on those not paying their assessed contributions. Any State Party which has not met its financial commitments under the Convention for three or more consecutive years should not be able to benefit from the ICA Fund. One exception could be when a recommendation is made by the Steering Group and approved by the Meeting of States Parties, following the submission of a payment plan by the State Party concerned. 

In addition, to promote financial sustainability and ensure national ownership of projects, a State Party that is a Least Developed Country (LDC) should in our view contribute a minimum of 5% of its approved project budget as Cost-Share Contribution, and States Parties that are not LDCs should contribute a minimum of 10%. 
It goes without saying that this working group’s recommendations for the establishment of an ICA-mechanism should also reflect the required increase in ISU-staff, both in numbers and necessary expertise, to support the proper functioning of the ICA-Fund. Let me flag in particular the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient expertise available on international programming.

Chair,
Let me conclude by once again thanking you for the opportunity to raise comment on the draft text and although I feel the WG has come very close to finalizing the mechanisms, we still need to make the final push in order for them to be adopted. You can count on my delegation’s support in this regard. 
Thank you.