Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. 

The Netherlands has been actively involved in the discussion on Compliance and Verification, not in the last place in our role as Friend of the Chair on this topic, together with Mexico. This intervention, however, is in our national capacity and reflects on the C&V-segment in the Rolling Text as we have it on the table. 

In general, the Netherlands is supportive of the idea of an OEWG as described in the current version of the Rolling Text. Over the past years, we took note of a revived and serious interest of States Parties in Compliance & Verification. We also became acutely aware of the limited amount of time we had in the WG to deal with such a complicated topic. As we often remarked: VEREX and the Ad Hoc Group had almost as many weeks per year as we have hours per year in the WG to discuss C&V. Of course, nothing is for free, and we realize that an OEWG will have substantial financial implications. Therefore, we subscribe to the approach to discuss the matter in more detail, to get clarity on scope and mandate, as well as regarding the financial implications. 

Furthermore, a possible future OEWG would not operate in a vacuum. We believe an OEWG should be able to rely on an established S&T-mechanism that is capable of feeding into the discussion the necessary insights about relevant scientific and technological developments. 

Chair,

Please allow me also to share a few observations on the text itself. In paragraph 22, the formulation “credible evidence of compliance and non-compliance” is not something we principally oppose but let me point out that this assumes a maximalist approach to C&V, which could prejudge the outcome of the OEWG. 

Continuing having a look at paragraph 22, in the last sentence we would suggest considering a change to the text regarding adaptability. The reason for this is that it currently focuses on adaptation, whereas we believe any measures should be made future proof right from the beginning taking into account the ongoing evolution of bioscience when designing measures. Our suggestion would be to delete the last sentence and replace it by the following: “Any compliance and verification measures should be designed with sufficient flexibility to remain effective in an evolving threat environment”. 

For paragraph 23, we would suggest replacing the word “address” with “consider” in the chapeau. This seems to be a more open-ended way to approach the substantive items that follow. 

On 23c., we would prefer to delete this, since it does not seem to be the task of the OEWG to delve into specific S&T developments, nor to consider them comprehensively. Ideally, this is something in which an S&T mechanism would play a role.  

On paragraph 27. We have no strong feelings about the number of days, since that will depend on the scope and mandate of the OEWG, as well as on the budget States Parties would be willing to make available. Compared to the past, 20 days is a moderate amount, considering present circumstances, it might be a lot. In the BWPP-report regarding today’s meeting on C&V it is summarized as follows: “the question is how much to pay for what levels of effectiveness’’. 

Looking forward to hearing the views of others also with regard to the question whether they will be able to make available national experts for such a timeframe.

Chair,
In our view the Working Group, while implementing its mandate, has successfully revived a discussion on Compliance and Verification that stood still for two decades. The Netherlands stands ready to continue contributing to this process and calls on other delegations to work constructively together towards agreeing recommendations to strengthen and institutionalize the Convention in all its aspects, including on C&V. 

Thank you Chair.