1. I have the honour to take the floor on behalf of the European Union.
2. The European Union wishes to stress that we should use the Review Conference to agree on a clearly defined follow-up mechanism with regard to the various issues raised in your non-paper 5.
3. We would also like the Review Conference to reaffirm relevant measures mentioned in the BMS4 outcome document, in the section on the way forward regarding the strengthening of the follow-up mechanism of the Programme of Action.
4. In addition, as far as our future meetings in the PoA framework are concerned, we support an increased number of meetings among technical experts as part of a revitalized PoA. The pragmatic and operational approach shown by the meeting of governmental experts in 2011 has proven an excellent way of promoting the implementation of the PoA. The exchange of experiences and lessons learned at experts’ level should therefore be continued. The Review Conference should clearly define specific technical issues on which such individual meetings should be held. In this context, one of the priorities for the EU would be, among others, physical security and stockpile management. Another priority would be the examination of mechanisms to share diversion track records on the basis of traced illicit SALW. We also consider it useful that other PoA related meetings concentrate on specific themes.
5. It is often and rightly stated that the lack of benchmarks and indicators for success is a major weakness of the PoA. In order to address this issue, the Review Conference should agree on an implementation action plan for the next review cycle. Such a plan should include concrete objectives, tangible activities and specific performance indicators to enable a proper assessment of the implementation of the PoA.
6. With regard to the scheduling of the review cycle and the thematic focus of the follow-up meetings, the EU is ready to look at different options, including the ones put forward by Japan.
7. In order to be able to identify achievements and needs for further action more clearly, we should also further explore possibilities for self-assessment and peer review mechanisms.