Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair.

The Philippines aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the ASEAN and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

We appreciate the guiding questions that you and your team developed, as it allows the Group to move towards achieving meaningful and concrete results. To this end, the Philippines offers the following points while answering some of the guiding questions:

First, on the measures that would facilitate effective consideration of the needs of developing countries in the design and development of capacity-building measures, the Philippines would like to underline that it is important to assess the capacities of each state first to effectively consider these needs. There are already several models that assess a state’s capacity, e.g., the Oxford Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model for Nations (CMM) or the Potomac Institute Cyber Readiness Index (CRI) 2.0. Using the model “National Survey of Implementation of the UNGA Resolution 70/237 is also a way to advance capacity assessment. The Philippines underlines that this is only a first step and not a capacity-building per se.

Second, on existing mechanisms for capacity-building measures, the OEWG can build and improve on the work of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) such as the Catalog of Project Options for the National Cybersecurity Strategy (NCS) Cycle and the Global Overview of Existing Cyber Capacity Assessment Tools (GOAT). Alternatively, the OEWG can also look into replicating the GFCE Working Groups, to organize sub-working groups to work on thematic priorities of capacity-building, inter alia, norm implementation, establishment of national strategies, international law, incident response, emergency management and protection of critical infrastructure, that would offer concrete deliverables.

Third, on what role can the UN take to support capacity-building at the global level, the Philippine is of the view that the UN can take an active role in facilitating coordinated efforts such as in consolidating all regional and sub-regional programs related to cyber security capacity programs and make it available and updated in the UNIDIR Cyber Policy Portal. In this regard, the Philippines finds it useful to appoint a focal point with the responsibility of coordinating offers and requests for capacity-building, as well as updating the consolidated capacity-building programs. The Philippines also recommends that if such consolidated capacity-building programs will be operationalized, it should also be regularly circulated to all the Missions for their reference, e.g., every quarter of the year. This is to actively remind Missions of this endeavor and encourage participation.

And fourth, on what role UNIDIR can do to support a more coordinated capacity-building efforts, perhaps the UNIDIR can conduct a comparative study on different international and regional organizations that offer programs and assessment tools on cyber capacity-building, determine best practices, and list recommendations on how the UN can build and improve on these existing initiatives, for the OEWG’s consideration.  

Mr. Chair,

In the previous OEWG, States highlighted that many obstacles hinder or reduce the effectiveness of capacity-building. The Philippines is of the view that the two significant concerns that this Group can address are insufficient coordination and complementarity in the identification and delivery of capacity-building efforts. We are not starting from scratch. We have information right before us. What we need is to work and improve on existing programs, and effectively implement and consolidate all these initiatives and efforts in such a way that all Member States will be able to meaningfully participate and contribute in these capacity-building efforts.  

I thank you, Mr. Chair.