Donate!

Make a donation and
support the network's effort
for a sustainable future!

Your donation will help us educate and
inspire people.

INES Information Service

What's New in INES (wnii)

wnii gives an overview about INES related subjects from all over the world.
Sign up for wnii here

Recent Issue
wnii archive

INES Newsletter:

The INES Newsletter is published two to four times a year. It gives INES members the possibility to publish articles about their work. read on

Recent Issue,
Newsletter archive

Activities > Current Activities > BWC

Kathryn Nixdorff

End of the First Round. Quo vadis, BWC?

Anthrax bacteria Photo: wikipedia.org

One of the partial successes of the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) in 2006 was the agreement by the States Parties on a new work programme for 2007-2010, to be carried out in a series of annual meetings up to the Seventh Review Conference in 2011. A different set of topics is to be covered each year during a one-week Meeting of Experts, followed by a one-week Meeting of States Parties.^[1] The stated purpose of these meetings is “to discuss, and promote common understanding and effective action”^[2] on the topics under consideration.

The themes for both meetings in 2007 were (1) “Ways and means to enhance national implementation, including enforcement of national legislation, strengthening of national institutions and coordination among national law enforcement institutions”, and (2) “Regional and sub-regional cooperation on BWC implementation”.  In August 2007 a one week Meeting of Experts to consider these topics was followed in December by a Meeting of States Parties, thus completing the first round of this new Inter-Review Conference work programme. Both meetings proceeded under the very able chairmanship of Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan, who had also been the president of the Sixth Review Conference. The following is a brief report on the results of these meetings.

Sixth Review Conference

The Sixth Review Conference itself has been hailed by many observers as at least a partial success, especially in the light of the chaos and near disaster that accompanied the Fifth Review Conference in 2001-2002, in which no article by article review of the Convention and no Final Declaration could be achieved.^[3] Also, there was no formal review and assessment of scientific and technological developments in relation to the BWC. The Sixth Review Conference on the other hand produced a Final Declaration including an article by article review of the Convention. New developments in science and technology were reviewed and their relevance for the Convention was assessed. In addition, the new Inter-Review Conference work programme referred to above was agreed, and an Implementation Support Unit (ISU) was established. This unit consists of three full-time staff members within the Geneva branch of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs. It was given the mandate to provide administrative support, facilitate communication among States Parties and international organisations, and facilitate contacts with scientific and academic institutions and non-governmental organisations as well. It also serves as a type of clearing house to receive and distribute the confidence-building measures (CBMs) submitted by the States Parties, to compile and distribute data on CBMs and to inform on participation.^[4] A report on the activities of the ISU since its establishment can be viewed on its website.^[5] Although the scope of the ISU is still a far cry away from that of a permanent treaty organisation such as the Organisation to Prohibit Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of the Chemical Weapons Convention, it might be seen as a first step in this direction. Indeed, the decision to establish the ISU was one of considerable significance. There has always been objection by some key States Parties to the establishment of a permanent treaty organisation for the BWC, so the fact that consensus was reached on the ISU serves as a possible indication that the atmosphere for cooperation among the States Parties has changed to a more positive character since the Fifth Review Conference.

Meeting of Experts 2007

The designated purpose of the Meetings of Experts is to prepare the field of work for the subsequent Meetings of the States Parties. In 2007 the issue was national implementation of the provisions of the BWC, along with regional and sub-regional cooperation on implementation. Implementation of the Convention is a considerable task, as several areas have to be addressed: legislative, monitoring and enforcement.^[6] While national implementation is a topic of crucial importance for strengthening the Convention, it is perhaps one of the least controversial issues among those to be handled in the Inter-Review Conference sessions. At the Meeting of Experts, many States Parties submitted working papers and statements outlining their views on national implementation of the Convention and what steps in this direction had been taken or are being planned for their country. To help sort out the various views and proposals into a practical working form, these were summarised and divided into different categories: Implementing the Articles of the Convention, Scope of national implementation measures, Managing national implementation, Enforcing national implementation measures, International and regional cooperation and assistance and Transfers and export controls.^[7] Ambassador Khan further distilled these proposals into a chairman’s synthesis paper.^[8] The meeting proceeded without any significant differences, possibly reflecting both a cooperative atmosphere and the fact that the issue of implementation of the Convention was relatively non-contentious.

Meeting of States Parties 2007

The Meeting of Experts in August was followed by the Meeting of States Parties (MSP) from 10-14 December, 2007. Ninety-five of the 159 States Parties to the Convention participated in the meeting. In spite of the improved atmosphere, all illusions of a softening of some States Parties’ positions regarding contentious issues were dispelled on the opening day in the plenary session. On behalf of the European Union,  The Netherlands had submitted a working paper supporting the ISU and stating a desire to have its activities enhanced. The paper went on to say that “the EU stands ready to provide additional financial assistance to support specific activities and projects of the ISU”^[9] and inviting other states to do likewise. Some possible activities that might be enhanced were listed: Implementation, cooperation and assistance; CBMs; Universality; Outreach.^[10] On the surface, there would seem to be little controversy over the first three areas, which are those for which the ISU has a mandate anyway. However, it has been suggested that the area of outreach, while in principle not a contentious issue, might be interpreted as “a suggestion that the ISU could organise something similar to the OPCW Academic Forum”.^[11] In any case, in its opening statement by Ambassador Christina Rocca, the United States let it be known in no uncertain terms that it would not support an extension of the mandated activities of the ISU. The statement commended the work of the ISU, but went on to say that the US

 “would like to note its deep concern over recommendations encouraging support for increased responsibilities for the Implementation Support Unit. While we wholeheartedly encourage voluntary contributions for the ISU to carry out its assigned tasks [emphasis added], such funding must not in any way undermine the strict delineation of the ISU operations that was the basis for the compromise text of the mandate. If regional groups or States Parties wish to provide additional funding, that funding should be used to help the three-person ISU to fulfil the tasks assigned and not seek to expand that mandate into new, unauthorised areas”.^[12]

In the afternoon of that opening plenary session, Ambassador Khan introduced a new procedure to encourage and promote exchange between delegates and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). For this purpose he had invited six NGOs to a roundtable discussion on the theme of “Practical contributions of civil society to national implementation and regional cooperation”. NGO representatives Graham Pearson (Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK), Angela Woodward (Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, UK), Filippa Lentzos (London School of Economics, UK), Kathryn Nixdorff (INES, Germany), Marie Chevrier (Arms Control Center on Biological and Chemical Weapons, US) and Jean Pascal Zanders (BioWeapons Prevention Project, Switzerland) joined Ambassador Khan around the table in the centre of the room. After an introductory statement by Ambassador Khan, each NGO representative gave a short statement on the perspectives of their organisation in the way of practical suggestions for implementation of the Convention. This followed a question and answer session between the delegates and the NGOs. This roundtable was considered by many to be an innovative move on the part of Ambassador Khan in his capacity as chairman. However, he was obliged to dispel fears that NGOs might be given a new status by expressly assuring the MSP that this procedure was not to be taken as a precedent and it did not change the status of anyone participating.

After the roundtable discussion, the rest of the afternoon and the following morning allowed time for additional NGOs to present short statements to the delegates in the traditional manner, after suspension of the formal plenary. Statements were presented by Barry Kellman (Partnership for Global Security), Malcolm Dando (Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford), Iris Hunger (Research Group for Biological Arms Control, University of Hamburg), Kenneth Luongo (Partnership for Global Security), Susi Snyder (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom) and Trevor Griffiths (Pax Christi). All NGO statements, including those of the roundtable discussion, can be accessed at the BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP) website.^[13]

Final Report of the Meeting of States Parties 2007

The rest of the meeting proceeded without much discordance. A final report^[14] was agreed upon, despite a number of last-minute objections from Iran, which could be successfully resolved through consultations and the efforts of the chairman. “While Ambassador Khan may have wanted his final public session in the chair to go without incident, it did offer him an opportunity to present another master class in how to bring together opposing viewpoints”.^[15]  The chairman’s synthesis paper was included as Annex I of the report as a useful checklist to assist in implementation, but like in other Inter-Review Conference meetings, there was no formal adoption of any suggestions. Indeed, the report includes the disclaimer that the synthesis paper “has no status”.^[16] This points up the character of these meetings, where the States Parties come together to “discuss and promote common understanding” but take very little collective “effective action” on the issues. This is reflected in the language of the report:

“Having considered ways and means to enhance national implementation of the Convention, and recognising the need to take into account their respective national circumstances and legal constitutional processes, the States Parties agreed on the fundamental importance of effective national measures in implementing the obligations of the Convention. The States Parties further agreed on the need to nationally manage, coordinate, enforce and regularly review the operation of these measures to ensure their effectiveness.”^[17]

Any action on measures discussed at the MSP is therefore left to the individual states and only at the Seventh Review Conference will the States Parties decide on any further collective action. Thus, the States Parties are “encouraged to inform the Seventh Review Conference of, inter alia, any actions, measures or other steps that they may have taken on the basis of discussions at the 2007 Meeting of Experts and the outcome of the 2007 Meeting of States Parties, in order to facilitate the Seventh Review Conference’s consideration of the work and outcome of these meetings and its decision on any further action […].”^[18]

The issue concerning the relevance of developments in science and technology for the Convention was not formally reviewed at the MSP. However, in the framework of the discussions on implementation, the States Parties agreed in the final report “on the importance of regular national reviews of adopted measures, including by ensuring the continued relevance of their national measures in light of scientific and technological developments.^[19] The emphasis is again on national rather than collective action. It is interesting that several States Parties at the 2007 Meeting of Experts had stressed the fact that there is an obligation in Article IV of the BWC^[20] not only to “prohibit” but also to “prevent” the misuse of biological materials for non-peaceful purposes through implementation of the Convention.^[21] Prohibition can be accomplished to a great extent through national penal legislation. It is to be expected that the prevention of the misuse of biological materials will be covered more thoroughly in the next round of Inter-Review Conference sessions in 2008, where national, regional and international biosafety and biosecurity measures will be discussed, along with oversight, education and awareness raising, all of which can contribute to prevention.

Universality of the Convention was also an issue at the MSP. Activities to promote universalization were reported by the chairman^[22] on the last day of the MSP and were subsequently reviewed by the States Parties. Since the Sixth Review Conference, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Montenegro and Trinidad and Tobago have either ratified or acceded to the Convention, bringing the number of States Parties currently up to 159. Fifteen of these are signatories but have not ratified. However, five states are “reported to be well advanced in the ratification process and a further eight are reported to have begun the process.”^[23]

Once again, those who were hoping for more substantial, concrete action on the issues at hand might be disappointed at the outcome of the meetings in 2007. However, it must be remembered that implementing the Convention is a complex, continuing process and that progress in this area accordingly takes time. In this regard, the “2007 Meetings were part of a process [that] has seen significant progress in implementation of the BTWC since the topic was discussed at the 2003 Meetings”.^[24] On the other hand, one judgement of the outcome of the 2003 Inter-Review Conference meetings on implementation was that “although a substantial amount of information has been provided by the States Parties, much is related to national implementation of the BWC. This issue should have been addressed three decades ago. So at best the current exercise represents an attempt to catch up with BWC implementation as it is required under the Convention.”^[25] This statement still holds true after the close of the 2007 Inter-Review Conference meetings on implementation.

Indeed, as Iris Hunger points out, there is “little reason for rejoicing”, particularly because since 2001 there has been “no progress on the important mechanisms under Articles V and VI of the BWC such as the consultative meetings and challenge investigations, or on the issue of verification […] And there is still no willingness to adopt mandatory recommendations or take binding decisions.”^[26] Thus, at the end of the first round of the new Inter-Review Conference work programme, the future of the BWC remains uncertain.

Lunchtime events

Several NGOs organise lunchtime presentations or seminars during the break between the morning and afternoon sessions of the meetings in Geneva, which are generally well attended by the delegates to the Convention. At the MSP 2007 the first lunchtime seminar was held on Tuesday, December 11. This seminar was entitled “Reaching out to the Final 36 – Overcoming Obstacles to the Universalization of the BTWC” and was organised by the BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP). Ambassador Khan introduced the seminar with a presentation entitled “Universalising the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention”. Kathryn McLaughlin then presented the BWPP study “Surveying Universalization of the BTWC: Preliminary Results”. This was followed by short, prepared interventions by Richard Lennane (Head of the BWC Implementation Support Unit and Secretary of the MSP), Ambassador Caroline Millar (Australia), Ambassador Jose Pereira Gomes (Portugal, President of the European Union Delegations), Fiona Patterson and Jacqueline Daley (both of the UK Delegation). This high profile seminar was indicative of the general willingness of delegations to support the work of an NGO such as the BWPP on an important issue of concern to the Convention.

The lunchtime seminar on Wednesday, December 12, was entitled “Building Confidence in the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: The Way Forward”, and was organised by the Geneva Forum, which is a joint initiative of the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO), the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), and the Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies (PSIS). Contributions reflecting the urgent need to address the relatively poor participation by States Parties in submitting Confidence Buildings Measures (CBMs) were presented by Richard Lenanne (Head of the BWC Implementation Support Unit and Secretary of the MSP) and Ambassador Jürg Streuli (Swiss Delegation). A report entitled “National Data Collection Processes for CBM Submissions”^[27] and sponsored by the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports was presented by Filippa Lentzos (BIOS Centre, London School of Economics), who co-authored the study together with Angela Woodward of VERTIC.

The lunchtime seminar on Thursday, December 13, was organised not by an NGO, but rather by a governmental organisation, the Canadian mission. It was entitled “Running Multi-jurisdictional Bioterrorism Exercises: the Federal Response Planning Experience in Canada”. At this seminar some experiences gained in a recent field exercise, conducted “to provide a valuable learning experience to assist in the development of a more efficient and coordinated response to an emergency situation involving a zoonotic agent”^[28] were presented by Steven Jones, Director of the Laboratory Response to Bioterrorism, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada.

Meeting of Experts and Meeting of States Parties 2008

The MSP 2007 approved the nomination by the Eastern European Group of Ambassador Georgi Avramchev of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be chairman of the Meeting of Experts (18-22 August ) and the Meeting of States Parties (1-5 December) in 2008. The issues will be “National, regional and international measures to improve biosafety and biosecurity, including laboratory safety and security of pathogens and toxins” and “Oversight, education, awareness raising and adoption and/or development of codes of conduct with the aim to prevent misuse in the context of advances in bio-science and bio-technology research with the potential of use for purposes prohibited by the Convention”.^[29] These topics are decidedly more contentious than the issue of national implementation of the BWC, and critical eyes will be sharply focussed on the courses of action and outcomes of these meetings.

The author: Prof. Kathryn Nixdorff, Dept. of Microbiology and Genetics, Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany
Contact: nixdorff@bio.tu-darmstadt.de