The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) Database
Progress at the Ad Hoc Group in Geneva, Quarterly Review no 5
by Graham S. Pearson
Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK
(This review is reproduced by kind permission of the CBW Conventions Bulletin. This article first appeared in the CBW Conventions Bulletin, Issue No. 42, December 1998.)
| Progress in Geneva | Quarterly Review No 5 |
A four-week meeting, the twelfth session, of the Ad Hoc Group to consider a legally binding instrument to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) was held in Geneva from 14 September to 9 October 1998. As in the previous three-week sessions, negotiations focused on the rolling text of the Protocol.
Fifty-seven states parties and 3 signatory states participated at the twelfth session; a net total of 7 more state parties than in June/July 1998 as 9 states (Kuwait, Malta, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, Ukraine and Venezuela) participated in September/October 1998 whilst 2 states (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iraq) which had participated in June/July did not in Septem-ber/ October. One signatory state (Morocco) participated in September/October but did not in June/July.
Twenty-eight new Working Papers (WP.297 to WP. 324) were presented in September/October, some 6 more than in the three-week meeting in June/July. As usual these were presented both by states parties (United States 4, South Africa 3, Indonesia 2, Iran 2, Ukraine 2 along with single papers by 7 states and 4 papers by groups of two or more states) and by the Friends of the Chair (4).
Continued progress was made in the September/October session with further clear signs of engagement by all partic-ipants with serious negotiations seeking to resolve language currently within square brackets. A revised version of the Protocol was produced and attached to the procedural report of the session (BWC/AD HOC GROUP/43). This was thus the sixth version of the rolling text — previous versions having been produced in June 1997 (35), July 1997(36), October 1997 (38), February 1998 (39) and June/July 1998 (41). Although this was the longest version so far produced, com-prising 278 pages (with previous versions having totalled 113, 167, 241, 241 and 251 pages), there was again a clear sense that the AHG has turned the corner from adding reams of new text to reducing down and focusing on key issues. The first indication of this had been provided in July 1998 by the working paper (WP. 293) prepared by the Friend of the Chair on the Investigations Annex which had noted that the Ad Hoc Group had concluded three readings of the General Provisions part of that Annex and that were only a few issues which could be identified as fundamental. That working paper had proposed language changes to address those issues which could be resolved at this stage of the negotiations and thus moved forward this section of the Protocol towards a clean text with square brackets around the more fundamental issues. Annex IV to the October report contains 7 papers prepared by the Friends of the Chair of proposals for further consideration in which text modi-fied in a transparent way (using strikethrough text to show deletions and bold text to show proposed additions) is provided. Such text after a couple of readings could lead to the preparation of a clean text prepared by the Chairman and thus to the final agreed text of the Protocol.
Of the 40 meetings held, 10.5 were devoted to compli-ance measures, 6 to Article X measures, 8 to definitions, 1 meeting to legal issues, 9.5 to the investigations annex, 0.5 to organization/implementational arrangements, 2 to confi-dentiality and 0.5 to national implementation and assistance. Two new Friends of the Chair were appointed: on CBWCB 42 Page 18 December 1998 the seat of the Organization (Ambassador Akira Hayashi of Japan) and on the Preamble (Malik Azhar Ellahi of Pakistan); the Chairman, Ambassador Tibor Toth, acted as Friend of the Chair for organization/implementational issues.
The AHG meeting as usual saw various NGO activities either providing papers or holding meetings at which briefings were presented for the AHG delegations. The Federation of American Scientists provided updated papers on the cost and structure of a BWC Organization and on the investigation of alleged use of biological weapons. The Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford presented and distributed copies of a further six Briefing Papers in its series: No 12 Article III: Some Building Blocks, No 13 Article III: Further Building Blocks, No 14 National Implementation Measures: An Update, No 15 Non-Compliance Concern Investigations: Initiation Procedures, No 16 The BTWC Protocol Implementation: Practical Considerations and No 17 The Strengthened BTWC Protocol: Implications for the Biotechnological & Pharmaceutical Industry. (Copies of these together with their Ex-ecutive Summaries are all available on the Bradford website http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc). In addition, a series of four lunches were held at Quaker House to discuss key issues relating to the Protocol: Organization and National Implementation, The Protocol and Industry, Article X Inter-national Cooperation and Article III Non-Transfer.
Political Developments
Since the June/July AHG meeting there have been further political developments:
We urge the further intensification and successful conclusion of those negotiations to strengthen the Convention by adoption of a legally binding Protocol at the earliest possible date.
They noted the progress achieved so far negotiating a Protocol to strengthen the BWC and reaffirmed the decision of the Fourth Review Conference urging the conclusion of negotiations by the Ad Hoc Group as soon as possible before the commencement of the Fifth Review Conference and for it to submit its report ... to be considered at a Special Conference.
The Ministers are determined to see this essential negotiation brought to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. ... The Ministers call on all States Parties to accelerate the negotiations and to redouble their efforts within the Ad Hoc group to formulate an efficient, cost-effective and practical regime and seek early resolution of the outstanding issues through renewed flexibility in order to complete the Protocol on the basis of consensus at the earliest possible date.
Your deliberations have established up to now a positive momentum toward concluding your work successfully ... Nineteen ninety-nine should be the year of the BWC Protocol. You simply must — and you can — find the time, energy, and the flexibility to finish.
There can therefore be no doubt at all about the political momentum and expectation. It is now up to the Ad Hoc Group to address the remaining issues with flexibility.
The Emerging Regime
The distribution of the meetings in the September/October session shows that most of the time available was spent on compliance measures, the investigations Annex, definitions and on Article X measures.
Compliance Measures
The September/October meet-ing carried out major rework and reordering of Article III. D. Declarations as well as creating largely new language for Article III. E. Consultation, Clarification and Cooperation. Although the text for Article III. F. I Random Visits and for Clarification Visits was extended from 7 to 41 para-graphs and from 9 to 50 paragraphs respectively, these were not discussed during the twelfth session. The text on Article III. Investigations was also extended from 67 to 75 para-graphs, again without discussion at the twelfth session. Annex B. Visits was reordered and some 31 new paragraphs were added, without discussion, on clarification visits. Ap-pendix A on the information to be provided in declarations of past offensive/defensive programmes was reordered and Appendix C on information to be provided in declarations of facilities was elaborated considerably.
Declarations Six working papers (by China, India, Indo-nesia, South Africa, USA and five European countries) ad-dressed declarations and declaration formats demonstrating a useful focussing on the detail of a key element of the fu-ture regime. The Chinese, Indonesian, South African and US papers all proposed text for the declarations section of Article III whilst the Indian and the European paper ad-dressed information to be provided in declarations of facili-ties. The latest draft of the Protocol in Article III Compliance Measures D. Declarations has an expanded initial three paragraphs and is restructured into Initial Dec-larations, Annual Declarations and Notifications. Initial Declarations comprise “a. Past offensive and/or defensive programmes” and “b. National legislation and regulations”. Annual declarations are for “c. Current defensive pro-grammes”, “d. Vaccine production facilities”, “e. Maxi-mum containment BL-4 facilities”, “f. High containment BL-3 facilities”, “g. Work with listed agents and/or toxins”, “h. Other production facilities”, and “i. Other facilities”. As before, “j. Transfers” and “k. Article X declarations” are little developed. “l. Outbreaks of disease” now appears under Notifications.
Consultation, Clarification and Cooperation A working paper by the Friend of the Chair proposed rationalized December 1998 Page 19 CBWCB 42 text for Article III. E Consultation, Clarification and Coop-eration. Much of this was incorporated into the new text. This now includes language within square brackets that the states parties, the Organization or:
relevant international organizations such as the WHO, FAO, or OIE may undertake to assist on a voluntary basis ... in clarifying or resolving matters related to a concern about non-compliance which has been raised as a matter for consultation, clarification and cooperation.
Visits Two working papers, one by Austria and one by the Nordic group of countries, reported on trial random vis-its at industrial facilities. Both concluded that such visits could take place without jeopardizing commercial confi-dential information. Five working papers (Indonesia, Japan, Sweden and two by France/UK) addressed visits. Article III. F on visits has been considerably developed with the text for both random and clarification visits being con-siderably extended, albeit without discussion at the twelfth session. Annex B. Visits has been restructured.
John Holum, Director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, speaking to the AHG on 6 October said “there must be means to ensure that all sites whose activities merit declaration are in fact declared, and that declarations are accurate”. He went on to say: “Investigations and visits must be conducted in ways to protect legitimate proprietary and national security sensitivities, but they must also be conducted vigorously, to provide confidence in compliance”.
Investigations A US working paper proposed language on how a field investigation might be transformed into a facility investigation which was incorporated without discus-sion at the twelfth session.
Annex D on Investigations As noted in the previous Progress in Geneva, the Friend of the Chair on the Investi-gations Annex had provided a working paper which noted that the Ad Hoc Group had concluded three readings of the General Provisions part of this Annex and that were only a few issues which could be identified as fundamental. The working paper proposes language changes to address those issues which could be resolved at this stage of the negotia-tions and thus moves forward this section of the Protocol to-wards a clean text with square brackets around the more fundamental issues. This paper was reissued as WP.293/Rev. 1 with language included on [Field]Investi-gations [of alleged use of BW].
Working papers by South Africa and by the Friend of the Chair proposed language for Section III [Facility Investiga-tions][ Investigations of any other breach of obligations under the provisions of the Convention] which resulted a further development of the rolling text in Annex D.
Definitions Five working papers by the Czech Republic, Iran (two papers), South Africa, and the USA addressed various aspects. The US working paper proposed a short list of agents and toxins for use in Article III. Section D.
The language in Article II Definitions was reordered with the merging into Article II of all the language on definitions that had previously appeared in Section I of Annex A. The new Section I of Annex A is now the previous II Lists and Criteria (Agents and Toxins). This has been reor-dered so that there is now a clearer approach with a list of human, animal and plant pathogens followed by criteria for human, for animal and for plant pathogens. In addition some square brackets have been removed whilst others have been inserted, especially in respect of animal and plant pathogens which are now entirely within square brackets for Rinderpest virus. The list of human pathogens com-prises some 16 viruses, 9 bacteria, 3 rickettsiae, 2 protozoa (within square brackets) and the list of toxins has reduced from 21 to 19 with the removal of Aflatoxins and of Ver-rucologen (Myrothecium verrucaria). The list of animal pathogens has been reduced from 18 to 14 by the removal of bluetongue virus, porcine entirovirus type 9, peste des rumi-nants virus and rabies virus and that of plant pathogens from 18 to 16 by removal of Erwinia carotovora and Phytophora infestans. There has been no change to the subsequent sections of Annex A.
BWC Article X Measures A few changes were made to the language in the first two sections (A) and (B) of Arti-cle VII of the Protocol with some rewording and streamlining. The Friend of the Chair in a paper in Annex IV sets out some ideas intended to help the debate on how to address certain substantive issues in the draft Article VII.
Confidentiality Article IV and Annex E Confidentiality Provisions saw a development of the language and the re-moval of square brackets. In addition, the Friend of the Chair has produced proposals in Annex IV for further con-sideration for both Article IV and for Annex E.
National Implementation & Assistance As only half a meeting was devoted to this, there was no change to Article VI Assistance and Protection against Biological and Toxin Weapons and there was some slight development in paragraph 1 of Article X National Implementation Measures which was simplified. The outstanding point of substance in Article X that remains within square brackets is that relating to the requirement for the enactment of penal legislation.
Organization/Implementational Aspects As this also had only half a meeting, there was limited progress. However, the language in Article IX The Organization and Implementational Arrangements was further developed by the removal of a previous paragraph which, in square brack-ets, had required the Organization to conclude an agreement with the WHO which would be entrusted with the verification responsibilities. Further language has been introduced for a new option for the composition of the Executive/Con-sultative Council. In addition, the Friend of the Chair has produced proposals in Annex IV for further consideration for Article IX.
Prospects
There was much debate at the September/October session about the dates for and durations of AHG meetings in 1999. As usual, the decision on this went to the very end of the CBWCB 42 Page 20 December 1998 session with agreement being reached on the last day, 9 Oc-tober, that there would be five sessions in 1999 totalling 16 weeks: 4–22 January (3 weeks), 29 March–9 April (2 weeks), 28 June–23 July (4 weeks), 13 September–8 Octo-ber (4 weeks) and 22 November–10 December (3 weeks).
Agreement on the programme of work for the January 1999 session was also reached. This made the following allocation of the 30 half-day meetings to the various topics:
| Compliance measures | 9.5 |
| Definitions | 7.5 |
| Investigations annex | 10 |
| Article X | 6 |
| Confidentiality | 1.5 |
| Legal issues | 1 |
| Organization | 1 |
| National implementation | 1 |
| Ad Hoc Group | 2.5 |
| Total | 30 |
Since the last Progress in Geneva there have been fur-ther meetings at which the importance of the strengthening of the BWC has been emphasised. A Wilton Park confer-ence entitled “CBW Disarmament: Achieving and Ensuring Compliance” was held on 26–27 September. Further dis- cussion that was relevant to the strengthening of the BWC occurred at two NATO Advanced Research Workshops, each lasting three days, held in Prague in the week com-mencing 18 October. The first focused on scientific and technical means of distinguishing between natural and other outbreaks of disease and the second on the role of biotech-nology in countering BW agents. A Pugwash BW Workshop was held in Geneva on 28–29 November which addressed “The BTWC Protocol negotiation: Unresolved issues” and saw a lively and unusually stimulating meeting with far ranging and frank discussion of the key issues yet to be resolved by the AHG.
The continuing attention being given to the strengthen-ing of the BWC in international meetings is welcomed as it extends the debate about how best to achieve an effective Protocol and underpins the increased political attention being given to achieving this.
There is a real opportunity to complete the Protocol in 1999 and the AHG can be expected to make steady progress.
This review was written by Graham S. Pearson, HSP Advisory Board