|
Issue No. 89, Winter 2008
|
| YEAR | TOPIC(S) |
| 2003 | National implementation Biosecurity |
| 2004 | Disease surveillance, prevention, mitigation and response Response to use or threat of use |
| 2005 | Codes of conduct for scientists |
| 2007 | National Implementation Regional and sub-regional cooperation |
| 2008 | Biosafety and biosecurity Oversight of science, education & outreach |
| 2009 | Requests for, and provision of, assistance for disease surveillance, prevention, mitigation and response |
| 2010 | Response to use or threat of use |
Table 1: Topics covered by the First and Second Intersessional Processes of the Biological Weapons Convention. Such meetings did not take place in 2006 as a BWC Review Conference was held.
The 2008 MX took place in the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland from 18 to 22 August 2008. It was chaired by Ambassador Georgi Avramchev of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As outlined in Table I, the topics covered by the BWC meetings in 2008 were:
(1) National, regional and international measures to improve biosafety and biosecurity, including laboratory safety and security of pathogens and toxins.
(2) Oversight, education, awareness-raising, and adoption and/or development of codes of conduct with the aim of preventing misuse in the context of advances in bio-science and bio-technology research with the potential of use for purposes prohibited by the Convention.[12]
These two topics were addressed after the meeting's opening formalities and general statements, which included statements from international organizations and NGOs. Each of the topics was then allotted three working sessions,[13] and the Chair broke each topic into three sub-themes which in principle allowed a single working session to be devoted to each sub-theme. Biosafety and biosecurity sub-topics included: concepts and approaches; capacity building; and risk management. The second topic broke down naturally into: oversight of science; education and awareness-raising; and codes of conduct. These sub-topics appear in both the structure of the meeting[14] and its output.[15]
.Before the meeting began, the BWC Implementation Support Unit (ISU)[16] released background papers covering the various sub-topics. These background papers were researched by the ISU and constitute official documents of the meeting - treated on a par with working papers produced by states parties. For the first of the year's topics, the ISU compiled a background paper which included: information on the meanings of relevant terms: overviews of pertinent previous agreements and understandings under the BWC; a review of avenues to obtain assistance in building national capacities to address biosafety and biosecurity; related activities outside of the BWC; and additional sources of information covering biosafety and biosecurity.[17] Although both biosafety and biosecurity were dealt with jointly throughout the MX, as noted in the ISU background paper, from a technical perspective there are differences between the two, in both concept and execution. Biosafety was considered to be protecting people from pathogens, whilst biosecurity was necessary to protect pathogens from the actions of certain people.[18]
The ISU wrote three separate background papers for the second topic, each addressing a different sub-theme. As this was the first time that a BWC meeting has explicitly covered oversight of science, the background paper on this sub-topic focused more on concepts and developments outside of the BWC.[19] It covered the need for oversight, problems with oversight, different approaches and proposals for oversight and basic requirements for effective oversight. The background paper on education and awareness-raising covered both existing understandings on these issues and developments outside of the BWC.[20] These included progress made by international organizations, scientific, professional and academic associations, bodies and institutions as well as relevant publications and articles. The last background paper dealt with developments on codes of conduct since the last time the BWC looked at this issue in 2005.[21] It looked at relevant developments by international organizations, professional organizations, associations, bodies and institutions as well as publications and websites.
The MX followed the logical structure of these background papers, and so the substance of the 2008 MX can be broken down into five distinct areas: biosafety; biosecurity; oversight of science; education and awareness-raising; and codes of conduct. Before reporting on the MX's discussions on each of these, this article will briefly overview states parties' collective understanding on key issues at the start of the meeting.
Biosafety, Biosecurity, Oversight of Science, Education and Awareness-Raising and Codes of Conduct
The ISU's biosafety and biosecurity background paper indicated that before the MX, states parties had a variety of understandings of what was covered by the terms biosafety and biosecurity, including:
As this was the first time the BWC was considering the oversight of science, there were no previous understandings. Instead the background paper highlighted six reasons why oversight was necessary:
The paper also covered the importance of dealing with intangible resources, the concept of proportionality and harmonizing national approaches. It repeated the five requirements for effective oversight published in the June 2007 edition of Nature Biotechnology, that these frameworks should:
The background paper on education and awareness-raising detailed a number of relevant common understandings on additional measures to promote the effective implementation of the Convention, including:
Finally, on the sub-theme of codes of conduct, the 2005 Meeting of States Parties reached agreement on a series of common understandings, including that codes:
The Meeting of Experts was well attended in terms of the numbers of states parties represented, the other sectors present and the total number of participants.[27] Following the trend of previous intersessional meetings, a significant amount of expertise from outside of governments was present at the meeting. In addition to the 10 international organizations present,[28] Ambassador Avramchev invited a total of 37 organizations to participate as Guests of the Meeting.[29] This category was first seen at the 2005 Meeting of Experts where the Chair, realizing that there would be more benefits to be had from a discussion on codes of conduct for scientists if those scientists were actually represented in the room, under his own initiative invited a select number of international scientific bodies to address the meeting and take part in certain working sessions. It seems that this category confers greater access rights than those normally given to NGOs (for more discussion on this, see section below on Transparency and Access).[30]
Of the 37 organizations invited to be Guests of the Meeting, 9 were international or regional organizations, 17 were scientific, professional or academic institutions, and 11 were from the private sector. It is noteworthy that almost one in three invited organizations came from the private sector. Those invited included multinational corporations, such as GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca, as well as large national bio-businesses, including those from India, Pakistan, South Africa and Brazil.[31] Most of the industry organizations that actually participated were based in Europe and North America, however, and work needs to be done to ascertain the reasons, particularly whether a more representative cross section of global biotechnology was not invited or failed to engage because of a lack of interest in the BWC or due to the resource implications of taking part.
The MX website demonstrates that the meeting was successful in attracting large numbers of participants from a range of sectors from both developing and developed countries, and that developing countries made contributions throughout the week.[32] However, some concerns were raised on the margins of the meeting that whilst participation seemed high, it was almost all coming from a few highly developed countries, and some questions circulated as to whether developing countries were disengaging from the process. This was a worry, since, if it were true, it would significantly undermine the continued value of the intersessional meetings of the BWC. The Chair dismissed such speculation, noting in his address to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in October 2008, that:
"Importantly, participation from developing countries is increasing: 53% of the participating states were developing countries, up from 51% in 2007 and 48% in 2005. During the meeting, 20 detailed presentations were made by delegations of developing countries, more than double the number last year. This is an excellent result, and demonstrates both the wide relevance of the topics and the utility of the intersessional work program."[33]
Nevertheless, if these meetings are to remain the primary forum for technical expertise on issues related to the potential for malign use of the life sciences, efforts must continue to bring the right people to the table - even if this requires external sponsorship - and to let them interact in ways that are both constructive and informative.
The BWC intersessional meetings generate a range of outputs, which the ISU classifies as being either "tangible" - things that can be referenced, such as datasets, presentations and working papers[34] - or "intangible", for example, opportunities for networking, changes to working methods, etc.[35] Our report follows this classification. The intangible outputs are discussed in the section on Procedural Innovations, below, while this section overviews the meeting's substantive discussions and tangible outputs, including its Official Report.[36]
Consideration of Biosafety and Biosecurity
As noted in above, this topic was broken down into three sub-themes: biosafety and biosecurity concepts; capacity building; and risk management.
Discussions on the sub-theme - "biosafety and biosecurity concepts" - took up the majority of time and resources devoted to this topic. The discussions seemed to be aimed at developing common objectives that states parties should try to meet with their national regimes, rather than detailed guidance of specific measures to be adopted. Various international organizations, including the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the World Health Organization (WHO), informed the meeting that they had developed (or were in the process of developing) facility-level guidance to address biosafety and biosecurity. There seemed to be an understanding that it would be possible to use this guidance to meet the objectives being discussed during the meeting.
The first step in developing shared objectives was to agree on what the terms "biosafety" and "biosecurity" mean, and what aspects were relevant to the BWC context. The background information prepared for the meeting highlighted that each term has different meanings in different settings. This was only half of the issue, as a BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP) daily report noted, "[t]here has been some difficulty with coming to clear and precise definitions of biosafety and biosecurity, not least because in a number of languages these translate to the same term".[37]
The MX seemed to make considerable progress in resolving these difficulties,[38] and at least by the end of the meeting there was some congruence in how these terms were used by states parties, which are detailed in the Annex to the formal report of the meeting.[39] Accordingly, in his synthesis on this area, the Chair provided these working definitions:
Biosafety: "the principles, technologies, practices and measures implemented to prevent the accidental release of, or unintentional exposure to, biological agents and toxins, and to protect people and the environment from the effects of such release or exposure".
Biosecurity: "the protection, control and accountability measures implemented to prevent the unauthorized access, retention, loss, theft, misuse, transfer, diversion or intentional release of biological agents and toxins".[40]
Efforts on defining the concepts of biosafety and biosecurity lasted almost an entire day and involved many interventions: of the 49 statements and presentations listed in the Report of the Meeting of Experts as having pertained to biosafety and biosecurity,[41] 29 were on this sub-theme. In addition to contributions from states, there was also significant participation from professional and scientific bodies with an entire session being set aside for their input.
The MX also held a session on capacity building, that is, how to strengthen national capacities in the areas of biosafety and biosecurity. This saw a return to more traditional style of BWC states parties' meetings. Contributions were made primarily by states in the form of prepared statements and presentations with much less interaction. The discussions, however, were important as nearly everyone that spoke saw a need to strengthen states parties' work on these fronts and recognized the need for mechanisms to continue to provide assistance to help improve current arrangements.[42]
In contrast to the session on capacity building, the MX used a panel discussion to investigate how the concept of risk management could help biosafety and biosecurity efforts. The panel distinguished between risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. It became apparent that panellists felt that it was necessary to have some way to assess the relative risks posed by biological resources in certain places, at certain times and in use for certain purposes (risk assessment). Additionally, it seemed that there was a general feeling that effort to minimize these risks (risk management) should be tailored to the specifics of the situation. Furthermore, there was a clear recognition that how you deal with fears over risks (risk communication) can be almost as important as the risks themselves.[43]
After the MX, the Chair indicated that he was satisfied with the progress made on this topic. In October 2008, he briefed the UN Security Council 1540 Committee on progress made in the BWC in the areas of biosafety and biosecurity. In his address he summarized what he saw as the major themes to have emerged at the MX. These included:
Consideration of Oversight of Science, Education, and Awareness-Raising and Codes of Conduct
This topic attracted less participation: there were far fewer presentations and statements on this topic than on biosafety and biosecurity (26 as opposed to 49),[45] only 10 of the 35 working papers dealt with this topic,[46] and only one of the three panel discussions dealt with these issues. It is not clear whether there would have been more contributions if the discussions had taken place earlier in the week and more time had been available. The fact that some of the exchanges took place on the last day of the meeting[47] may indeed have had an impact on the quality and quantity of contributions. The last day of MX meetings tends to focus on procedural rather than substantive issues, so many NGOs and stakeholder participants had left. The difference in attention given to the two topics might also have been a reflection of varying attitudes and approaches. One major difference between the biosafety and biosecurity topic and this discussion of oversight lies in perceptions of who has ultimate responsibility for action. Biosafety and biosecurity responsibilities are generally considered to be under the purview of governments and are traditionally dealt with through top-down approaches, whilst oversight of science, education and awareness-raising is usually regarded as stakeholder driven, requiring bottom-up tool sets. This difference might have influenced the meeting's relative emphasis on the two topics, with states parties opting to focus on the one with which they were more familiar.
Contributions to each of the three sub-themes (oversight of science; education and awareness-raising; and, codes of conduct) were much more balanced than for the other topic. Of the 26 presentations recorded in the report of the meeting, nine related to oversight of science, eight dealt with education and awareness-raising, and nine covered codes of conduct.
The Chair summarized these contributions as having focused on:
The MX Official Report
The formal output of the meeting was similar to that of previous years, i.e. an official report, adopted by consensus by states parties "to summarize the ideas raised at the Meeting in order to help officials from States Parties consider which of them might be relevant for them in their own circumstances".[49] The report is based upon a draft procedural report put together by the Chair[50] and a substantive annex listing the lessons, proposals, considerations, etc. taken from the working papers, interventions, statements and presentations by the ISU.[51]
At 40 pages, this annex is considerably longer than those usually produced. It includes elements from contributions by states as well as international and regional organizations and Guests of the Meeting. It reflects the content of the various sessions in the meeting but does not incorporate elements from the informal parts of the meeting, including the poster sessions discussed below. A closer examination suggests that it also did not necessarily capture the full depth of the discussions held through the panel discussions, designed to stimulate more interactive exchanges than the traditional negotiating format (discussed in more detail below). This might be one of the drawbacks of moving from a prepared to a dynamic content - i.e. the challenge of capturing a genuine portrayal of spontaneous discussions. Despite these shortcomings, the annex of the report is a useful document, condensing a great deal of high quality information from a wide variety of experts, and presenting it in a way that is accessible to states parties. This will be especially useful to states parties in their preparations for the MSP in December 2008. At the time of writing, the annex has been further distilled by the Chair and the resulting seven page document[52] was distributed to states parties in October 2008. Avramchev explained that this document "consolidates these proposals and ideas, removing duplications and merging similar concepts, to produce a synthesis paper".[53] It was fed directly into the MSP as an official document of that meeting.
The textual outcomes of the meetings of experts, however, are much more than just the official report. Other published contributions include the ISU's background papers (described above) which summarize the current state of play of many of the issues considered at the meeting, the datasets generated and presented in the new compendiums (described below in the section on Procedural Innovations), as well as all the raw presentations, statements and discussions - many of which are accessible (and it is hoped will continue to be in the future) on the BWC website[54] .
As well as substantive progress, reflected in the textual outcomes, the intersessional meetings often make changes to their working methods with the aim of streamlining and facilitating the process. Although the mandate and rules of procedure for intersessional meetings are set at the five yearly review conferences of the BWC, intersessional meetings are far from static and tend to evolve over time. In general, different topics require different approaches, and successive chairs of BWC meetings have taken new initiatives accordingly. Each new development establishes precedents that change how future meetings are run. This section overviews the procedural changes to date, before describing the innovations at the 2008 MX.
The first intersessional meeting, held in 2003 and chaired by Tibor Tóth of Hungary, was the first time that a Secretariat at a meeting had been tasked with compiling information on the activities of states parties. Details of relevant national legislation and regulations were distributed to states parties on CD-rom (called the Information Repository). This laid the foundations for other substantive contributions by successive secretariats and was to eventually evolve into the ISU's National Implementation Database (now found on the BWC website) which contains much the same information.
The 2004 intersessional meetings, chaired by Peter Goosen of South Africa, saw the creation of both the list of lessons, proposals, considerations, etc. that is annexed to the report of the MX, and the streamlined Chair's synthesis paper (see Textual Outputs) that is fed into the MSP. These have been used at all subsequent intersessional meetings, as the primary mechanism for recording information and processing it into a form that can be included in the report of the year's activities.
As noted above, the 2005 meetings, chaired by John Freeman of the United Kingdom, saw scientific and professional organizations invited to participate in BWC meetings for the first time as Guests of the Meeting.[55] Previously, BWC intersessional meetings had only been addressed by states and intergovernmental organizations. Similar arrangements were also used at the 2008 MX (these are described in the section below on Transparency and Access).
In 2007, Masood Khan from Pakistan chaired the intersessional meetings. He introduced the use of discussion panels into the BWC context (for more information on discussion panels see the section below). These panels allowed the Chair to invite a small number of representatives from a broader array of organizations to address the meeting - expanding the opportunities for NGOs to provide input and enabling greater interaction between participants. Ambassador Khan was also the first chair to succeed in getting the private sector to participate more actively in the intersessional process, and held a discussion panel exclusively for members of relevant industries.
In the preparation for, and during, the 2008 MX, distinctive working practices were once again used to help achieve the goals of the meeting. In addition to increasing the transparency and openness of discussions, many of these were geared towards helping participants deal with the weight of information circulated and analysed at such meetings. Others techniques introduced a dynamism into proceedings, stimulating debate and new exchanges between participants. This section will describe the more notable of these working practices.
Transparency and Access
In parallel with the efforts to widen participation at the MX, discussed above, the MX also made the BWC intersessional process more transparent by providing greater access to stakeholders. As is typical, a series of side events were held around the margins of the formal meeting, including lunch events by NGOs every day of the week, a breakfast event on the Wednesday morning, and poster sessions (see section below) on Tuesday and Thursday morning.[56] The role and status of NGOs was also enhanced at the 2008 MX, since for the first time, all the substantive work of a BWC meeting was conducted in open session with NGOs having free, unfettered access to the room.[57] The significance of this was noted in the BWPP daily report:
Hopefully the experience of this MX will set a useful precedent as it would seem apparent that there have been no negative consequences to any State Party of NGOs seeing all of the working session presentations.[58]
Changes in classes of participation have been central to efforts to make the process more open and transparent. The creation of a new 'Guest of the Meeting' status, although not reflected in the formal rules of procedure, appears to allow certain invited non-governmental participants access to certain meetings closed to those registered as NGOs (although this was not a problem in 2008 as there were no closed sessions). This category of participants also seems to enjoy additional opportunities to contribute as they can make interventions from the floor, ask questions and participate, it seems, as fully as an international organizations or observer states.
The creation of this new category of participation is not without its drawbacks. There seem to be a class distinction developing between participating NGOs. Those granted Guest of the Meeting status have considerably more access and rights than those without. Guest of the Meeting status seems almost exclusively used to invite practising scientists - few of whom are regularly involved in BWC issues. The category rarely includes social scientists, academics, analysts or civil society representatives, even though these groups include many respected experts on the BWC. Reserving the use of Guest of the Meeting participation for those with little exposure to the BWC would seem counter-intuitive, and remains unexplained.
Information Management
As described above, the MX covered a large number of important topics and benefited from contributions by a significant number of experts drawn from many different sectors. Accordingly, one major challenge for the meeting was to find a way to handle such a volume of information from so broad a community within a one-week timeframe. In his first letter to states parties, the 2008 Chair noted that: "...the sheer breadth of our topics this year means that we may need to adopt a more coordinated, streamlined approach... [that] will leave more time at the meeting for States Parties to make more specific presentations on particular themes or aspects of the topics, perhaps highlighting useful lessons or experience that may be of particular relevance to others."[59]
It appears that states parties responded well to the Chair's proposal; they exerted a considerable effort to free up time for substantive discussions, some even foregoing making an opening statement.[60] Almost half of working papers produced by states parties (15 of an eventual 35) were available electronically before the meeting even began.[61]
Efforts to streamline the meeting's systems for circulating and managing information were not confined to states parties. In his first letter to states parties Avramchev identified a "need to plan carefully and prepare well in advance".[62] The consultation process in the lead up to the meeting was also comprehensive: the Chair wrote to states parties three times[63] and met with the regional groups[64] to the BWC twice.[65]
Avramchev also used a range of devices to try to feed information into the meeting more effectively, including:
These three aspects are described in more detail below.
Despite these efforts, concerns over the amount of information to be fed into the meeting proved accurate. A report of the meeting suggested that not only were contributions more numerous than they had been in previous years, they were also more detailed.[66] One commentator suggested that the greater depth of information found at the 2008 MX will have increased its utility to participants.[67] However, irrespective of potential benefits of this influx of information, it inevitably caused scheduling problems and meant that the meeting rapidly fell behind its timetable owing to the sheer number of requests for the floor.[68]
National Compendiums
The compendiums were a significant innovation of the 2008 Meeting of Experts. In his first briefing to regional groups of states parties in 2008, the Chair highlighted that whilst "reports on national activities are valuable and welcome... we must find a way of efficiently disseminating the information, so that the Meeting of Experts is not entirely devoted to national reports".[69]
His suggestion was to replace the multitude of descriptive interventions of activities and approaches adopted in the countries present at the meeting with an online resource where detailed accounts of relevant efforts would be available to all participants before, during and after the meeting.[70] Instead of presenting all of the information to the meeting in detail, states parties could make brief introductions bringing the individual elements to the attention of the meeting in summary form and allowing those interested to look into aspects that caught their attention in more detail at a later date. This, he felt, would shift the focus of a significant part of the meeting from listening to accounts of state activities to engaging in a more active discussion.[71]
In practice few states submitted information for the compendiums. The compendium on "biosafety and biosecurity" only contains information on activities in nine states. The compendium on "oversight, education and awareness-raising" only covers four countries. The poor take up is disappointing, as this mechanism has the potential to offer a much better way to access the information generated by and for these meetings. Before the introduction of the web-based compendiums, individual contributions were included in the various disparate statements, presentations and working papers, and accessing information was time-consuming and complicated. The compendiums allow information retrieval both by topic and by state and so enable more to be made of resources.
It is to be hoped that the ISU will continue to add to the existing compendiums as Avramchev indicated they would in both his letters. Comparable compendiums should also be developed to compile information on national approaches to the topics due to be considered in 2009 and 2010 meetings of the BWC. As these compendiums develop organically in line with the meetings mandated by the Sixth Review Conference, states party are likely to find they have a highly valuable and comprehensive resource at their disposal when they begin to think about what to do next. There will be accessible, user-friendly descriptions of how states parties actually translate their international obligations into effective national action. However, as the 2008 MX has demonstrated, the value of these tools is dependent on states parties providing the relevant information.
Discussion Panels
Discussion panels are a relatively new aspect of BWC meetings. They appeared for the first time at the 2007 MSP. In his introductory remarks for the first panel of 2008, Avramchev hoped that these events would lead to more interactive discussions and provide different perspectives from other working sessions.[72] The composition of the panels was decided by the Chair and included between four and six experts on various aspects of the topic of the panel, drawn from international organizations, national institutions, the private sector and academia. Experts were understood to have participated as individuals and that the views expressed were entirely their own.
All of the panels during the meeting took place in formal working sessions and were presided over by the Chair. They lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. Avramchev opened each session with a few remarks, provided each panellist with an opportunity to make introductory comments of their own and then asked the panellists a series of questions. The Chair would then open up the floor to other participants and encouraged delegations to ask questions, make comments, etc. During the course of the meeting, discussion panels were used on three occasions: for industry representatives;[73] to explore risk management;[74] and to cover the whole of the topic on education and codes of conduct.[75]
The panels had been well prepared in advance and showed their worth, producing a great deal of information.[76] However, it is possible that in their efforts to provide solid information, they erred on the side of presenting prepared presentations rather than offering a more dynamic experience, as advertized. There had been the hope that the panels would provide a context in which experts could respond to the needs and interests of states parties and other participants,[77] but in practice, they fell short of this aim.[78] Far too much time was spent on prepared contributions rather than interactions with the audience. For the future, such panels would be of more value if additional time is made available for delegates to ask questions, seek clarifications and suggestions and explore options with the panel members.
Poster Sessions
Another significant information exchange mechanism adopted by the MX was the use of poster sessions. These events, common in academic and scientific settings, had not been used previously by the BWC. [79] In his plans for the meeting, the Chair explained: "National experts would be invited to prepare posters on their particular areas of activity and expertise. The poster would be displayed in an exhibition space near the conference room. During the poster session, experts and other interested delegates could circulate among the posters, interacting with the authors and discussing the contents at their own pace, according to their interests."[80]
The idea was greeted with an "overwhelmingly positive" response from national experts.[81] In total, 21 posters were presented on biosafety and biosecurity, and 10 presented on oversight, education and awareness-raising. Participants seemed to find the poster sessions useful. They were able to deal with complicated information at their own pace, speak informally to the relevant expert, and interact with each other. There have been calls to increase the time devoted to poster sessions at future MXs.[82]
For several years now, intersessional meetings have been regarded as only limited successes.[83] Given the political context at the time of their origin, when there was much bad feeling between certain states parties following the demise of the Ad Hoc Group negotiations on a verification protocol,[84] it could be considered a significant achievement just to have developed working methods that allow meetings to be convened with no major breakdowns in relations, few accusations and little acrimony. The 2008 MX has added to previous meetings by developing new common understandings, enabling innovative working practices to be tried out, expanding support for the BWC, developing the role played by NGOs, and pushing the boundaries of the meetings mandate.
Building Common Understandings
Intersessional meetings have provided incremental and cumulative progress in harmonizing national positions (in the form of the common understandings reached by MSPs), which have enabled the development of agreements on how to translate the international obligations of the BWC into national action. The 2008 MX has set the scene for new layers of understandings to be added on biosafety and biosecurity, as well as the oversight of science, education and awareness-raising, at the MSP in December 2008.
As in previous years, at the 2008 MX there were differences of opinion between participants, which were perhaps made more inevitable and identifiable because of its success in attracting so many, and such diverse, participation.[85] One of the aims of the intersessional meetings of experts is to bridge gaps between divergent national positions, and the 2008 MX provided significant opportunities to identify ideas where discord exists and to work towards developing common understandings. However, a BWPP report noted that: "This is both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the intersessional process - ideas can be raised that States Parties can accept or reject as they see fit, without any kind of decision-making process at the meetings which might recommend that particular measures should be adopted by all States Parties."[86]
Although common understandings for 2008 were not decided until the December MSP, the discussions that took place at the MX developed states parties' understandings on these issues. For example, the creation of working definitions for the terms biosafety and biosecurity that will be translated into all official UN languages will likely prove useful in the future for ensuring that all states have a shared understandings of what others are talking about - even if these definitions are not formally adopted at the end of the year.
Expanding the 'Friends of the BWC'
In his 2003 report on the Fifth Review Conference, British academic Nicholas Sims made passing reference to the 'Friends of the Convention'.[87] He used this term to refer to the community of organizations, individuals, and other interested parties that have supported the work of the BWC over the years. This community was quite small and traditionally comprised a handful of national experts, academics, activists and researchers from a few specialized institutions. In recent years it has been visibly growing, as BWC discussions have evolved to encompass a broader range of stakeholders from different government departments, the scientific communities and increasingly the private sector.
Alongside this increase in numbers and types of interested observers, the role of NGOs is in transition. The traditional role of NGOs at BWC meetings has been as outsiders, and they have usually been excluded from working sessions of meetings. Typically, their only real opportunity to provide input to meetings has been through a one-hour informal session in which they are permitted to make statements (which breaks down to about 6 minutes each), and through informal lunchtime meetings held at their own expense.[88] However, BWC meetings have been getting progressively more open throughout the intersessional processes. Specialist non-governmental bodies have participated in the substantive work of meetings, in one way or another, for the last three sets of annual meetings. On top of this they are beginning to contribute directly to the realization of the aims of the meetings; they are increasingly able to influence not only the success or failure of BWC meetings but also how the aims and objectives of the treaty are realized around the globe. NGOS no longer just provide advice, suggestions and input, but are involved in taking action. For example, during the MX, the BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP),[89] in association with the ISU, announced the launch of the Copeland Prize. This cash prize was available to undergraduate life science students around the world. To enter they had to provide a short letter addressed to their university dean explaining why information on relevant international and national laws should be included as a mandatory element in courses such as theirs.
Many hope that this trend will continue and that the BWC adopts an approach analogous to processes on landmines and cluster munitions which not only give NGOs access but also invite them to be substantively involved, with the right to make interventions.[90] But while it is clear that the role played by NGOs in the BWC context is changing and that the 2008 MX has taken another significant step towards creating a more transparent process, there is still room for improvement. It is to be hoped that discussions in the lead up to the next review conference in 2011 include an in depth consideration of the contribution those outside of government can make to the BWC. After all, there have been many recent statements from those involved in the BWC that "if the potential problem lies in many hands, runs the logic, so must the solution".[91] NGOs want to contribute fully to this endeavour, but can do so only if they are given appropriate access to states parties' discussions.
Scientific and Technological Developments
One of the identified shortcomings of the BWC regime is its ability to keep up to date and review relevant science and technology. As one commentator noted, "[f]ive years is too long an interval over which to let new developments in science and technology take place without collectively assessing their relevance for the BWC."[92] Although not explicit in the topics covered this year, the MX managed to carry out a partial review of relevant developments, with several states making interventions identifying and discussing scientific advances that they thought particularly relevant to this year's topics and for the implementation of the BWC (an example is the US paper on Synthetic Biology[93] ). This initiative was supported by the ISU, which not only cooperated in hosting an event on synthetic biology[94] but also added new pages to its website detailing scientific and technological developments which might be of interest to states parties.[95] This was not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather it contained papers that the ISU had come across in the pursuit of their mandate.[96]
NGOs also provided input into this area, organizing a lunch event on "Dual Use at the Cutting Edge".[97] Though regarded by some as an issue outside the mandate, this is an important topic, and many hope that it will continue to receive the attention it deserves in BWC meetings over the coming years. In that case, the precedent set this year might prove important in the future.
The 2008 Meeting of Experts can be judged a success. It made progress in widening participation, enhancing transparency and access, and improving opportunities for the exchange of information. It also attained enhanced understandings of its designated topics - biosafety and biosecurity as well as oversight of science, education, awareness-raising and codes of conduct. All of this fed into the 2008 MSP, where achievements were consolidated and extended.
Given the positive progress described throughout this paper, one has to wonder if the bar for success should have been set higher. Whilst the Meeting of Experts seems to have accomplished what it set out to do, could it have done more? The BWPP commentator thought so, noting that there was "a slight frustration at the limited mandate from the Sixth Review Conference in 2006 - much more could have been done, had it been allowed to be done".[98]
This comment clearly related to substance and decision-making, since in terms of activity the one-week MX covered an ambitious breadth of issues. Indeed, five substantive issues, split over two topics, almost proved too much for the time available. There was very little 'fat' left to trim from this meeting to free the time that would have been needed if any political disagreements had arisen. As this report relates, the MX managed to avoid the stumbling blocks often encountered in other disarmament and non-proliferation fora. It should not be taken for granted that future meetings would be similarly uncontroversial, and serious consideration should be given during the planning stages of any future intersessional processes to ensure that large substantive issues are better spaced out - or at least that more time is made available for their consideration.
[1] A separate paper in this issue of Disarmament Diplomacy is concerned with discussions of another of these events, the 2008 Meeting of States Parties which took place in December 2008. See Filippa Lentzos, 'Reaching a Tipping Point', Disarmament Diplomacy 89, (Winter 2008)
[2] The tagline for the
2008 Meeting of Experts was 'Bringing Biologists on Board'. See the
official webpage of the meeting at:
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument
[3] The preparation of this report has drawn heavily on the daily reports of the MX prepared by Richard Guthrie on behalf of the BioWeapons Prevention Project. For copies of these reports, see www.bwpp.org/2008MX/MX2008Resources.html
[4] For more information on the Convention, including its full text and details of signatures and entry into force, see the official pages of the BWC at: www.unog.ch/bwc
[5] For details of states
that are party to, have signed and are not party to the BWC see:
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
7BE6CBBEA0477B52C12571860035FD5C?OpenDocument
[6] Although the word 'use'
does not appear in the text of the BWC, the decisions of both the
Fourth and Sixth Review Conference clarify that the BWC effectively
covers use. This is also explicitly mentioned on the official
webpage of the convention which says that the BWC "effectively
prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer,
retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons".
See:
unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/ (httpPages)/
04FBBDD6315AC720C1257180004B1B2F?OpenDocument
[7] BWC, Final Document of
the Fifth Review Conference, Biological Weapons Convention, United
Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/CONF.V/17, December 2002
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
B01DAA77C566A30CC125718D00332BF2/$file/BWC-CONF.V-17.pdf
[8] BWC, Final Document of
the Sixth Review Conference, Biological Weapons Convention, United
Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 2006
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G07/600/30/PDF/G0760030.pdf?OpenElement
[9] BWC, Final Document of
the Sixth Review Conference, Biological Weapons Convention, United
Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 2006
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G07/600/30/PDF/G0760030.pdf?OpenElement
[10] BWC, Final Document of
the Sixth Review Conference, Biological Weapons Convention, United
Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/CONF.VI/6, December 2006
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G07/600/30/PDF/G0760030.pdf?OpenElement
[11] Richard Guthrie, Rising Out of the Doldrums: Report on the BWC Review Conference, Disarmament Diplomacy, No.84, Spring 2007, www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd84/84bwc.htm
[12] Throughout the paper, 'topics' refer to these two sets of issues.
[13] Working sessions were held from 10.00 to 13.00 and 15.00 to 18.00.
[14] See for example: BWC,
Programme of Work for the Meeting of Experts, Biological Weapons
Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland,
BWC/MSP/2008/MX/2/Rev.1, 25 August 2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/628/58/PDF/G0862858.pdf?OpenElement
[15] Although the list of lessons, proposals, considerations, etc. annexed to the report of the meeting (see section on Textual Output) contains no sub-headings the content of the list seems to roughly correspond to these sub-topics.
[16] The Implementation Support Unit was created at the Sixth Review Conference in 2006 to: provide administrative support for BWC meetings; assist states parties with the comprehensive implementation; facilitate the submission of annual declarations under the Confidence-Building Measures; and support the chair and states parties in their universalization efforts. The three-person unit is housed in the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs in Geneva. Additional information can be found on their webpages: [Online] www.unog.ch/bwc/isu [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[17] BWC ISU, Biosafety and
Biosecurity, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva,
Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.1, 24 June 2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/618/92/PDF/G0861892.pdf?OpenElement
[18] For more information
see: BWC ISU, Biosafety and Biosecurity, Biological Weapons
Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland,
BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.1, 24 June 2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/618/92/PDF/G0861892.pdf?OpenElement
[19] BWC ISU, Oversight of
Science, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva,
Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.3, 14 July 2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/620/84/PDF/G0862084.pdf?OpenElement
[20] BWC ISU, Education,
Outreach and Raising Awareness, Biological Weapons Convention,
United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.4, 15 July
2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/621/06/PDF/G0862106.pdf?OpenElement
[21] BWC ISU, Developments
in Codes of Conduct since 2005, Biological Weapons Convention,
United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.2, 26 June
2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/619/21/PDF/G0861921.pdf?OpenElement
[22] BWC ISU, Biosafety and
Biosecurity, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva,
Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.1, 24 June 2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/618/92/PDF/G0861892.pdf?OpenElement
[23] BWC ISU, Oversight of
Science, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva,
Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.3, 14 July 2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/620/84/PDF/G0862084.pdf?OpenElement
[24] Bugl et al, 'DNA Synthesis and Biological Security', Nature Biotechnology, Vol.25 No. 6, June 2007.
[25] BWC ISU, Education,
Outreach and Raising Awareness, Biological Weapons Convention,
United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/INF.4, 15 July
2008
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/621/06/PDF/G0862106.pdf?OpenElement
[26] BWC, Report of the
2005 Meeting of States Parties, Biological Weapons Convention,
BWC/MSP/2005/MX/3, 14 December 2005 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G05/646/11/PDF/G0564611.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 26
November 2008]
[27] The 2008 MX had almost
500 participants. The ISU assessed that 103 states were involved in
the meeting (BWC, Report of the 2008 Meeting of Experts, Biological
Weapons Convention, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3, 8 September 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/630/84/PDF/G0863084.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]). This means that the 2008 Meeting of Experts
enjoyed the highest level of participation from states of any of
the intersessional experts' meetings, and indeed matched the
highest number of any of the intersessional meetings (BWC ISU,
Participation in Meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention,
Biological Weapons Convention, September 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
76421E194DA9C538C125718C00448840/$file/
BWC-Meeting_Participation.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November
2008]). 103 states parties also took part in 2007 Meeting of States
Parties (see: BWC, Report of the 2007 Meeting of States Parties,
Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland,
BWC/MSP/2007/5, 7 January 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/600/09/PDF/G0860009.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 26
November 2008] and Ambassador G. Avramchev, Regional Group Meetings
November 2008: Talking Points for the Chairman, Biological Weapons
Convention, November 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
6F9FC1B15084C827C1257507003DAC97/$file/
Chairman+talking+points+group+meetings+Nov.pdf [Last Accessed
25 November 2008]).
[28] BWC, Report of the
2008 Meeting of Experts, Biological Weapons Convention,
BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3, 8 September 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/630/84/PDF/G0863084.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[29] This was a considerable increase from 2005, the only other year to have invited guests, where only 17 organizations were invited. The 2005 meeting, however, only addressed one topic whilst the 2008 meeting addressed two - the difference is perhaps less remarkable when this is taken into account. Private communication between the author and the Implementation Support Unit, dated 13 November 2008.
[30] Attachment 2 of the
Letter from Ambassador Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008
meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention to Permanent
Representatives in Geneva of States Parties to the BWC, dated 29
July 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
67E0A15FE54E86D6C12574960049765F/$file/
List+of+attending+organisations+-+annotated.pdf [Last Accessed
13 November 2008]
[31] Attachment 2 of the
Letter from Ambassador Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008
meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention to Permanent
Representatives in Geneva of States Parties to the BWC, dated 29
July 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
67E0A15FE54E86D6C12574960049765F/$file/
List+of+attending+organisations+-+annotated.pdf [Last Accessed
13 November 2008]
[32] BWC, Meeting of
Experts (18-22 August 2008), BWC Website [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument [Last Accessed
25 November 2008]
[33] Ambassador G.
Avramchev, Statement to the First Committee, Biological Weapons
Convention, 17 October 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
8C6C9ACD69F01B77C12574E9003A48B4/$file/
BWC+Chair+statement+First+Committee+Oct+08.pdf [Last Accessed
13 November 2008]
[34] The tangible outputs
are available on the BWC website. See
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument
[35] Private communication between the author and the Implementation Support Unit, dated 21 January 2009.
[36] The full range of
tangible resources continue to be used after the meetings for which
they were produced. For example, in a country's efforts to
strengthen its biosafety and biosecurity provisions, a reasonable
first step could be to find out what others are doing / have done.
The BWC website includes various statements, presentations and
working papers describing the models and approaches previously
used. For more information see:
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument
[37] Richard Guthrie, MX
Report 1: Biosecurity and Education, BioWeapons Prevention Project,
18 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/2008MX/documents/
20080818BWPPMXreport01.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November
2008]
[38] The harmonized use of these terms during the Meeting of Experts could have been due to the preparations for the meeting. As described elsewhere in the paper, the Chair had been in regular contact with states parties since the start of the year. In addition, he had met with the regional groups on several occasions and the ISU had laid the groundwork in its background papers.
[39] BWC, Report of the
2008 Meeting of Experts, Biological Weapons Convention,
BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3, 8 September 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/630/84/PDF/G0863084.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[40] The Chair's synthesis
paper was eventually translated into all official UN languages and
states have access to common definitions in all BWC languages. BWC,
Synthesis of Considerations, Lessons, Perspectives,
Recommendations, Conclusions and Proposals drawn from the
Presentations, Statements, Working Papers and Interventions on the
Topics under Discussion at the Meeting of Experts, Biological
Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, 10 October
2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
C0981350151BD96AC12574E30035A817/$file/
Synthesis+Paper+distrib+10+Oct.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November
2008]
[41] BWC, Report of the
2008 Meeting of Experts, Biological Weapons Convention,
BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3, 8 September 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/630/84/PDF/G0863084.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[42] For more information
on current national approaches to biosafety and biosecurity, see:
Compendium of National Approaches to Biosafety & Biosecurity,
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/unog/website/disarmament.nsf/(httpPages)/
FD59A71FC0B3FAF8C12574780052F81A?OpenDocument&unid=
F1CD974A1FDE4794C125731A0037D96D
[43] The full transcript of
this panel discussion is available on the BWC website: BWC,
Transcript of Risk Management Panel Discussion, 20 August 2008
[Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
155F84BBC89848D2C12574E90034D33E/$file/
risk+management+panel+transcript.pdf [Last Accessed 26
November 2008]
[44] Ambassador G.
Avramchev, Statement to the 1540 Committee, Biological Weapons
Convention, 16 October 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
72E7FD5EE0F27F81C12574E9003A40EE/$file/
BWC+Chair+statement1540+Committee+Oct+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[45] BWC, Report of the
2008 Meeting of Experts, Biological Weapons Convention,
BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3, 8 September 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/630/84/PDF/G0863084.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[46] In total the BWC website records 35 working papers but two focused on Confidence Building Measures.
[47] The discussions on 'biosafety and biosecurity' overran; they were scheduled to finish at lunchtime on the Wednesday but did not finish until half way through Thursday morning. In the end the discussions on the second topic were allocated some time on the last day, which had been reserved for discussion of the report of the meeting and for closing formalities.
[48] Ambassador G.
Avramchev, Statement to the 1540 Committee, Biological Weapons
Convention, 16 October 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
72E7FD5EE0F27F81C12574E9003A40EE/$file/
BWC+Chair+statement1540+Committee+Oct+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[49] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[50] Draft Report of the Meeting of Experts, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/CRP.2, 22 August 2008
[51] Considerations, Lessons, Perspectives, Recommendations, Conclusions and Proposals Drawn from the Presentations, Statements, Working Papers and Interventions on the Topics under Discussion at the Meeting, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland, BWC/MSP/2008/CRP.1 & Add.1, 21 and 22 August 2008 respectively.
[52] Synthesis of
Considerations, Lessons, Perspectives, Recommendations, Conclusions
and Proposals Drawn from the Presentations, Statements, Working
Papers and Interventions on the Topics under Discussion at the
Meeting, Biological Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva,
Switzerland, 10 October 2008
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
C0981350151BD96AC12574E30035A817/$file/
Synthesis+Paper+distrib+10+Oct.pdf
[53] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 10 October 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
051305BD914AD0C2C12574E3003590F8/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+Oct+08.pdf [Last Accessed 35 November 2008]
[55] In 2005, "23
scientific, professional, academic and industry bodies participated
in informal exchanges in the open sessions as guests of the Meeting
of Experts" (BWC, Report of the 2005 Meeting of Experts, Biological
Weapons Convention, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland,
BWC/MSP/2005/MX/3, 5 August 2005
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G05/628/08/PDF/G0562808.pdf?OpenElement).
[56] For a full list of
side events at the meeting, see the BWC Webpage: BWC, Meeting of
Experts (18-22 August 2008), BWC Website [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument [Last Accessed
25 November 2008]
[57] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[58] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[59] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 14 February 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
9172E409E53A6374C12573F3003D9DBF/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+Feb+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
[60] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 2: The Opening day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 19 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080819BWPPMXreport02.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[61] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 1: Biosecurity and Education, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 18 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/2008MX/documents/20080818BWPPMXreport01.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[62] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 14 February 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
9172E409E53A6374C12573F3003D9DBF/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+Feb+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
[63] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 14 February 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
9172E409E53A6374C12573F3003D9DBF/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+Feb+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008],
Letter from Ambassador Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008
meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention to Permanent
Representatives in Geneva of States Parties to the BWC, dated 24
April 2008 [Online]
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
18C5ECD02CF108A3C12574390051F73E/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+April+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
Letter from Ambassador Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008
meetings of the Biological Weapons Convention to Permanent
Representatives in Geneva of States Parties to the BWC, dated 29
July 2008 [Online]
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
62C196233A49525CC125749600491559/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+July+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
[64] "As happens in many
other international instruments and organizations, the States
Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention have organized
themselves into a number of groups to facilitate their preparations
and discussions. These are the Eastern European Group (EG), the
Group of the Non-Aligned Movement and Other States (NAM), and the
Western Group (WG)". For more information on these regional groups
see: BWC, Regional Groups in the Biological Weapons Convention,
[Online]
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
73C3C49BEA5621A0C12572DB00477B4A?OpenDocument
[65] BWC, Biological
Weapons Convention: Regional Group Meetings June 2008,
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
F6BC56B76F008EADC125746A00342E44/$file/
Chairman+talking+points+group+meetings+June.pdf BWC,
Biological Weapons Convention: Regional Group Meetings
February-March 2008,
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
F19C2A4470A9A594C125740C00388706/$file/
Chairman+talking+points+group+meetings+Feb-Mar.pdf
[66] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 3: The Second Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 20 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080820BWPPMXreport03.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[67] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[68] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 3: The Second Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 20 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080820BWPPMXreport03.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[69] Ambassador G.
Avramchev, Regional Group Meetings February & March 2008:
Talking Points for the Chairman, Biological Weapons Convention,
March 2008 [Online]
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
F19C2A4470A9A594C125740C00388706/$file/
Chairman+talking+points+group+meetings+Feb-Mar.pdf [Last
Accessed 13 November 2008]
[70] For the compendium on
biosafety and biosecurity, see: Compendium of National Approaches
to Biosafety & Biosecurity,
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/unog/website/disarmament.nsf/(httpPages)/
FD59A71FC0B3FAF8C12574780052F81A?OpenDocument&unid=
F1CD974A1FDE4794C125731A0037D96D For the compendium on the
second topic, see: BWC, Compendium of National Approaches to
Oversight of Science, Education and Awareness Raising,
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/unog/website/disarmament.nsf/(httpPages)/
6175389B1B34CBA6C125747800540E12?OpenDocument&unid=
F1CD974A1FDE4794C125731A0037D96D
[71] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 14 February 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
9172E409E53A6374C12573F3003D9DBF/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+Feb+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
[72] Ambassador Georgi
Avramchev, Industry Panel Discussion: Remarks by the Chairman,
Biological Weapons Convention, 19 August 20008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
7FD924DB4AC671D0C12574B2004586E0/$file/
Chairs+remarks+-+industry+panel.pdf [Last Accessed 25 November
2008]
[73] The industry panel took place at the end of the afternoon of 19 August 2008 and included Dr. Gary Burns (Global Biosafety Manager, AstraZeneca PLC), Dr. John Keddie (Vice President for Research and Development Operations, GlaxoSmithKline PLC), Dr. Robert Friedman (Director of West Coast Operations and Vice President for Public Policy, J. Craig Venter Institute) and Dr. Shrikumar Suryanarayan (Director General, Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises of India).
[74] The risk management panel ran on the morning of 20 August 2008 and included Dr. May Chu (International Health Regulations, World Health Organization), Dr. Iain Gillespie (Head of Biotechnology Division, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), Dr. Keith Hamilton (Scientific and technical Department, World Organisation for Animal Health), Dr. Paul Huntley (Global Leader for Biorisk Services, Det Norske Veritas), Dr. Brooke Rogers (King's Centre for Risk Management) and Dr. Cathy Roth (Coordinator of the Biorisk Reduction for Dangerous Pathogens Team, World Health Organization).
[75] The oversight of science, education and awareness raising panel on the 20 August 2008 included Dr. Robin Coupland (International Committee of the Red Cross), Dr. John Crowley (Chief of the Ethics of Sciences and Technology Section, Division of Ethics of Science and Technology, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Educational Organisation), Mr. Decio Ripandelli (Director, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology) and Dr. Terry Taylor (Director, International Council for the Life Sciences).
[76] Full transcripts of the sessions are available on the BWC website.
[77] Ambassador G.
Avramchev, Industry Panel Discussion: Remarks by the Chairman,
Biological Weapons Convention, 19 August 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
7FD924DB4AC671D0C12574B2004586E0/$file/
Chairs+remarks+-+industry+panel.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November
2008]
[78] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[79] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 3: The Second Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 20 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080820BWPPMXreport03.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[80] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 14 February 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
9172E409E53A6374C12573F3003D9DBF/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+Feb+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
[81] Letter from Ambassador
Georgi Avramchev, Chairman of the 2008 meetings of the Biological
Weapons Convention to Permanent Representatives in Geneva of States
Parties to the BWC, dated 24 April 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
18C5ECD02CF108A3C12574390051F73E/$file/
Letter+to+SPs+April+08.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November
2008]
[82] For information on the poster sessions from the BWPP daily reports, see: Richard Guthrie, MX Report 3: The Second Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 20 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080820BWPPMXreport03.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008], Richard Guthrie, MX Report 5: The Fourth Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 20 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080822BWPPMXreport05.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008], and Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMX report06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008].
[83] See, for example, the reports on the intersessional meetings that regularly appear in The CBW Conventions Bulletin published by the Harvard Sussex Program [Online] www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/pdfbulletin.html [Last accessed 14 November 2008]
[84] For a discussion of the events leading up to the creation of the 2003-2005 intersessional process see: Nicholas Sims, 'Biological Disarmament Diplomacy in The Doldrums: Reflections After The BWC Fifth Review Conference', Disarmament Diplomacy.70, (April-May 2003)
[85] The BWPP daily reports note a number of divergent views on issues, as well as differences in approach by states parties, international organizations and NGOs.
[86] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
[87] Nicholas Sims, 'Biological Disarmament Diplomacy in The Doldrums: Reflections After The BWC Fifth Review Conference', Disarmament and Diplomacy 70 (April - May 2003)
[88] For example, NGO
statements to the 2008 MX can be found on the BWC website: [online]
www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument [Last Accessed
26 November 2008]
[89] The BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP) is a new global civil society activity that aims to strengthen the norm against using disease as a weapon. It was initiated by a group of non-governmental organizations concerned at the failure of governments to act. For more information, see www.bwpp.org
[90] For a more detailed discussion of NGO access in various disarmament processes, see the discussion of Civil Society Schizophrenia on Disarmament Insight, 26 February 2008: [online] http://disarmamentinsight.blogspot.com/2008/02/civil-society-schizophrenia.html
[91] Ambassador G.
Avramchev, Remarks to the International Forum on Biosecurity, 27
October 2008 [Online]
www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
6B807A0AFEDD02FAC12574F60059A67C/$file/
Message+from+the+Chairman+v2.pdf [Last Accessed 13 November
2008]
[92] N. Sims, 'Towards the BWC Review Conference: Diplomacy still in the Doldrums', Disarmament Diplomacy 82, (Spring 2006) [Online] [Last Accessed 13 November 2008]
[93] United States,
Synthetic Biology: A Transforming Technology, Biological Weapons
Convention, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/WP.4, 30 July 2008 [Online]
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
G08/625/36/PDF/G0862536.pdf?OpenElement [Last Accessed 13
November 2008]
[94] BWC ISU, BWC MX 2008
Synthetic Biology Seminar, Biological Weapons Convention [Online]
www.unog.ch/unog/website/disarmament.nsf/(httpPages)/
98DD55F8A0EF259DC12574B200461162?OpenDocument [Last Accessed
13 November 2008]
[95] The ISU clarified its role here: "Keeping abreast of relevant scientific and technological developments is clearly one of the tasks the ISU performs to support the efforts of States Parties. This falls under two parts of our mandate - (1) maintaining contacts with scientific and academic organisations and (2) serving as a focal point for submission of information by and to States Parties." Personal communication with the author, 21 January 2009.
[97] This event was
organized by Professor Malcolm Dando (University of Bradford, UK),
Dr. Elissa Harris (Center for International and Security Studies at
Maryland, US), Dr. Alexander Kelle (University of Bath, UK) and
Professor Kathryn Nixdorff (Darmstadt University, Germany). More
information on this event can be found in the Side Events section
of the Meeting of Experts webpage:
http://unogwebsite.unog.un.org/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/
8C24E93C19BDC8C4C12574F60031809F?OpenDocument
[98] Richard Guthrie, MX Report 6: The Final Day, BioWeapons Prevention Project, 25 August 2008 [Online] www.bwpp.org/documents/20080825BWPPMXreport06.pdf [Last Accessed 26 November 2008]
Kathryn McLaughlin is Acting Director of the BioWeapons Prevention Project (BWPP), Geneva. She also collaborates with and consults for a number of international agencies, governments and NGOs on issues related to biological weapons.
© 2009 The Acronym Institute.
