Canada

Canada is proposing annual meetings (or “accountability sessions”) that combine the consideration of set topics with the possibility to discuss matters of contemporary concern for the Convention. There would be a single annual meeting of two weeks duration. Expert level working groups would meet to consider designated issues during the first week, and their outputs would feed into decision-making deliberations among the States Parties during the second week. Canada proposes that a portion of each annual meeting be dedicated to the following four themes:

• National implementation
• Cooperation and assistance
• CBMs
• Science and technology

Cross-cutting topics such as biosafety and biosecurity, and disease mitigation and surveillance, would be considered within the context of these themes, and the discussions would be complemented as necessary by consideration of other themes, such as universalization.

The European Union

The EU is proposing annual meetings focused on “specific, practical and feasible measures” to strengthen the Convention and enhance its implementation, maintaining a “balance of responsibilities” between national and collective action. The meetings would continue many of the modalities of the 2003 – 2005 work program, but would be empowered to make decisions where consensus exists, rather than deferring any decisions to the Seventh Review Conference in 2011. The EU proposes that each annual meeting should discuss and review topics such as:

• National implementation mechanisms
• National enforcement of legislative and administrative arrangements
• Biosecurity
• Scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention
• Awareness raising and educational activities
• Peaceful uses of biological sciences
• Universalization

The EU also proposes that more intensive work be undertaken on specific issues, possibly including:

• Improvements to the Confidence-Building Measures
• Safety and security of pathogens and toxins
• Detection of pathogenic agents and response to epidemics in real time
• Raising of the awareness of the biological risk in national populations
• Judicial, police and customs cooperation on the prevention of proliferation of high-risk products and illicit trade in dual-use equipment
• Redirection of scientists previously involved in military programs
• Regional and sub-regional cooperation on BTWC implementation
• Action in the event of suspected use of biological or toxin weapons

Finally, the EU proposes that the meetings also address other important, but unspecified, areas of the Convention, with a focus on identifying how States Parties can “rectify areas of weakness through action at various levels.”

Latin America Group

The Latin American Group is proposing the establishment of “an ad hoc and flexible mechanism that would” comprise annual meetings of governmental experts (1 week) and States Parties (2 weeks) (the opposite of the current time allotments). Each meeting of experts would analyze developments in science and technology that “may have an impact on the work of the BWC,” and would also discuss subjects defined at the previous year’s meeting of States Parties (the subjects for the first meeting of experts, in 2007, are to be decided at the Sixth Review Conference). Each meeting of States Parties would “systematically examine” the preamble and the operative section of the Convention, as well as the work of the preceding meeting of experts. The meetings of States Parties would be able to adopt decisions on “matters pertaining to the BWC,” and the work of the ad hoc mechanisms would be facilitated by a Support Unit. Other than the proposal that each meeting of experts analyze developments in science and technology, the Latin American Group submitted no specific proposals on subjects for the meetings.

New Zealand

New Zealand, having consulted other members of the JACKSNNZ group (Japan, Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand), proposes that the existing format of an experts’ meeting followed by a meeting of states parties be continued and enhanced by moving from the submission of factual reports to meetings of States Parties to a more formal system of recommendations made on the basis of the intersessional outcomes, which could then be adopted at Review Conferences. The Sixth Review Conference should provide some direction on the topics to be discussed, which could include:

• Implementation and periodic review of a universalisation action plan
• Further development of confidence-building measures at national, regional, and multilateral levels
• Further development of biosafety and biosecurity practices at national, regional, and multilateral levels
• The potential for mutually reinforcing activity programmes between the BWC and UNSCR 1540

In addition, the intersessional program should retain sufficient flexibility on a year-to-year basis to allow the consideration of new items, which may arise in the form of unforeseen developments and recent innovations that are relevant to the work of the Convention.

What has not been proposed

Several important topics have thus far not been proposed by any State Party, although they have been discussed in pre-Review Conference meetings. Examples include:

• Bioterrorism
• Protection of critical civil infrastructure from biological attack
• Biodefense and transparency
• Formal Consultative Meetings under ArticleV
• The UN Secretary-General’s mechanism for investigation of alleged use of biological weapons

In addition, the breadth and depth of discussion on some proposals is not clear. For instance, will specific goals, standards, or minimum criteria be set for some elements of the work plan? Will there be consideration of the difficult issues associated with advances in science and technology, such as how such advances impact on compliance with the prohibitions in the Convention?

For additional information, see the reports of meetings in Tokyo and Glion, Switzerland, and the recent report from VERTIC “A new strategy: strengthening the biological weapons regime through modular mechanisms.”