Washington, DC (December 8, 2006)   The Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ended today in Geneva Switzerland.  “The record number of member States (“States Parties”) who participated in the Review Conference advanced their collective efforts to prevent the development, acquisition and use of biological weapons” said Alan Pearson, Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation’s Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program.  103 States Parties attended the Review Conference, as did an additional ten States that have signed but not yet ratified the Convention.   “Although their progress was modest, through their actions the members have reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation for confronting the biological weapons threat.”

“The outcome of the Review Conference offers reason for optimism that States Parties to the Convention will undertake significant and collective efforts to counter the threat of biological weapons over the next few years,” said Marie Chevrier, Chair of the Center’s Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons.  “We knew that this Review Conference would face some extremely difficult barriers to success.  Conference President Ambassador Masood Khan exhibited adroit and tireless leadership throughout the Conference.  His leadership was crucial to the successful outcome.”

“Only several months ago, few experts held out much hope for success at this meeting,” noted Chevrier.  Pearson added that “hopes were much higher by the time the Review Conference began, because it appeared that the United States and many other nations had come to agree in principle on a wide range of proactive measures to strengthen the Convention.”

The States Parties were ultimately unable to reach consensus on some of the most significant measures that had been proposed, such as an “action plan” to improve national implementation of treaty obligations, an effort to enhance transparency of “dual-use” biodefense activities, and annual review of treaty implementation.  The key sticking point was continued tension between developed and developing nations over the proper balance between and approach toward efforts to prevent bioweapons proliferation and efforts to promote peaceful uses of bioscience and biotechnology.  “As biotechnology increases its global spread in the future, it will only become more important to find ways to achieve balance and reduce this tension,” noted Pearson.  “Otherwise, efforts to prevent the misuse of the life sciences and biotechnology will continue to break upon the rocks of economic competition.”

However, the members did agree to hold a new round of annual meetings to examine topics relevant to the treaty, including efforts to improve biosafety and biosecurity, and oversight strategies for preventing the misuse of life sciences research and biotechnology.   The members also agreed to undertake significant efforts to increase membership in the Convention and participation in existing transparency mechanisms, and they provided for a small “implementation support unit” to facilitate these efforts.

“In the end, the outcome was less than the optimists hoped for, but it is considerably better than the pessimists feared,” noted Chevrier.  “The annual meetings provide an opportunity to keep the States Parties feet to the fire, and keep the pressure on them to further strengthen efforts to counter the biological weapons threat.”  Pearson added that “States Parties can be sure that non-governmental organizations around the world will do so.”