NOTES
1. It was agreed that the text
required review with a view to eliminating repetitions. This
could be done on the basis of clustering of similar paragraphs.
2. Views were expressed that the order of
paragraphs 9 and 10 should be reversed.
3. This issue might be addressed under another
article dealing specifically with the powers and functions of the
Organization.
4. This issue might be addressed under another
article dealing specifically with the issue of confidentiality.
5. Paragraph 1 bis was proposed by one
delegation as an alternative to the existing paragraphs 1 to 8.
6. Delegations expressed different views about the
appropriate location of any agreed definition. One view was that
any agreed definitions should compose an article of the final
document. Another view was that any agreed definitions should be
contained in an appropriate annex.
7. A view was expressed that other categories also
needed to be considered.
8. A view was expressed that any proposal to
define Article I terms, as proposed in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the
section, would have the effect of amending the Convention outside
the legal provisions of Article XI, contrary to the mandate of
the Group. Another view was expressed that defining those terms
is indispensable for the purposes of a verification mechanism and
will not have the effect of amending the Convention.
9. Views were expressed that the definitions in
paragraphs 6 to 8 and their placement should be discussed
further.
10. Views were expressed that this term would not
need to be defined here because the concepts shall be elaborated
in the appropriate declaration trigger(s).
11. Ibid.
12. Delegations differ on the need to define this
term.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. This definition should be used in the context
of annual declarations of certain categories of facilities and
incorporated there as appropriate.
16. Delegations differ on the need to define this
term.
17. Ibid.
18. A view was expressed that definitions
contained in paragraphs 28 to 30 should be inserted in Category
II.
19. Views were expressed that the application of
threshold limits to the possession of biological agents and
toxins is not a useful means to strengthen the Convention and
could undermine the provisions of Article I; this would clearly
be outside the mandate of the Group. Peaceful quantities of an
agent cannot be defined independently of the particular
circumstances of the use, which means that fixed thresholds
cannot be used. There would be a risk of a threshold for work for
defence purposes being used to conceal offensive activities. The
application of threshold limits could provide inaccurate
impressions of the scale of activities at a facility because the
self-replicating nature of microorganisms means that an agent
amount at or below a threshold could be exceeded within a matter
of hours. Finally, even small quantities of biological agents and
toxins could, depending upon their intended purpose, violate the
object and purpose of the Convention. Another view was that the
establishment of threshold quantities of biological agents and
toxins is essential for an effective verification regime under
the BTWC. Such threshold limits do not contradict in any way the
mandate of the Group, since the mandate specifies that the Group
shall, inter alia, consider "definitions of terms and
objective criteria, such as lists of bacteriological (biological)
agents and toxins, their threshold quantities ...". This
approach does not affect the scope of Article I of the
Convention.
20. Specific values must be determined by the Ad
Hoc Group.
21. Paragraphs 5 to 12 reflect BWC/AD HOC
GROUP/WP.385. They were not discussed during the fifteenth,
sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth session of the
Ad Hoc Group.
22. Views were expressed that this paragraph
should be deleted in this place, because the revision of
declaration formats is already covered in Article XIV on
amendments.
23. Further consideration is needed on whether
definitions of terms used in the triggers should appear here, in
the declarations section, or whether they should appear in the
article on definitions. This reference is included here without
prejudice to the final resolution of this question.
24. Views were expressed that this language be
consistent with that in the list of equipment.
25. The format developed by the Friend of the
Chair on CBMs for data on transfers and transfer requests may
need to be appropriately modified to take into account the
provisions of guidelines for strengthening implementation of
Article III that may be provided for in the Protocol. Further
consideration of the need for such guidelines is required.
26. Views were expressed that this section should
be removed to Article VII. Other delegations considered that this
section should remain here for further discussion.
27. Views were expressed that this section should
be removed to Annex G on CBMs or be addressed in Article X of the
Protocol on national implementation measures.
28. Some delegations expressed strong
reservations over the inclusion of this section.
29. It was noted that definitions for these terms
already existed in paragraph 8 of Article II. The question was
raised of which formulations were the more appropriate to use in
the context of visits, and where they should be located.
30. Some delegations considered that this topic
requires further conceptual work before the specific conditions
on selection can be finalized.
31. The language in paragraphs 46 to 48 was
developed by the Friend of the Chair at the request of the Ad Hoc
Group. It was not discussed during the seventeenth, eighteenth or
nineteenth session of the Ad Hoc Group.
32. The view was expressed that very elaborated
and detailed declaration formats would highly increase the
possibility of delayed submission of declarations by the States
Parties. It was suggested that this section should be reviewed in
the light of the final shape of the declaration formats.
33. Suggestion by the Friend of the Chair as a
further appropriate cross-reference.
34. This paragraph would be retained under the
first alternative of paragraph 4.
35. This text is a suggestion from the Friend of
the Chair as a possible option for further consideration on the
handling of undeclared facilities in the context of the
declaration clarification procedures. It was not discussed during
the seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth session of the Ad Hoc
Group.
36. The format on transfers developed by the
Friend of the Chair on CBMs on "Data on transfers and
transfer requests and on production" in pages 208-209 of
BWC/AD HOC GROUP/39 would need to be modified in this context.
Paragraph 2 above may be considered for Annex.
37. Further consideration should be given to
possible humanitarian implications of such a prohibition.
38. This paragraph is being retained for the time
being. Its subtitle, content and placement need to be
reconsidered in view of BWC/AD HOC GROUP/WP.369 submitted by the
Group of NAM and Other States.
39. This paragraph will need to be revisited in
the light of progress on the relevant sections of Article III and
Annex D.
40. The title of this Article may be
reconsidered, if necessary, in the light of discussions on the
content of this Article.
41. The scope and objectives of the review
process need further consideration in conjunction with section E.
42. The issue addressed in paragraph 4 (j) is
also being examined under Article VI (assistance and protection
against biological and toxin weapons). Careful consideration was
recommended to avoid possible overlaps.
43. A view was expressed that the issue of
reporting is already reflected in paragraph 31 of this Article.
Another view was expressed that action to be taken under this
paragraph is distinct from that of paragraph 31.
44. A view was expressed that further
consideration should be given to the placement of this section in
the rolling text.
45. The content of this paragraph would need to
be viewed in the context of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 10 of
this Article. The placement of this paragraph may need to be
reconsidered.
46. There were proposals to the effect of
deleting this section or moving it to another part of the
Protocol that might deal with BTWC Article III matters. However,
it was also pointed out that this section had no relevance with
regard to Article III provisions of the Convention.
47. There are divergent views on the placement of
the language contained in section G, whether in Article I
(general provisions) or this Article.
48. A delegation expressed the view that this
issue needs further consideration, and reserved the right to come
back to it.
49. Language in this paragraph needs to be
updated in the light of further developments of the structural
elements in Article III. Delegations reserved the right to return
to this issue after further consideration.
50. Language in this subparagraph needs to be
updated in the light of further developments of the related
elements in Article III. Delegations reserved the right to return
to this issue after further consideration.
51. Language in this paragraph needs to be
updated in the light of further developments of the structural
elements in Article VII. Delegations reserved the right to return
to this issue after further consideration.
52. Proposals were made that this may be 5 per
cent or 10 per cent or a figure decided by the Ad Hoc Group.
53. Proposals were made that the implementation
of waiver provisions shall only begin from the submission of
initial declarations.
54. On-site activities refer to activities as
provided for in Article III, section D, subsection II, and
section G, as well as Annex D. Further consideration needs to be
given to this cross-reference and whether the coverage and scope
of this cross-reference are appropriate.
55. The question of the location of the First
Review Conference, including whether this should be at the Seat
of the Organization (Geneva, Switzerland or The Hague,
Netherlands) and/or at the same location as the review
conferences of the Convention, will have to be addressed after
further consideration of the location of the Seat.
56. The view was expressed that further
consideration needs to be given to microorganisms carrying
nucleic acid sequences coding for pathogenic properties of listed
agents and toxins. Another view was expressed that further
consideration also needs to be given to nucleic acid sequences
coding for toxins. The view was expressed that live-attenuated
microorganisms such as registered or recognized internationally
vaccine strains should not be included as part of the lists.
57. Ibid.
58. The view was expressed that review of and
change to the list shall be addressed in Article III, section A
and Article XIV.
59. This agent is also included among ovine and
swine pathogens.
60. It was suggested that since these items are
not agents or toxins they should be discussed in an appropriate
section.
61. A list of equipment may also have utility in
the context of [any] guidelines on [all] transfers of dual-use
items.
62. ED is an effective dose of a biological agent
(LD50, ID50) determined through experiments on model animals with
the use of certain means of infection under normal conditions.
63. Specific value of the parameter is to be
agreed upon in advance.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. PFU - plaque forming unit.
67. The toxins have been selected among those
reflected in the list of pathogens and serve only as examples.
68. The text of Annex B has been deleted. Some
delegations noted that it might nevertheless be desirable later
in the negotiations to include some of the text on procedures for
visits in an annex.
69. Final agreement on this issue is directly
related to agreement on the size of the initial investigation
area.
70. Paragraphs 1 and 2 may in future be placed in
Article III, section G.
71. It was proposed to include this element in
Article VIII.
72. This section reproduces format 3 of BWC/AD
HOC GROUP/WP.318. It was not discussed during the twelfth,
thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth,
eighteenth or nineteenth session of the Ad Hoc Group.
73. A view was expressed that it would be better
to use the term "facility" and refer to the definition
in Article II.
74. A view was expressed that the format should
state that the locations of animal holding areas may be excluded
from such maps.
75. Only the delegations which saw this format I
as the format for biodefence facilities wanted to retain this
question in this place.
76. If high biological containment (BL3 - ...) is
agreed as a declaration trigger, this question may not be
necessary.
77. The list as developed in the rolling text,
Annex A, section II should be used.
78. Only the delegations which saw this format I
as the format for biodefence facilities wanted to retain this
question in this place.
79. The items from the list of agents and toxins
in Annex A will be included here later, when that list is agreed.
80. Delegations which saw this format I as the
format for biodefence facilities did not want to keep this
paragraph.
81. A view was expressed that the unit
"dose" as used in the tables below may need further
elaboration for the declaration of facilities producing specific
immunogenic components of vaccines as opposed to finished vaccine
products.
82. The list as developed in the rolling text,
Annex A, section II should be used.
83. This appendix reproduces parts of BWC/AD HOC
GROUP/WP.384. It was not discussed during the fifteenth,
sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth session of the
Ad Hoc Group.
84. The list of sampling equipment will depend on
whether analyses will be done on-site or off- site.
85. In order to provide time, as necessary, for
any conceptual discussions on certain issues, this time-table
should be regarded as indicative and subject to adjustment in the
light of developments in the negotiations.
HOME