Proposals for further consideration by the Friend of the Chair on Investigations

Notes

1. 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.

2. A view was expressed that other categories also needed to be considered.

3. 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.

4. Views were expressed that the definitions in paragraphs 6 to 8 and their placement should be discussed further.

5. 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).

6. Ibid.

7. Delegations differ on the need to define this term.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. This definition should be used in the context of annual declarations of certain categories of facilities and incorporated there as appropriate.

11. Delegations differ on the need to define this term.

12. Ibid.

13. A view was expressed that definitions contained in paragraphs 21 and 22 should be inserted in Category II.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Views were expressed that this language be consistent with that in the list of equipment.

17. 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.

18. Views were expressed that this section should be removed to Article VII. Other delegations considered that this section should remain here for further discussion.

19. 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.

20. Some delegations expressed strong reservations over the inclusion of this section.

21. Further consideration needs to be given to the overall objective of visits, in particular whether they are to validate and check declarations, or whether they are to enhance transparency of declared activities, or indeed whether they might fulfil both objectives.

22. Some delegations considered that this topic requires further conceptual work before the specific conditions on selection can be finalized.

23. Further consideration needs to be given to the elements of the briefing. This part of the text may need to be re-visited in light of the final outcome of the work on the declaration triggers.

24. This paragraph is presented by the Friend of the Chair as a possible option for further consideration as a way of handling the question of undeclared facilities. It was not discussed during the seventeenth, eighteenth or nineteenth session of the Ad Hoc Group.

25. 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.

26. Further consideration should be given to possible humanitarian implications of such a prohibition.

27. These sub-headings have been suggested by the Friend of the Chair as a convenient place holder for consideration of some issues which have arisen in the context of discussions on section F. Their inclusion here is without prejudice to the question of whether such issues should be included in the Protocol or to their placement within the Protocol. They are presented here in order to facilitate consideration of the issues.

28. Ibid.

29. 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.

30. This paragraph will need to be revisited in the light of progress on the relevant sections of Article III and Annex D.

31. The title of this Article may be reconsidered, if necessary, in the light of discussions on the content of this Article.

32. The scope and objectives of the review process need further consideration in conjunction with section E.

33. 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.

34. A view was expressed that the issue of reporting is already reflected in paragraph 30 of this Article. Another view was expressed that action to be taken under this paragraph is distinct from that of paragraph 30.

35. A view was expressed that further consideration should be given to the placement of this section in the rolling text.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. There are divergent views on the placement of the language contained in section G, whether in Article I (general provisions) or this Article.

39. 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.

40. Ibid.

41. The view was expressed that review of and change to the list shall be addressed in Article III, section A and Article XIV.

42. This agent is also included among ovine and swine pathogens.

43. It was suggested that since these items are not agents or toxins they should be discussed in an appropriate section.

44. It was recognized that the degree of detail appropriate in this declaration format will depend on the length of the declaration period that is ultimately agreed.

45. A view was expressed that testing and evaluation is part of research and development, and they should therefore be declared together. Another view was that testing and evaluation are distinct from research and development, and they should therefore be declared separately. A view was also expressed that a State Party providing this declaration should be invited to state whether it is declaring research and development work together with or separate from testing and evaluation. A view was expressed that a question on testing and evaluation should only refer to acquired or procured equipment. Another view was that such a question on acquired or procured equipment should be restricted to equipment designed to protect or defend humans, animals or plants against the use of microbial or other biological agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict. Another view was that testing and evaluation should not be declared at all.

46. A view was expressed that the phrase “including special reference to work described under 'other characteristics of agents' or 'other related activities'” should be included as in the similar question in Appendix B.

47. Views were expressed that further consideration should be given to this question once agreement has been reached on the period to be covered by this declaration. Depending on the length of the declaration period, some views were that the amount of detail required in these summaries may then have to be reviewed. Another view was that it may then be advantageous for summaries to concentrate primarily on the recent part of programmes and/or activities declared.

48. A view was expressed that the detail requested in this question is not necessary. Another view was that this detail should be declared only for facilities which were reported under the 1991 CBM declarations but which are no longer engaged in biodefence activities. A third view was that facilities which were involved in past programmes and which are also declared under the Protocol as current biodefence facilities should be declared under this question.

49. A view was expressed that testing and evaluation is part of research and development, and they should therefore be declared together. Another view was that testing and evaluation are distinct from research and development, and they should therefore be declared separately. A view was also expressed that a State Party providing this declaration should be invited to state whether it is declaring research and development work together with or separate from testing and evaluation. A view was expressed that a question on testing and evaluation should only refer to acquired or procured equipment. Another view was that such a question on acquired or procured equipment should be restricted to equipment designed to protect or defend humans, animals or plants against the use of microbial or other biological agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict. Another view was that testing and evaluation should not be declared at all.

50. The guidelines will need to be revisited once the definition of “facility” is agreed in the group of the Friend of the Chair on Definitions of Terms and Objective Criteria.

51. The word “appropriate” is only needed here if Option One prevails and thus there is a separate type of format for facilities declared as biological defence facilities.

52. The appropriate elements of the definition of the term “facility”, once agreed, will be inserted in the guidelines at this point.

53. This is without prejudice to ongoing discussions about the number of copies of the format that need to be filled in by a declarable facility satisfying two or more declaration triggers. The different views on this subject are reflected in Options One to Four below.

54. The Friend of the Chair assumes that the considerations expressed in footnote 45 above apply here as well.

55. Only the delegations which saw this format I as the format for biodefence facilities wanted to retain this question in this place.

56. The items from the list of agents and toxins in Annex A will be included here later, when that list is agreed.