Views on Visits
June 1999
Non-challenge visits to facilities are a crucial component of an effective, legally-binding Protocol to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and are necessary to confirm declarations. Numerous States Parties to the Convention, non-governmental organizations and independent experts have all emphasized this point.
The FAS Working Group urges the States Parties to adopt a formula for visits that will contribute to the essential function of deterrence. In consideration of the various positions taken by States Parties, we suggest the following concepts:
1. Clarification process and voluntary visits
If consultation procedures, such as those in BWC/AD HOC GROUP/WP 347, do not fully resolve questions raised about an anomaly, ambiguity, uncertainty or possible omission in a declaration, the consulted State Party could invite the Technical Secretariat to conduct a voluntary visit to the facility in question. The possibility of a future challenge investigation or other political consequences if the question is not resolved would provide significant incentives to volunteer. If the State Party does not offer a voluntary visit, it should provide an explanation for not doing so. Clarification of the unresolved issue could possibly be achieved subsequently through a transparency visit, as discussed in item (2).
2. Transparency visits
The Technical Secretariat could select declared facilities for visits through a weighted random process, with requirements for geographic equity, representative sampling of facility types and limits on the numbers of visits per State Party and per facility, over a specified period of time. Additional weight could be given to facilities involved in unresolved clarification processes,(1) and to States Parties with overdue declarations. The mandate for all transparency visits, however, would be the same (see below), i.e., to confirm declarations, not to clarify any unresolved declaration questions.(2) All visits should be conducted under the assumption that the visited facility is in compliance. There would be an element of chance in whether and when any specific facility might be visited.
If transparency visits are adopted by the Ad Hoc Group, there is widespread support in the United States among groups outside government for the procedures listed below. Many representatives of the US pharmaceutical industry do not advocate any type of random visits, however.
Purpose: The purpose and mandate of transparency visits should be to confirm the accuracy of declarations, increase transparency, and educate and familiarize the inspectorate with different types of facilities and standards.
Managed access and facility control of access: In the United States, and in other States Parties if they wish, access by the visiting team should be controlled by the facility, and this should be specified in the implementing legislation. Managed access should be clearly defined in the Protocol, and should be employed consistently for visits of any kind and for investigations.
Managed access includes the obligation to make every feasible and reasonable effort to supply requested information directly or by alternate means, in order to demonstrate compliance and enable the visiting team to fulfill its mandate. US implementing legislation should specify that the National Authority will back the visited facility's interpretation of what is feasible and reasonable.
Notice and arrival of team: The visiting team should arrive at the gate of the facility as soon as possible, i.e. within 24 hours after announcement of the visit.
Length of visits: Transparency visits should be carried out during normal business hours and should take from 1-3 days, depending on the size of the facility, in order for the visiting team to see enough to form a conclusion.
Adopting and implementing non-challenge visits including these features, among others, would contribute substantially to fulfilling the mandate of the Ad Hoc Group to draft a Protocol to strengthen the effectiveness of the BWC.
Notes:
1. " " -
2. ii Although not part of the mandate, the possibility exists nonetheless that declaration questions could be clarified in transparency visits. An example is reported in BWC/AD HOC GROUP/WP.310 introduced by Austria during the 12th Session, 23 September 1998. The paper, "Report on an International Trial Random Visit, Conducted in Austria, August 10-11, 1998, states that on the request of the Visiting Team, consisting of Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Austria, "...a thorough discussion of the facility declaration took place, whereby some minor mistakes were identified and clarified on the spot."