INTRODUCTION

1.  In considering the progress and effectiveness of non-proliferation regimes to counter weapons of mass destruction, it is not easy to focus from a western viewpoint on the security regimes and not recognise that in the poorer developing countries, concerns are much less security-driven and much more about health and the environment and their economic prosperity. In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) and its corresponding animal and plant health organizations, the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have disease surveillance and reporting requirements which are also relevant to enhancing transparency and building confidence.[17]Consequently, to achieve universal non-proliferation regimes it is important to recognize that there are other relevant regimes which are of greater relevance to the developing countries. The challenge is to devise non-proliferation regimes which bring benefits to all States—both developed and developing.

  2.  This is especially true in respect of the non-proliferation regimes for both biological and chemical weapons. It will be recalled that both the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) embody a "general purpose criterion" in their basic prohibition. Thus Article I of the BTWC states that:

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:

(1)  Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins, whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;

(2)  Weapons equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

  The general purpose criterion is in bold. In the CWC, the general purpose criterion comes in the definition of chemical weapons in Article II:

  "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a)  Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

  3.  These general purpose criteria in the BTWC and the CWC ensure that any microbial or other biological agent of toxic chemical that is not intended for permitted purposes is prohibited. The general purpose criteria thereby ensure that the two conventions are all embracing and include both past and future biological and chemical agents. It needs to be emphasised that the chemical and biological agents that are generally recognised as having been put into chemical and biological weapons are but a selection of a much wider range of chemicals and of biological materials that can cause harm to humans, animals or plants.

  4.  It is therefore, relevant and important to also consider the other control regimes which States have introduced to protect their populations from dangerous chemicals or from microbial agents and genetically modified organisms. It is important to recognise the growing pressures for a cleaner and healthier environment that are driving towards greater controls of chemical and biological materials that may present a hazard to human health or the environment. These other control regimes have also been evolving over the past few decades and need to be taken into account when examining the development of non-proliferation regimes as these other control regimes are frequently highly regarded by the developing countries. These security and other control regimes can conveniently be summarised graphically.

  The evolution of these control regimes for "banned and severely restricted" chemicals and for genetically modified organisms are addressed below.

BANNED AND SEVERELY RESTRICTED CHEMICALS

  5.  The world growth in trade in chemicals during the 1960s and 1970s has led to increasing concerns about the risks of using hazardous chemicals and thus to the recognition of the need to exchange and make available information about such chemicals. A multilateral export—import system for banned and severely restricted toxic chemicals has been developed which has National Authorities in 155 countries administering a voluntary export—import system.[18] Since 1992, this regime had been the subject of a legally binding European Community Regulation.[19] Recently, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade was negotiated and adopted as a legally binding instrument on 10 September 1998. This will enter into force once 50 States have ratified it.

United Nations Consolidated List

  6.  Following the growth in world trade in chemicals in the 1960s and 1970s, the Governing Council of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1977 urged[20] Governments to take steps to ensure that potentially harmful chemicals, which are unacceptable for domestic purposes in the exporting country, are not permitted to be exported without the knowledge and consent of appropriate authorities in the importing country.

  7.  Some five years later, the United Nations General Assembly "aware of the damage to health and the environment that the continued production and export of products that have been banned and/or permanently withdrawn on ground of human health and safety ....is causing in the importing countries and" "considering that many developing countries lack the necessary information and expertise to keep up with developments in this field" requested[21] that the Secretary-General prepare and regularly update "a consolidated list of products whose consumption and/or sale have been banned, withdrawn, severely restricted or not approved by Governments." This list is prepared[22] and regularly updated jointly by the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme/International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (UNEP/IRPTC). This is part of a continuing effort in the United Nations system aimed at disseminating information internationally on products harmful to health and the environment. It provides information on restrictive regulatory decisions taken by Governments on pharmaceutical, agricultural and industrial chemicals, and consumer products. The Fourth Edition covers regulatory actions taken by 92 Governments on over 600 products. The introduction to the Fourth Edition notes that "It is important to realize that all pharmaceutical and chemical products are potentially harmful if not correctly used "and that" The list does not include many widely used industrial chemicals to which occupational exposure limits have been assigned by national authorities, and on which information is available on ILO (International Labour Organisation) and UNEP/IRPTC publications."

  8.  In order to ensure that the list focuses on products harmful to health and the environment, criteria for the inclusion of products were developed in 1985 and transmitted to Governments for their comments. These criteria, revised in the light of the comments received, are reproduced in an Annex to the Consolidated List. Those for chemical products are "Banned", "Withdrawn" and "Severely restricted" which are defined as:

Banned—A product that has been prohibited for all uses nationally in one or more countries by final government regulatory action because of health or environmental reasons.

Withdrawn—A product formerly in commerce that has been withdrawn for all uses nationally in one or more countries by final voluntary action of the manufacturer because of health or environmental reasons.

Severely restricted—A product for which virtually all uses have been prohibited nationally in one or more countries by final government regulatory action because of health or environmental reasons, but for which certain specific uses remain authorized.

The London Guidelines

  9.  UNEP in 1987 adopted[23] the London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade[24] which were aimed at enhancing the sound management of chemicals through the exchange of scientific, technical, economic and legal information. Special provisions were included regarding "the exchange of information on banned and severely restricted chemicals in international trade, which call for cooperation between exporting and importing countries, in the light of their joint responsibility for the protection of human health and the environment at the global level." UNEP in adopting these guidelines also identified that additional measures were required to enable importing countries to give or withhold their consent to particular exports following receipt of adequate information from exporting countries and that such measures, based on the principle of prior informed consent should be incorporated in the London Guidelines as expeditiously as possible.

  10.  This principle of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) was incorporated[25] in the amended London Guidelines[26] in 1989. These provide a mechanism for importing countries to formally record and disseminate their decisions regarding the future importation of chemicals which have been banned or severely restricted in the exporting countries and outlines the shared responsibilities of importing and exporting countries and exporting industries in ensuring that these decisions are heeded. The Introduction to the Guidelines states that "Although these Guidelines have not been prepared specifically to address the situation of developing countries, they nevertheless provide a framework for the establishment of procedures for the effective use of chemicals in these countries. Implementation of the Guidelines should thus help them to avoid serious and costly health and environmental problems due to ignorance about the risks associated with the use of chemicals, particularly those that have been banned or severely restricted in other States."

11.  The PIC procedure is being implemented jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations which leads for pesticides and UNEP through the IRPTC (International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals) which leads for chemicals. Each participating country—of which, by 30 June 1998, there are 155—nominates a Designated National Authority (DNA) to serve as a focal point for the operation of the PIC procedure. Some countries have designated one authority for all chemicals while others have designated two, one with the responsibility for pesticides and the other for other chemicals. The DNA is generally a government department or office responsible for broad policy decisions with the authority to decide which chemicals may be used in the country. In the UK, it is the Chemicals and Biotechnology Division of the Department of the Environment while in the USA it is the Assistant Administrator, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances of the Environment Protection Agency.[27]

  12.  The functions of the DNA in respect of the import of banned or severely restricted chemicals are to receive information on exports from exporting States, to transmit requests for further information as required to exporting States, to advise and assist import control authorities, to strengthen national decision-making procedures and import control mechanisms, to ensure that decisions apply uniformly to all import sources and to domestic production of chemicals for domestic use, and to encourage that chemicals subject to PIC be purchased only from sources in exporting countries which are participants in that procedure. Insofar as exports of banned or severely restricted chemicals are concerned, the function of the DNA is to ensure the provision or transmittal of information on exports, to respond to requests for information from other States, especially as regards sources of precautionary information on the safe use and handling of the chemicals concerned, to communicate PIC decisions to their export industry, and to implement appropriate procedures, within their authority, designed to ensure that exports do not occur contrary to the PIC decisions of participating importing countries.

  13.  Participating countries provide information on control actions they have taken to ban or severely restrict chemicals by completing a Notification of Control Action form which gives competent authorities in other States the opportunity to assess the risks associated with the chemical and to make timely and informed decisions thereon having regard to local environmental, public health, economic and administrative conditions. The minimum information to be provided is the chemical identification/specification of the chemical, a summary of the control action taken and the reasons for it and whether additional information is available. The reasons supporting the control action should be based on a national review of scientific data, information or analysis which indicate that use under expected conditions within the country may give rise to an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Any chemical banned or severely restricted in at least one country after 1 January 1992 is eligible for inclusion in the PIC procedure; any chemicals banned or severely restricted prior to that date which have been the subject of control actions taken in five or more countries may also be eligible.

  14.  Once a chemical has been identified for inclusion in the PIC procedure, a Decision Guidance Document (DGD) is prepared by FAO/UNEP and sent to each participating country (through the DNAs) together with an Importing Country Response form. The DGD provides a summary of toxicological and environmental characteristics, known usage, possible exposure routes, measures to reduce exposure and regulatory actions taken by some countries to ban or severely restrict the chemical, with corresponding reasons for their actions. The DGD is intended to help Governments assess the risks connected with the handling and use of the chemical and to make more informed decisions about future import and use taking into account local conditions. The DNA then completes an Importing Country Response form indicating whether to accept import, refuse import or allow import under certain conditions. The response is sent to the FAO/UNEP Secretariat who summarize the import decisions and circulate these to DNAs every six months.[28] Governments of exporting countries shall, upon receipt of importing countries decisions, transmit them to their industry. In addition, this information is also included in the regular updates of the Consolidated List of Products whose Consumption and/or Sale have been Banned, Withdrawn or Severely Restricted.

  15.  The aim of the PIC procedure is to ensure that a banned or severely restricted chemical is not exported without the consent of the importing country. The Guidelines require that if an export is planned of a chemical banned or severely restricted in the exporting State, then the exporting State should ensure that the DNA of the importing State is provided with relevant information to remind the importing State of the original notification by the exporting State of control action and to alert it to the fact that an export is planned. The minimum information to be provided is a copy of the information provided at the time of notification of the control action, the indication that an export of the chemical will occur and an estimate of the quantity to be exported annually as well as any shipment-specific information that might be available. Such information is to be provided to the State of final destination and to UNEP/IRPTC. It is also clear that the PIC procedure is applied to chemicals that have multiple use. For example, the six monthly PIC circular[29] of import decisions for some chemicals has in the column headed "Final Decision on Import" the words "Prohibit for plant protection use" and then in the column headed "Conditions for Import" has the words "For uses other than plant protection, written authorization is required for import."

  16.  The banned and severely restricted chemicals thus far subject to the PIC procedure are pesticides and industrial chemicals; some 27 chemicals or groups of chemicals are already the subject of DGDs[30] In some cases, a specific chemical is the subject of a DGD such as fluoroacetamide, parathion or ethylene oxide, whilst other DGDs apply to a group of chemicals such as mercury compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), except mono- and dichlorinated.

EU Regulation

17.  In the European Union, a legally binding Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 was adopted[31] in 1992 which requires exporters of chemicals which are banned or severely restricted in the European Union to provide information to importing countries about these chemicals. This regulation implements the UNEP/FAO PIC scheme in the EU. Member Governments of the EU are legally required, as well as formally committed, to implement EEC Regulations. Consequently it is a legal requirement for an exporter to provide the designated national authority of the Member State in which he is located with information about the export from the Community to a third country for the first time of a chemical subject to the Regulation no later than 30 days before the export is due to take place. The designated national authority has then to ensure that the appropriate authorities of the country of designation receive notification at least 15 days before export; copies of the notification are to be copied to the Commission which shall forward it to the designated national authorities of the other Member States and to UNEP/IRPTC. The notification provides information about the identity of the chemical, information on precautions to be taken, summary of the regulatory restrictions and the reasons for them, the expected date of first export, country of designation, use category (whether plant protection product, industrial chemical or consumer chemical) and the estimated amount of the chemical to be exported to the destination country in the next year. The regulation requires the exporter to comply with the decision of the country of destination participating in the PIC procedure.

The Rio Summit

  18.  The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992 (the Earth Summit) reaffirmed the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972 and "working towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system, recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home," proclaimed a set of Principles.[32] Several of these related to the protection of the environment:

(a)  Principle 4. In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

(b)  Principle 10. Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by the public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process....

(c)  Principle 11. States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

(d)  Principle 15. In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(e)  Principle 25. Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

  19.  These Principles are amplified in a series of Chapters and programme areas; for each the bases for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation are addressed. These include:

Chapter 6 Protecting and promoting human health

Chapter 8 Integrating environment and development in decision making

Chapter 15 Conservation of biological diversity

Chapter 16 Environmentally sound management of biotechnology

Chapter 19 Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products.

  Within these chapters there are areas addressing the protection of people and the environment such as:

Expanding and accelerating international assessment of chemical risks (Chapter 19, Section A)

Information exchange on toxic chemicals and chemical risks (Chapter 19, Section C)

Prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products (Chapter 19, Section F)

  20.  Of particular interest, are various sections of Chapter 19 (Prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products). Thus Section C on information exchange has the objectives of promoting intensified exchange of information on chemical safety, use and emissions among all involved parties and of achieving "by the year 2000, as feasible, full participation in and implementation of the PIC procedure, including possible mandatory applications through legally binding instruments." Section F notes that there is currently no global international agreement on traffic in toxic and dangerous products (toxic and dangerous products are those that are banned, severely restricted, withdrawn or not approved for use or sale by Governments to protect public health and the environment. However, it was noted that there was international concern that illegal international traffic in these products is detrimental to public health and the environment, particularly in developing countries as acknowledged by the General Assembly in resolutions 42/183 and 44/226.[33] It went on to say that further strengthening of international and regional co-operation is needed to prevent illegal transboundary movement of toxic and dangerous products. The following activities are detailed:

Governments, according to their capacities and available resources and with the cooperation of the United Nations and other relevant organizations, as appropriate should:

(a)  Adopt, where necessary, and implement legislation to prevent the illegal import and export of toxic and dangerous products.

(b)  Develop appropriate national enforcement programmes to monitor compliance with such legislation, and detect and deter violations through appropriate penalties.

A legally binding PIC procedure

  21.  The UNEP Governing Council at its meeting in May 1991 adopted[34] resolution 16/35 on Toxic Chemicals requesting further urgent action to be taken to strengthen the legal basis of the amended London Guidelines taking into consideration experience gained in the implementation of the Guidelines and PIC procedure. At the UNEP meeting in May 1995, resolution 18/12 was adopted[35] to develop an internationally legally binding instrument for the application of the PIC procedure. This resolution followed consideration of a report[36] by the Executive Director of UNEP which noted that one of the objectives of programme area C of Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 was to achieve by 2000 full participation in and implementation of the PIC procedure, including possible mandatory applications through legally binding instruments. Resolution 18/12 authorised UNEP in conjunction with FAO to convene "an intergovernmental negotiating committee with a mandate to prepare a legally binding instrument for the application of the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals in international trade." The resolution also called for the convening of "a diplomatic conference for the purpose of adopting and signing an internationally legally binding instrument for the application of the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals in international trade, preferably not later than early 1997."

21.  The first meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee for an international legally binding instrument for the application of the PIC procedure was held[37] in Brussels in March 1996 under the chairmanship of Ms Rodriguez of Brazil. This session made rapid progress, agreed quickly on the rules of procedure, and completed a preliminary review of a draft outline of the future agreement. A working group chaired by Mr Rawal of India was established to further clarify which groups of chemicals may be included in the future agreement. The second meeting was held in September 1996 in Nairobi, Kenya which made further progress producing 24 pages of draft Convention text with most of the articles having been extensively discussed. Whilst substantial progress was made, further detailed consideration is needed of various aspects of the instrument. A third meeting was held in Geneva from 26 to 30 May 1997, a fourth in Rome from 20 to 24 October 1997, a fifth in Brussels from 9 to 14 March 1998 and then the Conference of Plenipotentiaries to adopt the PIC Convention was held on 10 and 11 September 1998 in Rotterdam, hosted by the Government of the Netherlands.

Analysis

  22.  There is thus a regularly updated Consolidated List of Products Whose Consumption and/or Sale Have Been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely Restricted or not Approved by Governments which provides information on the restrictive regulatory decisions regarding over 600 products. This is complemented by a multilateral export-import system for hazardous chemicals in international trade currently involving some 148 countries; countries which have not yet agreed to participate have been invited to do so. The system requires that information be provided to an importing country prior to an export of a potentially hazardous chemical so that the importing country can decide whether to accept, refuse or allow under certain conditions the import of the chemical. The decision of the importing country is communicated to the UNEP/FAO Secretariat who in turn inform the other participating countries by means of six monthly updates. Consequently, there is considerable transparency in the operation of the export-import system which has been successfully applied to multi-use chemicals for which one use may be banned. The system functions through Designated National Authorities in each of the 155 countries. The current system is voluntary although it is legally binding in the European Union. An international legally binding instrument was adopted in 1998 and will enter into force when ratified by 50 States.

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVES

  23.  The Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, agreed on a set of principles intended to achieve sustainable development whilst protecting the environment. These included a commitment to the environmentally sound management of biotechnology covering five topics: increasing the availability of food, feed and renewable raw materials; improving human health; enhancing the protection of the environment; enhancing safety and developing international mechanisms for co-operation; and finally establishing enabling mechanisms for the development and the environmentally sound application of biotechnology.

  24.   The penultimate topic specifically recognises the need for further development of internationally agreed principles on risk assessment and management of all aspects of biotechnology. The document agreed in Rio says that "only when adequate and transparent safety and border-control procedures are in place will the community at large be able to derive maximum benefit from, and be in a much better position to accept the potential benefits and risks of, biotechnology."

The Convention on Biological Diversity

  25.  The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opened for signature at the Rio summit, entered into force in December 1993, and currently has 176 States Parties—the notable exception being the United States which has signed but not ratified the Convention. One article of the Convention explicitly addresses the international distribution of the benefits of biotechnology, and includes consideration of its safety and transfer aspects. It states that "The Parties shall consider the need for and the modalities of a protocol setting out appropriate procedures, including, in particular, advance informed agreement, in the field of the safe transfer, handling and use of any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology which may have adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity." The implementation of the CBD has been taken forward by the Conferences of the Parties.

  26.  The first meeting of the signatories to the biodiversity convention, held in Nassau, Bahamas, at the end of 1994, set up an ad hoc group of experts on biosafety to consider the need for, and possible form of, a protocol setting out appropriate procedures. These included in particular advance informed agreement, in the field of safe transfer, handling and use of any living modified organism resulting from biotechnology that may have an adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable user of biological diversity.

  27.  The second meeting, held in Jakarta in November 1995, agreed a two track approach. An ad hoc working group would begin negotiations on a biosafety protocol, aiming to complete this by 1998. In parallel, efforts would be made to finalize the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) International Technical Guidelines on Safety on Biotechnology. These two initiatives are intended to be complementary, in that the protocol will be a binding agreement setting out what States must do, while the UNEP guidelines are intended to indicate how to do it.

  28.  UNEP's international guidelines on biosafety were adopted by a meeting of government-designated experts held in Cairo in December 1995, and were subsequently issued by UNEP. They have since been developed at a further meeting held in Zimbabwe, Costa Rica, Thailand, Hungary, the Slovak Republic as well as in Cartagena, Columbia and Budapest, Hungary.

  29.  The biosafety working group met for the first time in July 1996 in Aarhus, Denmark, and has since held four further meetings in Montreal and a sixth meeting in Cartagena, Columbia at which the draft biosafety protocol was further developed. A final meeting was held in Montreal on 24 to 28 January 2000 at which the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted.

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

  30.  The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety address the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity with a specific focus on transboundary movement. The Protocol establishes an Advance Informed Agreement (ALA) procedure for imports of LMOs which incorporates the precautionary principle. It also contains provisions regarding confidential information and information sharing, capacity building and financial resources, with special attention to developing countries and those without domestic regulatory systems. The Cartegena Protocol will open for signature in Nairobi from 15 to 26 May 2000 on the occasion of the Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and will enter into force after 50 countries have ratified it.[38]

Regulatory Frameworks

  31.  Although the actions stemming from the Rio Summit have focused world attention on protection of human health and the environment, many countries have long recognised the potential threat of dangerous diseases to their people, as well as to the livestock and crops on which they depend. As a result, many have introduced national regulations to control the handling, use, storage and transfer of hazardous pathogens. More recently, countries have sought to harmonise their national regulations both regionally and internationally, in order to facilitate co-operation and trade.

  32.  Under such regulation, those wishing to work with pathogenic organisms are usually required to provide information to national authorities, who frequently carry out inspections of the facility in which the pathogens are to be handled. Such notification and inspection can be required prior to any work being carried out. In addition, transfers of pathogens that present a particular danger are controlled and monitored in several countries, while in many countries, there are additional regulations on the handling and use of genetically modified organisms.

  33.  There are parallel regulations for the licensing of facilities engaged in producing medicinal products for humans and veterinary products for animals to ensure that the products are safe and effective. These require repeated inspection of such facilities to ensure that standards for good manufacturing practice are being met. Such regulations promote trade in pharmaceuticals—whilst building confidence that such facilities are not being used for prohibited purposes.

  34.  The net effect of all these controls and regulations is to provide a national framework intended to ensure that the danger presented by pathogens to both public health and the environment is minimized and that medical products are safe, and thereby providing assurance to the public in the country concerned.

  35.  Increasingly, there are moves to harmoize such measures both regionally and internationally, in the recognition that an outbreak of human, animal or plant disease in one country can easily spread to other countries in a region—or, in this era of increasing international trade and travel, even more widely—and to promote trade in safe medicinal products. There are therefore both regional and international initiatives to extend national frameworks to regulate dangerous pathogens into regional and global frameworks, to increase public assurance that the dangers from disease outbreaks both at home and abroad have been minimized.

Analysis

  36.  One objective of international security is to ensure that the use of diseases as a weapon of war is totally prohibited, and to devise a regime to monitor compliance with this prohibition, in order to detect and deter cheaters. The pathogens that can be used as a weapon of war are precisely those that present a danger in natural outbreaks of disease. Thus two important elements of a regime to strengthen the BTWC are for declarations about facilities and activities of particular relevance to the Convention to be made to national authorities and to the international organization and for these declarations to be confirmed by infrequent visits to ensure that declarations are accurate and complete. These elements thus closely parallel the requirements in many countries for notification and inspection of facilities working with dangerous pathogens.

  37.  These are common goals between the ongoing negotiation to develop a Protocol to the BTWC in Geneva and Biosafety Protocol. There are synergistic benefits to be gained, both for public health and environmental safety and for international security, through the regime to strengthen the BTWC building upon the controls and regulations for public health and environmental safety and seeking to harmonise and strengthen these. This would help capacity building and also, by building upon existing national authorities and reporting requirements, reduce the administrative burden and avoid duplication of effort. The potential benefits for both developed and developing countries in doing so are both tangible and significant.

OVERVIEW

  38.  Although it is widely recognised that microorganisms and their applications through biotechnology offer immense benefits to the global community, public concern about microorganisms has grown in recent years. There is a much greater and widespread awareness of the dangers of disease whether Ebola outbreaks in Zaire or BSE in cattle and the possible spread to humans and concerns about the consequences of genetic engineering such as in modified foodstuffs. In addition, the possibility that disease may be spread deliberately as a weapon of war or as a terrorist attack is rightly attracting much attention.

  39.  Similarly, chemicals are also rightly seen as bringing potential benefits to the global community, although there has been increasing concern about the potential harmful side-effects of some chemicals and pesticides. This has led to concern in both developing and developed countries that such chemicals should be assessed and evaluated to ensure that they do have damaging effects on health or the environment. In addition, the possibility that chemicals may be used to attack humans or animals as a weapon of war or as a terrorist attack has received much attention since the use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s and the Aum Shinrikyo attack on the Tokyo subway in March 1995.

  40.  As in all these instances the concerns stem from the ways in which microorganisms and chemicals are used, stored and transferred, there is a common goal in the initiatives being taken to protect human health and environmental safety, following the Earth Summit and for biological materials, the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the recent agreement on 29 January 2000 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, and to ensure that disease is not being used as a weapon of war to cause harm to humans, animals and plants through strengthening of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention by a Protocol. Insofar as chemicals are concerned, there is a similar common goal between the initiatives being taken to protect human health and the environment from certain hazardous chemicals following the Earth Summit and the adoption in September 1998 of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent procedure, and to ensure that chemicals are not used as a weapon of war by the Chemical Weapons Convention which entered into force in April 1997.

  42.  The synergy between these objectives needs to be harnessed for the benefit of all. Achievement of a safer, more prosperous world is indeed a challenge. In considering this, it is useful to consider graphically the developments in both security and health and environment regimes:

  43.  Consideration together of both security regimes and health and environment regimes bridges the gap between developed and developing countries—and can bring benefits to both through a recognition of the common goals of these regimes. Both the CWC and the BTWC have Articles that promote international collaboration for peaceful purposes in regard to chemical and microbial agents and toxins respectively. During the negotiation of the Protocol to strengthen the BTWC, the contributions to transparency and to building confidence in an integrated regime have increasingly been recognised[39] and language in the draft Protocol requires States Parties to promote and support a range of activities relating to the peaceful uses of microbiology and biotechnology including the surveillance and treatment of infectious diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

  44.  The Foreign Affairs Committee is recommended to :

(a)  To consider the progress and effectiveness of the non-proliferation regimes for chemical and biological weapons in the wider international context of control regimes for dangerous chemicals and genetically modified organisms.

(b)  To recognise the synergy between the security non-proliferation regimes and the public health and environment control regimes and the potential that harnessing this synergy will promote universality of both security and health and environment regimes.

(c)  To encourage the concept that aid under an ethical foreign policy should be focused on those countries which have signed and ratified the CWC, the BTWC and the future BTWC Protocol.

(d)  To recommend the provision of aid to assist developing countries in capacity-building to establish the necessary infrastructure to implement the CWC, the BTWC and the future BTWC Protocol.

18   FAO/UNEP Joint Programme for the Operation of Prior Informed Consent, Prior Informed Consent, Update on Implementation as of 30 June 1998. Available at http://irptc.unep.ch/pic/volpic/english/UPDATEN9.html. Back

19   Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 of 23 July 1992 concerning the import and export of certain dangerous chemicals, Official Journal of the European Communities, L251, Volume 35, 29 August 1992, pp 13-22. See also European Chemicals Bureau, Informing the Importer, Guide to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 concerning the import and export of certain dangerous chemicals, 1996. Back

20   United Nations Environment Programme, Governing Council decisions 85(V), 25 May 1977. Back

21   United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 37/137, Protection against Products Harmful to Health and the Environment, 109th Plenary Meeting, 17 December 1982. Back

22   United Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Consolidated List of Products whose Consumption and/or Sale Have Been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely Restricted or not Approved by Governments, Fourth Edition, United Nations, New York, 1991. Back

23   United Nations Environment Programme, Proceedings of the Governing Council as its Fourteenth Session, UNEP/GC.14/26, 10 July 1987. Decision 14/27 of 17June 1987. Back

24   United Nations Environment Programme, Programme Matters, UNEP/GC.14/17, 2 April 1987, Annex IV: London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade. Back

25   United Nations Environment Programme, Governing Council Decision 15/30 of 25 May 1989. Back

26   United Nations Environment Programme, London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade, Amended 1989. Back

27   UNEP/FAO Register of Designated National Authorities for the Implementation of the Information Exchange and PIC Procedures of the London Guidelines and the International Code of Conduct, Geneva and Rome, August 1996. Back

28   FAO/UNEP Joint Programme for the Operation of Prior Informed Consent (PIC), Import Decisions from participating countries as of 30 June 1996, PL 32/23, 31 July 1996. Back

29   UNEP/FAO Register of Designated National Authorities for the Implementation of the Information Exchange and PIC Procedures of the London Guidelines and the International Code of Conduct, Geneva and Rome, August 1996. Back

30   FAO/UNEP Interim Secretariat for the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, PIC Circular IX, June 1999. Available from http://www.pic.int. Back

31   Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 of 23 July 1992 concerning the import and export of certain dangerous chemicals, Official Journal of the European Communities, L251, Volume 35, 29 August 1992, pp 13-22. See also European Chemicals Bureau, Informing the Importer, Guide to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2455/92 concerning the import and export of certain dangerous chemicals, 1996. Back

32   The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992, Earth Summit '92, The Regency Press Corporation, London, 1992. Back

33   United Nations General Assembly, Traffic in and disposal, control and transboundary movements of toxic and dangerous products and wastes, Resolution 44/226, 85th Plenary Meeting, 22 December 1989. Back

34   United Nations Environment Programme, Proceedings of the Governing Council at its Sixteenth Session, UNEP/GC.16/27, 30 June 1991. December 16/35 of 31 May 1991. Back

35   United Nations Environment Programme, Proceedings of the Governing Council at its Eighteenth Session, UNEP/GC.18/40, 13 June 1995. Decision 18/12 of 26 May 1995. Back

36   United Nations Environment Programme, Policy Issues, UNEP/GC.18/7, 27 February 1995 Back

37   United Nations Environment Programme/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Report of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an Internationally Legally Binding Instrument for the Application of the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade on the Work of its First Session, UNEP/FAO/PIC/INC.1/10, 21 March 1996. Back

38   Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Adopted, Press Release, 29 January 2000. Available at http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/BIOSAFE6.HTML. see also Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Report of the Resumed Session of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Conference of the States Parties for the Adoption of the Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity: 24-28 January 2000. Vol. 9, No. 137, Monday 31 January 2000. Available at http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/BIOSAFE6.HTML. Back

39   See, for example. Graham S Pearson, The Strengthened BTWC Protocol: An Integrated Regime, University of Bradford Briefing Paper No. 10 July 1998. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc. Back