(1)

On 12 December 2003, the European Council adopted the EU Strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction which aims, inter alia, at reinforcing the Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction (BTWC), continuing the discussion on the verification of the BTWC, supporting universalisation and national implementation of the BTWC, including through the means of criminal legislation, and strengthening compliance with it.

(2)

On 28 April 2004, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1540 (2004), describing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery as a threat to international peace and security. On 27 April 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1673 (2006) in order to intensify the efforts to promote the full implementation of Resolution 1540 (2004). Implementation of the provisions of these Resolutions contributes to the implementation of the BTWC.

(3)

On 26 August 1988, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 620 (1988) which, inter alia, encourages the Secretary-General to carry out promptly investigations in response to allegations concerning the use of chemical and bacteriological (biological) or toxin weapons that constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol. On 8 September 2006, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, annexed to Resolution 60/288, under which Member States encourage the Secretary-General to update the roster of experts and laboratories, as well as the technical guidelines and procedures, available to the Secretary-General for the timely and efficient investigation of allegations.

(4)

The Sixth Review Conference of the States Parties to the BTWC decided that the Seventh Review Conference is to be held in Geneva not later than 2011 and should review the operation of the BTWC, taking into account, inter alia, new scientific and technological developments relevant to the BTWC, as well as progress made by the States Parties to the BTWC (hereinafter the ‘States Parties’) in the implementation of the obligations under the BTWC and in the implementation of the decisions and recommendations agreed upon at the Sixth Review Conference.

(5)

On 27 February 2006, the Council adopted Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP (1) and on 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/858/CFSP (2). Both joint actions promote universality of the BTWC and support its implementation by the States Parties. Moreover, Joint Action 2008/858/CFSP promotes the submission of confidence building measures (CBM) declarations by the States Parties, and provides support for the BTWC intersessional process.

(6)

In parallel to Joint Action 2006/184/CFSP, the European Union agreed an EU Action Plan on biological and toxin weapons, complementary to the EU Joint Action in support of the BTWC (3) in respect of the BTWC in which Member States undertook to submit CBM declarations to the UN in April every year and lists of relevant experts and laboratories to the UN Secretary-General to facilitate any investigation of alleged use of (chemical) biological and toxin weapons.

(7)

In the light of the forthcoming BTWC Seventh Review Conference from 5 to 22 December 2011, it is appropriate to update the position of the European Union,

(a)

building confidence in compliance with the BTWC;

(b)

supporting its national implementation; and

(c)

promoting its universality.

(a)

contribute to a full review of the operation of the BTWC at the Seventh Review Conference, including the implementation of undertakings made by the States Parties under the BTWC;

(b)

support a further substantive intersessional process during the period between the Seventh and Eighth Review Conferences and identify specific areas and enhanced arrangements for further progress under this process;

(c)

support the Eighth Review Conference, to be held no later than 2016;

(d)

build consensus for the successful outcome of the Seventh Review Conference, on the basis of the framework established by the previous conferences, and promote, inter alia, the following key issues:

(a)

measures related to CBM declarations:

(b)

measures related to the UN Secretary-General’s mechanism for investigation of alleged use of biological and toxin weapons; reaffirming the need for the States Parties to ensure the effectiveness of the provisions of that mechanism and to take practical steps to this end, such as providing support for training programmes, and developing an analytical laboratory system.

(a)

the prolongation of the ISU’s mandate for another five years;

(b)

the following activities being included in the mandate of the ISU:

(c)

an adequate expansion of the current ISU staff in order to enable the ISU to carry out the activities referred to in point (b).

(a)

support the following topics for a new intersessional process either as intersessional topics or through dedicated working groups:

(b)

support a process of more frequent assessments of relevant scientific and technological developments. The ISU could play a role via its renewed mandate. In addition to a detailed discussion in the intersessional process, States Parties could decide on alternative ways to discuss science and technology issues (i.e. to create a new working group, to have a science and technology item included on the agenda of Meetings of States Parties, to have a dedicated experts meeting for science and technology, to set up an advisory panel or to set up an open-ended science and technology forum);

(c)

support the development of national regulatory frameworks, in particular on biosafety and biosecurity. The adoption of appropriate management standards for biosafety and biosecurity for laboratories and industry, although they are not in any way a substitute for a compliance regime, can help States Parties in the long term with the implementation of the obligations set out in the BTWC. They could also prove to be a useful tool, along with other measures, to contribute to a future enhanced compliance regime. Discussion on this development, i.e. with the relevant industry, could be part of a new intersessional process;

(d)

support the reinforcement of the decisional character of the intersessional process by exploring a range of options such as making the final report of the States Parties’ Meetings binding, agreeing on road maps, considering the possibility of working groups on specific issues, action plans or recommendations.

(a)

support the adoption of an action plan on universalisation, managed by the ISU, setting out concrete steps and activities. The action plan might include activities such as outreach events, joint demarches, the translation of relevant documents, incentives such as information exchange on assistance offers, and assistance visits to complete the first CBM submissions. This action plan would be evaluated and, if necessary, modified at each States Parties’ Meeting;

(b)

support the organisation of dedicated sessions or working group meetings on universalisation during the intersessional process in order to coordinate outreach activities between various actors and plan regional initiatives.

(a)

exploring how to integrate information related to assistance in the CBM, by revising Form D or creating a new form, in order to allow States Parties to exchange information about activities concerning cooperation and assistance;

(b)

mandating the ISU to compile Article X of the BTWC related information into an online database, which could be on the restricted area of the website.

(a)

on the basis of the position set out in Articles 1 to 8, proposals by the Union of specific, practical and feasible arrangements for the effective enhancement of the implementation of the BTWC for consideration by the States Parties at the Seventh Review Conference;

(b)

démarches by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or the Union delegations;

(c)

statements delivered by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or the Union Delegation to the UN in the run up to and during the Seventh Review Conference.