The Provision and Adoption of Scientific Advice.

 

The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is a valuable resource that provides guidance and recommendations to the OPCW. It must, however, be appreciated that the SAB is an independent advisory body whose members meet in their individual capacity multiple times a year to review and discuss scientific issues impacting the Convention. The members do this outside their regular jobs and positions. If SAB advice moves forward, it is ultimately the OPCW and/or its Member States that lead and advance the efforts. In this regard, OPCW exists in a complex environment where science, security, policy, and international relations intersect. Decisions are never purely technical, and there is always a risk that scientific advice can be taken out of context and used for political arguments. The SAB’s benefits the OPCW and its stakeholders by providing advice and credible scientific assessments for the Convention. The SAB’s impact is influenced by the visibility and credibility of the Board amongst the recipients of the advice. Science engagement with policymakers on pertinent issues can serve to strengthen their scientific literacy and bring this visibility and understanding to the SAB outputs, it also requires effort (this was one of the drivers behind the launch of OPCW’s “Science for Diplomats” initiative in 2014). The success and impact of a science advice mechanism relies heavily on this type of engagement and dialogue with decision-makers. For a science review mechanism to effect change and impact decision-making, the advice must reach the decision-makers. For the OPCW, some advice can have immediate impact if it can be adopted for operational needs. If the adoption of the advice requires consideration and decisions by the States Parties, there would be longer timeframes for acceptance (if accepted at all) and realization of impact. Scientific advice may take the form of technical recommendations that inform policy and decision-making on critical issues, or it may be received as recommendations intended to help guide and develop policy for science. Policy for science, which might prioritize and incentivize scientific research directions and funding, or approach regulation and oversight of scientific endeavors, is often driven by State level needs and interests. Implementing advice at a national level, rather than by the OPCW, requires consideration of such advice at the national level. This, however, depends on State Party delegations bringing it back to their capitals. This represents one of the difficulties with science advice in multilateral forums, as different delegations will approach these considerations in different and diverse manners. It should also be appreciated that scientific inputs represent just one of a multitude of considerations for policy-related decision-making. This can result in scientific advice and recommendations not always moving forward. Indeed, over the history of the SAB, few formal decisions have outright adopted advice from the SAB. They included the Guidelines Regarding Low Concentration Limits for Declarations of Schedule 2a and 2a* Chemicals, and the Establishment of anAdvisory Board on Education and Outreach.  Other decisions refer to the SAB for providing informative advice such as in the one on the List of Approved Inspection Equipment with Operational Requirements and Technical Specifications, Reporting of Ricin Production (which took into account advice that the States Parties tasked the Director-General to request from the SAB), Understanding Relating to the Concept of “Captive Use” in Connection with Declarations of Production and Consumption underPart VI of the Verification Annex to the Convention, and Understanding Regarding the Aerosolised Use of Central Nervous System-Acting Chemicals for LawEnforcement Purposes, the later decision also calls on the SAB to consider central nervous system-acting chemicals in its scientific review (a topic has appeared regularly in the its scientific review process). This is not to say that other SAB advice is ignored, in fact the adoption of SAB advice is clearly visible in many aspects of the implementation of the Convention and initiatives of the OPCW, for example, the establishment of the Designated laboratory system and in many technical aspects of treaty implementation. The SAB advice is intended to be informative, and States may use it voluntarily independent of any formal decisions; for example, the SAB’s 2016 advice on Scheduled Chemicals led to updated guidance for declaring Scheduled Chemicals in the United Kingdom. The SAB is a highly respected subsidiary body of the OPCW, owing to how it interacts within the OPCW ecosystem. Factors that contribute to its success include 

(1) a defined mandate on who it advises and for what reasons;

(2) OPCW’s modality of having the DirectorGeneral issue an official and written response to each formal SAB session report, which helps to guide the SAB and provides context for the advice which informs stakeholders (the Conference of the States Parties) of its relevance to the issues they deliberate on; 

(3) briefings to the States Parties to give the SAB visibility and allow interaction with delegations (both formal, such as at the Conference of the States Parties and informal such as in the Science for Diplomats initiative); 

(4) the credibility of providing advice that represents a consensus of the individuals making up the SAB, who come from a diversity of OPCW Member States, it is not that the SAB has no disagreement, rather that when there are debates the SAB reports discuss the unresolved issues that prevent recommendations from being developed;

 (5) publication of the SAB’s scientific advice in peer-reviewed scientific literature, which demonstrates scientific credibility (both scientifically and within the world of diplomacy as it shows that the scientific community at large is accepting advice that comes from a consensus of 25 or more scientists from across the world); and, 

(6) the SAB is supported by the OPCW staff (with a dedicated Science Policy Adviser serving as Secretary) and through funding from the regular budget and voluntary contributions from States Parties. The SAB has had over 25 years to develop its modalities of operation, the six factors highlighted above represent some key elements that have contributed to its success and visibility as a highly respected and effective scientific advisory body.

Annex on Chemicals: The following Schedules list toxic chemicals and their precursors. For the purpose of implementing this Convention, these Schedules identify chemicals.

• Annex on Chemicals Schedule 1
• Annex on Chemicals: Schedule 2
• Annex on Chemicals Schedule 3