Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Peter Vereker, head of the arms control and disarmament department of
the Foreign Office, is reported as saying that Britain is looking at its
own legislation in the area of bio-logical weapons to see if we should tighten
it up (This Week, 12 October). In the light of recent events in Iraq, I
wrote to Foreign Office ministers to ask them what they are doing.

Douglas Hogg reminds me that Article III of the 1972 Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention prohibits any state from transferring to any recipient
whatsoever ‘microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their
origin or method of pro-duction, of types and quantities that have no justification
for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes’ as well as ‘weapons,
equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for
hostile purposes or in armed conflict’.

Since 1972, procedure has been strengthened by two moves. First came
the Export of Goods (Control) Order of 1989, which prohibits the export
from Britain of biological agents adapted for use in war. Since then, of
course, we have had the Gulf war. In July this year, the government introduced
a ‘catch-all’ amendment to force exporters to seek a licence ‘for export
of any item capable of being used for the development or production of chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons if there are grounds for suspecting that they
may be used for that purpose’.

I am told that these matters are now being considered with a seriousness
they never commanded when it was assumed that the Soviet Union would not
launch a biological war. Rulers of smaller countries, it is now realised,
may be a different kettle of fish.

* * *

There was a chilling headline in New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ in September, ‘Europe
could bankrupt British nuclear physics’ (This Week, 21 September). The cause:
the proposed Large Hadron Collider to be built at CERN, the European laboratory
for particle physics near Geneva. The figures which were quoted rose to
more than £14 million a year by 1999 – and this on top of Britain’s
hefty subscription to CERN.

Alan Howarth, the minister responsible at the Department of Education
and Science, has written back to me stressing that it is ‘still early days’.
He continues: ‘While the project is widely seen by particle physicists,
both here and abroad, as providing an important new phase in their work,
it is still only at the feasibility and planning stage.’ No decisions, he
says, have been taken, nor are likely to be taken in the near future. He
adds, however, that the Science and Engineering Research Council is looking
at the project ‘very seriously’. But where exactly will the money come from?

* * *

Last month, Thistle Diary asserted that English Nature had declined
to notify a bog in Cumbria as a Site of Special Scientific Interest motivated,
in part, by a wish ‘to avoid having a review committee of the Scottish type
imposed on England’ (Forum, 19 October). I referred to my source as a ‘little
bird’ – actually Derek Ratcliffe, former chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy
Council (who I was delighted to see included in The Sunday Times’s list
of ‘1000 Makers of the 20th Century’). Lord Cranbrook, chairman of English
Nature, disagrees.

‘Your ‘little bird’ was on the wrong perch!’ Cranbrook tells me, adding
that the site was ‘marginal in many aspects’, that it came under ‘careful
scrutiny’, including sample visits and ecological sampling.

Cranbrook feels strongly that English Nature’s decisions in this area
‘must be seen as objective and open’, adding: ‘I hope you agree that this
is desirable – and, indeed, our duty as a statutory body. Hence, I made
publicly available our decision.’

* * *

Finally, Foreign Office minister Lynda Chalker tells me that Britain
is financing an interesting experiment in the Solomon Islands. The idea
is to help in conserving rainforest through sustainable exploitation of
products other than timber – such as nuts, honey and dyes – and in so doing
to raise the incomes of rural people.

The project recognises that the benefits of developing such products
‘would exceed those realised solely by conventional forms of forest exploitation’.
And such exploitation would also leave the forest intact. The project is
still somewhat experimental, but if successful, it might well prove to be
a useful model that could be taken up elsewhere.