NTI Paper
JUNE 2019

A Spreading Plague:
Lessons and Recommendations
for Responding to a Deliberate
Biological Event
SUMMARY
On the eve of the 2019 Munich Security Conference, senior leaders fromsecurity, public health, humanitarian, and political sectors participated in a
dramatic tabletop exercise designed to explore global capability to rapidly
respond to a deliberate biological event. The exercise uncovered major gaps
in coordination, information sharing, attribution, and financing. This reportpresents key findings and recommendations for urgent improvements toavoid catastrophic consequences of deliberate and other high-consequence
biological events.

Elizabeth Cameron, Ph.D., Rebecca Katz, Ph.D., M.P.H.,
Jeremy Konyndyk, M.S.F.S., and Michelle Nalabandian, M.F.S.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of those who were instrumental in the development
and execution of this senior-level tabletop exercise. At the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), we would like tothank Vice President for Communications Carmen MacDougall and Director of Public Education Rachel
Staley Grant. Kevin O’Prey, a consultant to NTI, provided expert assistance on scenario development andserved as the facilitator for the exercise. At Georgetown University’s Center for Health Science and Security,
Aurelia Attal-Juncqua and Matt Boyce provided expert support. Ellie Graeden from Talus Analytics andRose Worden from the Center for Global Development also provided expert support.

We are grateful to the Global Affairs Canada Weapons Threat Reduction Program and the OpenPhilanthropy Project. The exercise would not have been possible without their generous support.

Copyright © 2019 Nuclear Threat Initiative

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the NTI Board of Directors or the institutions withwhich they are associated.

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
About the Exercise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Findings and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Overarching International Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Information Sharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Investigation and Attribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Financing for Response and National Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
About the Organizing Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

NTI Paper		

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

Executive SummaryT

he risks of a global catastrophic biological event1 are growing, intensified by an increasinglyinterconnected world, terrorist and state interest in weapons of mass destruction, global politicalinstability, and rapid advances in biotechnology. International leaders and organizations today are
unprepared to react with the kind of effective, coordinated response needed to investigate and identify thepathogen, prevent the spread of disease, and, most importantly, save lives. Without the right procedures
and tools in place, there’s little doubt that a rapidly spreading high-consequence
biological event would place overwhelming stress on the people and institutions
responsible for response. The lack of established procedures would very likely
undermine the trust and cooperation needed between the health professionals,
The risks of ahumanitarian responders, and security officials who would be aiming for a
global catastrophic
coordinated, effective international response.

biological event are
growing, intensified
by an increasinglyinterconnectedworld, terrorist
and state interestin weapons of mass
destruction, global
political instability,
and rapid advancesin biotechnology.

To address this preparedness deficit, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Georgetown
University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, and the Center
for Global Development convened senior health, humanitarian, security, andpolitical leaders to participate in a tabletop exercise designed to explore command,
control, and coordination of an international response to an unusual andrapidly spreading biological event that began in the fictional country of “Vestia.”
The dramatic exercise uncovered major gaps in international coordination,
information sharing, and attribution between health and security officials.
It sparked disagreements among leading experts over whether a permanent
United Nations-based coordinator is needed to facilitate coordination among thevarious entities responsible for pandemic response. And it uncovered divisions
over committing attention and resources to finding the perpetrators as a way todeter future attacks.

In recent years, the international community has worked to address some of theseissues. Following the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa, for example,
officials made significant improvements to United Nations (UN) policies, plans,
financing, and guidance2 for epidemic responses. However, despite these changes,
the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo has now become
the second largest in history, demonstrating weaknesses in global capability to stop outbreaks in insecuresettings where healthcare workers are targeted by violence. Additionally, the system remains untested fordeliberate biological events and other high-consequence pandemic scenarios—including those that spread
rapidly and occur in unstable environments where existing health and humanitarian capabilities would
quickly be overwhelmed and nations would compete for scarce resources to respond.

1

Schoch-Spana et al., “Global Catastrophic Biological Risks: Toward a Working Definition,” Health Security 15, no. 4 (August 2017), https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/hs.2017.0038.

2

See https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/principals/documents-public/final-iasc-system-wide-level-3-l3-activation-proceduresinfectious; and https://www.who.int/features/qa/health-emergencies-programme/en/.

NTI Paper2

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

In fact, only 10 percent of assessed countries have been able to demonstrate biosafety and biosecurity
capacity to prevent deliberate and accidental outbreaks.3
Unfortunately, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and its supporting process do not have thenecessary resources to support an international response to such an event or state-sponsored attack, and
it is unclear what role the BWC would play if an attack was claimed by a non-state group. Adding to theurgent need to address gaps in preparedness: desktop DNA printers, enabled by enzymatic synthesis, could
soon make it even easier and cheaper to make and modify dangerous agents.4
Bill Gates issued a stark warning about this eventuality to top security and defense officials at the 2017
Munich Security Conference: “We ignore the link between health security and international security at
our own peril,” he said. On the eve of
the 2019 Munich Security Conference,
18 senior security, public health, andhumanitarian leaders convened torespond to the fast-spreading plaguethat began in Vestia as a way tofurther explore known gaps in global
preparedness to respond to a highconsequence, genetically engineered
agent and to identify ways to close
those gaps.
This report presents key findings fromthe tabletop exercise in Munich andoffers recommendations from the event organizers, Elizabeth Cameron of the Nuclear Threat Initiative,
Rebecca Katz of the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University, and Jeremy
Konyndyk of the Center for Global Development. The exercise was conducted under Chatham House Rule;the organizers made every effort to provide an accurate description of what transpired and of the findings
generated. The report’s recommendations were informed by the discussion during the tabletop exercise but
should not be attributed to the event participants.
An important note: Although the Vestia scenario was developed to exercise response to the deliberate useof a biological agent, much of what transpired also would apply to other high-consequence, unusual, or
potentially globally catastrophic biological scenarios. As a result, the recommendations in this report also
may be relevant for similarly devastating events involving unknown agents, accidentally released agents, oroutbreaks occurring in insecure environments.

3

Data were drawn from the WHO Strategic Partnership for International Health Regulations (2005) and Health Security website (https://extranet.who.int/sph/jee-dashboard) on May 24, 2019. The information was derived from completed and published WHO Joint External
Evaluations for the following indicators: P.6.1 Whole-of-government biosafety and biosecurity system in place for human, animal, andagriculture facilities; and P.6.2 Biosafety and biosecurity training and practices. Countries assessed as having demonstrated biosecurity andbiosafety core capacity achieved an average score of 4.0 or greater.

4

Robert F. Service, “New Way to Write DNA Could Turbocharge Synthetic Biology and Data Storage,” Science (October 2, 2018), https://www.
sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/new-way-write-dna-could-turbocharge-synthetic-biology-and-data-storage; and Palluk et al., “De Novo DNA
Synthesis Using Polymerase-Nucleotide Conjugates,” Nature Biotechnology 36, (June 18, 2018): 645–650, https://www.nature.com/articles/
nbt.4173.

NTI Paper

3

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

Many of the gaps in preparedness and response, as well as the conflicts among organizations, have been
well known for years. The challenges to better coordination are significant, but they must not be viewed
as intractable. Leaders across all sectors have an obligation to develop better systems, mechanisms, andprocedures for saving lives and preventing future potentially catastrophic outbreaks. The risks are rising. It
is time to meet this challenge.

ORGANIZERS’ RECOMMENDATIONSInternational Coordination
1. The Office of the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) should designate a permanent
facilitator and/or unit devoted to coordinating the response to deliberate, high-consequence,or unusual biological events.
2. The UNSG, by December 2019, should designate a time-limited expert panel, led by thedesignated permanent facilitator and/or unit. The panel should develop specific tools to fillgaps in the response architecture relevant to deliberate biological events.

Information Sharing
3. The UNSG and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General should co-convene
a meeting in 2020 to propose specific mechanisms to enable the rapid exchange of genetic
information across sectors during a deliberate biological event and other high-consequence
scenarios.

Investigation and Attribution
4. The UN Secretary-General should ensure that a formal, clear, and regularly exercised
process for investigation and attribution of an alleged use of biological weapons is robust
and sustained. The aim of such a process is to help deter future use of biological weapons
and to stop disease spread following an attack. This should include processes geared toward
alleged state or non-state use of biological weapons and must include a more robust andrapidly deployable investigative team through the UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism for
Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons (UNSGM).

Financing for Response and Preparedness
5. UN Member States should urgently identify and rapidly increase financing for national
pandemic preparedness across the public health and agricultural sectors, including forcapabilities outlined within the WHO Joint External Evaluation (JEE). As part of this process,countries should establish benchmarks and prioritize financing for biosecurity and othersecurity sector-related targets. This should be a multi-sectoral process that includes the private
sector.
Full findings and recommendations begin on page 9.

NTI Paper

4

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

About the Exercise
PurposeThe exercise was designed to identify gaps, allowing organizers to recommend improvements that canbe made now—before an event occurs—in global capacity and ability to conduct coordinated, timely
response operations and investigations into deliberate and other high-consequence or potentially globallycatastrophic biological events.

Participants
The tabletop convened 18 current and former senior leaders with decades of combined experience leading
public health responses, humanitarian operations, peacekeeping missions, law enforcement and security
investigations, and financing for health emergencies. Participants were asked to consider the scenario andcandidly discuss gaps in mechanisms, coordination, and information sharing across the UN system for
responding to high-consequence deliberate biological events.

Scenario
The fictitious scenario begins in winter 2018 as an emergency meeting is called by the WHO Director
General in response to a request for assistance from the nation of Vestia, a country embroiled in civil unrest
whose UN-recognized government relies on an international military coalition to cope with an ongoing,
but nearly extinguished, insurgency. Vestia’s leaders are dealing with an unusual outbreak in an area of thecountry recently vacated by a terrorist organization. People are complaining of flu-like symptoms—andthey are dying fast, with a case fatality rate of 80 percent. The disease appears to be pneumonic plague, andthe antibiotics typically used to treat plague aren’t working.

NTI Paper

5

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

With cases spreading to Europe and the United States, the WHO declares a Public Health Emergency ofInternational Concern, and the Prime Minister of Vestia asks the United Nations Secretary-General for aninvestigation into alleged use of a biological weapon.
As the scenario progresses, the agent is sequenced and found to be genetically engineered and antibiotic
resistant. The scenario ends with a terrorist group claiming responsibility and intelligence reports linking
that group to a potential state sponsor.

Questions for Exploration
The scenario ends
with a terroristgroup claiming
responsibility andintelligence reports
linking that group
to a potential state
sponsor.

The complex scenario was developed, in part, to resemble recent experiences
related to the use of chemical weapons in Syria and past and ongoing Ebola
crises. During the UN-led investigation into the 2013 use of chemical weapons in
Syria, standard operating procedures for the investigation of alleged use, led by
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), in supportof the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), were largely created ad hoc.
Similarly, the UN struggled with command and control during the 2014–2016
Ebola response, ultimately deciding to build a command-and-control “healthkeeping” mission—UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER)—
which under-performed and was criticized as ineffective. Additionally, theongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo is fueled bypolitical instability and fear.

So it was not a surprise to find that the combination of security, humanitarian, andpublic health dimensions of the crisis played during the Munich exercise caused
confusion and placed a substantial strain on leaders responsible for national, regional, and international
response. The goal was to expose the roots of that strain and confusion so that organizers could identify
clear recommendations for urgent action to address the gaps in organization and capacity faced by ourcurrent international system for responding to high-consequence biological events.
To that end, leaders were asked to respond to specific questions throughout. Among them:• Who and what organizations are in charge of addressing Vestia’s early request for assistance?
• How would the UN respond to Vestia’s request for an investigation into a possible biological attack?
• Should there be a specific UN lead for an overarching coordination in a crisis such as this? If so,
who and in which organization?
• Amid signs that the outbreak was unusual, what would trigger the involvement of security agencies,
such as UNODA and INTERPOL?
• Who should be in charge of communications to manage public anxiety and prevent unnecessary
actions that could negatively impact economies?

NTI Paper

6

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event• How should sample collection and analysis be conducted and information be shared among thevarious involved public health, security, and humanitarian actors?
• How should sensitive security information be made available to national governments andresponders?

Key Discussion Points
Three key overarching questions guided the discussion—and in some cases, prompted significant
disagreement:
1. How should overarching coordination be achieved for a deliberate biological event?
With no single stakeholder holding a clear coordinating role across all aspects of a response to adeliberate biological event, leaders worked to identify existing entities that should be responsible forcoordination and debated whether a new entity or structure is required.
2. How should information between sectors be shared and coordinated across different aspectsof an attribution investigation, public health response, and humanitarian operation?
Acknowledging barriers to information sharing that could hinder effective public health, humanitarian,
and attribution responses to a deliberate biological event, leaders struggled with a lack of transparent
information-sharing mechanisms for organizations involved in the public health response, attribution
investigation, and humanitarian operation that could result in a breakdown in overall response.
3. How should an attribution investigation for a deliberate biological event be conducted during
an active public health and humanitarian response? The exercise uncovered gaps in standard
operating procedures and mechanisms for deploying an attribution investigation during an ongoing
public health emergency, and participants underscored that mechanisms for coordination andcommunication among UNODA, national and regional investigative teams, and INTERPOL have notbeen well defined for situations that have the potential to include both terrorist and state involvement.
This exercise was not focused on national preparedness, although tabletop participants appropriately
highlighted the importance of national preparedness and major financing shortfalls in filling global
health security gaps. The scenario was designed to identify recommendations that would improve interorganizational response. The event organizers recognize and strongly support international efforts to speed
national action planning for health security and to mobilize national and donor-based resources to swiftly
fill gaps and enhance preparedness.

NTI Paper

7

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

EXERCISE PARTICIPANTS
KEYNOTES
Mr. Elhadj As Sy
Secretary General, International
Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies
Co-Chair, Global Preparedness
Monitoring Board
Former Director of Partnerships
and Resource Development,
UN International Children’s
Emergency Fund
Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland
Co-Chair, Global Preparedness
Monitoring Board
Former Prime Minister of Norway
Former Director-General of theWorld Health Organization
Remarks and views delivered in absentia

PARTICIPANTS
Dr. Sibylle Bauer
Director of Studies, Armamentand Disarmament Programme,
Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute
Mr. Stephen Cornish
Chief Executive Officer, David
Suzuki Foundation
Former Executive Director of
Médecins Sans Frontières /Doctors Without Borders Canada
Dr. Chris Elias
President of the Global
Development Division, Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation
Member, Global Preparedness
Monitoring Board
Dr. Tim Evans
Senior Director, Health, Nutrition& Population, World Bank Group
Member, Global Preparedness
Monitoring Board

NTI Paper

Sir Jeremy Farrar
Director, Wellcome Trust
Member, Global Preparedness
Monitoring Board
Mr. Jean-Marie Guéhenno
Senior Advisor, Centre for
Humanitarian Dialogue
Distinguished Fellow, Brookings
Institution
Former Under-Secretary-Generalfor Peacekeeping Operations of theUnited Nations
Former President and Chief
Executive Officer, International
Crisis Group
Sir John Holmes
Chair, The Electoral Commission
Former Under-Secretary-Generalfor Humanitarian Affairs andEmergency Relief Coordinator,
United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs
Mr. Jeremy Jurgens
Managing Director, Head ofCentre for Global Industries andStrategic Intelligence, World
Economic Forum
Ms. Angela Kane
Senior Fellow, Vienna Center
for Disarmament and NonProliferation
Former United Nations High
Representative for Disarmament
Affairs

Dr. Jane Holl Lute
President and Chief Executive
Officer, SICPA North America
Former Assistant SecretaryGeneral for Mission Support,
UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations
Former Deputy Secretary, UnitedStates Department of Homeland
Security
Ernest J. Moniz
Co-Chair and Chief Executive
Officer, NTI
Former U.S. Secretary of Energy
Ambassador Hadiza Mustapha
Advisor of the Chairperson,
African Union Commission on
Peace, Security and Governance
Sam Nunn
Co-Chair, NTI
Former U.S. Senator
Mr. Heiko Rottmann-Grossner
Head, Department of Health
Security, German Federal Ministryof Health
Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü
Former Director-General,
Organisation for the Prohibition ofChemical Weapons
FACILITATOR
Dr. Kevin O’Prey
Consultant to NTI

Mr. Boon Hui (Paul) Khoo
Senior Fellow, Civil Service College
Former President of INTERPOL
Mr. Won-soo Kim
Distinguished Professor, Graduate
School of International Studies,
Yonsei University, Korea
Former High-Representative of
the United Nations Office for
Disarmament Affairs

8

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

Findings and Recommendations
The Munich exercise identified major gaps in overarching coordination, communication, information
sharing, and attribution between public health, humanitarian, and security actors during a deliberate
biological event.
Key themes to address were:• Overarching international coordination• Information sharing• Investigation and attribution• Financing for response and national preparedness.
Under each theme, the organizers provided recommendations addressing concerns raised during theexercise. These recommendations reflect the views of the event organizers and should not be attributed tothe participants in the tabletop exercise.

THEME

Overarching International Coordination

Findings
The senior leaders gathered in Munich hotly debated the utility of a permanent, single, non-operational
facilitator for deliberate biological events. All participants agreed that, while the WHO likely would leadthe public health response for a deliberate biological event, the complex political and security challenges
would exceed the expertise and capabilities of the WHO—making it poorly suited to coordinate the overall,multi-mission effort for a high-consequence event.
NTI Paper

9

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

Some participants called for a single facilitator within the UN and outside of the WHO to be designatedin advance of such an event. These experts noted that national governments and regional organizations
would quickly be overwhelmed during a deliberate and globally spreading biological event. They argued
that a formalized, overarching facilitator within the UN could serve as a deterrent
to the future use of biological weapons. However, other participants argued
against the designation of such a person in favor of a more ad hoc approach that
A number ofwould designate a lead facilitator depending on the circumstances of the event.
These participants also warned against the creation of an operational facilitator,
participants
warning that the facilitator could create confusion among UN entities that should
affirmed the needeach have their own defined role and field operational functions. A number offor a more clear
participants affirmed the need for a more clear designation of roles and leadershiparrangements across the UN structure for high-consequence, rapidly spreading,designation of roles
deliberate biological events, noting that this would better facilitate response, given
and leadershipthe need for coordination between public health, humanitarian, and security
arrangements acrossoperations and attribution investigation.

the UN structure ...

Finally, participants noted that the scenario relied upon a cooperative state(Vestia). In other circumstances, sovereign countries that ultimately have a lot of
power to decide whether to report or to allow investigation into an outbreak thatis spreading within and beyond its borders may not be as cooperative.

Participants also made the following observations during the exercise:• The UN has historically appointed, largely on an ad hoc basis, special representatives to coordinate
responses to particularly challenging events, including the use of chemical weapons in Syria and thecase of the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER). However, this approach canplace the appointed facilitator in a position of starting from scratch, without a foundation or staff tobuild upon.
• The designation of an identified “coordinator” or “special representative of the UNSG” in advancecould facilitate unified engagement between the public health, humanitarian, and investigative
functions during a deliberate biological event. Such a pre-existing designation could also serve as adeterrent against reload during the current crisis and/or future biological weapons use.
• On the other hand, existing approaches that do not rely on a pre-existing facilitator or coordination
function, but instead would designate a special envoy or overarching coordinator once an event has
begun, could allow for a response geared toward the specific nature of the event in question. Suchan approach also would respect the existing UN structure and unity of effort for humanitarian anddisaster response.
• An entirely new response structure, created outside of existing instruments and specific todeliberate biological events, could be confusing. However, a mechanism for incorporating an
attribution investigation function into an ongoing UN humanitarian and public health response to apandemic event is needed, and the current system has no such mechanism in place.

NTI Paper

10

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event• A mapping exercise might be useful to determine roles and responsibilities across the UN system
for the response to a deliberate biological event. Such an exercise could identify disparate needs
for personnel, training, laboratory confirmation, information sharing, and stockpiling of personal
protective equipment and medical countermeasures that might arise in such an instance.
• Coordinated public affairs and risk communications between affected countries and within the UN
will be critical to minimize public anxiety during a deliberate biological event.
• Because affected countries retain their sovereignty during an outbreak, effective response andattribution will rely on cooperation between and among affected states and the UN system.

Organizers’ Recommendations
The Office of the United Nations Secretary-General should designate a permanent facilitator and/or unit devoted to coordinating the response to deliberate, high-consequence, or unusual biologicalevents.
During the initial days and weeks of a deliberate biological event, through the creation and release of a newor engineered agent or another high-consequence scenario, there likely will be a great deal of confusion
about what has happened, what caused it, and whether the event was naturally occurring, accidental, ordeliberate.
Designating a person and/or unit within the Office of the UNSG would provide vital cross-sector
communication and coordination function. Such a facilitator and/or unit should:• Be clearly authorized and empowered to serve a facilitation function in charge of coordinating
response but should not have direct operational responsibilities. Rather, the facilitator should be
responsible for convening key institutions and developing aligned plans to respond to and address
the specific challenges that arise from deliberate and other unusual high-consequence biologicalevents.
• Exist outside of the WHO, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(UNOCHA), or UNODA—but have engagement from all three—to be able to engage, coordinate,
and facilitate action across and among these three organizations and with the UNSG.
• Use “peacetime” where there is no immediate crisis to plan, conduct regular exercises, and identify
and fill gaps in standard operating procedures to promote unity of effort across the public health,humanitarian, and security-led responses when events occur. In addition the designated facilitator
and/or unit, working in coordination with the UNSG, the WHO, UNODA, and UNOCHA, should
develop guidance for information and data sharing for the public during the response to a deliberate
biological event.
• Work with the UN Operations and Crisis Centre (UNOCC) to conduct annual exercises fordeliberate biological events and other potentially globally catastrophic biological scenarios tounderstand gaps and deter deliberate use.

NTI Paper

11

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

The UNSG, by December 2019, should designate a time-limited expert panel, led by the designatedpermanent facilitator and/or unit. The panel should develop specific tools to fill gaps in the response
architecture relevant to deliberate biological events.5
An expert panel should:• Present recommendations for adoption to fill existing gaps in the international response
architecture for deliberate biological events by September 2020.
• Initiate a mapping exercise to assess which parts of the UN system would be involved in a response
to a deliberate biological event, which laboratories could contribute, which existing international
instruments, mandates, or other authorities are relevant, and which new authorities andinformation-sharing needs and structures might be required. This activity should include reviewing
the existing UN Health Cluster Guidelines6 and Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Protocol
and could draw upon existing efforts to map key stakeholders.7• Update or develop UN system guidance to specifically outline how each involved organization will
work with others to share information, including during events involving security organizations anddisparate data streams.

THEME

Information Sharing

Findings
Exercise participants generally agreed that involved parties, including security leaders, have a “duty to share”
any information that could aid the public health and humanitarian response during a deliberate biologicalevent. They discussed barriers to such information sharing, noting fundamental tensions among (a) theneed for transparency and sharing information about samples and genetic data to maximize the efficacyof the public health response; (b) the need for humanitarian responders to maintain political neutrality
and independence to gain and maintain safe access to populations in conflict zones; and (c) the tendencyof national and international organizations to conceal information gained through security investigative
channels for the purpose of determining the source of the attack.
Participants also made the following observations during the exercise:• It will be important—and very difficult—to overcome barriers to information sharing among publichealth response, humanitarian efforts, and attribution investigators.
• It will be challenging to identify a specific mechanism to allow rapid sharing of security sector data
between international organizations and with national governments. Participants also expressed
5

While this tabletop exercise focused on a deliberate biological release, these recommendations would also apply to other high-consequence
scenarios, as well as outbreak responses that must take place in politically unstable or insecure environments.

6

Health Cluster Guide (June 2009), https://www.who.int/health-cluster/resources/publications/hc-guide/en/.

7

Responding to Deliberate Biological Events, Georgetown University Medical Center, Center for Global Health Science and Security, https://
ghss.georgetown.edu/dbe_response.

NTI Paper

12

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

concern that the involvement of INTERPOL, UNODA, and security elements within national
governments—depending on whether a terrorist, state, or both are suspected—will further
complicate information sharing during a deliberate biological event.
• The overriding imperative of stopping an outbreakshould be to alleviate suffering, and there should be norestrictions on information sharing that could impede
rapid public health and humanitarian response.
• The sharing of genetic data during this scenario could
be impeded, due to an interpretation of the Nagoya
Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing,8 which wasdeveloped in 2010 as a supplementary agreement to
the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Advancemechanisms, such as pre-existing Material Transfer
Agreements, offer one possible approach for ensuring
rapid data-sharing during an outbreak, while also
protecting national sovereignty and rights for future data
publication.
• Creating and maintaining a firewall between information gathered during an attribution
investigation and information gathered from a public health investigation may be important
to rapidly attribute the attack and prevent “reload,” or a quickly recurring attack. However,mechanisms for rapid, secure information sharing between health and security officials will beessential for stopping the disease spread and saving lives.
• In a conflict zone, there will be tension between security operations and medical relief operations. If
humanitarian involvement in containing an outbreak is viewed as tied to or supporting the security
response—particularly through information-sharing—it could undermine efforts to contain theoutbreak. For this reason, humanitarian workers are likely to be reticent about the use of their data
in an attribution investigation, which may hinder information sharing between sectors during an
event.

Organizers’ Recommendation
The UNSG and the WHO Director General should co-convene a meeting in 2020 to propose specificmechanisms to enable the rapid exchange of genetic information across sectors during a deliberate
biological event and other high-consequence scenarios.
Information sharing during a high-consequence biological crisis, including a deliberate biological event,should be prioritized first and foremost as part of an effective public health and humanitarian response tosave lives. At the same time, it also is vital to investigate and attribute an attack to stop disease spread andprevent further use.

8

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, Convention on Biological Diversity, https://www.cbd.int/abs/.

NTI Paper

13

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event• The UNSG and the WHO Director General should collaborate now—in advance of a highconsequence biological event—to create conditions that will enable rapid sharing of genetic dataand samples. Standing Material Transfer Agreements to facilitate data and sample sharing should be
explored.
• In advance of a deliberate biological event, the UNSG, the WHO, INTERPOL, and UNOCHA
should urgently clarify the mechanism(s) for information sharing between security organizations
and with UN Member States, including through the use of functional exercises across organizations
and sectors.

THEME

Investigation and Attribution

Findings
The tabletop exercise scenario intentionally included claims of terrorist use and a link to a potential state
sponsor. In this context, participants discussed mechanisms for launching an attribution investigation for
deliberate biological events. They noted that previous efforts to respond to deliberate chemical weapons
events, including the stand-up of investigative and attributive mechanisms related to use of chemical weapons
in Syria, were personality dependent, conducted on an ad-hoc basis, and succeeded largely through thedesignation of strong leadership by the UNSG and through the extensive expertise available at the OPCW.
Participants also made the following observations during the exercise:• There is disagreement over the immediacy for focusing on an attribution investigation during
a deliberate biological event. Experts with significant public health or humanitarian experiencegenerally argued that an attribution investigation should take a backseat to the public healthand humanitarian responses; those who served in more security-focused positions argued that
attribution investigation would be vital to stop another attack and, ultimately, to the understanding
needed to stop disease spread.
• It is unclear whether, and—if so—how, an attribution investigation could or should be “firewalled”
from public health and humanitarian responses. Public health leaders who participated in thetabletop exercise expressed concern that a firewall would negatively impact the response to the
spreading outbreak, while security professionals urged consideration of a firewall as essential to aneffective attribution.
• Cooperation from sovereign national governments in affected countries will be vital for a successful
UN-led attribution investigation, and is a requirement for an effective investigation to take place
within sovereign boundaries. For example, the UN fact-finding mission in Syria occurred on thebasis of an invitation from the Government of Syria.
• There is a strong potential for government collapse in a relatively weak affected state, which could
create an additional hurdle for a UN-led attribution investigation.

NTI Paper

14

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event• A leadership deficit is likely during a deliberate biological event, due to the absence of a specificestablished entity, such as the OPCW for chemical weapons, which could provide personnel andsupport for an investigation into the alleged use of biological weapons. However, participants also
did not believe it would be possible or politically feasible to create an “O-P-B-W” and also did notrecommend assigning a biological weapons-focused investigative mission to the OPCW.
• In lieu of a specific organization tasked with conducting an attribution
investigation, there is an urgent need for a trained global roster of experts
available to respond to deliberate and other high-consequence biologicalevents. A cadre of pre-designated, trained, and exercised experts toperform fact-finding investigations is necessary.
• It is vital to hold accountable those who deploy weapons of mass
destruction and related crimes, particularly for the purpose of deterring
future actors and reinforcing norms against biological weapons use.
• Politics at the UN, including ongoing and unrelated political
disagreements among P-5 countries, likely will impact the effectivenessand outcomes of any UN-led attribution investigation, even in the eventof a pre-designated, independent, and impartial coordinator.

The BWC, UNODA,
and INTERPOL
currently lackthe authority,
workforce, andmandate to handle
such an event.

Organizers’ Recommendation
The UN Secretary-General should ensure that a formal, clear, and regularly exercised process forinvestigation and attribution of an alleged use of biological weapons is robust and sustained. The aimof such a process is to help deter future use of biological weapons and to stop disease spread following
an attack. This should include processes geared toward alleged state or non-state use of biologicalweapons and must include a more robust and rapidly deployable investigative team through the UN
Secretary-General’s Mechanism for Investigation of Alleged Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons(UNSGM).
There is no question that world leaders will quickly call for an investigation into the source of a spreading
deliberate biological attack to identify the perpetrator(s) and deter further use. However, the source of an
attack could be unknown and difficult to determine during an already confusing and globally spreading
outbreak, and it is unclear which organization(s) would have the resources, workforce, and protocols to leadthe security-related investigation—particularly if the source of the attack remains unclear for any length oftime. The BWC, UNODA, and INTERPOL currently lack the authority, workforce, and mandate to handle
such an event.
• The UNSG should provide UNODA with the resources and authorities necessary for conducting
UNSGM fact-finding missions, which would include an attribution investigation mandate, whether
the alleged use was the result of a terrorist or a state-sponsored attack. UNODA should develop
clear protocols for operations, including best practices for collaboration with wider humanitarianand public health operations that may already be underway.
• The UNSGM should be regularly exercised for biological scenarios, with access to a roster of trained
and globally diverse experts.
NTI Paper

15

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event• The UNSG, in coordination with UNODA, the WHO, and INTERPOL, should designate a specific,
trusted laboratory network responsible for receiving evidence and samples related to an attribution
investigation for a deliberate biological event, as well as determining chain of custody. Use of such alaboratory network should be regularly exercised.
• Countries should establish specific guidance and memoranda of understanding for linking security
organizations, including law enforcement officials, to public health and veterinary agencies in theevent of a suspected deliberate biological event. National Action Plans for Health Security, which
follow the WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) JEE process, should prioritize milestones
for achieving this requirement.

THEME

Financing for Response and National Preparedness

Findings
Global financing for pandemic response continues to be severely lacking, including resources for evacuating
public health and humanitarian responders, stockpiling and distributing personal protective equipment,
appropriately isolating and quarantining affected individuals, and rapidly developing, distributing, anddispensing medical countermeasures. Although the exercise was not intended to address existing major
gaps in national preparedness, participants emphasized the relationship between a country’s capabilities
and an effective international response to a deliberate biological event.
Participants also made the following observations:• The private sector would like to assist in the response to a deliberate or otherwise high-consequence
biological event; however, there is currently no framework (“receptor site”) in place that would allow
private companies to plug into a response and provide assets in a more coordinated way.
• Medical countermeasures and personal protective equipment will be vital in curbing the spreadof the outbreak in the scenario. Globally coordinated protocols for developing, stockpiling,
distributing, and dispensing medical countermeasures will be crucial.
• A larger workforce is needed for responding to high-consequence biological events, including
training for frontline health workers.
• Better global biosurveillance capabilities are required to drive data, advance analytics, and forecast
outbreak spread.

Organizers’ Recommendation
UN Member States should urgently identify and rapidly increase financing for national pandemic
preparedness across the public health and agricultural sectors, including for capabilities outlined
within the WHO JEE. As part of this process, countries should establish benchmarks and prioritize
financing for biosecurity and other security sector-related targets. This should be a multi-sectoral
process that includes the private sector.

NTI Paper

16

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

No matter how synchronized the UN system becomes for addressing deliberate biological events, substantial
deficits remain in financing, national governance, and country and community-level preparedness forpreventing, detecting, and responding to any high-consequence biological event, particularly one thatspreads rapidly and globally.
• UN Member States should prioritize financing for the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, the
UNSGM, humanitarian operators, and other relevant programs required for effective response to ahigh-consequence or deliberate biological event.
• All UN Member States should undergo external evaluations and publish and finance gaps identified
by a WHO JEE and the World Organisation for Animal Heath (OIE) Performance of Veterinary
Services Pathway assessment.9 The G-7 and G-20 should urgently prioritize assistance to fill global
preparedness gaps in 2019 and 2020.
• Costs to implement the National Action Plans for Health Security should be estimated and financed
for each country that has undergone a JEE. These should include financing for biosecurity andother security-sector related targets, as well as the other capabilities within the WHO JEE. At least
80 percent of costed plans should be completed by the end of 2019 for countries that have alreadyundergone a JEE. In addition, countries should strive to meet the target outlined in the Global
Health Security Agenda 2024 Framework: “By 2024, more than 100 countries that have completed
an evaluation of health security capacity will have undergone planning and resource mobilization
to address gaps, and will be in the process of implementing activities to achieve impact. These
countries will strengthen their capacities and demonstrate improvements in at least five technicalareas to a level of ‘Demonstrated Capacity’ or comparable level, as measured by relevant healthsecurity assessments, such as those conducted within the WHO IHR Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework.”10• In 2019 and 2020, international organizations, including the WHO, UNODA, and the World
Economic Forum, should convene private sector companies to identify gaps and concrete next steps
to strengthen the capability of companies to provide assets to assist with international response fordeliberate biological attacks and other high-consequence biological events.

9Strategic Partnership for International Health Regulations (2005) and Health Security (SPH), https://extranet.who.int/sph/; and World
Organization for Animal Health, http://www.oie.int/solidarity/pvs-pathway/.

10

Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) 2024 Framework (November 2018), https://www.ghsagenda.org/docs/default-source/defaultdocument-library/ghsa-2024-files/ghsa-2024-framework.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

NTI Paper

17

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

Additional Resources
A range of background materials prepared for the exercise is available at https://ghss.georgetown.edu/dbe_
response/ttx.
A glossary that defines the terminology and acronyms used in this report and in responses to deliberate
biological events more generally is available at https://ghss.georgetown.edu/dbe_response/glossary.

NTI Paper

18

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

About the Authors
Elizabeth Cameron, Ph.D.
Vice President, Global Biological Policy and Programs
Nuclear Threat Initiative
Dr. Elizabeth Cameron is Vice President for Global Biological Policy and Programs at NTI. Cameronpreviously served as the senior director for global health security and biodefense on the White House
National Security Council staff, where she was instrumental in developing and launching the Global
Health Security Agenda and addressed homeland and national security threats surrounding biosecurity
and biosafety, biodefense, emerging infectious disease threats, biological select agents and toxins, dual-use
research, and bioterrorism.
Rebecca Katz, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Director and Associate Professor
Center for Global Health Science and Security, Georgetown University
Dr. Rebecca Katz is an Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Global Health Science and Security
at Georgetown University. Prior to coming to Georgetown, she spent 10 years at The George Washington
University as faculty in the Milken Institute School of Public Health. Her research is focused on global
health security, public health preparedness, and health diplomacy.
Jeremy Konyndyk, M.S.F.S.
Senior Policy Fellow
Center for Global Development
Jeremy Konyndyk is a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. His research focuseson humanitarian response, USAID policy reform, and global outbreak preparedness. From 2013–2017,
he served as the director of USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, where he led the U.S.
government’s response to international disasters, including the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and oversaw
a team of nearly 600 humanitarian professionals.
Michelle Nalabandian, M.F.S.
Program Officer, Global Biological Policy and Programs
Nuclear Threat Initiative
Michelle Nalabandian is a Program Officer with NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs. She previously
worked on the NTI Nuclear Security Index and the Global Dialogue on Nuclear Security Priorities, as wellas projects related to nuclear, radiological, and cyber security. Nalabandian holds a bachelor’s degree inbiology and a master’s degree in forensic science from George Mason University, and received a certificate
of mastery from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

NTI Paper

19

www.nti.org

A Spreading Plague: Lessons and Recommendations for Responding to a Deliberate Biological Event

About the Organizing Institutions
Nuclear Threat Initiative
The Nuclear Threat Initiative works to protect our lives, environment, and quality of life now and for future
generations. We work to prevent catastrophic attacks with weapons of mass destruction and disruption—
nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical, and cyber.

The Center for Global Health Science and Security
at Georgetown University
Directed by Dr. Rebecca Katz, the Center for Global Health Science and Security at Georgetown University
was established in September 2016. The Center’s multi-disciplinary team develops evidence for action,
providing decision makers with the tools they need for sustainable capacity building to prevent, detect,and respond to public health emergencies. The team incorporates expertise in epidemiology, microbiology,
virology, animal and human health systems, demography, economics, finance, statistics, and law.

Center for Global Development
The Center for Global Development works to reduce global poverty and improve lives through innovative
economic research that drives better policy and practice by the world’s top decision makers.

NTI Paper

20

www.nti.org

1776 Eye Street, NW | Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20006 | @NTI_WMD | www.nti.org