CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002399

SIPDIS

STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR JOECK
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - WRAP-UP FOR
SEPTEMBER 14-17 INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS:

This is CWC-107-04.

--------------
SCHEDULE 1 "CAPTIVE USE"
--------------


1. (U) Delegations made little progress towards a draft
decision on Schedule 1 "captive use." Germany presented a
non-paper providing several examples of known processes where
Schedule 1 chemical(s) were produced during the production of
certain final products. France, Switzerland, Italy and the
U.S. supported crafting decision language that would provide
a consistent interpretation of the treaty text definition of
production for all scheduled chemicals. Italy promised a
paper for the next consultation. Canada and India continued
to oppose this issue and do not see a need for such a
decision. Both believe that the definition of production in
Article II does not necessarily apply to Schedule 1 regimes.
Canada further proposed the technical issue be referred to
the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) for further
clarification. While there was no strong opposition to the
idea, delegations felt that such a course of action was not
necessary at this time. The facilitator proposed that
delegates review the German non-paper and further study this
issue in capitols prior to the next meeting in November.

--------------
OCPF SITE SELECTION
--------------


2. (U) Facilitator Johan Verboom (Netherlands),during his
21 September consultation, summarized the current state of
play and advised delegations that he first planned to review
the requirements of Verification Annex Part IX, paragraph 11,
which provides the mandate for delegations' work before
breaking down the discussion into four issues: equitable
geographic distribution, Technical Secretariat information
points, State Party nomination points, and proposals on how
to combine the three factors, starting first with an initial
TS proposal. Iran reminded delegations that discussion of

SIPDIS
paragraph 11 cannot happen in isolation: paragraphs 12 (no
more than two inspections per year per site) and 13 (no more
than 20 Schedule 3 facilities and OCPFs per country per year)
set limits on the possible inspection burden borne by SPs.


3. (U) Russia began with a reminder that Moscow continues
to have serious doubts about the Swiss/U.S. proposal, which
it assesses is too complicated, too subjective, and too
ambiguous. In addition, Moscow believes that the potential
for collusion and lack of transparency is too high, and
remains concerned that some States Party will make
nominations inconsistent with the spirit of the CWC. No
other delegation objected to Verboom's proposal for the
current and future discussions.


4. (U) Theo Juurlink of the TS presented a possible TS
approach to information points (FAXed back to AC/CB). This
would involve determining the probability that each facility
is relevant to the CWC and then selecting a random sample of
100 sites from the circa 4500 total, one point per site. The
probability or relevance would be determined using either the
A14 or a variant called the A14 plus which adds two new
factors: D (declaration) which would be assigned a value of
two if declarations are late or incomplete or one otherwise.
The second is R (relevance) which would result in higher
chance of inspections of highly relevant facilities
(probability of inspection returns to original level within 5
years),no change for facilities of intermediate relevance
(probability of inspection returns to original level within
10 years),and lower chance for less relevant facilities
(probability of inspection returns to original level in 20
years). Juurlink noted that among the current OCPFs, 12% are
classified as high relevance, 25% intermediate, and 63% low
relevance.


5. (U) Delegations were most concerned about the TS
proposal to give each of 100 facilities just one point.
Several suggested that the TS just compute the probability
for all 4500 and use those instead, but Juurlink stressed
that this would dilute the probability that individual
facilities would be selected. No delegation argued against
the two TS proposals. Instead, the discussion fell into the
"there must be a better way to do this" category. Several
delegations raised questions about how the TS defined a
"late" or "incomplete" declaration. Juurlink replied that
only initial declarations can be late, so there are very few
that fall into this category. Amendments to initial
declarations are not considered late. Juurlink further
explained that only declarations lacking the information
required for the A14 computation would be "incomplete."
Delegations accepted this clarification without comment.

--------------
2A/2A*
--------------


6. (U) The facilitator divided the discussion into two
parts: the draft Decision Paper and low concentration
threshold. With regard to the draft, delegations agreed to
remove paragraph 5 in the paper and add an additional
reference to the Guidelines for Schedule 2. Otherwise the
draft remained unchanged.


7. (U) PFIB was the focus of the latter debate. Japan and
the UK presented non-papers outlining their respective
positions and provided technical arguments for the proposed
PFIB thresholds. Japan, Germany and the U.S. continued to
support the current 30% concentration limit while
Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, and the
U.K. favored a 0.5% limit. The U.S. reiterated it has yet to
see any data that supports a PFIB proliferation risk of PFIB
at concentrations below 30%.


8. (U) The facilitator acknowledged that PFIB technical
discussions have been exhausted and suggested political
considerations as a possible alternative option for future
consultations. The Iranian delegate proposed that State
Parties reassess ease of recovery as a way to resolve the low
concentration limit. Delegates suggested that capitals
review the two non-papers and provide feedback at the next
meeting. Time did not permit discussion of low concentration
limits for Amiton or BZ.


9. (U) The facilitator noted privately to del rep that the
proposal to move Amiton to the list of Schedule 1 chemicals
would not receive support by other delegations because it
would require a technical amendment to the Convention.

--------------
SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENTS
--------------


10. (U) Facilitator Andrea Heinzer (Switzerland) held
consultations on 15 September, beginning with a briefing how
the TS intends to implement EC-37 instructions regarding
Facility Agreements (FA). First, the TS analyzes declared
sites, considering the complexity of the facility and the
level and types of activities being conducted to determine
whether current FAs under negotiation are required. Once
this analysis is completed, the TS will contact the
respective State Party outlining its intention for further
discussion. So far, the TS had identified 21 State Parties
with sites of interest, but only six State Parties have had
such analyses completed.


11. (U) All delegations except the UK favor suspension of
discussion on FAs. The UK suggested that delegations should
consider instead holding discussions on the draft FA model,
which it assesses is too complex. Delegations advised
waiting until the TS concludes its analyses, at which point,
State Parties will have the opportunity to evaluate the
effectiveness of the TS approach.

--------------
ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIAL DATA DECLARATIONS
--------------


12. (U) Greg Linden, chief of the Information Services
Branch (ISB),briefed delegations on the status of the
Verification Information System, which will allow states to
submit their declarations electronically. Linden assesses
that the project is about halfway completed. The TS
completed its assessments of the requirements needed for
ensuring system security and is currently working on the
technical development. Linden estimated that the system
would be ready to receive electronic industrial data
declarations by September 2005. Linden also announced the
project will be transferred from ISB to the Verification
Division. Ruth Mohlenkamp is the new team leader and will
head a project team whose composition is still under
discussion. VIS is now a core TS business operation and will
appear as a new line item in the FY05 budget request.

--------------
HANDBOOK ON CHEMICALS
--------------


13. (U) Delegations finalized the report for EC-38, which
recommends ways to make the handbook easier to use, such as
marking of certain commonly declared Scheduled chemicals.
The facilitator also introduced additional marking for
chemical mixtures to help reduce mismatches when comparing
export and import declarations. France suggested that the
issue should be referred to consultation on clarification of
declarations. Other delegations did not support the idea
that additional markings would resolve the problem, and no
specific agreement was reached.


14. (U) Ito sends.
SOBEL