CWC: REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2008 CWC

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000866 SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR, SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS AND DENYER) NSC FOR FLY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC IT SUBJECT: CWC: REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2008 CWC IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP REF: STATE 101009 This is CWC-47-08 ¶1. (U) On September 25-26, 2008 the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) sponsored a two day workshop in Florence for selected Western Europe and Other Countries Group (WEOG) State Parties and Japan in an effort to find common ground on two issues noted during the Second Review Conference(RevCon)as needing renewed attention by the Executive Council (EC): low concentration thresholds for 2A and 2A* chemical declarations and selection methodology for other chemical production facilities (OCPFs). The workshop was held at the European University Institute; participating States Parties were Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States. ¶2. (U) Introductory comments were made for the MFA by Vittorio Rocco di Torrepadula, who emphasized the need to find common ground on these issues so as to be effective in multilateral consultations in The Hague, and Amb Mario Sica, who observed that States Parties had supported radically different views in past consultations and that during the RevCon, despite a call from the Director-General, these two issues were only noted as needing resolution. Amb Sica also expressed the hope that the workshop would provide a forum for straight forward exchanges of views that would lead to solutions. ¶3. (U) The first day of the workshop was organized into sequential working sessions on the two issues. Amb Eric Javits chairing the first sessions on 2A and 2A* declaration concentrations, and Amb Werner Burkart of Germany chairing the OCPF selection discussions. On the second day Amb Sica chaired a Plenary session where the results from the working session were reported, general debate was held, and a report was accepted by all participating delegations. -------------- 2A and 2A* Declaration Thresholds -------------- ¶4. (U) Amb Javits opened the working session on 2A and 2A* chemicals declaration thresholds by asking Mr. Steve Wade, Head, Declarations and Evaluation Branch of the Technical Secretariat (TS) of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to present background information. Mr. Wade reviewed Convention requirements, 2A and 2A* chemicals' occurrence and concerns, concentration thresholds being applied by States Parties, and proposals for thresholds that had been discussed during EC intersessional periods. Mr. Wade also stated that the numbers of declarations to date for the three 2A and 2A* chemicals were 12 for PFIB, 3 for BZ and none for Amiton sites, and that he thought a 0.5 ) 1.0 % low concentration thresholds might result in 12 more PFIB site declarations. ¶5. (U) Delegations provided a summary of their 2A and 2A* declarations, position on thresholds, and flexibility in considering a compromise: - Australia, Canada, and Italy have a PFIB threshold of 0.5%; the UK and Switzerland have 1.0%; the Netherlands has 10% for production and 30% for processing and consumption; and France, Germany, Japan, and the United States have 30%. - Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and Switzerland Q- Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and Switzerland currently have no declared sites. - Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States have 1 PFIB declaration. - The UK has 2 PFIB, and Italy has 1 PFIB and 2 BZ declarations. - All delegations initially indicated flexibility on 2A and 2A* thresholds, although Australia, the Netherlands, and the UK expressed proliferation concerns about higher PFIB thresholds. ¶6. (U) Various aspects of the issue were discussed, including whether on-site PFIB destruction lowered the proliferation risk, whether a declaration threshold greater than 0.5% would result in loss of declared sites, and whether the Australia Group export control threshold of 20% was a precedent. As these discussions were not leading to a consensus, Amb Javits suggested consideration of a 15% threshold, but the suggestion did not gain traction. ¶7. (U) Ambassador Javits tabled a personal suggestion of a 10% threshold for Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals PFIB and BZ with Amiton moved to Schedule 1 (Ref). The proposal for moving Amition to Schedule 1 was summarily dismissed by France and Canada. An overall 2A and 2A* threshold of 10% did not gain consensus until the United States pointed out that its legislation precluded it ability to compromise further. After more discussion followed by a reluctant silence, Amb Javits indicated that he would go forward with the 10% threshold. -------------- OCPF Selection Methodology -------------- ¶8. (U) Amb Burkart opened the working session on selection methodology for OCPF sites by indicating that the starting point for the session would be discussions of the TS proposal for the number of OCPF inspections in 2009 and of the two papers tabled by the TS during EC-53 in June on enhancement of OCPF information and declarations (EC-53/DG.11 and EC- 53/S/5). Mr. William Kane, Head Industry Verification Branch, presented an overview of the Article VI verification regimes, noting that only 2.6% of inspectable OCPFs had been inspected, that selections over the years had resulted in significant numbers of visits to OCPF sites that proved uninspectable (11% in 2007),and that the current selection methodology had achieved inspections of only 16% high relevance sites, 31% medium relevance sites and 53% low relevance sites. ¶9. (U) Amb Burkhart opened the floor for discussion of the TS proposal for 128 inspections in 2009. After a short discussion of the merit of avoiding sharp increases in numbers of inspections and although some delegations would have preferred a larger increase, there was general agreement to support the TS proposal. ¶10. (U) The Director General's Note (EC-53/DG.11) proposed the introduction of subcategory codes for large volume production of chemicals of little relevance to the Convention (e.g. urea) which would receive reduced weighting for selection with the result in more relevant sites being selected (Ref.). It also proposed that main activities be understood to mean the activities that make a plant site declarable. The TS Note (EC-53/S/5) proposed additional declaration requirements on the type of processes (continuous or batch, dedicated or multipurpose). ¶11. (U) Most delegations supported the Director- General's Note, although some thought that the TS Note's suggested additional declaration requirements QNote's suggested additional declaration requirements needed more study. Japan, Germany and the United States suggested that the TS should provide quantitative estimates of the benefits of the proposed changes for selection of more relevant sites. There was discussion about a "two stage" introduction of the Director-General's proposals, precedents for voluntary declarations, confidentiality issues, and a suggestion that in place of subcategories a separate category might be used for declaration of all large volume chemicals of little relevance to the Convention. ¶12. (U) The discussions then turned to resumption of consultations in The Hague on implementation of paragraph 11(c) of Part IX of the Verification Annex, proposals by States Parties. The United States expressed strong interest in re-engaging on the issue and was supported by Switzerland, France and Australia. Other delegations did not disagree, but noted that a facilitator would be required. -------------- Plenary Session -------------- ¶13. (U) Amb Sica chaired the Plenary session, which was opened with presentations of the results from the working sessions. Most of the debate that followed centered on the low concentration threshold, where Australia, Canada and the UK announced that after consulting their capitalS, they could not support the working session language of 10%, and Australia indicated that capital was not happy with thresholds above 0.5%. Other delegations offered alternative formulations, but none gained wide acceptance. Amb Javits then suggested language that retained the 10% threshold cap but allowed for lower threshold possibilities, which was accepted by the group. -------------- Report Text -------------- ¶14. (U) The following text was accepted by all ten delegations with the understanding the report would not be given further formal distribution: The following States Parties met at a Workshop in Florence, Italy, on 25 and 26 September 2008, with a view to harmonising long-standing, diverse positions on the issues of low concentration thresholds and OCPF site selection methodology: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK and USA. The group considered various alternatives, reasons there fore, and probable consequences thereof: BEGIN TEXT The following conclusions were reached, subject to: - review by capitals - discussions with the Legal Adviser of the Technical Secretariat and advice to be received as a result - further informal consultations among an extended like-minded group. Low concentrations Support was expressed for the introduction of thresholds for declaration requirements for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals not in excess of 10%. This would be subject to review after two (2) calendar years. OCPF site selection methodology The issues discussed included the number of inspections (following the budget proposal by the DG), the proposals by the DG on additional info on declaration (EC/53/DG.11 17 June 2008),the proposal by the TS on modifying the declaration format (EC- 53/S/5 dated 17 June 2008) and the resuming of consultations on the third criterion (proposal by State Parties). While some delegations stressed the preference for a more substantial increase in the overall number of OCPF inspections, there was general agreement that the DG-proposed number should continue to be supported; - general support was expressed for the voluntary measures proposed by the DG on the enhancement of OCPF declarations; - there was also widespread support for the proposal of the DG concerning the information on the characteristics of the plant sites in the OCPF declarations. However, some delegations stated that further consideration should be given to additional data in the algorithm and to the legal aspects of its implementation. In case of difficulties in reaching a decision, the alternative option of voluntary implementation of the proposed measures found support; - the resumption of consultations on the full implementation of paragraph 11 (c) of Part IX of the Verification Annex is supported without prejudice to the outcome. END TEXT ¶15. (U) Javits sends. GALLAGHER