CWC: GUIDANCE FOR MAY 25-26, 2009 CHEMICAL

UNCLAS STATE 052991 SIPDIS THE HAGUE FOR CWC DEL E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC OPCW CBW SUBJECT: CWC: GUIDANCE FOR MAY 25-26, 2009 CHEMICAL INDUSTRY ISSUES CONSULTATIONS REF: A. A) 2009 THE HAGUE 000288 (WRAP-UP FOR THE 56TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION) ¶B. B) 2009 THE HAGUE 000244 (REPORTING FOR THE APRIL 1-2 2009 INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS) ¶C. C) 2009 STATE 14452 (NONPAPER ON NON-SCHEDULED CHEMICALS FOR INDIAN DELEGATION) ¶D. D) 2009 STATE 030848 (GUIDANCE FOR THE APRIL 1-2 2009 INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS) ¶E. E) EC-53/S/5 (JUNE 17 2008 TS NOTE ON ENHANCED INFORMATION IN OCPF DECLARATIONS) ¶F. F) EC-53/DG.11 (JUNE 17 2008 DG NOTE ON OCPF FACILITY DECLARATION INFORMATION) ¶1. (U) This document provides guidance for the CWC Delegation in The Hague for three consultation sessions on chemical industry issues being held by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on May 25-26, 2009. The May 25, 2009 session will provide information from the Technical Secretariat (TS) on analytical derivatives and their proposed addition to the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD). The two sessions on May 26, 2009 will continue the discussions on low concentration limits for Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and on the enhancement of 1. (U) This document provides guidance for the CWC Delegation in The Hague for three consultation sessions on chemical industry issues being held by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on May 25-26, 2009. The May 25, 2009 session will provide information from the Technical Secretariat (TS) on analytical derivatives and their proposed addition to the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD). The two sessions on May 26, 2009 will continue the discussions on low concentration limits for Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and on the enhancement of other chemical production facility(OCPF) declarations. ¶2. (U) These will be the first consultations under the leadership of the Sudanese Ambassador Abuelgasim Idris as the new Vice-Chair for Industry Issues. Ambassador Idris may respond to the request from delegations to EC-56 (Ref. A) and previous chemical industry issues consultations (Ref. B) by raising the issue of resuming consultations on finalizing the OCPF inspection site selection methodology. As appropriate, Del should support the need to appoint a qualified facilitator before this consultation can be renewed. -------------- -------------- OCAD - Considerations for inclusion of additional chemicals in the database -------------- -------------- ¶3. (U) In 2008 the TS prepared a draft Note from the Director-General (DG) on the inclusion of analytical data for non-scheduled chemicals in the OCAD. This draft Note was discussed among several delegations, some of whom expressed concerns with the inclusion of unscheduled degradation products and analytical derivatives of scheduled chemicals. ¶4. (U) The Del understands that the TS is preparing a new document on this subject. How its content will compare with the earlier draft Note and when the TS will make it available to delegations are not known. ¶5. (U) The United States views on the draft Note (Ref. C),as discussed with the Indian delegation earlier this year, still apply, i.e., that: - the United States believes that additional analytical derivatives should also be added to the OCAD if this will facilitate analyses; - the United States also supports the proposed addition to the OCAD of non-scheduled degradation products of scheduled chemicals and riot control agents for use during challenge inspections, investigations of alleged use and for Schedule 1 inspections; and - the issue of whether or not to include degradation products in the OCAD for Schedules 2, 3, and OCPF inspections remains under review. ¶6. (U) The May 25, 2009 session will be the first consultation in which the TS will address the issue of including additional data on non-scheduled chemicals in the OCAD. The agenda will include a TS presentation (provided by Gary Mallard) on analytical derivatives and their proposed addition to the OCAD, followed by an opportunity for discussion. ¶7. (U) Del should allow other delegations to initiate follow up discussions, and focus on gathering information on the views of other delegations on the issues presented as well as on the broader aspects of additions to the database. As appropriate, Del should seek out delegations with views consistent with those of the United States and solicit their ideas for addressing concerns tabled by others, e.g., the Indian delegation. -------------- --- Applicable concentrations limits for mixtures of Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals -------------- --- ¶8. (U) This session is the first of two that continue from the April 1-2, 2009 consultations. Little progress was made by either consultation in April (Ref. B),and the background and general guidance for April still apply (Ref. D). The facilitator has announced that the May 26 session will address 1) an update on the format and method of use of a questionnaire on 2A and 2A* sites (in response to delegation requests in April for assessing the impact of different thresholds on the number of declarable sites (Ref. B)),and 2) further discussion of the revised draft decision to implement low concentration limits. ¶9. (U) The facilitator has distributed a questionnaire that is to be used by States Parties on a voluntary basis to provide information on the anticipated impact of alternative low concentration thresholds on the numbers of sites that would be declarable. The questionnaire was developed by the TS with the review of several States Parties (including the United States) and represents a reasoned compromise on the level of detail requested and States Parties, concerns with ensuring the confidentiality of any information provided. ¶10. (U) Del should be proactive in interacting with key delegations on the margins of the session, e.g., Japan, China, and Germany, to understand their approach to responding to the questionnaire and their expectations of the utility of this effort. If appropriate, Del should state that the United States is working to collect information from companies with sites potentially impacted and expects to provide our response by the June 12, 2009 submission deadline. ¶11. (U) Del should restate the need for political compromise, e.g., that the United States believes that further technical discussion will not lead to a generally accepted approach, that political flexibility to move off entrenched positions is needed by all parties, and that delegations should work toward a political compromise. Del should work with delegations to reorient the consultation,s focus to this solution, particularly on the positions and compromise proposals of key delegations that tend to be less vocal, such as Japan and China. ¶12. (U) Recent consultations have seen participation in these discussions by some delegations that have not historically done so, notably Iran and South Africa. These delegations have grasped the concept of maintaining plant site &visibility,8 a term often used by some WEOG delegations to mean implementing very low concentration thresholds such that all of the currently declarable sites remain declarable; however, Iran and South Africa have portrayed very low concentration thresholds and &visibility8 as a necessity under their oft-quoted &hierarchy of risk.8 Del should point out the danger of the concept of &visibility8 to enabling the group to reach an acceptable compromise solution. This is even more problematic in light of recent attempts to link this to &hierarchy of risk." ¶13. (U) Discussion are to include reconsideration of the text of the draft decision from April. Del should support the substantive suggestion from the April consultation ) that the text be finalized as soon as possible except for the specific threshold limit and dates for implementation, which could be inserted when an agreed concentration limit is in place. Del should expect, however, resistance to finalizing the draft decision text by certain delegations that will not agree to final text until everything is agreed (e.g., Iran) and certain delegations that will need more detail about the decision-making process in the preamble in order to implement the decision domestically (e.g., Japan has made this point previously). Del should note any new, substantive revisions to the draft decision suggested by other delegations and report back to Washington. -------------- Enhancement of OCPF declarations -------------- ¶14. (U) Although the referenced documents for this consultation include both the TS Note on proposed required additions to the declaration information (Ref. E) and the DG Note on voluntary measures for improving declaration information (Ref. F),focus is expected to remain on the TS proposal for required changes to the declaration form to provide additional information on process types and facility configuration, and on discussion of States Parties, comments and experiences with implementing the TS-specified changes. ¶15. (U) General guidance for this consultation is unchanged from the April session (Ref. D),and should be drawn upon as appropriate. Del should specifically reference the need to understand the consequences of changes to the declaration regime in terms of the results that can be expected. ¶16. (U) Of particular interest in recent consultations is India,s clear opposition to any enhancement measures unless they can be implemented &( without imposition of any additional declaration obligations and strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part IX(8, as agreed to in paragraph 9.65 of the Report of the Second Review Conference. Del should note other delegations, views on this position and any approach to overcome this objection. ¶17. (U) The TS recently presented the results of its initial analysis (a May 20, 2009 Information Paper) on the benefit that would have been derived from applying the proposed declaration changes to the 118 OCPF inspections conducted in 2008, i.e., if the proposed change would have resulted in the inspection of a greater number of relevant sites. Del should note that Washington is still reviewing the document, but that our initial reaction to the information provided is that further analysis is required by the TS to characterize the results in terms of the benefit that would be derived, e.g., in terms of the number of more relevant inspections that would have been conducted. Del should seek out the response from other delegations. If there is agreement that additional analysis by the TS is required, and if not suggested by others, Del should request that the TS address further analysis of the results provided, and provide the results to delegations prior to the July 9, 2009 consultations. ¶18. (U) If not volunteered by delegations during open discussion, the Del should individually solicit any additional information on delegations, experiences in applying the changes on a voluntary basis and on other suggestions to modify the changes proposed by the TS. ¶19. (U) The Note from the DG on additional, voluntary actions by the TS and States Parties (Ref. F) has not been addressed in consultations since November 2008. We expect the focus of any discussion to be on implementation issues and the experiences of States Parties with the suggested actions. Del guidance remains consistent with the earlier consultations (Ref. D),to include: - We recognize that some of the voluntary States Parties, actions will yield incremental improvements, but the magnitude of such improvements is not known; and that - We encourage the TS to provide an assessment of the potential effect of these voluntary changes. ¶20. (U) Del should query other delegations on their experience to date in implementing any of the voluntary measures and their assessment of the potential value of their implementation. If asked, Del should state that based on experience to date we are unsure of the effectiveness of the voluntary measures in the United States in the future. CLINTON