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