CWC: INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS, APRIL 1-2, 2009

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000244 SENSITIVE 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 (BROWN AND DENYER) NSC FOR LUTES WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS, APRIL 1-2, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 99 ¶B. FACILITATOR'S DRAFT DECISION ON 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATIONS (03/25/09) ¶C. STATE 30848 This is CWC-20-09. ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Two of the three Industry Cluster consultations at the OPCW on April 1-2 saw a continuation of discussions from the last Industry Cluster in February (ref A). Little progress was made on either Schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations or enhancements to declarations of Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPFs). The third consultation focused on a presentation by the Technical Secretariat assessing the revised OCPF site selection methodology introduced in 2008. While many delegations called for the resumption of consultations on finalizing the OCPF site selection methodology, no one has come forward to take on the Herculean task of facilitating the consultations. Full details follow. END SUMMARY. -------------- OCPF SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY -------------- ¶2. (U) On April 1, Algerian Ambassador Benchaa Dani (Vice Chair for Industry Issues) chaired the first of three Industry Cluster meetings and announced that this would be his last meeting as Vice Chair. The Director-General (DG) welcomed the chance to discuss the results in 2008 of his modified site selection methodology for other chemical production facilities (OCPFs). Citing his report from February (EC-5/DG.8),the DG reported that the results of the new methodology were as expected but noted that his assessment was only a progress report rather than a definitive conclusion on the methodology. The DG said that the Technical Secretariat (TS) would need at least another year to fully analyze the effects of the modified methodology, suggesting that the results for 2009 might not necessarily reflect those for 2008. ¶3. (U) Stian Holen (Head, Policy and Review Branch) and Tsuyoshi Okuyama (Senior Policy Officer, PRB) made a presentation of the modified methodology, included statistics and tables included in the DG's February report. Holen stressed that the methodology is an interim measure but that the TS will continue to use it to collect data for further monitoring and better evaluation. German Ambassador Werner Burkart agreed with the DG's assessment that the methodology achieved its intended aim of shifting OCPF inspections to States Parties with more OCPFs and focusing on those sites of higher relevance, as reflected in their A14 score. Burkart also agreed that the TS should continue monitoring the methodology within 1-2 years with the aim of developing a permanent methodology. South Africa, Mexico, the Netherlands and U.S. Del echoed Germany's support for the TS to continue using and monitoring the methodology. ¶4. (U) China stated that while the modified methodology is an improvement, it still needs further refinement. China noted that it had received 13 OCPF inspections in 2008 compared to an average of two inspections per year under the previous methodology, and stressed the need for consultations on OCPF site selection methodology to resume as soon as possible. China expressed hope that further improvements to the methodology would Qthat further improvements to the methodology would augment any enhancements to OCPF declaration forms and the introduction of sub-codes for bulk chemicals in eliminating all sites of lesser relevance. Italy echoed China's call to resume consultations, noting that Italy had also been subject to more inspections under the modified methodology. ¶5. (U) In response to questions raised by Spain, Okuyama noted that no States Parties reached the cap of 20 inspections for OCPFs and Schedule 3 facilities in 2008. He also said that the reinspection rate was kept at 5%, as under the previous methodology. Responding to clarification requested by South Africa, Holen noted that the spread of inspections between sites of high, medium and low relevance (37%, 30% and 33%, respectively, in 2008) was a result of the methodology rather than an intended target. Holen stressed that the methodology remains random and that all sites, regardless of relevance, are eligible for inspection. ¶6. (U) Near the end of the meeting, Dani said that most delegations appeared to support the modified methodology and the TS's continued use of it. Dani suggested two options for proceeding: restarting consultations (as requested by China and Italy), and allowing the DG to present new initiatives to further improve the methodology. The DG adamantly responded that the TS has no initiatives to introduce and will rather continue to monitor the current methodology. He countered that States Parties should take up their responsibility of deciding on the final factor to be included in the site selection methodology. Germany and South Africa both supported the DG's comments and echoed Dani's appeal for a facilitator to take up consultations on the final factor as soon as possible. ¶7. (U) At the request of delegations, Okuyama made a brief presentation on the A14 value and how it is determined. Holen promised to make both presentations from the meeting available on the OPCW's external server. -------------- 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATIONS -------------- ¶8. (U) Facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia (Italy) opened his consultations on low concentrations for 2A/2A* chemicals by introducing his recently- circulated draft decision (ref B, posted on the OPCW's external server). Cornacchia explained that the preambular paragraphs were taken mostly from the previous facilitator's draft decision while the three operative paragraphs reflected his assessment of positions after the last few rounds of consultations. He noted that not all thresholds were reflected in his draft decision but explained that he had not included the lower and upper extremes in an attempt to close the gap and move toward a compromise. Cornacchia called on all delegations for continued flexibility. ¶9. (U) Cornacchia recalled that in February Canada (supported by the UK, Germany and Italy) had requested the TS's analysis of sites declarable at different thresholds to be broken down between BZ and PFIB sites. However, Cornacchia reported that the TS was unable to provide the requested breakdown due to confidentiality constraints. He explained that the TS's data was based on inspection reports and the small number of sites made it impossible to present the data in an anonymous manner. Again citing confidentiality concerns, Cornacchia also reported that the TS was Qconcerns, Cornacchia also reported that the TS was unable to provide information on the number of sites disposing PFIB onsite versus those disposing it offsite, as Germany had requested in February. ¶10. (U) U.S. Delrep encouraged other delegations to shift their focus from technical to political aspects in order to reach a compromise. Delrep thanked Cornacchia for his draft decision, noting it provided a good basis for discussion and offered a potentially viable solution. The Netherlands echoed the U.S. call for moving away from technical discussions and stated that a decision is now a matter of political will. Australia also welcomed the facilitator's draft and asked for an assessment of the impact of different thresholds, suggesting that States Parties voluntarily provide such information themselves. Germany followed by asking how many sites would be declared at various thresholds (i.e., 5%, 10% and 20%) and stating it would happily provide the information and suggesting that the TS could release results anonymously to protect confidentiality. ¶11. (U) The UK agreed with Germany's proposal but stressed that any survey should also show how many sites might no longer be declarable at various thresholds. Italy, South Africa, China and South Korea also supported the idea of having a survey of the impact of different thresholds. Bill Kane (Head, Industry Verification Branch) responded that the TS could produce and circulate a questionnaire for States Parties to answer voluntarily. ¶12. (SBU) With momentum gathering behind the impact survey, Japan threw on the brakes by stating that delegations needed to discuss and consider the objective of a threshold. Japan stated that the Convention stipulates that a threshold should be based on ease of recovery and that the focus of thresholds is one of industry regulation rather than non-proliferation or enhancing visibility of "dangerous" sites. Japan noted that it was not against the questionnaire in principle; however, it asked how the survey results would be used. Russia also questioned the legality of circulating such a questionnaire and suggested that States Parties were unlikely to provide information voluntarily. After more discussion on the survey, Cornacchia announced that he would consult informally with delegations on how to proceed and take up the issue at the next consultation in May. ¶13. (U) Cornacchia then shifted discussion to his draft decision. Delegations quickly went through the preambular paragraphs raising a few questions and suggesting minor changes. After discussion on the specific thresholds suggested in the first operative paragraph, delegations agreed with the UK suggestion that no number be written but that it be left open-ended and filled in once a threshold was agreed. Delegations decided on a similar arrangement for the dates for implementation and review listed in operative paragraphs two and three, respectively. ¶14. (SBU) While the consultation did not make much progress, South African delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk reinforced his comments from February (reported in ref A) by saying that the issue of choosing a threshold boils down to the number of inspections that States Parties are willing to take. He said that a lower threshold would mean more inspections for some States Parties due to Qmore inspections for some States Parties due to their having to declare more facilities. Van Schalkwyk suggested that some States Parties were trying to avoid a few extra Schedule 2 inspections while insisting on increasing OCPF inspections. -------------- OCPF DECLARATION ENHANCEMENTS -------------- ¶15. (U) Facilitator Marthinus van Schalkwyk's (South Africa) consultation on enhancing OCPF declarations began with a presentation by Bill Kane (Head, IVB) on the TS's proposed values for the new "R" variable to be included in the A14 site selection algorithm. Kane's presentation reiterated the information included in the TS's non-paper distributed to delegations in advance of the consultation. Kane explained that the values were based on an intuitive sense of different sites' relative risk rather than on a purely mathematical basis. ¶16. (U) U.S. Delrep noted that the proposed "R" value seemed to focus on shifting more sites of lesser relevance into the lower risk category rather than pushing sites of greater relevance into the higher risk category. Kane responded that the net effect would be to highlight higher risk sites by increasing the number of lower risk sites. Addressing the spread of OCPF inspections among higher-, medium- and lower-risk sites, Kane said that the TS does not aim for a specific allocation between the three categories. However, he did admit that the change in A14 values due to "R" would only serve to reduce a site's probability of being selected for inspection and that this could result in a larger proportion of higher- and medium-risk sites being selected. ¶17. (U) Drawing on guidance (ref C),Delrep also noted the analysis of the seven U.S. OCPF sites inspected in 2008 showed that the additional declaration questions would not have resulted in more relevant sites being inspected. Delrep went on to request the TS conduct a survey of all 118 OCPFs inspected in 2008 to determine the net effect of the proposed declaration changes. Other delegations and van Schalkwyk agreed the U.S. proposal would be useful, and Kane said he would try to present the results at the next Industry Cluster consultation in late May. ¶18. (U) The UK and Germany suggested reducing the number of additional questions on declaration forms by focusing only on plant characteristics and asking whether sites have batch or continuous processes. Germany also noted it would be best to focus on production processes, rather than on purification or other concomitant processes. Kane agreed that in the case of a plant with a batch reactor and continuous downstream it would be better to focus on the batch production characteristic. However, drawing on its own experience, Switzerland noted a clear advantage to having three boxes for each question (i.e., batch, continuous or both; and dedicated, multi-purpose or both) in order to reduce any possible confusion on how to answer questions for sites with mixed characteristics and equipment. ¶19. (U) China raised the need for clear definitions of terms used, suggesting that by checking the wrong box on the declaration form a site's selection probability could vary by up to five times. Referring to a previous German comment on timely declarations, India stated that timeliness and accuracy of declaration information is more important than focusing on plant characteristics or the types of production equipment used. Van Schalkwyk agreed that timely and correct QSchalkwyk agreed that timely and correct declarations are important and said he hoped that budget consultations would help sharpen minds and provide incentive to reach agreement on improving the OPCW declaration regime. ¶20. (U) Switzerland stated it already has added both the voluntary SITC-based subcodes and the questions on site characteristics and production equipment to its OCPF declaration forms. The Swiss delegate noted that Swiss industry had not been confused or burdened by the modifications. China suggested that States Parties with a larger number of facilities might have a different experience to that of Switzerland. Responding to a question raised by U.S. Delrep, the Swiss delegate said based on a study of their 35 declarable OCPFs, Switzerland did not expect the new data to result in a change in the number of inspections Switzerland would receive. ¶21. (U) Iran intervened to state that neither process nor equipment characteristics are included in the Convention and that any changes to the intent of the Convention clearly went beyond the OPCW's mandate. The Netherlands responded that improvements to the OCPF inspection regime are not outside of the Convention, and van Schalkwyk reminded delegations that the Verification Annex has been amended twice already, reflecting that industry is not static and that technical changes are possible. Iran went on to say that, despite TS claims to the contrary, differentiation between site characteristics would not resolve fundamental problems with OCPF inspections. Iran stated that the relevance of facilities to the object and purpose of the Convention is the issue and insisted that the focus should be on correcting errors in declarations, insuring timely submission of information and training national authorities on proper declaration methods. ¶22. (U) Van Schalkwyk concluded the consultation by noting that the increase globally in OCPFs represents a challenge to the OCPW's verification regime. He noted that the proposed OCPF declaration enhancements are an attempt to provide a technical fix. Van Schalkwyk also reiterated the link between his consultation and the OPCW's annual budget, stating that lack of progress in his consultation would have implications for budget negotiations in the autumn. -------------- MEETING WITH INDUSTRY VERIFICATION BRANCH -------------- ¶23. (U) Following the Industry Cluster consultations, visiting Commerce officer Hung Ly and Delrep met with Bill Kane (Head, IVB) and Violeta Fernandez (Senior Industry Officer, IVB) to discuss issues related to recent industry inspections in the United States. Ly noted some timing problems during sequential inspections, and Fernandez said they would look at options to alleviate time constraints, including the possibility of adding an extra team member on sequential inspections. Ly also offered to have a Commerce representative brief new inspection personnel on the unique way in which the U.S. delineates plant sites; Kane agreed that a 1-2 hour briefing on the margins of the Executive Council session in July could be beneficial, especially considering the high turnover in both Inspectorate and Verification divisions since the last such briefing. ¶24. (U) Turning to sampling and analysis (S&A),Ly said that difficulties in shipping S&A equipment by Qsaid that difficulties in shipping S&A equipment by air necessitated relying on road transport, meaning that S&A equipment would not reach a site on the West Coast until at least a day or two after an inspection started. Ly noted previous TS guidance that inspections could not start until all inspection equipment was on site, and he asked if this reflected current TS thinking and if there was any legal basis for it. Kane suggested that an inspection could begin without the S&A equipment, as long as the analysis could be done at the end of the inspection; he promised to discuss the matter with the Legal Advisor and the Policy and Review Branch. ¶25. (U) BEIK SENDS. GALLAGHER