CWC: SCHEDULE 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATION LIMITS

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000627 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, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO) NSC FOR LUTES WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL EIND OPCW CWC SUBJECT: CWC: SCHEDULE 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATION LIMITS FINALLY AGREED REF: A. THE HAGUE 549 ¶B. BROWN-MIKULAK EMAIL (10/14/09) ¶C. MIKULAK-BROWN EMAIL (10/15/09) ¶D. FERGUSON-ISN/CWC-DEL EMAIL (10/05/09) ¶E. STATE 89818 ¶F. THE HAGUE 436 ¶G. THE HAGUE 244 This is CWC-61-09 ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Following the Canadian proposal (ref A) and the subsequent reinvigoration of discussions on Schedule 2A/2A* low concentrations, a series of consultations were held in The Hague prior to and during the 58th session of the Executive Council (EC-58). While consensus emerged around a modification of the Canadian proposal, last-minute changes to the decision text meant that approval was certain only in the final hours of EC- ¶58. The decision now must be approved by the annual Conference of States Parties (CSP) in early December. With the resolution of this long- outstanding issue, attention can be focused on other important industry issues, including the verification regime for other chemical production facilities (OCPFs). END SUMMARY. -------------- CONSENSUS EMERGENT -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On October 6, Facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia (Italy) convened a round of consultations to address the proposal tabled by Canada at the end of the previous meeting on September 8 (ref A). A number of delegations (Australia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the UK, China and Russia) generally supported the Canadian approach, which set the concentration threshold at 10% except for quantities above the verification threshold in Part VII of the Verification Annex (VA) of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). However, both China and Russia proposed setting a threshold floor at 1% to exclude any low concentrations -- in line with VA Part VII Paragraph 5. France and India spoke in support for a simple solution, raising concerns that the Canadian approach may be confusing for industry to understand and difficult for regulators to implement. Germany and Japan also indicated their preference for a simple approach but also noted their willingness to go below the 10% proposed by Canada; this marked a shift in their previously long-held positions and left the U.S. as the only delegation unable to support a threshold below 10%. ¶3. (SBU) Following the meeting, Cornacchia and the Technical Secretariat (TS) revised the draft decision to reflect delegations' comments, resulting in eight options for the operative paragraph setting the threshold limit. During a small informal meeting later on October 6, Cornacchia worked with delegations to distill the eight options down to two: the first was the Canadian proposal as modified by Russia and China to include a 1% floor, and the second was a simple approach (favored by Iran, India, Germany and Japan) but which still left open the threshold percentage to be agreed. ¶4. (SBU) A week later, on October 13, Cornacchia held another consultation in an effort to reach agreement on one of the two options for setting the Qagreement on one of the two options for setting the threshold limit. While many delegations spoke in support of the simpler approach, everyone noted the desire to reach consensus quickly during the EC session. In an effort to avoid a new debate on which percentage to set for the threshold, Cornacchia steered the consultation toward the modified Canadian proposal. Cognizant that there was no longer support for a firm 10% or higher threshold, Delreps stressed that agreement on a lower threshold would necessitate sufficient time and flexibility for implementation, including requisite legislative changes. After the consultation, Delreps spoke with Cornacchia and a number of delegations to press for implementation flexibility in order for the U.S. to join consensus on a threshold limit which would require a legislative -- rather than just a simple regulatory -- change. ¶5. (SBU) Trying to take advantage of the gathering momentum, Cornacchia convened another consultation on October 15 during which he presented one option -- the modified Canadian proposal -- to set the threshold. He explained that the option would not require declarations for concentrations equal to or less than 1%; concentrations greater than 1% but less than or equal to 10% would not be declarable if the quantities were below the VA Part VII verification weight threshold; and any concentration greater than 10% would be declarable. Some delegations suggested minor editorial changes, but in a surprise intervention, China said it would prefer the modified Canadian proposal with a ceiling at 5% (instead of 10%) and quantities declarable above half the verification weight threshold. Cornacchia responded forcefully that the proposal was too late and that he had understood there to be a prevailing acceptance for the draft he had put forward. Delrep noted that Cornacchia's draft did not address the U.S. need for flexibility but rather set a firm deadline for implementation, so Delrep proposed text (ref B) setting out an open-ended approach without a firm deadline. There was general appreciation and support for the U.S. position but not the tabled text, so Cornacchia encouraged delegations to consult bilaterally before reconvening to discuss a final proposed consensus text. -------------- TOO MANY STRAWS FOR ONE CAMEL TO BEAR? -------------- ¶6. (SBU) After consulting with Cornacchia and other delegations on how to accommodate the U.S. need for flexibility while insuring sufficient incentive and pressure for all member states to adopt the new guidelines, Delreps circulated new draft language (ref C) on the morning of October 16. Many delegations indicated their preference for following past practice and setting a firm deadline, no matter how far in the future it may be (some suggested 2013, others 2015); however, they acknowledged the flexibility shown by the U.S. and others on coming to a lower threshold and agreed to accept the U.S. approach if it meant reaching Qaccept the U.S. approach if it meant reaching consensus and agreeing on a decision at the end of the day. The lone hold-out was Canada, which insisted on a having a firm implementation deadline fearing that member states would never implement otherwise. Following extensive bilateral consultations throughout the morning and afternoon, Canada agreed to the U.S. approach in exchange for a number of follow-up and monitoring mechanisms to track member states' implementation. ¶7. (SBU) In the final hours of EC-58 and with Canadian agreement finally in hand, Cornacchia convened a brief meeting to introduce the final consensus text and make sure there was agreement to adopt it before formally tabling in the EC plenary. The German delegate noted her unease at the last- minute changes (prompted by Canada) but, like everyone else, said she would not object to consensus. Just as Cornacchia was wrapping things up, the representative from China's National Authority reiterated China's proposal to change the threshold agreement. Cornacchia responded that everyone else was in agreement with the text on the table and implored China not to hold up an agreement after ten years of long, hard work. -------------- AGREEMENT...FINALLY -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Shortly afterward, Cornacchia addressed the EC plenary to announce that consensus had been reached on the draft decision, which was circulating in front of representatives as Cornacchia spoke. China then took the floor to register concerns with the text but agreed to go along with consensus on the matter and not object to the draft decision. Germany, Japan and the U.S. also took the floor to note difficulties with the final compromise, but all agreed to join consensus on the draft decision. EC Chairman Lomonaco, noting how difficult it obviously had been to reach consensus, congratulated the Council on finally resolving the long-outstanding issue. Lomonaco thanked Cornacchia for his work and also paid tribute to everyone who had worked on the issue for the previous ten years. ¶9. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: As reported previously, a number of delegations had linked discussion on many industry issues to final resolution of low concentration limits for Schedule 2A/2A*. With that resolution now in hand, focus should shift to unresolved issues related to OCPFs, including site selection methodology, frequency of inspections and efforts to enhance declarations. Budget discussions last year and this year have shown a reluctance by some delegations to entertain any change in industry inspection numbers until these issues are addressed. The two-day OCPF seminar scheduled just before the CSP (November 25-26) could provide a good start. While qualified facilitators and fresh ideas are needed for many of these outstanding issues, EC Chairman Lomonaco and the EC Vice-Chairman for industry issues, Ambassador Idris (Sudan),can play an important role in using the momentum from this success and from the budget negotiations to move forward on outstanding industry issues. END COMMENT. ¶10. (U) BEIK SENDS. LEVIN