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