CWC: INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS, FEBRUARY 10, 2009

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000099 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 FLY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS, FEBRUARY 10, 2009 REF: A. 08 THE HAGUE 977 ¶B. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL 02-05-09 ¶C. FERGUSON-ISN/CWC-DEL E-MAIL 02-09-09 ¶D. 08 THE HAGUE 1025 This is CWC-06-09. ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: Discussions during the two Industry Cluster meetings on February 10 continued from those held in November 2008 (ref A) with little movement on the two issues on the agenda, enhancements to declarations for Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPFs) and low concentrations for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals. Details follow. END SUMMARY. -------------- OCPF DECLARATION ENHANCEMENTS -------------- ¶2. (U) Facilitator Marthinus van Schalkwyk (South Africa) stated at the beginning of the meeting his intention to focus solely on the Technical Secretariat's (TS) paper on additional elements for Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPF) declaration forms (EC-53/S/5). He also announced his intention to discuss the A-14 algorithm during the next Industry Cluster (scheduled for April 2) and for the TS to give an overview of proposals for the new "R" value referred to in EC-53/S/5. Van Schalkwyk then asked delegations to discuss additional burdens resulting from implementation of the enhancements to OCPF declaration forms. ¶3. (U) Canada, Italy and the UK all said that they do not see the enhancements imposing any additional burden. Canada and Italy have already requested the additional information from their industry; the UK has discussed its intention to require the additional information with industry representatives through the UK National Authority Advisory Committee. All three countries stated their support for the TS note, noting that the terms used are simple and universally understandable to industry practitioners. The Netherlands, Slovenia and Switzerland all made similar comments supporting the proposed changes and down-playing any additional burden. France also spoke in favor of the enhancements and did not foresee any difficulties in implementation. France also called on the TS to work in parallel to improve OCPF site selection methodology. ¶4. (U) In contrast, Iran said that the changes to 
OCPF declaration forms will pose a burden to its National Authority, particularly in terms of outreach to industry to explain the changes and to insure accurate responses. Of greater concern to Iran was whether the proposed changes actually address the "real problem." Iran suggested that they do not, claiming rather that the enhancements create obligations outside of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). India supported Iran, stating that the proposal does not provide the right solution for targeting inspections to relevant sites. India also claimed that the declaration enhancements run counter to the agreement during the Second Review Conference (RevCon) not to impose any additional burdens. ¶5. (U) Germany suggested that discussion of impact was more relevant than that of burden. Germany noted that its industry has questions about defining the proposed terms to add to the declaration forms and is not as convinced as in other countries. Germany also shared its concern Qother countries. Germany also shared its concern over the increased probability for errors resulting from asking for more complex data. The U.S. reported that U.S. industry is still considering the proposal and that industry reaction will be reported at a later meeting. The Czech Republic also reported it is waiting for its industry reaction. The Czech Republic also said that while it agreed with the concept behind the proposal, like Germany, it wants clarification in defining the terms. ¶6. (U) Peter Boehme (Senior Industry Officer, Industry Verification Branch) made a presentation - - which will be distributed later -- on the concept behind the TS proposal and giving a general overview of the differences between batch and continuous processes and between dedicated and multi-purpose configurations. Boehme prefaced his presentation by saying that the proposed enhancements are limited to efficiently focusing verification resources, not preventing irrelevant inspections. Following the presentation, Delrep noted differences in definitions between terms used in the CWC and terms used in industry. Bill Kane (Head, IVB) agreed that any additionally required information needs to be distilled into easily- understandable options so that respondents have clear options from which to choose. Boehme suggested that the declaration form could be distilled down to the most important question: whether or not the processes are all continuous. ¶7. (U) Kane noted that the value of "R" within the A-14 algorithm can reflect the different possible configurations and processes and will therefore be an integral part of the adopting the enhancements. He reiterated that the TS will present possible values for countries to consider at the April Industry Cluster. -------------- 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATIONS -------------- ¶8. (U) After opening remarks by facilitator Giuseppe Cornacchia (Italy),Ken Penman (Senior Information Evaluation Officer, Declarations Branch) presented the TS's non-paper evaluating threshold limits (ref B). As part of the presentation, Penman noted the number of currently- declared sites that would no longer be declarable at various thresholds. Out of the 15 sites (3 BZ and 12 PFIB) included in the analysis, Canada asked if the TS could give a break-down by each site type. Penman replied that the TS had considered doing this but chose not to given the small number of BZ sites and concerns about releasing possibly classified information. Canada noted the information would be useful if considering varying thresholds for different 2A/2A* chemicals. Germany supported Canada's request for the data. ¶9. (U) Italy noted that it has one of the lowest thresholds (0.5%). While admitting some flexibility, Italy stated it prefers not to raise its limit and wants to maintain the visibility of all currently-declared sites. Italy also supported Canada's request for data but stressed that Italy wants a single threshold for all 2A/2A* chemicals. ¶10. (U) South Africa noted that the data presented by the TS are limited and that there is no clear indication of how many facilities exist globally. South Africa stated its preference to err on the side of caution and capture more facilities than Qless due to the particularly toxic nature of 2A/2A* chemicals. Indicating its support for a low threshold, South Africa asked if countries with higher thresholds would estimate the effects of lower threshold on their industry. ¶11. (U) After some discussion on the technical aspects of 2A/2A* chemicals, Cornacchia urged delegations to move beyond technical considerations and focus instead on the political aspect of adopting a threshold. ¶12. (U) France indicated its flexibility in finding a reasonable threshold. France noted that a limit below 1% would be more intrusive than the current regime on transfers of chemicals to non-States Parties. (DEL NOTE: French delegate told Delrep later that France has not changed its threshold from 30%. However, the French Government has now decided it is ready to consider a lower threshold and is therefore open to negotiation. END NOTE.) ¶13. (SBU) COMMENT: An intervention by South Africa late in the discussion gave a hint to the future of this issue. The South African delegate noted the difficulty in calling for expanded OCPF verification while this issue remains unresolved, including references to the idea of a "hierarchy of risk." Delrep's discussions with Cornacchia after the meeting focused entirely on South Arica's veiled threat and the facilitator's fear that this only could lead to a very low concentration threshold. In Cornacchia's mind, the only issue is whether Western countries can come to an independent agreement to avoid the appearance of capitulating to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Cornacchia also told Delrep that, if no significant progress is made by year's end, he will probably cease his facilitation. END COMMENT. ¶14. (U) BEIK SENDS. GALLAGHER