This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002399 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR JOECK 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - WRAP-UP FOR 
SEPTEMBER 14-17 INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS: 
 
This is CWC-107-04. 
 
------------------------ 
SCHEDULE 1 "CAPTIVE USE" 
------------------------ 
 
¶1.  (U)  Delegations made little progress towards a draft 
decision on Schedule 1 "captive use."  Germany presented a 
non-paper providing several examples of known processes where 
Schedule 1 chemical(s) were produced during the production of 
certain final products.  France, Switzerland, Italy and the 
U.S. supported crafting decision language that would provide 
a consistent interpretation of the treaty text definition of 
production for all scheduled chemicals.  Italy promised a 
paper for the next consultation.  Canada and India continued 
to oppose this issue and do not see a need for such a 
decision.  Both believe that the definition of production in 
Article II does not necessarily apply to Schedule 1 regimes. 
Canada further proposed the technical issue be referred to 
the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) for further 
clarification.  While there was no strong opposition to the 
idea, delegations felt that such a course of action was not 
necessary at this time.  The facilitator proposed that 
delegates review the German non-paper and further study this 
issue in capitols prior to the next meeting in November. 
 
------------------- 
OCPF SITE SELECTION 
------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U)  Facilitator Johan Verboom (Netherlands), during his 
21 September consultation, summarized the current state of 
play and advised delegations that he first planned to review 
the requirements of Verification Annex Part IX, paragraph 11, 
which provides the mandate for delegations' work before 
breaking down the discussion into four issues: equitable 
geographic distribution, Technical Secretariat information 
points, State Party nomination points, and proposals on how 
to combine the three factors, starting first with an initial 
TS proposal.  Iran reminded delegations that discussion of 
 
SIPDIS 
paragraph 11 cannot happen in isolation: paragraphs 12 (no 
more than two inspections per year per site) and 13 (no more 
than 20 Schedule 3 facilities and OCPFs per country per year) 
set limits on the possible inspection burden borne by SPs. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Russia began with a reminder that Moscow continues 
to have serious doubts about the Swiss/U.S. proposal, which 
it assesses is too complicated, too subjective, and too 
ambiguous.  In addition, Moscow believes that the potential 
for collusion and lack of transparency is too high, and 
remains concerned that some States Party will make 
nominations inconsistent with the spirit of the CWC.  No 
other delegation objected to Verboom's proposal for the 
current and future discussions. 
 
¶4.  (U)  Theo Juurlink of the TS presented a possible TS 
approach to information points (FAXed back to AC/CB).  This 
would involve determining the probability that each facility 
is relevant to the CWC and then selecting a random sample of 
100 sites from the circa 4500 total, one point per site.  The 
probability or relevance would be determined using either the 
A14 or a variant called the A14 plus which adds two new 
factors: D (declaration) which would be assigned a value of 
two if declarations are late or incomplete or one otherwise. 
The second is R (relevance) which would result in higher 
chance of inspections of highly relevant facilities 
(probability of inspection returns to original level within 5 
years), no change for facilities of intermediate relevance 
(probability of inspection returns to original level within 
10 years), and lower chance for less relevant facilities 
(probability of inspection returns to original level in 20 
years).  Juurlink noted that among the current OCPFs, 12% are 
classified as high relevance, 25% intermediate, and 63% low 
relevance. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Delegations were most concerned about the TS 
proposal to give each of 100 facilities just one point. 
Several suggested that the TS just compute the probability 
for all 4500 and use those instead, but Juurlink stressed 
that this would dilute the probability that individual 
facilities would be selected.  No delegation argued against 
the two TS proposals.  Instead, the discussion fell into the 
"there must be a better way to do this" category.  Several 
delegations raised questions about how the TS defined a 
"late" or "incomplete" declaration.  Juurlink replied that 
only initial declarations can be late, so there are very few 
that fall into this category.  Amendments to initial 
declarations are not considered late.  Juurlink further 
explained that only declarations lacking the information 
required for the A14 computation would be "incomplete." 
Delegations accepted this clarification without comment. 
 
------ 
2A/2A* 
------ 
 
¶6.  (U)  The facilitator divided the discussion into two 
parts: the draft Decision Paper and low concentration 
threshold.  With regard to the draft, delegations agreed to 
remove paragraph 5 in the paper and add an additional 
reference to the Guidelines for Schedule 2.  Otherwise the 
draft remained unchanged. 
 
¶7.  (U)  PFIB was the focus of the latter debate.  Japan and 
the UK presented non-papers outlining their respective 
positions and provided technical arguments for the proposed 
PFIB thresholds.  Japan, Germany and the U.S. continued to 
support the current 30% concentration limit while 
Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, and the 
U.K. favored a 0.5% limit.  The U.S. reiterated it has yet to 
see any data that supports a PFIB proliferation risk of PFIB 
at concentrations below 30%. 
 
¶8.  (U)  The facilitator acknowledged that PFIB technical 
discussions have been exhausted and suggested political 
considerations as a possible alternative option for future 
consultations.  The Iranian delegate proposed that State 
Parties reassess ease of recovery as a way to resolve the low 
concentration limit.  Delegates suggested that capitals 
review the two non-papers and provide feedback at the next 
meeting.  Time did not permit discussion of low concentration 
limits for Amiton or BZ. 
 
¶9.  (U)  The facilitator noted privately to del rep that the 
proposal to move Amiton to the list of Schedule 1 chemicals 
would not receive support by other delegations because it 
would require a technical amendment to the Convention. 
 
------------------------------ 
SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENTS 
------------------------------ 
 
¶10.  (U)  Facilitator Andrea Heinzer (Switzerland) held 
consultations on 15 September, beginning with a briefing how 
the TS intends to implement EC-37 instructions regarding 
Facility Agreements (FA).  First, the TS analyzes declared 
sites, considering the complexity of the facility and the 
level and types of activities being conducted to determine 
whether current FAs under negotiation are required.  Once 
this analysis is completed, the TS will contact the 
respective State Party outlining its intention for further 
discussion.  So far, the TS had identified 21 State Parties 
with sites of interest, but only six State Parties have had 
such analyses completed. 
 
¶11.  (U)  All delegations except the UK favor suspension of 
discussion on FAs.   The UK suggested that delegations should 
consider instead holding discussions on the draft FA model, 
which it assesses is too complex.  Delegations advised 
waiting until the TS concludes its analyses, at which point, 
State Parties will have the opportunity to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the TS approach. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIAL DATA DECLARATIONS 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶12.  (U)  Greg Linden, chief of the Information Services 
Branch (ISB), briefed delegations on the status of the 
Verification Information System, which will allow states to 
submit their declarations electronically.  Linden assesses 
that the project is about halfway completed.  The TS 
completed its assessments of the requirements needed for 
ensuring system security and is currently working on the 
technical development.  Linden estimated that the system 
would be ready to receive electronic industrial data 
declarations by September 2005.  Linden also announced the 
project will be transferred from ISB to the Verification 
Division.  Ruth Mohlenkamp is the new team leader and will 
head a project team whose composition is still under 
discussion.  VIS is now a core TS business operation and will 
appear as a new line item in the FY05 budget request. 
 
--------------------- 
HANDBOOK ON CHEMICALS 
--------------------- 
 
¶13.  (U)  Delegations finalized the report for EC-38, which 
recommends ways to make the handbook easier to use, such as 
marking of certain commonly declared Scheduled chemicals. 
The facilitator also introduced additional marking for 
chemical mixtures to help reduce mismatches when comparing 
export and import declarations.  France suggested that the 
issue should be referred to consultation on clarification of 
declarations.  Other delegations did not support the idea 
that additional markings would resolve the problem, and no 
specific agreement was reached. 
 
¶14.  (U)  Ito sends. 
SOBEL