VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0866/01 2891627
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 151627Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2098
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000866 
 
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 (ROBERTS AND DENYER) 
NSC FOR FLY 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC IT
SUBJECT: CWC: REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2008 CWC 
IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP 
 
REF: STATE 101009 
 
This is CWC-47-08 
 
¶1. (U) On September 25-26, 2008 the Italian Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs (MFA) sponsored a two day workshop 
in Florence for selected Western Europe and Other 
Countries Group (WEOG) State Parties and Japan in an 
effort to find common ground on two issues noted 
during the Second Review Conference(RevCon)as needing 
renewed attention by the Executive Council (EC): low 
concentration thresholds for 2A and 2A* chemical 
declarations and selection methodology for other 
chemical production facilities (OCPFs).  The workshop 
was held at the European University Institute; 
participating States Parties were Australia, Canada, 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, 
Switzerland, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United 
States. 
 
¶2. (U) Introductory comments were made for the MFA by 
Vittorio Rocco di Torrepadula, who emphasized the need 
to find common ground on these issues so as to be 
effective in multilateral consultations in The Hague, 
and Amb Mario Sica, who observed that States Parties 
had supported radically different views in past 
consultations and that during the RevCon, despite a 
call from the Director-General, these two issues were 
only noted as needing resolution. Amb Sica also 
expressed the hope that the workshop would provide a 
forum for straight forward exchanges of views that 
would lead to solutions. 
 
¶3. (U) The first day of the workshop was organized 
into sequential working sessions on the two issues. 
Amb Eric Javits chairing the first sessions on 2A and 
2A* declaration concentrations, and Amb Werner Burkart 
of Germany chairing the OCPF selection discussions. On 
the second day Amb Sica chaired a Plenary session 
where the results from the working session were 
reported, general debate was held, and a report was 
accepted by all participating delegations. 
 
---------------------------------- 
2A and 2A* Declaration Thresholds 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) Amb Javits opened the working session on 2A and 
2A* chemicals declaration thresholds by asking Mr. 
Steve Wade, Head, Declarations and Evaluation Branch 
of the Technical Secretariat (TS) of the Organization 
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, to present 
background information. Mr. Wade reviewed Convention 
requirements, 2A and 2A* chemicals' occurrence and 
concerns, concentration thresholds being applied by 
States Parties, and proposals for thresholds that had 
been discussed during EC intersessional periods. Mr. 
Wade also stated that the numbers of declarations to 
date for the three 2A and 2A* chemicals were 12 for 
PFIB, 3 for BZ and none for Amiton sites, and that he 
thought a 0.5 ) 1.0 % low concentration thresholds 
might result in 12 more PFIB site declarations. 
 
¶5. (U) Delegations provided a summary of their 2A and 
2A* declarations, position on thresholds, and 
flexibility in considering a compromise: 
 
-  Australia, Canada, and Italy have a PFIB threshold 
of 0.5%; the UK and Switzerland have 1.0%; the 
Netherlands has 10% for production and 30% for 
processing and consumption; and France, Germany, 
Japan, and the United States have 30%. 
- Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and Switzerland 
Q- Australia, Canada, France, Japan, and Switzerland 
currently have no declared sites. 
- Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States have 
1 PFIB declaration. 
- The UK has 2 PFIB, and Italy has 1 PFIB and 2 BZ 
declarations. 
 
- All delegations initially indicated flexibility on 
2A and 2A* thresholds, although Australia, the 
Netherlands, and the UK expressed proliferation 
concerns about higher PFIB thresholds. 
 
¶6. (U) Various aspects of the issue were discussed, 
including whether on-site PFIB destruction lowered the 
proliferation risk, whether a declaration threshold 
greater than 0.5% would result in loss of declared 
sites, and whether the Australia Group export control 
threshold of 20% was a precedent.  As these 
discussions were not leading to a consensus, Amb 
Javits suggested consideration of a 15% threshold, but 
the suggestion did not gain traction. 
 
¶7. (U) Ambassador Javits tabled a personal suggestion 
of a 10% threshold for Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals 
PFIB and BZ with Amiton moved to Schedule 1 (Ref). The 
proposal for moving Amition to Schedule 1 was 
summarily dismissed by France and Canada. An overall 
2A and 2A* threshold of 10% did not gain consensus 
until the United States pointed out that its 
legislation precluded it ability to compromise 
further. After more discussion followed by a reluctant 
silence, Amb Javits indicated that he would go forward 
with the 10% threshold. 
 
-------------------------- 
OCPF Selection Methodology 
-------------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) Amb Burkart opened the working session on 
selection methodology for OCPF sites by indicating 
that the starting point for the session would be 
discussions of the TS proposal for the number of OCPF 
inspections in 2009 and of the two papers tabled by 
the TS during EC-53 in June on enhancement of OCPF 
information and declarations (EC-53/DG.11 and EC- 
53/S/5). Mr. William Kane, Head Industry Verification 
Branch, presented an overview of the Article VI 
verification regimes, noting that only 2.6% of 
inspectable OCPFs had been inspected, that selections 
over the years had resulted in significant numbers of 
visits to OCPF sites that proved uninspectable (11% in 
2007), and that the current selection methodology had 
achieved inspections of only 16% high relevance sites, 
31% medium relevance sites and 53% low relevance 
sites. 
 
¶9. (U) Amb Burkhart opened the floor for discussion of 
the TS proposal for 128 inspections in 2009. After a 
short discussion of the merit of avoiding sharp 
increases in numbers of inspections and although some 
delegations would have preferred a larger increase, 
there was general agreement to support the TS 
proposal. 
 
¶10. (U) The Director General's Note (EC-53/DG.11) 
proposed the introduction of subcategory codes for 
large volume production of chemicals of little 
relevance to the Convention (e.g. urea) which would 
receive reduced weighting for selection with the 
result in more relevant sites being selected (Ref.). 
It also proposed that main activities be understood to 
mean the activities that make a plant site declarable. 
The TS Note (EC-53/S/5) proposed additional 
declaration requirements on the type of processes 
(continuous or batch, dedicated or multipurpose). 
 
¶11. (U) Most delegations supported the Director- 
General's Note, although some thought that the TS 
Note's suggested additional declaration requirements 
QNote's suggested additional declaration requirements 
needed more study.  Japan, Germany and the United 
States suggested that the TS should provide 
quantitative estimates of the benefits of the proposed 
changes for selection of more relevant sites.  There 
was discussion about a "two stage" introduction of the 
Director-General's proposals, precedents for voluntary 
 
declarations, confidentiality issues, and a suggestion 
that in place of subcategories a separate category 
might be used for declaration of all large volume 
chemicals of little relevance to the Convention. 
 
¶12. (U) The discussions then turned to resumption of 
consultations in The Hague on implementation of 
paragraph 11(c) of Part IX of the Verification Annex, 
proposals by States Parties. The United States 
expressed strong interest in re-engaging on the issue 
and was supported by Switzerland, France and 
Australia. Other delegations did not disagree, but 
noted that a facilitator would be required. 
 
--------------- 
Plenary Session 
--------------- 
 
¶13. (U) Amb Sica chaired the Plenary session, which 
was opened with presentations of the results from the 
working sessions. Most of the debate that followed 
centered on the low concentration threshold, where 
Australia, Canada and the UK announced that after 
consulting their capitalS, they could not support the 
working session language of 10%, and Australia 
indicated that capital was not happy with thresholds 
above 0.5%. Other delegations offered alternative 
formulations, but none gained wide acceptance. Amb 
Javits then suggested language that retained the 10% 
threshold cap but allowed for lower threshold 
possibilities, which was accepted by the group. 
 
----------- 
Report Text 
----------- 
 
¶14. (U) The following text was accepted by all ten 
delegations with the understanding the report would 
not be given further formal distribution: 
 
The following States Parties met at a Workshop in 
Florence, Italy, on 25 and 26 September 2008, with a 
view to harmonising long-standing, diverse positions 
on the issues of low concentration thresholds and OCPF 
site selection methodology: Australia, Canada, France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK 
and USA. 
 
The group considered various alternatives, reasons 
there fore, and probable consequences thereof: 
 
BEGIN TEXT 
 
The following conclusions were reached, subject to: 
- review by capitals 
- discussions with the Legal Adviser of the Technical 
Secretariat and advice to be received as a result 
- further informal consultations among an extended 
like-minded group. 
 
Low concentrations 
 
Support was expressed for the introduction of 
thresholds for declaration requirements for Schedule 
2A/2A* chemicals not in excess of 10%. This would be 
subject to review after two (2) calendar years. 
 
 
OCPF site selection methodology 
 
The issues discussed included the number of 
inspections (following the budget proposal by the DG), 
the proposals by the DG on additional info on 
declaration (EC/53/DG.11 17 June 2008), the proposal 
by the TS on modifying the declaration format (EC- 
53/S/5 dated 17 June 2008) and the resuming of 
consultations on the third criterion (proposal by 
State Parties). 
 
 
While some delegations stressed the preference for a 
more substantial increase in the overall number of 
OCPF inspections, there was general agreement that the 
DG-proposed number should continue to be supported; 
- general support was expressed for the voluntary 
measures proposed by the DG on the enhancement of OCPF 
declarations; 
- there was also widespread support for the proposal 
of the DG concerning the information on the 
characteristics of the plant sites in the OCPF 
declarations. However, some delegations stated that 
further consideration should be given to additional 
data in the algorithm and to the legal aspects of its 
implementation. In case of difficulties in reaching a 
decision, the alternative option of voluntary 
implementation of the proposed measures found support; 
- the resumption of consultations on the full 
implementation of paragraph 11 (c) of Part IX of the 
Verification Annex is supported without prejudice to 
the outcome. 
 
END TEXT 
 
¶15. (U) Javits sends. 
GALLAGHER