VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0099/01 0471314
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 161314Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2526
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 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