VZCZCXYZ0021
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #2991 1422030
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 222015Z MAY 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE IMMEDIATE 0000

UNCLAS STATE 052991 
 
SIPDIS 
THE HAGUE FOR CWC DEL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC OPCW CBW
SUBJECT: CWC: GUIDANCE FOR MAY 25-26, 2009 CHEMICAL 
INDUSTRY ISSUES CONSULTATIONS 
 
REF: A. A) 2009 THE HAGUE 000288 (WRAP-UP FOR THE 56TH 
        EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION) 
     ¶B. B) 2009 THE HAGUE 000244 (REPORTING FOR THE 
        APRIL 1-2 2009 INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS) 
     ¶C. C) 2009 STATE 14452 (NONPAPER ON NON-SCHEDULED 
        CHEMICALS FOR INDIAN DELEGATION) 
     ¶D. D) 2009 STATE 030848 (GUIDANCE FOR THE APRIL 1-2 
        2009 INDUSTRY CLUSTER MEETINGS) 
     ¶E. E) EC-53/S/5 (JUNE 17 2008 TS NOTE ON ENHANCED 
        INFORMATION IN OCPF DECLARATIONS) 
     ¶F. F) EC-53/DG.11 (JUNE 17 2008 DG NOTE ON OCPF 
        FACILITY DECLARATION INFORMATION) 
 
¶1. (U) This document provides guidance for the CWC Delegation 
in The Hague for three consultation sessions on chemical 
industry issues being held by the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on May 25-26, 2009. 
The May 25, 2009 session will provide information from the 
Technical Secretariat (TS) on analytical derivatives and 
their proposed addition to the OPCW Central Analytical 
Database (OCAD).  The two sessions on May 26, 2009 will 
continue the discussions on low concentration limits for 
Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and on the enhancement of 1. 
(U) This document provides guidance for the CWC Delegation in 
The Hague for three consultation sessions on chemical 
industry issues being held by the Organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on May 25-26, 2009. 
The May 25, 2009 session will provide information from the 
Technical Secretariat (TS) on analytical derivatives and 
their proposed addition to the OPCW Central Analytical 
Database (OCAD).  The two sessions on May 26, 2009 will 
continue the discussions on low concentration limits for 
Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals and on the enhancement of other 
chemical production facility(OCPF) declarations. 
 
¶2. (U) These will be the first consultations under the 
leadership of the Sudanese Ambassador Abuelgasim Idris as the 
new Vice-Chair for Industry Issues. Ambassador Idris may 
respond to the request from delegations to EC-56 (Ref. A) and 
previous chemical industry issues consultations (Ref. B) by 
raising the issue of resuming consultations on finalizing the 
OCPF inspection site selection methodology. As appropriate, 
Del should support the need to appoint a qualified 
facilitator before this consultation can be renewed. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
OCAD - Considerations for inclusion of additional chemicals 
in the database 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶3. (U) In 2008 the TS prepared a draft Note from the 
Director-General (DG) on the inclusion of analytical data for 
non-scheduled chemicals in the OCAD. This draft Note was 
discussed among several delegations, some of whom expressed 
concerns with the inclusion of unscheduled degradation 
products and analytical derivatives of scheduled chemicals. 
 
¶4. (U) The Del understands that the TS is preparing a new 
document on this subject. How its content will compare with 
the earlier draft Note and when the TS will make it available 
to delegations are not known. 
 
¶5. (U) The United States views on the draft Note (Ref. C), as 
discussed with the Indian delegation earlier this year, still 
apply, i.e., that: 
-  the United States believes that additional analytical 
derivatives should also be added to the OCAD if this will 
facilitate analyses; 
- the United States also supports the proposed addition to 
the OCAD of non-scheduled degradation products of scheduled 
chemicals and riot control agents for use during challenge 
inspections, investigations of alleged use and for Schedule 1 
inspections; and 
- the issue of whether or not to include degradation products 
in the OCAD for Schedules 2, 3, and OCPF inspections remains 
under review. 
 
¶6. (U) The May 25, 2009 session will be the first 
consultation in which the TS will address the issue of 
including additional data on non-scheduled chemicals in the 
OCAD. The agenda will include a TS presentation (provided by 
Gary Mallard) on analytical derivatives and their proposed 
addition to the OCAD, followed by an opportunity for 
discussion. 
 
¶7. (U) Del should allow other delegations to initiate follow 
up discussions, and focus on gathering information on the 
views of other delegations on the issues presented as well as 
on the broader aspects of additions to the database. As 
appropriate, Del should seek out delegations with views 
consistent with those of the United States and solicit their 
ideas for addressing concerns tabled by others, e.g., the 
Indian delegation. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Applicable concentrations limits for mixtures of Schedule 2A 
and 2A* chemicals 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶8. (U) This session is the first of two that continue from 
the April 1-2, 2009 consultations. Little progress was made 
by either consultation in April (Ref. B), and the background 
and general guidance for April still apply (Ref. D).  The 
facilitator has announced that the May 26 session will 
address 1) an update on the format and method of use of a 
questionnaire on 2A and 2A* sites (in response to delegation 
requests in April for assessing the impact of different 
thresholds on the number of declarable sites (Ref. B)), and 
2) further discussion of the revised draft decision to 
implement low concentration limits. 
 
¶9. (U) The facilitator has distributed a questionnaire that 
is to be used by States Parties on a voluntary basis to 
provide information on the anticipated impact of alternative 
low concentration thresholds on the numbers of sites that 
would be declarable. The questionnaire was developed by the 
TS with the review of several States Parties (including the 
United States) and represents a reasoned compromise on the 
level of detail requested and States Parties, concerns with 
ensuring the confidentiality of any information provided. 
 
¶10. (U) Del should be proactive in interacting with key 
delegations on the margins of the session, e.g., Japan, 
China, and Germany, to understand their approach to 
responding to the questionnaire and their expectations of the 
utility of this effort. If appropriate, Del should state that 
the United States is working to collect information from 
companies with sites potentially impacted and expects to 
provide our response by the June 12, 2009 submission 
deadline. 
 
¶11. (U) Del should restate the need for political compromise, 
e.g., that the United States believes that further technical 
discussion will not lead to a generally accepted approach, 
that political flexibility to move off entrenched positions 
is needed by all parties, and that delegations should work 
toward a political compromise.  Del should work with 
delegations to reorient the consultation,s focus to this 
solution, particularly on the positions and compromise 
proposals of key delegations that tend to be less vocal, such 
as Japan and China. 
 
¶12. (U) Recent consultations have seen participation in these 
discussions by some delegations that have not historically 
done so, notably Iran and South Africa.  These delegations 
have grasped the concept of maintaining plant site 
&visibility,8 a term often used by some WEOG delegations to 
mean implementing very low concentration thresholds such that 
all of the currently declarable sites remain declarable; 
however, Iran and South Africa have portrayed very low 
concentration thresholds and &visibility8 as a necessity 
under their oft-quoted &hierarchy of risk.8 Del should 
point out the danger of the concept of &visibility8 to 
enabling the group to reach an acceptable compromise 
solution.  This is even more problematic in light of recent 
attempts to link this to &hierarchy of risk." 
 
¶13. (U) Discussion are to include reconsideration of the text 
of the draft decision from April. Del should support the 
substantive suggestion from the April consultation ) that 
the text be finalized as soon as possible except for the 
specific threshold limit and dates for implementation, which 
could be inserted when an agreed concentration limit is in 
place.  Del should expect, however, resistance to finalizing 
the draft decision text by certain delegations that will not 
agree to final text until everything is agreed (e.g., Iran) 
and certain delegations that will need more detail about the 
decision-making process in the preamble in order to implement 
the decision domestically (e.g., Japan has made this point 
previously).  Del should note any new, substantive revisions 
to the draft decision suggested by other delegations and 
report back to Washington. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Enhancement of OCPF declarations 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (U) Although the referenced documents for this 
consultation include both the TS Note on proposed required 
additions to the declaration information (Ref. E) and the DG 
Note on voluntary measures for improving declaration 
information (Ref. F), focus is expected to remain on the TS 
proposal for required changes to the declaration form to 
provide additional information on process types and facility 
configuration, and on discussion of States Parties, comments 
and experiences with implementing the TS-specified changes. 
 
¶15. (U) General guidance for this consultation is unchanged 
from the April session (Ref. D), and should be drawn upon as 
appropriate. Del should specifically reference the need to 
understand the consequences of changes to the declaration 
regime in terms of the results that can be expected. 
 
¶16. (U) Of particular interest in recent consultations is 
India,s clear opposition to any enhancement measures unless 
they can be implemented &( without imposition of any 
additional declaration obligations and strictly in accordance 
with the relevant provisions of Part IX(8, as agreed to in 
paragraph 9.65 of the Report of the Second Review Conference. 
Del should note other delegations, views on this position 
and any approach to overcome this objection. 
 
¶17. (U) The TS recently presented the results of its initial 
analysis (a May 20, 2009 Information Paper) on the benefit 
that would have been derived from applying the proposed 
declaration changes to the 118 OCPF inspections conducted in 
2008, i.e., if the proposed change would have resulted in the 
inspection of a greater number of relevant sites. Del should 
note that Washington is still reviewing the document, but 
that our initial reaction to the information provided is that 
further analysis is required by the TS to characterize the 
results in terms of the benefit that would be derived, e.g., 
in terms of the number of more relevant inspections that 
would have been conducted. Del should seek out the response 
from other delegations. If there is agreement that additional 
analysis by the TS is required, and if not suggested by 
others, Del should request that the TS address further 
analysis of the results provided, and provide the results to 
delegations prior to the July 9, 2009 consultations. 
 
¶18. (U) If not volunteered by delegations during open 
discussion, the Del should individually solicit any 
additional information on delegations, experiences in 
applying the changes on a voluntary basis and on other 
suggestions to modify the changes proposed by the TS. 
 
¶19. (U) The Note from the DG on additional, voluntary actions 
by the TS and States Parties (Ref. F) has not been addressed 
in consultations since November 2008. We expect the focus of 
any discussion to be on implementation issues and the 
experiences of States Parties with the suggested actions. Del 
guidance remains consistent with the earlier consultations 
(Ref. D), to include: 
- We recognize that some of the voluntary States Parties, 
actions will yield incremental improvements, but the 
magnitude of such improvements is not known; and that 
- We encourage the TS to provide an assessment of the 
potential effect of these voluntary changes. 
 
¶20. (U) Del should query other delegations on their 
experience to date in implementing any of the voluntary 
measures and their assessment of the potential value of their 
implementation. If asked, Del should state that based on 
experience to date we are unsure of the effectiveness of the 
voluntary measures in the United States in the future. 
CLINTON