The contribution of the Chemical Industry to the
Chemical Weapons Convention

By Alain Perroy

There are a number of regimes or initiatives to control the production of, or trade in, certain hazardous chemicals or chemicals that can be misused for illicit purposes. In the area of dual-use goods, the chemical industry has helped to shape and implement control requirements emanating from various sources, for instance the former COCOM (Coordinating Committee for Multinational Export Controls), since replaced by the Wassenaar Arrangement, the decisions taken in the Australia Group on chemical and biological weapons precursors, and, of course, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) itself.

For the chemical industry, such controls are part of a much broader control system. In addition to controls on dual-use goods, we are faced with control regimes stemming from environmental and other societal concerns, such as precursors for illicit drugs, the prior informed control (PIC) system, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the Montreal Protocol, etc.

The chemical industry is actively contributing to the establishment of such control systems because we recognise our responsibility in this respect, especially within an open trading system. This involvement of the chemical industry has resulted in extensive experience of trade and production controls. Over and above the legal requirements stemming from these control systems, our industry applies strict internal standards on a global basis, demonstrating its commitment to making its contribution to prevent its products from getting into the wrong hands. In this way we contribute both to improving environmental performance and to a safer world, in line with our Responsible Care 1 programme.

In our view, control regimes should be instrumental and commensurate to the objectives pursued. They must be administratively manageable, not overly burdensome in terms of costs and labour, and must safeguard confidential business information and respect the principle of a level playing field. Industry would indeed seriously question the value of any control scheme if it were not applied on a universal basis, thus resulting in uneven burden sharing and indeed in distortions of competition. It therefore has to be ensured that the final result of negotiations on any instrument or convention are duly implemented by as many states as possible. As set out below, the chemical industry believes that overall the CWC has fulfilled these conditions.

The Chemical Weapons Convention: Our Treaty as Well

The European chemical industry and its sister associations in the ICCA (International Council of Chemical Associations) have given sustained support to the establishment and implementation of an effective and efficient CWC. In particular, during the negotiation of the Convention our industry proposed the concept of ‘anywhere, any time’ inspections of its plant sites as a confidence-building measure, in order to reaffirm that legitimate industry plays no part in the production of chemical weapons, and therefore has nothing to hide. This proposal of the chemical industry led to a breakthrough in the negotiations on the Convention, and contributed greatly to its establishment.The chemical industry therefore considers the CWC very much as its own treaty, and is fully supportive of its aims and objectives.

On the basis of experience so far with declarations and inspections, it can generally be concluded that the Convention has managed to strike an acceptable balance between political concerns and the industry’s interests as outlined above. This does not mean, however, that the picture is entirely rosy. Especially in the beginning, inspections did take longer and were more bureaucratic than expected, resulting in higher costs for industry in terms of money and labour. With all parties concerned gaining more experience, this situation has improved since then. Furthermore, especially during the first two years after the entry into force of the Convention, when the number of States Parties was relatively limited, there were also some adverse impacts on trade in scheduled chemicals exported from Europe which were difficult for the companies in question to accept, especially as they had to bear the full administrative burden of declarations and inspections.

...during the negotiation of the Convention our industry proposed the concept of ‘anywhere, any time’inspections of its plant sites as aconfidence-building measure,...

DOC/PSF Verification Regime

 Another issue worrying us at present is the verification regime for DOC/PSF plant sites. Whilst fully supporting theaims of these inspections as laid down in the Convention, we are concerned about the proposed approach to them.Thechemical industry envisages clearly distinguishable degrees of access and information-sharing at DOC/PSF plant sites and plant sites handling scheduled chemicals. We expect DOC/PSF inspection procedures to be far less intrusive than those at plant sites handling scheduled chemicals.The chemical industry worldwide has examined the ways in which the aims of DOC/PSF inspections can be fulfilled, and considers that this would best be achieved with a ‘walk through, talk through’ type of procedure without access to records. We also urge that the DOC/PSF verification regime should contribute to the assumption by States Parties of a more even share of CWC inspection responsibilities, consistent with the principle of universality. The DOC/PSF verification regime should therefore extend to and involve States Parties that do not receive inspections under either the Schedule 2 or the Schedule 3 regime. Since the on-site verification of DOC/PSF plant sites will be based on the budget and its constraints, the criteria for these activities should be construed in such a manner as to prevent the size of the plant

Conclusion

The CWC strikes an acceptable balance between political concerns and industry’s interests and, as such, serves as a model example.The broad membership of the Convention covering almost all countries with a major chemical industry guarantees a level playing field under the Convention, and the administrative burden associated with it remains manageable. An important lesson learned from the Convention is that the involvement of industry is essential, not merely during the negotiations, but also during the implementation process. CEFIC therefore very much welcomes the annual dialogue meetings bringing together the OPCW Secretariat, National Authorities and the chemical industry to discuss relevant issues. These meetings have proved extremely valuable in promoting a common understanding of the issues at stake.

NOTE

• (1) Responsible Care is the chemical industry’s commitment tocontinuous improvement in all aspects of health, safety and environmental performance, as well as to openness incommunication about its activities and achievements.