VZCZCXRO5030
PP RUEHLA
DE RUEHMD #2927 3251253
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 211253Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY MADRID
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1350
INFO RUEHLA/AMCONSUL BARCELONA 2250
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RULSDMK/DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEAHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS MADRID 002927 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/WE - GCLEMENTS AND ACERVETTI 
EB/CIP - DMAY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EWWT IMO EUN SP
SUBJECT: SPAIN STILL DISAGREES WITH IMO MSC PROPOSALS 
 
REF: STATE 183434 
 
1.(U) EconOff delivered reftel talking points on November 13 
to Paula Sancho Torrego, head of Spain's Office of Maritime 
Cooperation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  EconOff also 
delivered reftel points on November 17 to Luis Miguel Guerez 
Roig, Subdirector General for Maritime Regulations and 
International Cooperation at the Ministry of Public Works. 
Both parties informed EconOff that the GOS position remains 
unchanged. 
 
¶2. (U) Roig pointed out that "a number of the proposals 
contained in US document MSC 82/3/2 regarding amendments to 
Chapter IV of the SOLAS Convention have warranted favorable 
consideration by Spain, as shown in document MSC 82/3725." 
However, the GOS still considers the adoption of the US 
amendments to be premature in the absence of an IMO technical 
evaluation on the impact on search and rescue, as well as on 
the equipping of ships. 
 
¶3. (U) The GOS remains in favor of maintaining the current 
distribution of functions between the IMO and the IMSO 
regarding the GMDSS.  Spain proposes that this issue can be 
resolved by revising Resolution A.888(21) on the criteria 
applicable to mobile satellite communications systems for the 
GMDSS.  The GOS is against giving the IMO supervisory 
functions over the GMDSS, and is adamant that the IMO has 
already ceded this function to the IMSO.  The GOS firmly 
believes that the IMSO has adopted the necessary procedures 
to perform a supervisory function. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Likewise, Spain still opposes the US proposal for 
the IMO to take on the coordinator role of the LRIT, and 
believes that the IMSO should play this role.  However, Spain 
may support the US offer to establish an interim data 
exchange facility for LRIT, as long as the necessary IMO 
procedures and agreements are established. The GOS asks, 
however, that the USG consider with greater interest its own 
proposal, coordinated with other EU countries, to establish 
an EU regional center.  Spain agrees that this regional 
center would follow the same procedures and agreements 
established if the US interim data exchange facility is 
approved. 
 
¶5. (SBU) COMMENT: As noted in reftel, a Spaniard will head 
the IMSO next spring.  The GOS' actions may thus have the 
explicit intent to delay action on the US amendment proposals 
in order to increase the IMSO's role.  Simply put, the GOS 
seems intractable in its position.  END COMMENT. 
 
 
 
 
 
AGUIRRE