VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPE #1678/01 3101406
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O R 061405Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY LIMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0037
INFO RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA

UNCLAS LIMA 001678 
 
SIPDIS 
OES/OMC FOR HKOEHLER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EFIS PHSA PE
SUBJECT: Peru opposes inclusion of map in South Pacific Regional 
Fisheries Management Organization Convention 
 
REF: 09 STATE 113317 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY:  Peru continues to oppose inclusion of the 
illustrative map found in the most recent proposed draft of the 
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO) 
Convention, regardless of efforts to blur the portion of the 
maritime territory under contention between Chile and Peru. 
Expressing concern that inclusion of the map would incorporate it 
into Peruvian law, and in some manner undermine its position in 
boundary negotiations at The Hague, they underscored that the map 
must be removed, or reservation language must be accepted to 
exclude the map from application to Peru.  With the exception of 
Article 5 language (Peru prefers the fifth draft version over the 
new one), the officials did not perceive other issues summarized in 
reftel to be of concern to Peru for finalization of the convention. 
Further, they expressed confidence that the Convention could be 
finalized at this sixth meeting. 
 
 
 
¶2. (U)  Econoff met late November 4 with Elsa Patricia Galarza 
Contreras, Vice Minister of Fisheries and her advisor Alfredo 
Garcia Mesinas.  Earlier the same day, Econoffs met with Pablo 
Albarracin Borda, Counselor, Office of Maritime Sovereignty, 
Transborder Waters and Antarctic Affairs Advisor of the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs. 
 
 
 
REFERENCES TO INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE 
 
 
 
¶3. (U) Albarracin expressed confidence that the SPRFMO will 
conclude during the Auckland session.  He advised that references 
to the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the United 
Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) is not objectionable for 
Peru.   Regarding these references, Garcia explained that the 
Government of Peru generally tries to avoid entering into agreement 
that refer to other accords to which they are not signatories. 
However, the references noted reftel appeared to be acceptable 
under the circumstances. 
 
 
 
BUT A MAP IS UNACCEPTABLE 
 
 
 
¶4. (U) However, Albarracin expressed strong concern over inclusion 
of the notational reference map of the SPRFMO Convention Area.  He 
provided several reasons for Peru's objection to its inclusion: 
 
 
 
a.       Since the Convention will be incorporated into Peruvian 
law, the map itself will become legally binding and might affect 
the negotiations underway at The Hague between Peru and Chile. 
 
b.      He placed emphasis on Peru's observation that only two out 
of 16 RFMOs in existence incorporate a map in their conventions. 
One of the two, he added, is still currently under negotiation. 
 
c.       The lateness of the submission:  The map has only been 
added after five prior meetings of countries forming the SFMO. 
(Comment:  It seemed that Albarracin provided this as another 
indicator that a map is not required, since anything essential 
would have been incorporated in earlier versions.  End Comment.) 
 
¶5.  (U) Although acknowledging the existence of the standard 
disclaimers about not recognizing the claims or positions of any 
Party regarding the legal status of maritime boundary claims, 
Albarracin described the inclusion of the map as unnecessary and 
particularly problematic for Peru. 
 
 
 
¶6. (U)  Garcia mirrored Albarracin's strong objection.  Garcia 
described how the inclusion of the map was presented by the 
president at the last meeting despite prior agreement among the 
parties that the Convention would not include one.  Several times 
during the meeting, Garcia referred to the map's introduction as a 
total "surprise."  He expressed that a map simply could not be 
included in the agreement. 
 
 
 
AN UNDESIRABLE WAY TO PERMIT THE MAP IN THE CONVENTION 
 
 
¶7. (U)  Albarracin summarized the reservation provisions of the 
draft Convention as currently prohibiting members from opting out 
of any portion of the Convention.  He noted that this restriction 
adds significant value to the RFMO as it strengthens the utility of 
the organization.  He advised, however, that if the map were to be 
included in the Convention, the reservation provisions must be 
modified to permit Peru to accept the Convention with the 
reservation that the map not apply to Peru. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (U) Albarracin also conveyed the Peru delegation's desire to 
see Article 5(c) revert back to the prior wording found in "Draft 
5." 
 
 
 
¶9.  (U) COMMENT:  Our interlocutors expressed confidence about the 
positive outcome of the Auckland meetings, adding their 
expectations that the language of the Convention may be finalized 
in Auckland.  Based on statements made, they were clearly proud of 
Peru's role in forming the RFMO, with both describing Peru's role 
as a "key player."  As for the map, they appear to have clearly 
articulated their desire to see it removed from the Convention. 
MCKINLEY