icao - icscc.org.cnicscc.org.cn/upload/file/20190102/doc.9903-en... · icao international civil...

Doc 9903-C/1155C-Min. Special (August 2006)

C-Min. 179/1–20

ICAO

International Civil Aviation Organization

COUNCIL — SPECIAL SESSION (August 2006)

COUNCIL — 179TH SESSION

Montréal, 17 August 2006

and 2 October – 8 December 2006

SUMMARY MINUTES

WITH SUBJECT INDEX

2007

Montréal Canada

(i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

COUNCIL – SPECIAL SESSION (AUGUST 2006) SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING (CLOSED) .......................................................................... 1

Welcome to new Representatives on the Council............................................................................ 2 Planned terrorist plot against civil aircraft over the North Atlantic................................................. 2 Action taken by Israel against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport................................. 21

COUNCIL – 179TH SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING......................................................................................... 27

Condolences for Mr. Walter Binaghi, a former President of the Council of ICAO....................... 28 Condolences to the Representative of Brazil following a mid-air collision .................................. 29 Welcome to new Representatives on the Council.......................................................................... 29 Statement by the President — Missile firings crossing international routes over the high seas.............................................................................................................. 29 Statement by the President — Action taken by Israel against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport .......................................................................... 30 Election of Vice-Presidents of the Council.................................................................................... 31 Election of Members and Alternates on the Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees ..................................... 32 Election of the Chairmen of the Air Transport, Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees ..................................... 32 Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group Meeting on market-based measures to reduce emissions........................ 32

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING .................................................................................... 45

Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group Meeting on market-based measures to reduce emissions........................ 46 Report on Technical Co-operation Programme development and update of the Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) income and expenditures for the year 2006 ...................................................................... 47 Report on user satisfaction with ICAO procurement services ....................................................... 48 ICAO’s policy on technical co-operation ...................................................................................... 50 Other business................................................................................................................................ 56 Report of ANC — Annual review of the Technical Work Programme (TWP) — Progress report on the transition to the Business Plan approach........................... 56 Information on large-scale technical co-operation projects.............................................. 56 Celebration of International Civil Aviation Day (2007)................................................... 57 Reduction in the advertisement period of Vacancy Notices for Director-level posts....... 57

Page

(ii)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING ....................................................................................... 59 Proposals for dealing with foreign exchange fluctuations in the ICAO Budget ............................ 60 Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems ........................ 67 Expansion of the mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD) to include P-O level posts..................................... 68 Other business................................................................................................................................ 75 Statement by the Representative of Argentina.................................................................. 75

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING .................................................................................... 77 Welcome to new Representative on the Council ........................................................................... 78 Tribute to Mr. M. Belayneh, Representative of Ethiopia............................................................... 78 Addition of three new items to the work programme for the 179th Session.................................. 78 Schedule for consideration of items during the 179th Session of the Council .............................. 78 President’s report on activities during the recess........................................................................... 79 Financial situation of the Organization.......................................................................................... 81 Proposal for settlement of arrears of contributions by Georgia ..................................................... 83 Election of First Vice-President of the Council ............................................................................. 83 Election of a Member on the Edward Warner Award Committee................................................. 84 Report on action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 178th Session................................................................................................... 84 Information on crossings of the North Atlantic during the calendar year 2005............................. 86 Report of JSC — Approval of audited actual costs under the Danish Joint Financing Agreement for the year 2005 ...................................................... 86 Report of JSC — Approval of audited actual costs under the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement for the year 2005................................................... 86 Report of JSC — Review of the Danish estimates for 2007.......................................................... 87 Report of JSC — Review of the Icelandic estimates for 2007 ...................................................... 87 Report of JSC — Settlement of obligations up to 31 December 2005 and assessments, user charge and advances for the year 2007 under the Danish Joint Financing Agreement................................................................................... 88 Report of JSC — Settlement of obligations up to 31 December 2005 and assessments, user charge and advances for the year 2007 under the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement ............................................................................... 88 Report of JSC — ICAO administrative fee to be added to the combined Danish and Icelandic user charge per single aircraft crossing for the year 2007.............. 89 Report of ANC — Progress report on the Unified Strategy Programme (USP)............................ 89 Other business................................................................................................................................ 92 Report of JIU — “Policies of United Nations System Organizations towards the Use of Open Source Software (OSS) in the Secretariats” (JIU/REP/2005/3 and Corr. 1) and Report of the JIU for 2005 and Programme of Work for 2006 ............................................................................. 92 Appointment of a Member on the Air Transport and Technical Co-operation Committees.......................................................................... 92

Page

(ii i)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING ........................................................................................ 93

Report of ANC — Progress report on the Unified Strategy Programme (USP)............................ 95 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD)................................................................................. 101

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING (OPEN) ......................................................................... 107 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD)................................................................................. 108

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING (CLOSED)..................................................................... 117 Review of the Report of the Sixth Session of the International Explosives Technical Commission (IETC/6) and the Sixteenth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE/16) ................... 118

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING (OPEN).................................................................... 121

Report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2006/2).......................................................... 122 Report of ATC – Adoption of Amendment 20 to Annex 9 – Facilitation................................... 123 Implementation of activities under the Aviation Security Plan of Action ................................... 125 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 126 Contributions in arrears .................................................................................................. 126 Structure and presentation of working papers and other documents to Council............. 126 Request of the European Commission to attend Council’s discussion on emissions trading............................................................... 127

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING (CLOSED) ............................................................... 129 Definition of In-flight Security Officer........................................................................................ 130 Report of UIC – Review of differences to Annex 17 notified by States...................................... 131 Progress report on the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) ........................................ 131

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING .................................................................................. 135

Delegation of Authority to the President of the Council.............................................................. 136 Report on progress made by the Organization towards its Strategic Objectives and the objectives of the Business Plan....................................................................................... 140 Revised Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly................................... 143 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 146 Statement by the Representative of Lebanon.................................................................. 146

Page

(iv)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING (OPEN) ........................................................................ 147 Site and date of the 36th Session of the Assembly ...................................................................... 148 Invitations to observers to attend the 36th Session of the Assembly........................................... 153 Request of the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) for inclusion in the list of organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings......... 155 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 155 Deferment of consideration of an item to the 180th Session .......................................... 155 Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 ........................................................... 155 Report of JIU — “A Common Payroll for United Nations System Organizations” (JIU/REP/2005/4)...................................... 155 Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented during the second quarter — 1 April to 30 June 2006 ............................................. 156

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING (CLOSED) .................................................................... 157 Review of the Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP/18) .......................................................................... 158

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING ..................................................................................... 165

Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group Meeting.................................................................................................. 166 Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading.................................. 169 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 176 Addition of an item to the work programme for the 179th Session................................ 176 Selection of the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) ........................... 176 Request for approval by the Council for the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Singapore to extend and expand the Developing Country Training Programme ......................................................... 177

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING .............................................................................. 179 Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading.................................. 180 Review of the implementation of Assembly Resolution A35-5 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection).......... 181 High-level goals for the Secretary General.................................................................................. 185 Task Force on Gender Equality and Gender Equity: Terms of reference, status and implementation actions .................................................................................. 190 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 191 Additional ANC Report to Council ................................................................................ 191 Selection of the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) ........................... 191

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING................................................................................ 193

Transmission of information on technical co-operation activities — recruitment, fellowships and procurement...................................................................... 194 Review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach .............................. 196 2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) budget estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure ................................. 204

Page

(v)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING .......................................................................... 207 2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) budget estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure ................................. 208 Proposals for settlement of arrears of contributions by Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Roberts Flight Information Region (FIR) ................................................................ 209 Draft Assembly working paper — Election of Contracting States to be represented on the Council..................................................................................... 209 Work Programme of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (EAO) for the year 2007 ....................................................... 210 The status of implementation of recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) ............... 211 Programme of meetings for 2007 ................................................................................................ 212 Tentative programme of meetings for 2008-2009-2010 .............................................................. 214 Report of ANC — Amendment of the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems (Doc 9750) ................................................................................. 214 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 215 Clearing of information papers and other papers referred to Committees...................... 215 Negotiations with the Government of Canada regarding tax exemption for UN pensions ....................................................................................................... 216

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING.......................................................................... 217 Report of ANC – Progress report on implementation of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) Recommendations ..................... 219 Report of ANC – Review of the Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the AFI Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APIRG/15) – Need for a RAN meeting for the AFI Region ......................................... 221 Progress report regarding Contracting States that have given their consent to the publication of relevant safety oversight audit information ....................................... 226 Delegation of the oversight of the Joint Support Agreements to the Joint Support Committee (JSC) under Article 52 of the Chicago Convention ..................................... 227

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING ............................................................................. 229

Composition and mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD)............................................................................. 230 Appointment of the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC).................................. 237 Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention ............ 239

Page

(vi)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING ............................................................................. 243 Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention ............ 245 Report of ANC – Annual review of the TWP – Progress report on the transition to the Business Plan approach......................................................................................... 246 Public relations and media policy of the Organization ................................................................ 246 Progress report relating to the Secretariat Study Group on Aviation Security Conventions ....... 249 International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment)................................................ 249 Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 ........................................................................ 251 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 252 Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented during the third quarter – 1 July to 30 September 2006 ........................................... 252

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING ........................................................................ 253

General Work Programme of the Legal Committee .................................................................... 254 Methodology used in calculating scales of assessment ............................................................... 255 The principle in the determination of scales of assessment (Weighted ability to pay scale) ....... 257 Format and content of the financial statements of the Organization — Policies for Technical Co-operation Programme revenue and expenditure recognition.................... 261 Financial Year 2006..................................................................................................................... 262

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING .......................................................................... 265

Proposal of the Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) Team................................ 266 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD)........................................................................................... 272 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 273 Membership of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) ........... 273 Statement by the Representative of South Africa ........................................................... 274

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING........................................................................... 277 Statement by the President of the Council — International Civil Aviation Day (2007) ............. 278 Review of the Strategic Objectives ............................................................................................. 278 Review of the effectiveness of ICAO’s State letter system ......................................................... 279 Status of implementation of the UN Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants in ICAO ............................................................................. 283 Work Programme for the 180th Session...................................................................................... 286 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 286 Tribute to Mr. A.G. Sayce, the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) ... 286 Ways and means of celebrating International Women’s Day......................................... 287 Level of the Working Capital Fund (WCF).................................................................... 287 Procedure for dealing with translations of previously-adopted Annexes or Amendments thereto ............................................................................................ 287 Resolution of gratitude to Dr. A. Kotaite, a former President of the Council ................ 287

Page

(vii)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING ............................................................................ 291 Work Programme for the 180th Session..................................................................................... 292 Other business ............................................................................................................................. 292 Questions relating to the environment ............................................................................ 292 Farewell to Mr. H. Kono, Representative of Japan......................................................... 293 SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE 179TH SESSION............................................................................................................... 295 LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED ............................................................................................... 299

- 1 -

COUNCIL — SPECIAL SESSION (AUGUST 2006)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, THURSDAY, 17 AUGUST 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

CLOSED MEETING

President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González

Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. W. Fisher Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Y. Zhang Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. M. Belayneh Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi

Italy — Mr. S. Monti Japan — Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Rhee, S.-T. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saudi Arabia — Mr. AA. Alharthy (Alt.) Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong Spain — Mr. L. Adrover United Kingdom — Mr. N. Denton United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. J. Riaboi (Alt.) — Argentina Mr. J. López González (Alt.) — Argentina Ms. W. Walsh (Adv.) — Australia Mr. L. Vonlanthen (Alt.) — Austria Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S.. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. V.V. Postnov (Alt.) — Russian Federation Ms. A. McGinley (Obs) — ACI Mr. P. Behnke (Obs.) — ACI Mr. G. Matschnigg (Obs) — IATA Ms. G. Graham (Obs.) — IATA Mr. M. Comber (Obs.) — IATA

SECRETARIAT: Mr. A. Sánchez-Gutíerrez — D/TCB Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. W.R. Voss — D/ANB Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. J. Begin — DD/ATB Ms. M. McMunn — C/SGM Mr. D. Antonini — SASO/SGM Mrs. H.M. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. D. Chagnon — PIO Mr. J. Murphy — Consultant, ASA Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

International Civil Aviation Organization

C-MIN Special Session (August 2006)

C-MIN Special Session - 2 -

1. The President of the Council extended a welcome to Dr. Karin Kammann-Klippstein, the Representative of Germany; Mr. Muhammad Rauhullah, the Representative of Pakistan, and Mr. Shawky Abdel Samie Elazab Mahmoud, the Representative of Egypt. 2. The President also extended a welcome to His Excellency William Fisher, High Commissioner of Australia, who had been appointed Representative of Australia on the Council for today’s special session of the Council, and Ms. Wendy Walsh, First Secretary, his Adviser. Subject No. 52: Unlawful interference with international civil aviation and its facilities

Planned terrorist plot against civil aircraft over the North Atlantic 3. The President indicated that he had decided to convene this special closed session of the Council following the disclosure by the authorities in the United Kingdom of a planned terrorist plot against international civil aviation. On 10 August, law enforcement authorities in the United Kingdom had arrested 23 people in connection with a terrorist plot to blow up as many as ten aircraft over the North Atlantic in the following days. The authorities reported that the plot introduced a different mechanism than had been used by terrorists in the September 11 2001 plot; it had involved liquid materials intended to be carried on board the aircraft, disguised in various ways, to be assembled into an explosive device once on board. 4. ICAO should not remain passive when such events took place. Such threats could seriously affect the safe, regular and orderly development of international civil aviation. Given the severity of this threat and the change in terrorist tactics to elude established aviation security screening procedures, the Organization had to take prompt action to assess the threat. On 10 and 11 August, the President had held discussions with the Acting Secretary General and several Secretariat staff, and the Council Representatives of the countries directly involved in this terrorist plot, i.e. the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, with the objective of better understanding the level of threat for the international aviation community. 5. Given these discussions, the President had called this special closed session of the Council with three actions in mind:

• For the Council to note the information about this terrorist plot and recognize the severity against civil aviation;

• To request the Aviation Security Panel to study this new threat with the highest

priority; the President was confident that the Panel could propose creative measures and reasonable and effective guidelines; and

• To encourage Member States to participate in the Aviation Security Point of Contact

Network.

6. The President wished to thank the Airports Council International (ACI) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for participating in this special closed session of the Council and for presenting information papers. The detection of a terrorist plot was without a doubt the result of good intelligence work by the Government of the United Kingdom which was highly recognized. The President was confident that good intelligence and shared information and cooperation among Contracting States and the industry was a very effective tool to avoid perpetuation of such acts of unlawful interference.


7. This first item on the Order of Business for today’s meeting was documented in C-WP/12746 Restricted, presented by the President of the Council and the Secretary General; in an Information Paper (C-WP/12747 Restricted, English only) presented by IATA entitled “Future action for handling security issues”; and in an Information Paper (C-WP/12748 Restricted, English only) presented by ACI. 8. Introducing C-WP/12746 Restricted, the Secretary General observed that, as the President had just indicated, this represented the most significant terrorist plot discovered since the horrendous events of September 11th 2001; had it been carried out, it would have destroyed as many as ten aircraft over the Atlantic. The security measures which had been put in place in the United Kingdom were described in C-WP/12746 Restricted. The United Kingdom authorities had informed ICAO that these security measures had been revised with effect from 14 August 2006. As described in the paper, the following security measures were presently in force:

• Amendment 11 to Annex 17 had become applicable as of 1 July 2006; • A list of prohibited items had been developed by the Aviation Security Panel

following the events of 11 September 2001. This list of hazardous and dangerous goods had been distributed on 28 November 2003 to all Contracting States as Appendix 35 in Amendment No. 1 to the Security Manual.

• Assistance to States, under the newly-established Coordinated Assistance and

Development (CAD) Section within the Aviation Security and Facilitation Branch, by inter alia, developing an assistance programme to counter the new and emerging threats to civil aviation, and further developing ICAO’s Aviation Security Training Programme, including the development of new and non-traditional training courses to effectively address current and future challenges to aviation security; and

• Establishment of the ICAO-wide Aviation Security Point of Contact (PoC) network,

pursuant to the views expressed by the G8 Roma-Lyon Crime and Terrorism Group and recommendations of the Ministerial Conference held in Japan in January 2006. The Network had been established for the communication of imminent threats to civil air transport operations. Its objective was to implement by 1 September 2006 a network of international aviation security contacts within each State, designated as the appropriate authority to send and receive communications, at any time of the day or night, concerning imminent threat information, security requests of an urgent nature, and/or guidelines to support security requirements in the case of countering an imminent threat. The Secretary General wished to take this opportunity to encourage all States to participate in the Network and noted that 16 Member States with representatives on the Council had not replied by the 30 June 2006 deadline.

9. As the terrorist plot against civil aircraft posed a major threat against air transport operations, this issue needed to be included and given the highest priority in the agenda of the forthcoming eighteenth meeting of the Aviation Security Panel, scheduled to be held in Montreal from 11-15 September 2006. The Secretariat had already been in contact with the Panel members and observers to exchange views on how to address this new threat. The Panel had expressed its support for the prompt action being taken by ICAO. The Panel members from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada had confirmed that more detailed information would be made available at the next Panel meeting.


10. It was expected that the deliberations of the AVSEC panel on this subject would be reported to the 179th Session of the Council. 11. The Secretary General noted that sub-paragraph d) of the terms of reference of the Aviation Security Panel specifically stated that the Panel would “identify and examine, as assigned by the Council and the Committee on Unlawful Interference, new and emerging threats to civil aviation, including the misuse of civil aircraft as weapons of destruction, and develop appropriate counter measures to such threats”. 12. The Observer from IATA indicated that he was pleased to be invited to this special session of the Council and to present C-WP/12747. For IATA, it was important that all stakeholders – ICAO, governments, airlines, and airports – work together on this subject; such cooperation had been successful after September 11 when the GASA (Global Aviation Security Action) Group had been formed, and it was important that stakeholders work together now and in the future. 13. To promote safe, secure, efficient and economical air transportation had been IATA’s mission since the time of its creation in 1944 and it was still IATA’s number one priority. In addition to the issues indicated in C-WP/12747, the Observer from IATA wished to mention some other items which had emerged over the last few days. The recent events in the United Kingdom and the United States had shown that the system, with its multiple layers of security, worked. IATA wished to congratulate the States concerned for the effective use of their intelligence, and also thanked ICAO for a quick reaction in arranging for this meeting. However, after one week of dealing with this new threat, there was a need to evaluate the impact of the new measures. These measures were to have no hand baggage or liquids on board, and they impacted on a couple of fronts. 14. In terms of facilitation, passengers had not been informed of the new measures and this had resulted in long queues. A CEO from British Airways had observed that the situation had gone from total chaos to organized chaos and was now getting back to normal. 15. Airports had not been prepared to handle this crisis. From an operational point of view, there had been a significant increase in hold baggage and insufficient space. The impact on cargo volumes was significant. Forty percent of all cargo globally was carried by air and accounted for up to thirty per cent of the revenue for air carriers. Dangerous goods had now been transferred to the hold. On the hold baggage systems, there was limited infrastructure and electronic items had caused more level 2 and 3 alerts. 16. In terms of liabilities, an increase in pilferage and exposure to claims had already been noted, because valuables were now being put in the hold. From the economic point of view, the immediate impact had been the cancellation of flights from the United Kingdom and severe restrictions to cabin baggage at the time of peak earnings for airlines. Airlines had lost revenue and faced additional handling and passenger service costs. Analysts were suggesting that the impact on network airlines may be similar to the catering strike that had led to British Airways canceling over 1,000 flights at a cost estimated by the airline of about thirty-five to forty million dollars – or nine per cent of its 2005-2006 net profits. Turn-around times would also be lengthened. The long-term impact was harder to determine; studies suggested that 9/11 had permanently reduced traffic by seven per cent. In this case there was as yet no estimate. 17. Intelligence sharing between States was vital but insufficient if just done on its own, and it was not sufficient to raise the awareness of all the stakeholders. IATA recommended three actions to the Council: First, that the Council request the Aviation Security Panel to develop provisions for a


security management system to focus on harmonization and mutual recognition that security improvement must be operational and effective. The Council could also review the need for further action in light of the emerging threat. That review could cover the counter measures to improvised explosive devices in component form, including liquid explosives, training and human factors profiling, pre-arrival risk assessment, etc. 18. The second recommendation was for ICAO to set up a crisis communication centre built on a security point of contact initiative including all stakeholders such as the governments, IATA, ACI, and service providers. ICAO should keep and maintain a data base of security experts and ramp up a 24/7 operation if necessary. Airlines had this in place, IATA had this in place, and when there was a threat such as this one, ICAO should have it as well. 19. The third recommendation was for ICAO to ask States to provide funding for aviation security, specifically for security auditing and technical assistance. States should make use of available technology during such emergencies, and use police and military forces, to assist in maintaining operations. 20. The Observer from the Airports Council International then introduced C-WP/12748, indicating that ACI was deeply honored to be invited to participate in this special session of the Council. ACI believed that when ICAO, its Contracting States, and representatives of the industry came together to address security threats, they could achieve rapid results and raise the aviation security baseline appropriately. This had been the case when they had worked together to strengthen and amend Annex 17 with more than fifteen new Standards introduced on a “fast track” basis after the events of 9/11. Now they were again faced with a complex threat, but ACI believed that under ICAO’s leadership there was the spirit of teamwork, the unity of purpose and the political will to introduce effective counter-measures and to deter future threats. He had personally felt that spirit of teamwork very strongly during a productive conference call of the AVSEC Panel on the morning of August 15th, just two days earlier. 21. One element needed to be emphasized in connection with the events of the past week: as harrowing as the events had been for the industry and for travelers, the truth was that the system had worked exactly as had been hoped. As IATA had already stated, accurate intelligence shared by States and industry had pre-empted a potentially lethal series of events. The plot had never entered the operational stage and thus had never tested airport or airline security which were essential. ACI joined IATA in congratulating the governments involved for their successful disruption of a sinister plot. Nevertheless, the international community was well aware of the fact that it could not afford to rest on its laurels for even one moment. Aviation security had no room for complacency, no room for August holidays, and could not take even an hour off. The terrorists and criminals needed to get their plans right just once to do great harm and to bring the industry to its knees. The aviation community must never let its guard down on the State, airport, or airline level. 22. The Observer from ACI provided a brief background of the ACI’s organizational framework as set our in paragraph 1.1 of its information paper. In brief, Airports Council International was the voice of airports worldwide. Its 1600 member airports handled over four billion passengers and 80 million tonnes of freight in 2005, about 95% of global traffic. ACI’s overriding priority was the security and safety of the global civil aviation network. Reflecting this priority, ACI was proud to have been an active observer at all ICAO AVSEC Panel meetings over the past fifteen years. A safe and secure air transport system was a precondition in promoting trade, tourism and investment links among and within nations. Good AVSEC was also a major factor in creating global prosperity and employment. Indeed, air transport had become the cornerstone of an inter-dependent global economy.


23. ACI also agreed with the assertion in C-WP/12746 that the AVSEC Panel should study this new development with the highest priority and urgency. The Panel brought together security experts who understood the operational implications of new counter measures to deter the type of attack that had recently been disrupted. ACI believed, however, that Annex 17 must remain the baseline for States in their aviation security programmes. While amendments to strengthen the Annex may be proposed by the AVSEC Panel at its meeting in September 2006, any new counter measures should also be carefully explained in the ICAO Aviation Security Manual. In addition, training of personnel to deal with the complex new threats should be incorporated into ICAO training programmes for security managers and security personnel worldwide. 24. ACI wished to underscore three points for the consideration of the Council, as at paragraph 1.3 of C-WP/12748. 25. First of all, threats to aviation security must be fully and effectively met. The public must have confidence that it is safe to travel and to fly. Governments must recognize that terrorism targets States and is therefore a matter of national defense, which must be funded and implemented by them in partnership and close collaboration with airport operators, airlines and other aviation stakeholders. 26. Second, certain additional security measures may be required, at least in some States. These measures must be effective, enforceable, practical and sustainable. A related objective must be that any new longer-term measures are introduced in such a way that the industry can continue to handle growing numbers of passengers and higher freight volumes without creating gridlock at major airports. 27. Third, the economic consequences of measures proposed must be understood by decision makers. Airports derive a significant portion of the revenues needed for operations and development of new infrastructure from the retail concessions, many of which are located beyond security checkpoints and already are operated under tight controls. ICAO, the governments and industry can find ways to ensure that such items do not represent any danger; the loss of these retail and duty-free revenues to airports might only be recovered by increasing aeronautical charges, an outcome the entire industry wants to avoid. ACI member airports derive as much as one quarter of their total income from retail and duty free sales concessions. Some 48% of all duty free sales worldwide are from airport duty free facilities. Airtight aviation security remains ACI’s highest priority but ACI strongly believes that this aim can be achieved without a major upheaval for airport economics which are based on commercial principles even in cases where airports are government- owned. 28. The Observer from ACI believed the AVSEC Panel could find a way to ensure that such products pose no threat to aviation security. ACI and its colleagues at IATA would be taking up this issue in discussions in the weeks preceding the AVSEC Panel. The measures they would be proposing would be effective, enforceable and sustainable, while meeting the highest security standards. There may be operational procedures which both airports and airlines must modify to achieve the level of security required. ACI was open to considering those changes. In the three-week period ahead, ACI hoped that States Members and Observers to the ICAO AVSEC Panel would clarify proposals for the consideration of the Panel with carefully considered working papers. This particular Panel would be under tremendous pressure to address the concerns that the recent events in the United Kingdom had raised. The work must begin today to address the issues and allow the Panel to focus on effective counter-measurers in the week of its meeting. 29. ACI thanked the Secretariat and the Council for providing it with an opportunity to voice the views of the world’s airports. ACI’s sincere aim was to once again ensure that the security baseline was sufficiently high so that threats would be pre-empted before they reached the operational stage.


ACI’s Delegation would be pleased to answer any questions Council Members might pose in response to its remarks. 30. The Council then heard statements presented by the Representative of the United Kingdom, the Representative of the United States, and the Representative of Canada. 31. The Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he was not in a position to provide the Council with much more information about the plots than what had already been generally available in the media. His authorities had provided him with a statement that did contain some additional elements, and the Representative of the United Kingdom verbally conveyed this additional information to those in attendance at the meeting, on the understanding that his statement would not be included in the written minutes. 32. The Representative of the United Kingdom then indicated that, as could be noted from the background information in C-WP/12746, his State, when learning of the planned attacked, had raised its security level to the highest level, “Critical”, and had introduced a number of extra measures for security. Since then, on 14 August 2006, the “Critical” state had been reviewed and re-graded to “Severe”, which was one grade below, and under the new measures each passenger was permitted to carry one, and only one, item of cabin baggage through the security search point. The dimensions allowed for that single piece of cabin baggage were very specific, i.e. 45 by 35 by 16 centimetres. This baggage could not contain liquids of any type other than essential medicines or baby milk. This did not mean that duty free could not be purchased; once through the search point, passengers were at liberty to buy water, liquids, shaving foam, duty free, etc, and take them on board with the exception of flights to the United States, in respect of which passengers were re-screened at the gate and any liquids given up at that point. The Representative of the United Kingdom had information which could be distributed to his colleagues, if necessary, which itemized the specific security measures which were now in force. He pointed out that these were not the measures outlined in C-WP/12746. 33. The United Kingdom fully supported the idea of referring this matter to the Aviation Security Panel, which would be in a better position than the Council, simply because of the passage of time, to discuss intelligently the ICAO response. The United Kingdom’s investigation was still at a fairly early stage, but by 11 September 2006, when the Aviation Security Panel would meet, it was hoped that the United Kingdom would have further information which it could make available to the Panel Members. The Representative of the United Kingdom would, when the Council considered the action it would take at this meeting, invite Representatives to consider some expanded wording for paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12746 which he had distributed earlier in the day. 34. The Representative of the United States observed that terrorism affected everyone, whether they were Bali residents and tourists, Spanish or London commuters, Jordanian wedding guests, or citizens of the some 64 nations who happened to be in the World Trade Centre during the morning of September 11, 2001. The lesson of August 10, 2006 was that terrorists still viewed aviation as a prime target for advancing their agenda of mass murder and fear. 35. It was truly sad indeed, because international aviation was the primary means by which people of different cultures and backgrounds could get to know and respect each other as they engaged in trade, commerce, education and recreation. As stated so eloquently in the opening words of the Chicago Convention, “international civil aviation can greatly help to create and preserve friendship and understanding among the nations and peoples of the world.” On any given aircraft, regardless of its registration, one could find men, women and children of all races, religions, nationalities and ethnic backgrounds. An attack on civil aviation was therefore an attack on the world community -- the


indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians for the sole purpose of destroying civilization’s advance toward global cooperation. 36. With 189 Contracting States, ICAO was uniquely suited to unite the world community in addressing this common threat by fostering safer and more secure international civil aviation. As U.S. Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawley had told the Representative of the United States that morning, the United States viewed this recent threat as an opportunity to upgrade its cooperation with other nations in working toward a seamless global response based on international standards and procedures. For this reason, the United States strongly supported the main thrust in the working paper presented by the President of the Council and the Secretary General, C-WP/12746 Restricted. The paper recounted the events announced by the United Kingdom police on August 10 and the response of United Kingdom and United States authorities thereto. 37. The United States commended the excellent work of the United Kingdom police and intelligence services for their expert handling of this matter. It appreciated also the cooperation and assistance rendered by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of other governments which had helped to uncover a heinous plot and prevent a great tragedy. The Representative of the United States understood that the plot was in its final stages and that the terrorists were targeting, according to reports, up to ten flights perhaps by as many as three United States carriers flying from London to several cities in the United States. They had planned to smuggle peroxide-based liquid explosives (HMTD or TATP) onto the planes via baby formula, shampoo, beverages, hair gel or creams, assembled on board to detonate mid-flight over the Atlantic. 38. Because the investigation into the terrorist plot was still ongoing, the full scope of information concerning the plot, the terrorists involved and their plans was still to be confirmed. The investigation was raising additional threats and concerns. The Representative of the United States wished to stress that this threat was as serious today as it had been on August 10th. There were aspects of the case unfolding that required continuing vigilance. Inevitably some issues must remain confidential to avoid prejudicing the United Kingdom’s investigative and legal process. In close coordination with the United Kingdom, the United States had responded immediately on August 10th by raising the threat level to “High” or “Orange” for all international flights arriving in the United States and all United States domestic flights -- prohibiting passengers from carrying on to the airplane any liquids or gels such as beverages, shampoo and toothpaste. Certain exceptions had been made for formula, breast milk and juice for accompanying babies, and for properly identified prescription medicines. 39. Stricter measures had been applied to United States-bound flights originating in Heathrow. There the threat level had been raised to code “Red” or “Severe”, and virtually all carry-on luggage had been prohibited. On August 13th, the United States had modified its restrictions to mandate shoe screening and to allow up to four ounces of non-prescription medicine. United States authorities had also modified the restrictions on duty-free products to allow delivery to the aircraft. The United States restrictions on the Heathrow-originating flights had later been modified to allow limited carry-on baggage as described by the Representative of the United Kingdom. The United States understood that other governments imposed similar measures. The United States viewed these measures as temporary, probably for the next several weeks, as authorities studied the precise nature of the threat and made adjustments that reflected the investigative and scientific analysis of the explosive potential of liquids and other substances that could be carried on board the aircraft. The United States Government would then plan to issue interim measures that would remain in effect until new technologies could be deployed. 40. The Representative of the United States stressed the importance of international cooperation in developing these interim measures, which would remain in effect for some period of time.


Interim measures must be based on a full understanding of the new threat and of the methods of attack considered by the terrorists, to ensure that counter-measures were relevant, effective and enforceable. Such measures must also be sustainable and practical -- the experience of Contracting States would be an important factor in this analysis. The United States appreciated the excellent cooperation it had received from Contracting States and encouraged feedback on their experience with these measures. The United States commended the Aviation Security Panel and the Secretariat for the excellent work in developing Amendment 11 to Annex 17, which had come into effect less than 60 days ago. This programme remained essential, and it was important that Contracting States continue to implement the revised Annex 17. Further work to deal with the threat methodology would build on this foundation, but it would have to focus on areas where changes were relevant and necessary. For these reasons, the United States agreed with the indication in C-WP/12746 that the Aviation Security Panel should be directed to study this new threat and recommend actions to the Council. Among the issues the AVSEC Panel should consider were the following: (1) What have we learned about emerging threats to civil aviation from the full range of

information, as it becomes available, about the United Kingdom plot? How does this information change the way we view, define and respond to emerging threats? In particular, what is the physical threat posed by specific quantities of liquids, gels and aerosols and their combination on the aircraft?

(2) Does Amendment 11 adequately address the emerging threats to civil aviation? If not, what specialized expertise is needed to develop amendments, modifications or new SARPs? What should be the timeline for these amendments?

(3) Should the list of prohibited items or substances that should not be carried in the cabin of an aircraft be expanded?

(4) How should the ICAO manuals, guidance material and security training programs be modified to address the emerging threats?

(5) How should ICAO’s Universal Security Audit Programme be refined to address the capability of Contracting States to respond to these emerging threats?

(6) What is the status of new technologies to detect liquid explosives? Should certain technologies be encouraged for deployment?

(7) What modifications to the screening process should be considered for passengers, carry-on baggage, checked baggage and cargo?

(8) Do the emerging threats call for additional levels of screening for liquid explosives and for passenger behavior? Should ICAO training centers include techniques for observing passenger behavior?

(9) As we analyze the threats reflected in the August 10th plot, what additional potential threats also must be addressed? How can the levels of security protect against potential new threats that are not currently known or anticipated?

(10) How can background checks and credentialing of persons with access to security-restricted areas be strengthened?


(11) How can an effective system be devised for obtaining advance passenger information and identification before the departure of international flights?

41. The Representative of the United States observed that the AVSEC Panel would have a full agenda on September 11 – 15th. His Delegation looked forward to receiving its thoughtful, expert advice. The United States also recommended that the Council request that this matter be included on the agenda of the September 2006 meetings of the International Explosives Technical Commission and the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Detection of Explosives to consider technological approaches to detecting liquid explosives. The work of these groups should be closely coordinated with the AVSEC Panel. 42. Referring to the recommended action at paragraph 3 of C-WP/12746, the Representative of the United States indicated that his Government fully supported the Aviation Security Point of Contact Network and strongly urged States that had not yet provided a point of contact to do so. The Representative of the United States could provide the Secretary General with his Government’s point of contact at this time. ICAO should request the AVSEC Panel to consider whether this procedure could be used to disseminate urgent information to participating States about measures taken by Contracting States to address heightened security alerts. 43. Recognizing ICAO’s responsibility to promote and facilitate civil aviation and the importance of not succumbing to the threat of terrorism, the United States believed that the Panel, the Secretariat and the Council should consider:

(1) The adequacy of contingency plans for dealing globally with temporarily heightened security measures issued by Contracting States.

(2) The adequacy of procedures for timely and accurate communication of changes in security measures providing that information to international travelers throughout the world.

(3) Whether procedures could be established to facilitate travel during periods of heightened security, such as the Registered Traveler Program being tested in the United States.

(4) When heightened security was focused on a specific airport or airports, could contingency plans be prepared that would minimize the disruption of air travel in other regions?

(5) What steps could be taken to minimize the effect of heightened security on the economics of airlines and airports?

44. The United States Government planned to work through the AVSEC Panel to study the precise nature of this emerging threat and to develop recommendations based on the best available information and scientific analysis for consideration by the Council in its 179th Session. 45. The Representative of Canada observed that it had become ever clearer that aviation security and safety had become the focal point of activities within ICAO, and the Organization would have no other choice than to afford it the utmost importance. ICAO would have to take the necessary measures in order to provide all necessary and useful resources to security issues. The Representative of Canada wished to endorse the statements made by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States, and to provide additional background information regarding contacts between the three States since the beginning of the plot being identified. The three States had come together because the United Kingdom had been the State where the plot had been initiated; the United States would have been the destination for


the affected flights; and Canada would have been the territory and airspace through which the plot would have developed. 46. The Representative of Canada thanked the Observers from IATA and ACI for their presentations. Their documents had been most important for the analysis of the above-mentioned authorities, especially during a conversation which had taken place on August 15th. Without repeating what his colleagues from the United Kingdom and the United States had mentioned, the Representative of Canada wished to address the recent update of Annex 17 through Amendment 11, which had come into effect less than 60 days ago. Most of the AVSEC Programme would still remain valid, and it was important that Contracting States be encouraged to urgently progress in full implementation of the revised Annex 17. Further work to deal with the new threat methodology would build on this, but should also be focused on the areas where changes were relevant and necessary. 47. Like the United States, Canada considered that Annex 17 should not be brought into question by recent events. Quite the contrary; Canada considered that recent events demonstrated that the aviation security environment was dynamic and the need for on-going priority attention to aviation security was underlined. The Canadian Delegation believed that as part of its action on the subject, the Council should produce a statement of concern to re-emphasize the seriousness of the terrorist threat, particularly as it related to the entire aviation security network, reminding States of the devastating economic impact terrorist attacks could have on the airline industry and tourism, as was so clearly explained by both IATA and ACI earlier on. Canada could add that the impact was not just economic, and did not just affect aviation. There could be effects across entire economies and important social and other effects, and Canada believed that this house should be mindful of this. 48. Canada, like others, wished to refer the matter to the AVSEC Panel for its consideration during the upcoming September meeting, requesting that the Panel use a full range of available information to advise the Council on appropriate action necessary to protect the security of civil aviation, including addressing the threat posed by liquid gels and aerosols. Canada also urged that other appropriate deliberative bodies in ICAO should address the issue. These bodies would include the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Detection of Explosives, which was meeting in September in Montreal, and also the Committee on Unlawful Interference. The efforts of these bodies should be coordinated with other organizations, such as the task forces of ECAC and the EC/EU, that were addressing the same challenges. The AVSEC Panel in September should determine a programme of work, including the engagement and coordination of special expert advice as appropriate, and a delivery date for a proposal for new SARPs to be considered by the Panel. Canada wished to be very clear that new SARPs were viewed as one possibility out of so many, together with new guidance material, training information and/or other appropriate ICAO responses. New SARPs would need to be looked at by the AVSEC Panel before ICAO embarked on this route. The Panel and other deliberative bodies should be directed to define their programme of work without being constrained on the elements of the Programme. Canada was eager to urge that full consideration be given to the range of operational, technical and other issues surrounding the screening of liquids, gels, and aerosols, and would press for this in the development of work programmes over the next few weeks. 49. The Representative of Spain endorsed the statements which had been made thus far, and believed that the proposal which the Representative of the United Kingdom had circulated for amending the action paragraph in C-WP/12746 was an improvement with which he fully concurred. The Representative of Canada had also mentioned that security did not belong to any one country, area or region. It was global; the responsibility of one and all. This was why it was essential for the Organization to take charge of the issue and ensure cooperation across the board amongst all countries throughout the


world, in order to ensure that the SARPs and procedures which were put into force were concordant with the threats. 50. The Representative of Saudi Arabia voiced his Delegation’s support for the three working papers, and endorsed the statements which had been made by both Representatives on the Council and Observers from other organizations. The international community had to deal seriously with this threat in order to counter it with force, in order to protect the international community as a whole. This was the objective of the Organization. Terrorism was not restricted to one specific region, religion or group. This was why the international community as a whole had to counter these terrorist threats. What the world had known in terms of catastrophes targeting air transport, in particular civil aviation being used as weapons of mass destruction, placed an extremely heavy and great burden on the shoulders of ICAO. It was up to ICAO to examine this issue in a very logical, practical, serious and responsible manner with a view to developing measures and procedures which could be applied in order to counter these irresponsible criminal acts of terrorism. Saudi Arabia therefore supported any measures adopted by ICAO with a view to countering threats along the lines expressed by Dr Kotaite in his statement following the attacks on Beirut Airport, and also endorsed all of the efforts of the incumbent President, following the discovery of the planned terrorist plot against aircraft over the North Atlantic. Saudi Arabia believed that these initiatives were very healthy ones. 51. The mere fact that ICAO was trying to protect the citizens and airports of the world, and that these airports and citizens were being targeted, meant that civil aviation infrastructure and human beings were now considered to be victims, and any activity against these victims would entail serious responsibility on the part of organizations dealing with civil aviation. International laws and measures should be in place in order to prevent having airports and citizens serving as targets for any one group or State. The time had come for ICAO to look at these actions as an expert specialist organization based on objective and scientific technical data with a view to calling for a worldwide conference to deal with this issue, and examine all possible means to counter these acts of terrorism. The Air Navigation Commission and the Committee on Unlawful Interference should consider including this issue on their work programmes. 52. The Representative of India noted with serious concern the contents of the working paper presented by the President and the Secretary General which outlined the terrorist plot against civilian aircraft over the North Atlantic, the various measures which had already been taken by States, and the security levels which had been announced by States. India was a part of the worldwide fight against global terrorism. On account of severe threats to India, the threat level of security in India was already very high. After the uncovering of the plot in the United Kingdom, additional security measures had been introduced. India was seriously monitoring the situation 53. The Delegation of India also noted the working papers and the issues raised by IATA and ACI which presented the other side of the picture and the impact of the current security measures on the air transport industry, on airports, on transportation of passengers, etc. The core issue of today’s discussion was the likelihood of liquid explosives being employed by terrorists, and experts had said that the threat from liquid explosives was real because liquid bombs were very easy to make and very easy to be deployed. Therefore the objective of the exercise should be to suggest measures which could prevent the occurrence of such events. The likelihood of the use of liquid explosives was not new. In two or three instances there had been attempts to carry liquid explosives inside an aircraft in packages for contact lens solution or talcum powder. As has been said, terrorists were constantly working and the international community had to be very proactive rather than reactive in order to stay ahead of them.


54. The issue involved three key elements. The topmost priority was the security of the State, the security of its citizens, and the security of civil aviation and passengers. The second important element concerned the air transport industry, and the third element was the airport as a business entity. India was of the view that the parties concerned had to somehow, in a workable manner, try to balance without compromising the security of the State and its citizens; and this was possible. There was a need to evolve long term as well as short term security measures. While evolving the long term measures would take time and would involve, among other things, the development of markers and technology, in the meanwhile it would be necessary to evolve some short term measures which would be preventive, effective, enforceable, practical and sustainable. India supported the proposed action contained in the working paper presented by the President and the Secretary General, as well as the suggestions which had been circulated by the Representative of United Kingdom. The Council was referring the matter to the Aviation Security Panel, and such referral should be under a broad framework with various elements which had been suggested by the Representative of the United Kingdom, the detailed treatment given by the Representative of United States, and the comments offered by the Representative of Canada. The Aviation Security Panel should not only come up with measures relating to liquid explosives; if time permitted, the Panel could also come up with any immediately thinkable matter which could be employed by terrorists. 55. The Representative of India also suggested that the work of the Aviation Security Panel should not be constrained by resources; if the Panel had to meet more than once it should be given the resources to do so. The Panel should work in such a manner that its recommendations were available to the Council during the 179th session (October/November/December 2006) The entire aviation community and all its stakeholders were looking to ICAO for its leadership to ensure the integrated global aviation system. States could be advised to continuously monitor threat levels and determine whether the security measures which were in force were sufficient. Although it had been said that a point of contact was likely to be operational in September, the Representative of India was of the view there should be no delay, and that the measures envisioned for September should be put in place immediately. 56. The Representative of Finland appreciated the three working papers presented on this subject, and could easily support the main thrust of the actions suggested. The discussions so far had clearly shown that there was a broad agreement on the way forward for ICAO. It was clear that the Council could not discuss details on what kind of new security measures might be needed; this was a matter for the Aviation Security Panel. The Council could perhaps move fairly quickly to a concrete discussion on the action it would take and the guidelines it would give the Security Panel, as well as on what other actions should be taken. The Council could, for example, stress the importance of a security focal point network and encourage every Member State to join. As to the action by the Council, Finland wholeheartedly supported the alternative conclusions suggested by the United Kingdom, and looked forward to suggestions from the Aviation Security Panel which were reasonable, practical and sustainable. 57. The Representative of China fully supported the contents of the three working papers now under consideration, as well as the suggestions for revised Council action which had been circulated by the Representative of the United Kingdom. The forthcoming meeting of the AVSEC Panel had a heavy agenda, with five very important items, and now that the Council was referring to it a further item which had even higher priority, he wondered whether the time allotted for the meeting would be enough. If that was not the case, the Council should request that the meeting be extended, or that another meeting be convened in the near future. The Representative of China endorsed the proposals submitted by the representatives of industry, i.e. IATA and ACI, and believed that the Organization should give careful consideration to their proposals.


58. The Representative of Lebanon emphasized the importance of countering all forms terrorism, especially those directed against air transport, and expressed his appreciation for the information which had been presented both by way of working papers and presentations. His Delegation supported the action by the Council proposed in paragraph 4 b), whereby the Aviation Security Panel would be requested to study this new threat with the highest priority, including assistance to States and to report back to the Council as soon as possible. The Coordinated Assistance and Development (CAD) Section was well qualified to assist States in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of C-WP/12746. Lebanon also supported the action by the Council proposed in paragraph 4.1 c) which would encourage States to participate in the Aviation Security Point of Contact Network described in paragraph 2.4 of the paper. Lebanon also supported the intervention of Saudi Arabia, especially in terms of refraining from using any excuses to justify terrorist activities against civil aviation. The Representative of Lebanon thanked him for his reference to the unlawful acts conducted by Israel against the international airport in Beirut, and would address this issue under other business, expressing the position of the Lebanese Government. 59. The Representative of Egypt indicated that the security of civil aviation was a critical element in Egypt’s effort to strengthen its economy, and was a cornerstone for development and progress in nations. His Delegation supported the paper presented by the President and Secretary General and would also support the development of more stringent measures to protect civil aircraft against any potential terrorists. Egypt supported the papers presented by IATA and ACI, as well as the interventions of previous speakers who had addressed all of the aspects in relation to the prevention of terrorist acts against civil aircraft. Commenting on a few points in relation to the plot now being discussed, the Representative of Egypt emphasized the importance of defining and determining the liquid explosives, and of informing Contracting States and stakeholders of their characteristics and the means to detect them. There was also a need to identify the medications that passengers may be allowed to carry on board and to determine the measures needed to allow them to do so. 60. The Representative of Japan appreciated the measures which had been taken by the States concerned to prevent the plot beforehand, but observed that notwithstanding the actions taken thus far by the States, ICAO and other stakeholders, this event was a strong reminder of the continuous terrorist threat facing civil aviation. Japan had been giving high priority to the aviation security activities of ICAO as well as its own national security initiatives, and had also been supporting and encouraging security measures to address this issue. Japan would continue to enhance this position. In general terms, Japan supported the proposal presented in the three working papers and appreciated the detailed additional information and concrete ideas on the counter actions presented by the Representatives of United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. In addition to the consideration of this matter at the upcoming Aviation Security Panel meeting, Japan believed that it was very important to expedite the operation of the Aviation Security Point of Contact Network. 61. The Representative of Nigeria endorsed the three working papers under consideration, and expressed appreciation for the further clarifications that had been given by the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. He supported the proposal submitted by the United Kingdom in connection with the action proposed at paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12746, and observed that the Representative of the United States had raised a number of questions that required further consideration by the Aviation Security Panel. He suggested that those points be submitted to the Panel as issues they should look into. 62. The Representative of Nigeria shared the concerns expressed by the Representative of China regarding the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the Aviation Security Panel. These issues currently being discussed had priority over the current agenda and this should be clearly stated. Information needed to be circulated to Panel Members so that they could prepare adequately for a discussion on these new issues, and his Delegation would have no difficulty in supporting the Council’s


approval of an extension or of an additional meeting if necessary. The issues raised in the working papers and during the discussion were more than enough for the meeting, and might need to be prioritized. Another consideration that may need to be taken on board concerned the possible need to convene a major conference on aviation security, which would be ideal to complement work that the Aviation Security Panel would carry out. 63. The Representative of Austria fully supported the suggestion in C-WP/12746 to request the Aviation Security Panel to give full priority to deal with the new threat to aviation security, and thanked IATA and ACI for their excellent contributions. She also supported the views expressed by the Representative of Finland, to the effect that the Council should not attempt at this time to predict the outcome of the Panel’s work. She supported what had been said by IATA and ACI on the necessity of developing appropriate measures, and believed that the recent amendments to Annex 17 served as a good basis. The Organization should emphasize the importance of fully implementing those amendments. There should be a common understanding, when additional measures were introduced, of national threat assessments, and ABIS States strongly supported IATA’s proposal for a Crisis Communication/Coordination System under ICAO auspices, which was in line with ICAO’s recently established Aviation Security Point of Contact Network. The Representative of Austria observed that training had not been at the spotlight of the last Panel meeting, and believed that developments in screener training and human factors would require this subject to be given high priority during the forthcoming meeting. ABIS representatives on the AVSEC Panel would be fully engaged in contributing to the work of the next meeting. 64. The Representative of the Republic of Korea fully supported the main thrust of C-WP/12746, which was further strengthened by the proposal of the Representative of the United Kingdom, and believed that the forthcoming meeting of the Aviation Security Panel would be the most appropriate forum to deal with these issues. His Delegation wished to know whether the current composition of the Panel would be enough to cope with this new threat, or whether it would be necessary to form another technical expert group to deal with the technical aspects of the new threat to civil aviation. He emphasized the need for the Council to take a balanced view and position on this issue; one end of the spectrum was to ensure the security of civil aviation as perfectly as possible, and the other end of the spectrum was to promote the air transport industry. 65. The Representative of Australia indicated that to save time, he would concentrate on the suggestions in paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12746 with regard to future action by the Council and by ICAO, looking forward to the work of the Aviation Security Panel which would meet in September. Australia expected ICAO to take a leadership role in looking forward to the way States approached the recent events in the United Kingdom. By the time it met in September, the AVSEC Panel would be very well served if it were in a position to be able to consider some collective options for dealing with the sort of threat which the aviation community now faced, rather than just hearing about individual views of States and actions which might already have been taken. The Representative of Australia was concerned that the Panel might, in September, simply be asked to begin deliberations on developing possible options rather than having the opportunity already to be able to react to considered opinions which were put to it. There had been some variation in individual country responses to the United Kingdom plot, and that was understandable, but there was a need for an agreed schedule of additional aviation security measures and actions which countries might implement, based on their own assessment of the threat faced by their aviation industry. 66. Australia therefore proposed that the Secretariat itself, before the meeting of the Aviation Security Panel in September, produce an options paper which might recommend a coordinated range of mechanisms for dealing with threats in the mid- to longer-term. The Representative of India had


mentioned that ICAO needed to stay ahead of terrorists and to develop practical and sustainable measures; that was very much along the lines of what his Delegation was suggesting. In the discussions so far in the lead up to this meeting, some Representatives had made the point that “knee-jerk” reactions must not be made. Australia also believed, like a lot of others, that it was important to avoid rushed decisions which might change aviation security measures as a result of the challenges brought to light by the United Kingdom plot. This was particularly true with regard to the security screening of passengers and luggage. The question arose as to what screening was able to detect, and whether it was ultimately feasible to try to screen for every eventuality. Many of the responses to the United Kingdom plot dealt essentially with screening of carry-on items. The Australian Delegation believed that screening-related measures alone as a response were perhaps insufficient, and that there were other questions to be looked at. The Representative of Austria had mentioned several of them, and he completely agreed with her remarks. There was the question of screener training, as well as that of human factors, which were very important in this regard. Australia would like ICAO to ensure that screening alone not be advocated as a sufficient response; there was a strong need instead to focus on broader issues as well, such as training and human factors. 67. Australia believed that the current Standards which were set out in Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention seemed to be adequate in terms of overall requirements for the screening of passengers and baggage, but that they needed to be supplemented by further advice and guidance from ICAO in terms of practical measures that might be applied in circumstances such as this. The Representative of Australia therefore strongly recommended that the Secretariat commence work before the September meeting of the Aviation Security Panel towards developing an options paper which should recommend a coordinated range of mechanisms for dealing with threats in the mid- and longer-term, including an internationally consistent set of aviation security measures and technical advice on issues such as training, screening, and human factors. The Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives and the Aviation Security Panel Working Group on Training were ideal mechanisms for progressing thinking on these matters prior to the Panel meeting. 68. The Representative of Australia indicated that he was currently distributing a short text which would propose an additional paragraph to the draft decision suggested in paragraph 4 of C-WP/12746; it was consistent with the proposals circulated already by the Representative of the United Kingdom 69. The Representative of Argentina indicated that his Delegation would have no difficulty in endorsing the action proposed in C-WP/12746 as expanded by the suggestions submitted by the United Kingdom and Australia, and suggested that the Council also note the information provided in the papers presented by ACI as well as IATA. Those two papers would allow the Council to establish a balance between the basic objectives of this Organization as supported by the Chicago Convention, i.e. the development of an orderly, regular, efficient aviation, and the development of solutions to this new emerging threat. This issue would have to be included as an item with the highest priority on the agenda of the next meeting of the AVSEC Panel. As regards the already rather lengthy agenda of the AVSECP/18, Argentina believed that this issue was of the highest priority, and that ICAO should invite States participating on the Panel to envisage extending the length of the meeting so as to enable them to deal with all the items on their agenda, because all of them were important and had a level of priority. 70. The Representative of Argentina wished to know exactly when the Aviation Security Point of Contact Network would be implemented, and believed that the action taken by the Council could include a request that this network be implemented as soon as possible. He hoped that all of the information which had not been officially distributed in the light of the sensitivity of this issue would be made available to the experts when they dealt with it, with a view to acting in as efficient a manner as


possible in developing future measures. The Representative for India had also made a very clear statement regarding the proactive nature of the Council, and the fact that it should be prepared for all possibilities. The measures envisaged at the moment involved materials which were introduced on board the aircraft in various ways, but carried outside the human body, and not within the body of the individual. Argentina believed that the AVSEC Panel of experts should look into the possible threat of dangerous materials being carried within the human body and thus introduced on board aircraft. Argentina believed it would be opportune at this time to look into this possibility. 71. The Representative of France wished to highlight the efforts which had been made in order to provide the Council with a complete and all-encompassing overview of the situation thanks to the three papers now under consideration, and, in focusing on the action which the Council would take at this time, observed that the decision-making bodies which would deal with this issue should have all possible freedom in discussing it. It was quite true that the addition of this very important item on the AVSECP/18 agenda would greatly overload the deliberations of the Panel, and the Representative of France therefore supported the suggestion of the Representatives of China, Argentina and Finland for extending the duration of the meeting or perhaps envisage holding an additional meeting. The establishment of a Point of Contact Network seemed to be an excellent response to the new threat, and the Delegation of France would fully endorse it and encourage States to participate in it. With regard to the action, the Representative of France felt it would be necessary, as had been pointed out by the United Kingdom Representative, that the time-frame make specific reference to the 179th Session for dealing with this issue in the light of the results of the AVSEC Panel meeting. 72. The Representative of the Russian Federation endorsed the three papers now under consideration, and the action proposed, including the additional measures suggested by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States. The Secretary General would have to inform the Members of the AVSEC Panel immediately of any extension of the forthcoming meeting in the light of an increased workload so they could duly inform their administrations. As regards the issue of the liquid dangerous explosives, the Secretariat could inform the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Detection of Explosives and the International Explosives Technical Commission so that between now and the end of September when the AHDE would hold its meeting, it would have sufficient time to pick up on this point and prepare accordingly in order to provide the necessary answers to the questions which had been raised at this meeting. The Representative of the Russian Federation was pleased to inform the Council that his authorities had already informed the designated Aviation Security Point of Contact of the situation. The Point of Contacted had responded promptly and efficiently in adopting the necessary measures to enhance security. The Representative of the Russian Federation could support what had been said by the Representative of Nigeria to the effect that it was absolutely essential to hold a major conference on aviation security. 73. The Representative of Peru observed that terrorism was a serious threat which had to be contained by means of the coordinated activities of the international community. ICAO had a very important role to play in terms of aviation security and the strengthening and enhancement of safety. Within this framework, his Delegation fully endorsed C-WP/12746 as well as the amendments which had been suggested by the United Kingdom and Australia. Peru also supported C-WPs/12747 and 12748, and thanked IATA and ACI for their presence at this meeting. The Council valued their opinions, and should take them into account. For this reason, the Delegation of Peru supported what had been proposed by the Representative of Argentina to the effect that the Council action would also note those two papers. 74. The Representative of Colombia indicated that his State supported all measures aimed at countering terrorism – not only terrorism aimed against aviation, but any terrorist acts aimed against the safety of countries, the right to life and the promotion of peace throughout the world. Colombia also


supported the three working papers under consideration, as well as the proposals made by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia. The Representative of Colombia thanked IATA and ACI for their important contributions to this meeting as well as the suggestions and opinions from the United States and Canada. He believed that the AVSEC Panel should be provided with all necessary support in its study of this new threat with the highest priority and inform the Council as soon as possible, so that the Council and ICAO would be able to instruct States on how to best use human resources, and how to make the necessary advancements in technology in order to prevent any threats of this nature across the board. He also agreed with the views expressed to the effect that the AVSEC Point of Contact Network start operation immediately. His authorities had taken all necessary additional measures following the 10th of August in order to make sure that such acts do not take place in Colombia. 75. The Representative of Germany indicated that she could only subscribe to everything that had been said on this subject, and join every speaker who had expressed support for the working papers before the Council. Her Delegation endorsed the suggestions by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia. She fully supported the view expressed by IATA and ACI to the effect that the economic impact of all measures had to be taken into account. This was particularly true for airports at this time, when one had to consider whether the ban on liquids had to be a permanent ban or a temporary measure, and whether a ban on liquids purchased after security controls was a necessary measure. These were details which the AVSEC Panel could have a look at, possibly with an extension of one or two days of its work. 76. The Representative of Chile observed that today’s meeting demonstrated clearly the leadership skills of ICAO as it faced this extreme threat to aviation. The problem lay in how ICAO was to maintain this leadership. In the light of this, the Delegation of Chile wished to propose that the Organization have an on-going surveillance and monitoring of the situation as regards any future threats to aviation. The AVSEC Panel’s forthcoming meeting had been scheduled already well before today, and the Secretariat would have to review the agenda in the light of what the Council was discussing today. The papers now before the Council were crystal-clear, in particular as regards C-WP/12746, and he could fully endorse them together with the amendments proposed by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia. The papers presented by IATA and ACI were very much to the point, and the Representative of Chile supported the views of Colombia to the effect that all threats, not only those in the air, but any other types of threats be covered. 77. The Representative of Ethiopia added his Delegation’s support to the papers presented by the President of the Council and the Secretary General, by IATA and by ACI. He also supported the suggestions by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia for amending the Council action on this subject. With regard to the upcoming AVSEC Panel meeting, it was the view of his Delegation that the Secretariat should contact the Members of the Panel if the agenda was expanded, and indicate whether additional time was necessary for the meeting. 78. The Representative of Singapore supported the proposal for adding this subject to the agenda of the forthcoming AVSECP/18 meeting and to make recommendations to the Council, but wished to emphasize the need to balance security measures with airport economics and passenger facilitation. The security measures which would be proposed should be sustainable and targeted, and based on a level of threat assessment and intelligence. While it may be necessary to implement new measures to deal with new threats, the measures must be practical, as emphasized by the Representative of the United Kingdom, in order to avoid severe negative ramifications on airport economics, air travel and airport operations because of extensive flight delays and misconnections. The experience of Singapore had been that sales of duty free items had dropped by as much as seven percent. It was important that in the face of such new threats, all parties – the States, airports, airlines, security agencies


and retailers – work together to develop creative solutions to address issues arising from heightened security measures that were necessary to preserve civilian lives. 79. The President observed that the Council was discussing a highly sensitive, important issue. The three Representatives on the Council from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, along with many other speakers, as well as the three working papers before the Council, had all referred to the fact that the AVSEC Panel should analyze all of the possibilities. Canada, in particular, had emphasized that they should study all these possibilities and not only look at the possible development of new SARPs. Singapore had also referred to this in his statement. The United Kingdom had made a proposal which had received the support of many. The proposal concerned an amplification of the action proposed in paragraph 4.1 of the working paper presented by the Secretary General and the President. Other proposals had also been made commented upon. The President wished to inform the Council that in the consultations which he had with the three Representatives and the Secretariat, which he had referred to initially at this meeting, the decision had been taken that immediate contact be entered into with the AVSEC Panel Members. The Secretariat was currently contacting them. The President asked the Secretariat to expand on the work in progress 80. Some information was then provided by DD/ATB on the action which had been taken or which was underway. On Tuesday morning, 15 August, the Secretariat had convened a preparatory call of the AVSEC Panel that had been well attended and that had met with much support and enthusiasm; that acknowledged that this issue did deserve the highest priority on the agenda. While the full information and knowledge associated with the threat that the United Kingdom authorities had so ably addressed had not been made available to the Panel, the Representatives of the various countries involved had indicated that they would be in a position to share that more detailed information at the time of the Panel meeting in mid-September. 81. The Secretariat had agreed to several actions. The first was to create a very detailed sub-agenda to address the specific terrorist threat, in order to be as efficient as possible with respect to this topic, recognizing that the Panel already had a full agenda. Secondly, the recommendation from the Representative of Australia with regard to a coordinated range of mechanisms had been taken on board. Action had already started with an e-mail to a number of the Panel Members, soliciting their support and active participation with the Secretariat to develop such a document that would frame discussions and encourage thinking. 82. The Secretariat had encouraged the AVSEC Panel Members to take advantage of the three-week period between now and when they would travel to Montreal to attend the Meeting, to thoughtfully capture their contributions in working papers so as to be as best prepared as possible in terms of being productive with the time available, recognizing that the Panel had a commitment to deliver a report to the Council that would deal with this issue and make very specific recommendations. The Secretariat believed that it had done as much of the pre-planning and coordination that it could do up until now, to try to be on target, to try to be precise, to try to use time efficiently and to try to produce very specific responses. The response would have to be tempered with a better understanding of the threat that this terrorist plot presented, and bring on board the experiences that the industry participants had to report. Both Representatives of IATA and ACI had participated on the conference call and they would participate at the AVSEC Panel Meeting. 83. DD/ATB indicated that economics happened to be a topic that was of great personal interest to him, and had been a part of his professional affiliation with the Organization for quite some time. He gave assurances that the economics would be taken into account with regard to the work of the Panel and the recommendations that would come forward.


84. There had also been a number of useful suggestions with respect to the AVSEC Panel reaching out to other pools of experts, for example the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the Detection of Explosives. There too, the Secretariat had already begun preliminary discussions, had received expressions of support and willingness to participate, and expected that it would continue developing that and actively engaging in appropriate dialogue and collaboration with those organizations. That included recognizing that this threat was possibly different from the threats which had already been studied with respect to conventional explosives. It concerned understanding how various commercial products with certain chemical properties could be misused by terrorist elements in developing improvised explosive devices for use against civil aviation. Along those lines, a Member of the Secretariat who was a PhD chemist had prepared a formal presentation to the Panel, informing Members of the types of materials that can could come into play with respect to these devices. 85. DD/ATB indicated that he was addressing this meeting in an acting capacity for Capt. H. Belai, the Acting Chief of the Aviation Security and Facilitation Branch. He had been in regular dialogue with A/C/S&F, who was being kept fully informed of the discussions that were taking place and the direction in which the Secretariat was moving. When Capt. Belai would return to the office at the end of August, DD/ATB would endeavor to brief him to ensure that he was fully up to speed with the progress that had been made and with the objectives that had been established for this important meeting of the AVSEC Panel. DD/ATB was encouraged by the strong expressions of support and the recognition of the high priority that had to be placed on this topic. The Secretariat recognized those issues and was doing all that it could to use resources efficiently, wisely and appropriately to deliver to the 179th Session of the Council some very detailed recommendations with respect to this terrorist plot. 86. As regards the Aviation Security Point of Contact Network, the Secretariat also recognized that the sooner that mechanism was developed and in place, the better. In addition to speed, the Secretariat had to concern itself with the matter of scope, or coverage. While the Secretariat was endeavoring to put in place the point of contact process as promptly as possible, at this time, of the 189 Contracting States, only 56 had responded. If the mechanism were implemented today, more than two-thirds of the members of ICAO would not be contacted because the Organization did not have a contact point for them. DD/ATB wished to stress the importance of responding to the State letter that had been issued in March, and urge all promptness in doing so. DD/ATB indicated that the proposals which had been put forward for amending C-WP/12746 were useful improvements on the recommendations, and believed that they should be taken on board as appropriate additional expansion on the Council action. 87. The President of the Council expressed his appreciation for the work which had been done by the Secretariat over the last few days. The Aviation Security Panel had demonstrated its capabilities when the Organization had had to deal with similar situations, and the President expressed the hope that ICAO would not have too many experiences such as this in the field of aviation security. The AVSEC Panel worked in coordination with the Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives and in working together the two bodies could deal effectively with most of these threats. The President requested the Representative of the United States to submit to the Secretariat the suggestions he had made during his presentation, so that they could be taken into account as proposals for consideration by the Aviation Security Panel. It was also important to consider the comments which had been made by a number of Representatives regarding the fact that this was a high-priority issue, and that the Secretary General would have to consider the re-allocation of resources which might be needed for an extension of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation Security Panel, currently scheduled to take place from 11 to 15 September 2006, or for convening an additional meeting of that Panel in accordance with the suggestion made by Representatives during the discussion.


88. The action proposed at paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12746 was amended in accordance with suggestions which had been circulated in writing by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia, as well as other suggestions put forward by Representatives. In taking the action as amended, the Council: a) noted the information presented by IATA in C-WP/12747; b) noted the information presented by ACI in C-WP/12748; c) noted the information provided in C-WP/12746 and recognized the seriousness of the

terrorist threat (including both new and already known modus operandi) for civil aviation worldwide;

d) requested the Aviation Security Panel to study this new threat with the highest

priority, to address in particular the threat posed by liquids, gels and aerosols, and to consider the full range of available information in order to advise the Council on necessary action to protect the security of civil aviation. Any measures recommended should be sustainable and practical. The Panel should also take into account the desirability of developing guidance to assist Contracting States with implementation. The Panel should report back to the Committee on Unlawful Interference and the Council so that the Council may take a decision on the subject during the 179th Session;

e) requested the Secretariat, prior to the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation Security

Panel, to produce a working paper discussing a coordinated range of mechanisms for dealing with threats in the mid- to long-term, including an internationally consistent set of possible aviation security measures and technical advice on issues such as training, screening and human factors;

f) reminded Contracting States of the importance of full implementation of

Amendment 11 to Annex 17, which has been applicable since 1 July 2006; and g) encouraged States to participate in the Aviation Security Point of Contact Network. Other business Action taken by Israel against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport 89. The following statement presented by the Representative of Lebanon on the above subject was noted by the Council. The Representative of Lebanon reserved the right to request that this issue be included in the work programme of a future session of the Council. “I wish to address, on behalf of my Government, this special meeting of the Council of ICAO, held to discuss the planned terrorist plot targeting numerous flights to the United States which was uncovered in the United Kingdom on 10 August 2006. Based on its conviction of the importance of the fight against terrorism in all its forms, but particularly air terrorism, whatever its cause and objectives, Lebanon reiterates its approval of this special meeting as well as of the decisions and recommendations issued by the Council, and it supports all actions employing any means necessary to combat this terrorism.


In reference to the letter, dated 20 July 2006, from the Minister of Public Works and Transport of Lebanon addressed to the President and the Members of the Council of ICAO and concerning Israel’s bombardment and destruction of vital facilities at Lebanese airports and the total paralysis of air navigation in Lebanon, on the occasion of this special Honourable Council meeting today, we take the opportunity to relate the details of certain aspects of this attack, which, because of both its nature and its magnitude and repercussions, is a matter which comes within the remit of the International Civil Aviation Organization. From the morning of 13 July 2006 until the ceasefire effective on 13 August 2006 and enforced by Security Council Resolution 1701, Lebanon was the object of a series of intensive military operations carried out by Israel, which killed more than 1200 people, wounded more than 3000, and caused the displacement of more than one million citizens from their homes. These military operations also caused the destruction of hundreds of residential buildings, infrastructure, roads, bridges, and means of communication and resulted in many other serious losses which have struck the national economy. We should particularly turn our attention to that category of unlawful acts which target the Lebanese civil aviation sector, bearing in mind the extent of all kinds of losses undergone by Lebanon and the seriousness of the military operations which were unleashed on the country. From the first day of its military operations, Israel bombarded and destroyed the runways and fuel reservoirs at Rafic Hariri International Airport in Beirut. Israel also destroyed the roads and bridges leading to the airport, totally paralysing air traffic at Rafic Hariri International. Moreover, it bombarded and destroyed vital facilities at alternative airports such as Ryaq and Qolyaat, resulting in the total halt, by Israel, of air traffic to and from Lebanon until further notice, and threatening the security and safety of Lebanese civil aviation. These operations fall within the framework of “unlawful acts against the security of civil aviation”, against which ICAO has long fought, given that by nature such acts are a flagrant violation of international conventions on international civil aviation, in addition to the fact that they go against the rules of international law. 1 - These unlawful acts contravene the principles stipulated in the preamble and the following provisions of Article 44 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention of 1944), namely, that the planning and development of international air transport be fostered so as to:

a) Insure the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation throughout the world; … c) Encourage the development of airways, airports, and air navigation facilities for

international civil aviation; d) Meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air

transport; (and) … f) Insure that the rights of contracting States are fully respected and that every contracting

State has a fair opportunity to operate international airlines.

It is obvious that these provisions require the acknowledgement of every State’s right to prevent the violation of its airspace and civil airports, its right to protect the security of its civil airport facilities, its


guaranteed right to operate those facilities safely and securely, and its right to prevent another State from destroying those facilities and paralysing air operations. 2 - The acts of aggression perpetrated by Israel contravene the provisions expressly stipulated in the international conventions on aviation security, specifically, the Montreal Convention of 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, and the Montreal Protocol of 1988 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation. According to these two Conventions, unlawful acts of aggression threaten airport security and disturb the safety and orderliness of civil aviation operations, which are in the general interest of all States. 3 - As a signatory party to the Chicago Convention of 1944, the Montreal Convention of 1971, and the Montreal Protocol of 1988, Israel has committed to respecting the provisions of these Conventions. Its military acts against Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport constitute a violation by Israel of the principles enshrined in these Conventions. 4 - These unlawful acts run counter to the policy established by ICAO Assembly Resolution A17-1 and reiterated in subsequent Assemblies; Resolution A33-2 and Resolution A35-9 stipulate that “all acts of unlawful interference against international civil aviation constitute a grave offence in violation of international law” and that the Assembly “strongly condemns all acts of unlawful interference against civil aviation wherever and by whomsoever and for whatsoever reason they are perpetrated”. 5 - These same operations go against the declaration of the High-Level Ministerial Conference on Aviation Security held in Montreal on 19 and 20 February 2002, which reiterated the condemnation of acts of unlawful intervention expressed by the ICAO Assembly. 6 - They also go against the numerous resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council, as well as those of the ICAO Assembly and Council relating to the condemnation, by all international authorities, of various acts of violence carried out by Israel against the security of international civil aviation. Among these resolutions, we cite Security Council Resolution 262 of 1969 regarding the attacks by Israeli military aeroplanes on Beirut International Airport on 31 December 1968, and more recently, the ICAO Council Resolution adopted on 13 March 2002 following the destruction by Israel of Gaza International Airport. The latter resolution states that this act was a violation of the principles enshrined in the Chicago Convention, the Montreal Convention of 1971, and the Montreal Protocol of 1988 respectively, and is a matter of grave concern to the international community. It strongly condemns all acts of unlawful interference against civil aviation, wherever, by whomever and for whatever reasons they are perpetrated, reaffirming ICAO’s important role in facilitating the resolution of questions which may arise between Contracting States in relation to matters affecting the safe and orderly operation of international civil aviation throughout the world. The resolution urges Israel to fully comply with the aims and objectives of the Chicago Convention. After the first day of military action against Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport, the former President of the Council of ICAO sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel drawing his attention to the threat which such acts pose to civil aviation and to the fact that these acts are a violation of the principles and provisions safeguarding aviation security. Yesterday you sent us Israel’s response to the President’s Office, dated 25 July 2006, in which, we noted, Israel gives various justifications for its unlawful acts. However, these justifications as a whole do not differ from the previous justifications which were discarded by the international authorities when they condemned Israel’s aforementioned numerous acts of violence against the security of civil aviation. Moreover, Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport was among the first airports in the world to undergo audit mission inspections and follow-up visits from ICAO as part of the Universal Security Audit Programme. These missions proved


that the airport complies with and applies all the international standards. The audit missions found no security deficiencies which could allow the traffic of military weapons or the dealings of illegal armed elements, a fact which made Beirut International Airport a vital facility, where air operations were carried out securely and which was used by dozens of airlines from numerous countries. This refutes Israel’s allegations regarding use of the airport for unlawful purposes. At the time of these sad events, on the initiative of the former President of the Council, Dr. Assad Kotaite, and later with the efforts of the current Council President, Mr. Roberto Kobeh González, and with the unflagging support of the director of the Air Navigation Bureau and his working group, ICAO, in conjunction with the United Nations, tried to find a way to enable aeroplanes bringing humanitarian aid to land at Rafic Hariri International Airport. The failure of these efforts added to the suffering experienced by Lebanon. We regret to say that the good offices of the Organization did not lead to the results expected before Security Council Resolution 1701 was adopted. To make matters worse, despite Security Council Resolution 1701, Israel continued with its aerial blockade of Lebanon, preventing any aeroplanes bringing assistance and humanitarian aid from landing at Rafic Hariri International Airport and therefore violating the provisions of the Security Council Resolution. It goes without saying that Lebanon is in urgent need of the facilitation and expeditious dispatch of this kind of humanitarian aid. Moreover, it desperately hopes for the return to normal of its airspace and of the air traffic at its international airport. These unlawful acts perpetrated by Israel have resulted in innumerable losses. The damage caused to airport runways, airport fuel reservoirs and bridges leading to the airport, as well as the losses linked to the complete closing of the airport, which paralysed air traffic at Rafic Hariri International, total several hundred million dollars. An official report on the damage and losses is to come out, in preparation for a request for compensation from Israel before the international authorities concerned. I read with great interest the news release published by ICAO on 11 August 2006 regarding the planned terrorist plot discovered in the United Kingdom. My attention was especially drawn to these words: “Despite this new threat, aviation remains by far the safest mode of mass transportation. Comprehensive standards coordinated at the international level through ICAO form the backbone of this excellent safety performance.” Mr. President, while we support the content of your statement, we also find it necessary to stop and look at an essential fact, namely, the recent events which we have experienced, whether in the United Kingdom or in Lebanon, because these events confirm yet again that the civil aviation sector remains, sadly, one of the sectors most targeted by acts of hostility, whatever their nature or motivation. Consequently, it is imperative that, through ICAO, the international community strive to protect and immunize the aviation sector using all available means. The severe and dissuasive condemnation of all unlawful acts which could target this sector is both necessary and a powerful instrument to that end. Reaffirming the gravity of the acts of unlawful interference perpetrated by Israel against the safety and security of civil aviation, Lebanon: 1) Calls upon the Council to take note of this declaration and to include it in its entirety in the minutes of its meeting. Although at present Lebanon is not requesting the introduction of this matter into the agenda of the current Council session, it reserves the right to request this, as well as the examination of the matter by the Council, at a later session.


2) Thanks ICAO as well as friendly countries for their efforts during the ordeal it has undergone. Lebanon invites the Organization and its Member States to make an even greater effort toward the restoration of Lebanon’s air traffic to its normal state, and we emphasize our profound desire for our country to once again take up and maintain its pioneering role in the world of international civil aviation in the near future.” 90. The special session of the Council adjourned at 1740 hours.

— END —

- 27 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General

PRESENT Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. M. Belayneh Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT: Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) — Australia Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni. (Alt.) — Italy Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J.-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Kim, B.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S.. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States Mr. K. Edwards (Adv.) — United States Mr. K. Keldusild – Co-Rapporteur, CAEP Emissions

Trading Task Force (ETTF)

SECRETARIAT: Mr. A. Sánchez-Gutíerrez — D/TCB Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. J. Augustin — SLO Mrs. J. Hupe — C/ENV Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB Ms. A. Andrade — ADTC Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/1 - 28 -

Condolences for Mr. Walter Binaghi, a former President of the Council of ICAO 1. At the invitation of the President of the Council, the Representative of Spain, Dean of the Council, read a letter dated 18 July 2006 from Dr. Assad Kotaite, the previous President of the Council, on the sad demise, on 16 July 2006, of Mr. Walter Binaghi, his predecessor. The text of that letter is reproduced below. “I regret very much that, due to my absence from Montreal, I am unable to be with you today to honour the memory of Walter Binaghi, who passed away on 16 July 2006, in Montreal, at the age of 87. “Walter Binaghi was an outstanding citizen of Argentina who participated as a member of the Argentinian Delegation to the first ICAO Assembly in 1947. He then led the Air Navigation Commission from 1948 to 1957 and the Council from 1957 to 1976, when I succeeded him as President of the Council until my retirement on 31 July 2006. “Walter Binaghi was instrumental in developing the Annexes to the Chicago Convention and the expansion of ICAO programmes to aviation security and the protection of the environment, which are, together with aviation safety, the major programmes of the Organization. “Throughout the years since Mr. Binaghi’s retirement from ICAO, I maintained regular contact with him until a few days before he passed away. “Walter remains for those who knew him and worked with him a source of inspiration. He was a person of great dignity and humility. We shall always remember him with a deep feeling of respect, admiration and affection.” 2. The Representative of Argentina then read a letter dated 20 July 2006 from Brigadier Carlos Esteban Matiak, Air Regions Commander of the Argentine Air Force, offering sincere condolences on the occasion of Mr. Binaghi’s death, an English translation of which is given below.

“The Aviation Authority of Argentina and all the members of Argentina’s civil and military aviation community wish to offer the President of the Council of ICAO, and through his kind intercession, all the national delegations and members of the ICAO Secretariat, their sincerest and most heartfelt condolences for the loss of Mr. Walter Binaghi. Mr. Binaghi was President of this honourable Council for 19 years, invaluably serving international civil aviation from 1947 to 1976.

“A man of honour and of fine virtues, Mr. Binaghi was reluctant to accept recognition and praise. His distinguished efforts strengthened and propelled international civil aviation. He was both an observer of, and a protagonist in, the world of civil aviation, and he contributed his energies and dedication to the stages of creation, development and consolidation, making it possible for ICAO to receive international acknowledgement as a prestigious Specialized Agency of the United Nations.

“His ethics and professionalism distinguished him, making him a role model for all of us who have chosen the noble profession of aviation. We bid him farewell with the hope that his example of indefatigability will endure.

“Mr. Walter Binaghi will be remembered by all his compatriots as a pre-eminent Argentine who worked altruistically for his country, for the common good and for the benefit of international civil aviation. We consider the preservation of the values and ideals for which he fought to be both our moral responsibility and a permanent way in which to honour his name, and we are eternally grateful for his

C-MIN 179/1 - 29 -

life’s work and for the example which he set. May he rest in eternal peace with God, source of all reason and justice.” 3. The Council then observed a minute of silence in memory of Mr. Binaghi. Condolences to the Representative of Brazil 4. On behalf of the Council, the President expressed condolences to the Representative of Brazil, and through him, to the Government and people of Brazil, for the tragic loss of life arising from the mid-air collision of two aircraft in Brazil on 29 September 2006. He noted that the Organization would follow up on the accident. The Representative of Brazil thanked the Council for its expression of sympathy. Welcome to new Representatives on the Council 5. The President then extended a warm welcome to Mr. T. Ma, Mr. S.A.S. Elazab, Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein, Mr. S. Monti, Mr. M. Rauhullah, Mr. Gil-sou Shin and Mr. M. Rossell, who were attending a meeting of the Council for the first time in their respective capacities as Representatives of China, Egypt, Germany, Italy, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom. He also thanked the following Representatives whose tenures had ceased over the recess for their constant support and cooperation: Mr. N.E. Kamel (Egypt), Mr. F. Cristiani (Italy), Mr. Soo-taek Rhee (Republic of Korea) and Mr. N. Denton (United Kingdom). Subject No. 14.3.15: Rules of the air

Statement by the President — Missile firings crossing international routes over the high seas 6. The President of the Council gave the following factual report regarding measures taken while the Council was in recess related to the missile firings by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea crossing international routes over the high seas:

“As a consequence of the missile firings by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on 5 July 2006 and considering the hazard that they posed to civil aviation, the former President of the ICAO Council, Dr. Assad Kotaite, wrote to the Director General of the General Administration of Civil Aviation of that State, Mr. Kang Ki Sop. In his letter Dr. Kotaite reminded him of his State’s obligations with respect to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and its Annexes concerning the protection of civil aviation from activities which may be hazardous to civil aviation. The letter also sought information concerning their adherence to the requirements of Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services related to the need to coordinate, with those States affected, the missile firings which were clearly hazardous to civil aviation.

“The reply from the Director General of the General Administration of Civil Aviation, dated

8 July 2006, did not address the concerns of the former President, nor did it provide any assurances that measures would be taken to protect civil aviation in the future. Consequently, a subsequent letter to the Director General was sent, dated 11 July 2006, seeking further clarification. On 15 July 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1695 on the matter concerned. The ICAO Council has been kept informed of these developments via two President’s memoranda, PRES AK/1241 and PRES AK/1246, dated 6 July 2006 and 19 July 2006, respectively. There have been no further developments regarding this matter.”

C-MIN 179/1 - 30 -

7. The Representative of Japan noted that his State highly appreciated and supported the quick action taken by ICAO and the Council, through its President, in this matter of global concern relating to the safety of international civil aviation. It expressed concern that, as indicated in President’s memorandum PRES AK/1246 dated 19 July 2006, the Organization had not yet received a satisfactory answer from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to Dr. Kotaite’s letter dated 6 July 2006. Bearing in mind United Nations Security Council Resolution 1695, which in its Sixth Preambular Clause expressed concern that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea “endangered civil aviation and shipping through its failure to provide adequate advance notice” of the missile launches, Japan requested the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect ICAO Assembly Resolution A32-6 (Safety of navigation) and meet its obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Japan further requested the ICAO Secretariat to continue to take appropriate follow-up action on this issue. 8. In expressing his State’s support for this statement by the Representative of Japan, the Representative of the United States commended the work of the President of the Council during the recess to address this issue promptly and effectively. The United States was disappointed that there had not been an adequate reply and considered that the Council should follow up on that at the appropriate time. It was very important, and solely within the Council’s jurisdiction, to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation. The United States wanted to make sure that civil aviation was safe and secure in the future and that there was no repetition of the said experience. 9. In observing that her State supported the action taken by ICAO concerning the missile firings by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Representative of Germany indicated that it also supported Japan in its request that that State respect ICAO Assembly Resolution A32-6. Germany also supported the Council taking follow-up action on this matter at an appropriate time to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation. 10. The Representative of Australia indicated that his State supported Japan and other States in urging the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with the terms of ICAO Assembly Resolution A32-6. Australia noted the progress that had thus far been made and agreed that this issue should be re-examined by the Council at a future date. 11. The Representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that his State also supported the follow-up action to the missile firings by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea mentioned by the Representative of Japan. Subject No. 52: Unlawful interference with international civil aviation and its facilities

Statement by the President — Action taken by Israel against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport

12. The President of the Council then gave the following factual report regarding action taken during the recess by Israeli military forces in July 2006 against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport, specifically, the bombing of the runways so as to render the airport inoperable.

“As a consequence of action taken by Israeli military forces against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport in early July 2006, the former President of the ICAO Council, Dr. Assad Kotaite, corresponded with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Transport and Road Safety of Israel on three separate occasions, copies of which letters were circulated to Representatives on the Council under cover of President’s memoranda PRES AK/1243 dated 17 July 2006, PRES AK/1253 dated 26 July 2006 and PRES RK/1264 dated 16 August 2006. The primary purpose of these efforts was to preserve the

C-MIN 179/1 - 31 -

safety of international aviation and, more specifically, to facilitate humanitarian aid flights into Beirut airport as a first step towards the normalization of civil aviation operations. Letters were also sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the Director General of Civil Aviation Administration of Lebanon.

“This coordinated effort opened direct high-level coordination with personnel in the United Nations World Food Programme who play a significant role in attaining approval from the authorities concerned for the transport of humanitarian aid. In this regard, the United Nations Humanitarian Air Services (UNHAS) indicated a need for assistance from ICAO. The ICAO Secretariat being in no financial position to underwrite such an effort, the Government of France graciously funded an ICAO mission to Larnaca and later Beirut. The ICAO Technical Officer facilitated the development of operational procedures for the humanitarian flights and support coordination between the many different entities.

“The air embargo was lifted on 7 September 2006 and Beirut airport is almost back to full

operation although one runway remains closed with repair work in progress.

“I wish to thank the Representative of France on the Council and his Government for their cooperation.” 13. The Representative of Saudi Arabia emphasized the need to remind Israel to respect the Convention on International Civil Aviation and requested that the Council take follow-up action on this issue in order to protect the lives of passengers, especially in Lebanon. 14. The Representative of Lebanon expressed gratitude for the Organization’s efforts to facilitate the flow of international air traffic at the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport in the aftermath of Israeli acts of aggressions against that airport. He noted, however, that such efforts had not led to the desired results due to Israel’s objections to restore air traffic to the airport, including flights for humanitarian aid. The Representative of Lebanon reiterated that his Government reserved its right to file a complaint with the Council in due course regarding the action taken by Israel against the said airport. Subject No. 5: Election of Vice-Presidents of the Council

Election of Vice-Presidents of the Council 15. On nominations by the Representatives of France, the Russian Federation and China, respectively, the Council elected the following Representatives as its Vice-Presidents for the period 2006-2007 (C-WP/12722): Mr. M. Belayneh (Ethiopia) First Vice-President Dr. A. Sipos (Hungary) Second Vice-President Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca (Colombia) Third Vice-President 16. The President of the Council expressed appreciation to the outgoing Vice-Presidents and congratulated the newly-elected Vice-Presidents of the Council.

C-MIN 179/1 - 32 -

Subject No. 6.3: Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Election of Members and Alternates on the Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees

17. The Council next elected, for the period 2006-2007, the nominees appearing in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of C-WP/12724 for membership in the Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees. The Council designated as their Alternates, for the period 2006-2007, the nominees appearing in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13, respectively, of the paper, subject to the deletion of Mr. N. Denton (United Kingdom) as an Alternate to Mr. M. Rossell on the said Committees. Election of the Chairmen of the Air Transport, Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference

and Technical Co-operation Committees 18. On nominations by the Representatives of Spain, Japan, Peru, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, respectively, the following were elected Chairmen of the Council’s subsidiary bodies listed below for the period 2006-2007 (C-WP/12723):

Air Transport Committee Ms. S. Gehrer (Austria)

Joint Support Committee Mr. K.P. Bong (Singapore) Finance Committee Dr. N. Zaidi (India) Unlawful Interference Committee Mr. D.T. Bliss (United States) Technical Co-operation Committee Mr. D.O. Valente (Argentina) 19. The President of the Council thanked the outgoing Chairmen for their cooperation and welcomed the newly-elected Chairmen. Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group (SG) Meeting (Queensland, 26-30 June 2006) on market-based measures to reduce emissions

20. The Council gave initial consideration to the above subject on the basis of President’s memorandum PRES RK/1259 dated 9 August 2006. Attached to the memorandum was a note setting out the different views on the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation which had been outlined to the CAEP SG. The central point of dispute regarding the geographical scope was whether Contracting States could integrate international aviation emissions from aircraft operators of other Contracting States in their emissions trading schemes without mutual agreement. In welcoming Mr. K. Keldusild, the Co-Rapporteur of the CAEP Emissions Trading Task Force (ETTF), the President of the Council indicated that he would shed some light on the matter under discussion. The Chief of the Environmental Unit (C/ENV), who also served as the Secretary of the CAEP, then provided an overview of the background for establishing emissions trading, of actions taken by ICAO in that area and of the possibilities for moving forward. 21. In observing that aviation emissions trading was a difficult and contentious issue, the President urged the Council to focus its deliberations on the provision of the guidance requested by the CAEP for the continuation of its work. He also urged it to take into consideration Assembly Resolution A35-5 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to

C-MIN 179/1 - 33 -

environmental protection), Appendix I (Market-based measures regarding aircraft engine emissions) which, in Resolving Clause 2 c) 2), requested the Council to, inter alia, provide guidance for use by Contracting States, as appropriate, to incorporate emissions from international aviation into Contracting States’ emissions trading schemes consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. Observing that the CAEP had made very important progress, the President indicated that the Council recognized the excellent work done by the Committee. He emphasized, however, that to continue that work, the CAEP needed orientation from the Council. 22. In recalling that the Secretary of the CAEP had mentioned, in her overview, the difficulties for the Council in reaching a consensus during the present meeting on the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation, the Representative of Finland indicated that it was unfortunate that the CAEP, and especially the ETTF, had concentrated, in the note attached to President’s memorandum PRES RK/1259 dated 9 August 2006, only on an issue that was mainly political in nature and which had some legal implications. It would have been preferable if the note had indicated the status of the preparation of the said guidelines and how an emissions trading scheme which included emissions from international aviation could function in practice. Averring that it would be futile for the Council to discuss the opposing arguments in favour of one or the other alternative regarding the geographical scope, the Representative of Finland maintained that that would not be the way to reach any kind of consensus. While it was difficult for him to correctly grasp all of the various options presented by the Secretary of the CAEP as possible means of going forward, he considered that the Council could set aside, for the moment, the main issue of the geographical scope, without choosing one alternative over the other, and instead focus on the guidance called for in Assembly Resolution A35-5. The Representative of Finland noted that the Secretary of the CAEP had mentioned the possibility of the ETTF and the CAEP developing the mechanics of an emissions trading scheme, the key elements of which included reporting, monitoring and compliance. While she had also indicated that it might not be possible to proceed very far on that route, it nonetheless remained a possibility. At this point the Council would have to try to go forward as far as possible to facilitate consideration of what would undoubtedly be a major issue at the next Assembly in a year’s time. The Representative of Finland sought the views of the Co-Rapporteur of the ETTF on the possibility of something worthwhile being produced for the Seventh Meeting of the CAEP in February 2007. 23. The Representative of the United Kingdom shared the views expressed by the Representative of Finland regarding the next steps to be taken. In then referring to the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, Article 2.2 of which, inter alia, called for Annex I States to pursue the limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases from aviation bunker fuels working through ICAO, he enquired whether that Protocol, which was now in force, was binding on all of the States included in Annex I or only on those States which had ratified the Protocol. The Representative of the United Kingdom further enquired as to what would happen if ICAO did not take action, in particular, whether the initiative would revert back to the UNFCCC. Recalling that the Secretary of the CAEP had indicated that there had not been much progress within the UNFCCC over the past year, he queried what action had been taken, what action might be expected, especially in terms of preparing for the post-2012 commitment period, and whether it would meet ICAO’s concerns. The Representative of the United Kingdom underscored, in this regard, that his State wished ICAO to take the initiative in these difficult matters. 24. In responding to some of the points raised, the Secretary of the CAEP indicated that it would only be possible to make progress on issues arising in connection with the interpretation of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Chicago Convention related to the discussion of emissions trading for international aviation once there was a clearer design for an emissions trading scheme that included international aviation, with all the features defined. She noted that the only scheme encompassing

C-MIN 179/1 - 34 -

international aviation emissions which was likely to become operational in the near future was the emissions trading scheme in Europe. The features for including international aviation emissions in that scheme were not clear at the present time, however. In then elaborating on the deliberations of the various subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC, the Secretary of the CAEP observed that the bodies were discussing ways forward in the post-2012 commitment period and that there was an opportunity for ICAO to contribute ideas thereto. 25. The Co-Rapporteur of the ETTF emphasized that it was important that ICAO try to continue the orderly development of the issue under discussion and not jump to premature conclusions which might block such development. Noting that the alternative measures which States could apply to address climate change were not as cost-effective or efficient as the one under discussion, he stressed the need for patience and to take a long-term view. In then replying to some of the questions raised, he indicated that, aside from the issue of the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation, the issue of the mechanics of an emissions trading scheme required clarification. The Co-Rapporteur of the ETTF noted, in this regard, that the draft guidance contained a chapter on accountable entities, which indicated that the preferred option was to select aircraft operators as the responsible entities as they were in command of their emissions. If that option were chosen, however, it would be necessary to define the term “aircraft operator”. More clarity was also required regarding the monitoring and reporting elements of an emissions trading scheme. The Co-Rapporteur of the ETTF observed, in this context, that the draft guidance recommended that an emissions trading scheme initially only include CO2

and only include other emission species if there were more scientific understanding. These were examples of the guidance which ICAO could deliver for the use of its Contracting States. The Co-Rapporteur of the ETTF noted that the Organization could build on the various elements of an emissions trading scheme instead of dropping the whole concept of emissions trading for international aviation, which he did not consider to be a good way forward. 26. In emphasizing the need for the Council to fulfill the mandate which it had been assigned by the Assembly and for the CAEP to fulfill the mandate which it had been assigned by the Council, the Representative of France recalled that Assembly Resolution A35-5, Appendix H (Environmental impact of civil aviation on the atmosphere), Resolving Clause 2 b), requested the Council “to continue to study policy options to limit or reduce the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions … while continuing its consideration of market-based measures”. Resolving Clause 2 of Appendix I (Market-based measures regarding aircraft engine emissions) encouraged the Council “to evaluate the costs and benefits of the various measures” and to “provide guidance for use by Contracting States”. The Council was thus tasked with presenting options to the Assembly for decision. Consequently, it had tasked the CAEP with carrying out the requisite work and with making proposals for its consideration. The Representative of France averred that it was not the role of either the CAEP or the Council to decide on an option. 27. Referring to Assembly Resolution A35-5, the Representative of France observed that, pursuant to Resolving Clause 2 b) 3) of Appendix I, the implementation of greenhouse gas emissions charges was conditional upon there being a mutual agreement of States members of a regional economic integration organization. The Resolution did not, however, subordinate the eventual inclusion of international aviation emissions into Contracting States’ emissions trading schemes to that condition of mutual agreement. Work could therefore proceed on that hypothesis. In reiterating that, at the present stage, it was not a question of choosing one option over another, the Representative of France noted that the CAEP had not provided the Council with the technical elements of the two possible solutions to the issue of the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation, namely, integration of international aviation emissions from aircraft operators of other Contracting States into a Contracting State’s emissions trading scheme with or without mutual agreement. It was his impression that there had been a policy debate in the CAEP which had been dominated by certain States and that the technical

C-MIN 179/1 - 35 -

elements had therefore not yet been determined. The Representative of France considered that it would be reasonable, at this stage, to request the CAEP to continue to study those two options, as well as all of the mechanical aspects of an emissions trading scheme and all other technical elements which could be examined independently of the choice between the two options, and to report back to the Council with a more developed paper which included an indication of the said technical elements so that the Council could recommend a choice between the options to the Assembly for its decision. The CAEP should perform that work while respecting its own mandate and that of the Council. 28. The Representative of Brazil noted that the CAEP had made considerable progress in developing guidance for Contracting States on the application of market-based measures aimed at reducing or limiting the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions pursuant to Assembly Resolution A35-5, Appendix I, Resolving Clause 1. Recalling that the Assembly, in Resolving Clause 2 b) 4) thereof, had urged Contracting States to refrain from unilateral implementation of greenhouse gas emissions charges prior to the next regular session of the Assembly in 2007, he underscored that that position reflected an underlying principle against unilateral action which was consistent with the Chicago Convention and the philosophy of international civil aviation. The Representative of Brazil suggested, as action by the Council, that the latter take heed of the Assembly’s orientation and instruct the CAEP to finish developing guidance for the upcoming Assembly based on the principle that any Contracting State that wished to integrate international aviation emissions into its emissions trading scheme could only do so on the basis of mutual agreement with other Contracting States whose aircraft operators would be covered by the trading scheme on either a bilateral or multilateral basis. The Council should urge Contracting States to refrain from including other Contracting States’ aircraft operators in its emissions trading scheme without the other State’s consent, unless such an approach were approved by the Council or authorized by the Assembly. The Council should also request that any Contracting State which was considering developing an emissions trading scheme on a basis other than mutual agreement present a detailed proposal to the Council for its consideration. The Council should affirm its belief that it was important that Contracting States be mindful not to apply market-based measures regarding aircraft engine emissions, for example, emissions-trading or the imposition of emission-related charges or taxes, in a manner that resulted in the accountable entities paying more than once for mitigating the same environmental impact. 29. The Representative of Canada then highlighted a few considerations which he deemed important for the governance of the Council when addressing the issue of aviation emissions. He indicated that, when considering aviation emissions reductions, the CAEP must take into account the following: that aviation had already made significant improvements in fuel efficiency and economy and savings; that aviation growth was essential to developing countries and to trading; that aviation’s contribution to global climate change was somewhat modest; that States must still make efforts to reduce emissions from aviation in accordance with ICAO guidance; that any recommendation from the CAEP must consider the sovereign rights of Members States of ICAO; and that it was his view that this issue belonged to ICAO and to no other forum. 30. The Representative of Canada recalled that the CAEP had determined that emissions trading could be a cost-effective method for addressing aircraft engine emissions in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. It was one of many measures or tools that States could choose to adopt, provided it was in accordance with international agreements. In noting that, at the present time there was no consensus within the CAEP and that the Committee had therefore asked the Council for guidance, the Representative of Canada indicated that the Council should give sufficient guidance to the CAEP to provide a way forward. In emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus or a decision before the next Assembly, he recalled that, at the last Assembly, a clear message had been sent that most Member States were prepared to accept emissions-related charges only on a bilateral basis. That had also applied

C-MIN 179/1 - 36 -

to emissions-trading. It was his view that the situation had not changed. The Representative of Canada indicated that the CAEP should, most importantly, be instructed to develop guidance and/or advice for States which was based on the premise that emissions-trading would only be done on a mutually agreeable basis and that it could not be imposed on ICAO Member States. He noted that there were already established emissions trading schemes which could be used as precedents. 31. The Representative of Nigeria emphasized that, while there was no doubt that something was happening on the planet in terms of climate change, which should be of concern to every Member State of ICAO, the Organization still needed to do more work in balancing air transport growth and environmental concerns, particularly for developing countries. It was important to develop further guidance material so that States would clearly understand how to approach these issues. 32. The Representative of Nigeria noted that the UNFCCC called for special treatment to be given to developing countries and that Assembly Resolution A35-5, Appendix I, Resolving Clause 2, called for potential impacts of market-based measures regarding aircraft engine emissions on the developing world to be taken into account. Referring to the views provided by the CAEP in the Appendix to Addendum No. 1 to C-WP/12380 (Market-based measures to address emissions) (174/3), the Representative of Nigeria underscored that the conclusion of the Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group (FESG) at CAEP/5 [cf. paragraph 4.5 b)] that carriers from developed countries would suffer a small loss as a result of the imposition of CO2-related charges when the proceeds were returned back into the aviation sector while those from developing countries would gain a small benefit had not been generally accepted, in particular by developing countries. In observing that emissions-trading seemed to be more attractive than the imposition of emissions-related charges, he queried whether any impact analysis had been conducted to determine how developing countries would be affected by emissions-trading. Noting that the efficiency of air traffic management had an impact on aviation emissions, the Representative of Nigeria further queried how an emissions-trading scheme in which the aircraft operator was the accountable entity would take into account factors such as delays and congestion over which the aircraft operator had no control. He emphasized the need to clarify these issues and to issue guidance thereon. The Representative of Nigeria stressed that, whatever direction was taken with regard to emissions-trading, it was necessary to constantly bear in mind the underlying principle of the UNFCCC that careful consideration should be given to developing countries and their aircraft operators. 33. The Representative of Argentina endorsed the comments made by the Representative of Brazil, particularly with regard to multilateralism, which was a very important issue for the Organization. He stressed that it must be clear that ICAO could not support any type of unilateral action as such action would be contrary to the legal principle which had allowed international civil aviation to develop as it had since the Chicago Convention had come into effect. In also endorsing the comments made by the Representative of Canada, the Representative of Argentina underscored that the series of points which the latter had outlined should be taken into account by the CAEP in developing guidance material to be applied by States either domestically or in their relations with others by means of an agreement. 34. In sharing the view expressed by the Representative of Nigeria regarding the effectiveness of emissions trading, which was the very heart of the matter, the Representative of Argentina emphasized that the lack of information regarding emissions trading schemes rendered it difficult to draw any conclusions as to their effectiveness. Observing, from the information which was available, that emissions trading for certain industries had not yielded the desired results, he indicated that it would be interesting to have a presentation on the results of the implementation of emissions trading schemes in various European States in 2006 similar to the one which had been given in 2005. The Representative of Argentina recalled, in this context, that Resolving Clause 2 of Appendix I of Assembly Resolution A35-5 encouraged the Council to evaluate the costs and benefits of the various market-based

C-MIN 179/1 - 37 -

measures aimed at reducing or limiting the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions, including existing measures. It was necessary to determine if emissions trading schemes would be a useful tool for aviation. He noted, in this regard, that such schemes could result in an additional charge being imposed on aircraft operators, which would be a disincentive to the latter and which might lead to a decrease in the frequency of flights. 35. The Representative of Argentina suggested, as guidance for the CAEP in continuing its work, that it explore other types of market-based measures. In so doing, it should take into account economic considerations and the need to integrate the mandate of ICAO to promote the development of international civil aviation while minimizing the environmental impact of such development. In that way, a solution would be found which was efficient and compatible with the Organization’s main objectives. The Representative of Argentina indicated that, in his opinion, the only form of market-based measures which would be useful would be, for example, the levying of an emissions-related charge on aviation activities if such funds were applied to the creation of a fleet renewal programme that would facilitate the acquisition of new aircraft with which to replace older, more polluting aircraft. 36. The Representative of Australia noted that climate change and greenhouse gas emissions invoked strong views of governments, including his. The Government of Australia recognized the need to address aviation greenhouse gas emissions and while it had not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it was on track to reach its national targets in Annex I thereto on a voluntary basis. Although his Government had not elected to ratify that Protocol, its policy on aviation and marine bunker fuels was the same, namely, that international transport emissions must be addressed through ICAO and the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Representative of Australia recalled that the last Assembly had, in Assembly Resolution A35-5, Appendix I, Resolving Clause 2 c) 2), instructed the Council, and thus the CAEP, to focus on two market-based approaches to aircraft engine emissions: the development of a voluntary trading system that interested Contracting States and international organizations might propose; and the provision by ICAO of guidance for use by Contracting States, as appropriate, to incorporate emissions from international aviation into Contracting States’ emissions trading schemes. Underscoring that that work had not been completed, having only been undertaken some two years ago, he observed that, while the CAEP was seeking guidance from the Council, the latter was being requested to make a pronouncement with insufficient information, as many other Council Representatives had indicated. In emphasizing that, although there were two options now before the Council, there might be additional ones, the Representative of Australia stressed that the Council should not approve any of the options until it had adequate information on all aspects thereof. 37. In noting that the UNFCCC process had not settled on an agreed methodology for allocating international emissions from mobile sources to national inventories, the Representative of Australia underscored that it was critical to have information on such a methodology before any caps could be allocated for international flights. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of Argentina that at present there was only limited experience with emissions trading schemes, namely, through European air traffic services, he averred that the desired reduction in emissions had not occurred within the air traffic services due to the over-allocation of emissions credits and the focus on buying “hot-air” credits rather than on focussing on technology and energy efficiency. The Representative of Australia emphasized that it was vital that this issue be resolved at the multilateral level so that there were no competitive distortions in aviation. He fully supported the observations made in that regard by the Representative of Brazil. The Representative of Australia stressed that all ICAO Member States should respect the work processes of ICAO and await the final report and guidance from the Council and the CAEP on emissions trading. He further underscored that the CAEP should continue its work on all options and ensure that any solutions which it developed were consistent with both the UNFCCC process and the Chicago Convention. Indicating that States should refrain from taking unilateral action on

C-MIN 179/1 - 38 -

aviation emissions trading before that work was completed, the Representative of Australia suggested that the Council adopt a Resolution along the lines of Resolving Clause 2 b) 4) of Appendix I of Assembly Resolution A35-5 and call upon ICAO Member States to not take any such action, at least until the next Assembly. Such a Council Resolution would be consistent with States’ commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to work through ICAO. He noted, in this regard, that while that instrument had been adopted in 1997, it had only entered into force in 2005. 38. The Representative of Japan indicated that, in addressing the issue of the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation, his State’s basic principles were: firstly, that it was essential to develop guidelines acceptable to the international aviation community, namely, ICAO Contracting States, with a view to seeking a global solution on that issue; and secondly, in the belief that imposing such measures was not appropriate as it restrained economic growth, that voluntary initiatives should be encouraged and promoted. He observed that the second principle was generally applied for cross-over industry sectors in addressing the issue of global warming in Japan. The Representative of Japan emphasized that his State thus strongly supported an emissions trading scheme which was based upon the mutual agreement of the States concerned. 39. Recalling that Resolving Clause 1 of Appendix I of Assembly Resolution A35-5 requested the Council to continue to develop guidance on the application of market-based measures aimed at reducing or limiting the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions, the Representative of Japan indicated that, in fulfilling that mission, the Council should give direction to the CAEP and its various groups so that the said guidance would be completed before the next Assembly. He underscored that the underlying principle of that Assembly Resolution was that States should refrain from implementing unilateral measures prior to the next Assembly’s consideration of this subject. 40. The Representative of Spain emphasized that all Council Representatives agreed on the need to take into account the environment and to ensure that aviation’s impact thereon was minimal. Observing that he had always considered that aviation and other industries should be treated equally, he noted that other industries had agreed to use emissions trading schemes to reduce their CO2 emissions as that was the easiest method, technologically, and the most economical one. If it were not possible for aviation, which was dependent on solid fuels, to reduce its CO2 emissions by other means, then there was an incentive for the other industries to extend their emissions trading schemes to encompass international aviation emissions. In that manner, aviation could continue to use solid fuels and air transport could continue to grow. 41. The Representative of Spain indicated that, although the best solution would be to have emissions trading implemented globally, current circumstances rendered that impossible. It was for that reason that the geographical scope of emissions trading was being examined. The Representative of Spain underscored that, if an emissions trading scheme were being implemented in a given geographical area, then it had to be done under uniform conditions and not on a bilateral basis, pursuant to Article 15 (Airport and similar charges) of the Chicago Convention, which stipulated that “Every airport in a Contracting State which is open to public use by its national aircraft shall likewise … be open under uniform conditions to the aircraft of all the other Contracting States”, and the Third Preambular Clause of that Convention, which referred to the establishment of air transport services on the basis of “equality of opportunity”. The Representative of Spain considered that, in the current circumstances, the only way forward was for the CAEP to study uniform procedures for emissions trading for international aviation emissions which could be applied in a specific geographical region. 42. In agreeing with previous speakers that much information was lacking from the report presented to the Council, the Representative of Austria averred that it seemed, in some respects,

C-MIN 179/1 - 39 -

premature for the Council to be discussing the subject. She cautioned that a hasty decision could limit the possibilities for future action. The Representative of Austria noted, in this regard, that the CAEP had not worked on the possible levying of emissions-related charges since its Fourth Meeting. Stressing that an emissions trading scheme would only become applicable in several years’ time, she underscored the importance of the Council not closing the door on possible courses of action. In enquiring as to what action the CAEP would take if the Council did not reach a decision during its present meeting, the Representative of Austria asked whether it would do further work on the mechanics of an emissions trading scheme or whether it would carry out other work. 43. The Secretary of the CAEP emphasized that the Committee had reached an impasse regarding the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation and was therefore seeking guidance from the Council. While the CAEP would, during its upcoming meeting, try to finalize the text of the guidance material on the other issues on which agreement had already been reached, it was doubtful that it could make good progress on the geographical scope issue without the requested guidance. The Committee would thus not be in a position to approve the final text of the entire guidance material during the CAEP/7 Meeting and to present it to the Council during its next (180th) Session as part of its report. 44. The Representative of Singapore concurred with the Representatives of Finland and France that it would be futile to discuss the two options for an emissions trading scheme for international aviation without any clarification of the mechanism and its effect on international aviation. He suggested that the CAEP be requested to develop such an emissions trading scheme in more detail and, more importantly, to address the particular issues that would only be encountered when some parties implemented the scheme. The Representative of Singapore emphasized that the CAEP should also ensure that such an emissions trading scheme would not hinder aviation growth but would rather promote, and support the demands for, future air travel. 45. In associating himself with the comments and recommendations made by the Representative of Brazil, the Representative of the United States noted that the latter had offered the instructions which the CAEP had requested and which were consistent with the principles of reciprocity and comity upon which ICAO was founded. He also appreciated the statements made by the Representatives of Canada, Nigeria, Argentina, Australia and Japan in support of the Council providing definitive and clear guidance to the CAEP at the present time, as well as the statements made by the Representatives of Australia and Japan that the Council should make clear that it urged that no unilateral action be taken by States or groups of States until the Assembly had had an opportunity to bring closure to this issue. 46. Recalling that the Representative of the United Kingdom and others had queried what would happen if ICAO did not move forward on this issue, the Representative of the United States affirmed that the Organization was moving forward, although perhaps not as quickly as some States would wish, and that a substantial amount of work had been done by the CAEP. He underscored that an extraordinary amount of time, effort and expertise had been applied and that great progress had been made in providing the guidance material on emissions trading schemes requested by the Assembly. The CAEP had, however, reached a point where it required guidance. The Council had an obligation to provide that guidance, and not simply defer the matter, so that the Committee could continue and complete its work. The Representative of the United States expressed confidence that the CAEP would complete the said guidance in time for it to be further considered by the next Assembly. 47. In observing that, from his State’s perspective, emissions trading schemes were one of many tools which could be used in addressing the complex issue of greenhouse gas emissions, the

C-MIN 179/1 - 40 -

Representative of the United States noted that the different States represented on the Council and in the Organization had different combinations of tools that they were using to address this issue and were coming up with different solutions. He emphasized that, as all States worked for more scientific certainty as to the actual impact on the environment of specific tools employed and as to whether or not emissions trading schemes would, in fact, be beneficial for the environment, they needed to continue the good work of their experts to bring clarity to this issue. The Representative of the United States noted that, for a variety of reasons, the level of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2006 was lower than the level in 2000. While it was not possible to project that reduction to the future, the fact was that the United States, which according to some measures, was the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, producing some 43 per cent of the total emissions, was currently using less fuel than it had in 2000. That might not, however, be true of other States or regions of the world. 48. The Representative of the United States averred that the Council should respond to the very straightforward question put forward by the CAEP of whether ICAO would endorse the principle that one State could forcibly compel another State’s aircraft operator into an emissions trading scheme or would decide that such participation must be based on mutual agreement of the States concerned. Noting that his State strongly believed that such participation should be on the basis of mutual agreement, the Representative of the United States emphasized that such an approach reflected the consensus and reciprocity that underpinned much of ICAO’s work. He considered that, while all Council Representatives wished to make progress in the development of guidance on emissions trading and to meet the Assembly’s directives as set forth in Assembly Resolution A35-5, they disagreed on how aircraft operators from other States should be covered under their emissions trading schemes. In affirming that both common sense and past ICAO experience dictated that the right way forward was mutual agreement, the Representative of the United States recalled that the Assembly, in Resolving Clause 2 of Appendix I of Assembly Resolution A35-5, had, in encouraging Contracting States and the Council to evaluate the costs and benefits of the various market-based measures, indicated that they should take into account the interests of all parties concerned. In other words, State sovereignty should be respected. The views of one State or group of States should not be forced on all other States. The Representative of the United States thus considered that the Council should instruct the CAEP to finish developing guidance for the upcoming Assembly based on the principle that any State wishing to integrate international aviation emissions into an emissions trading scheme could do so only on the basis of mutual agreement with other States whose aircraft operators would be covered by the scheme on either a bilateral or multilateral basis. Furthermore, the Council should urge States to refrain from including other States’ aircraft operators in an emissions trading scheme without the consent of such other States, unless such an approach were approved by the Council or authorized by the Assembly. The Council should also request that any State considering developing an emissions trading scheme on a basis other than mutual agreement present a detailed proposal to the Council for further consideration and discussion. The Representative of the United States noted that information regarding the experience of groups of States in establishing emissions trading schemes would be valuable to the Council. 49. The Representative of the United States affirmed the importance of States not applying market-based measures regarding aircraft engine emissions, such as the levying of charges or taxes, in a manner that resulted in accountable entities paying more than once for mitigating the same environmental impact, as indicated by the Representative of Brazil. He stressed that there was no assurance that if a State or group of States imposed on the aircraft operators of other States an emissions trading scheme that they would not be subject to duplicative schemes to extract charges or fees for the same emissions. The Representative of the United States noted, in this regard, that there might be States in Europe which were imposing an environmental tax that would duplicate what would be covered by an emissions trading scheme. It was thus necessary to ensure that there was no duplication or redundancy built into an emissions trading scheme where different States were attempting to address the same international

C-MIN 179/1 - 41 -

aviation emissions. Observing that such emissions were, by definition, a global phenomenon, the Representative of the United States queried how one State could capture such emissions and apply its trading scheme without the redundancy of other States doing the same thing in a different manner and therefore imposing duplicative régimes on the aviation industry. It was for that reason that the Representative of the United States considered that it was the responsibility of ICAO to come up with a solution. 50. In concluding, the Representative of the United States recalled the Group of Eight (G8) meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, in 2005. He noted that the issue of how to deal with aviation emissions had been part of the final communiqué which had been agreed to not only by the G8 States but also by many other States, including China, Brazil, India and Mexico. The senior leaders of those States had agreed that the way forward on aviation emissions was: better scientific understanding of the impacts; implementation of operational changes to save fuel, an area where there was a substantial amount of work that could be done; and shared research on technology improvements. The senior leaders had not indicated that emissions trading schemes must be used for international aviation emissions, much less imposed on other States. The Representative of the United States expressed the hope that the same spirit of cooperation so evident at Gleneagles could be harnessed by the Council as it moved forward, respecting differences and building a partnership through consent in reducing aviation’s environmental footprint. 51. The Representative of South Africa shared the views expressed by the Representatives of Brazil, Canada, Nigeria, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Singapore and the United States, particularly with regard to the continuation of the CAEP’s work. He recalled the statement made by the Director General of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) on 25 April 2006 during the Second Aviation and Environment Summit, in which he had indicated that: air transport contributed a small part of global CO2 emissions, 2 per cent, whereas it supported 8 per cent of the world’s economic activity; and within the transport sector, aviation was responsible for 12 per cent of CO2 emissions, whereas road transport generated 80 per cent thereof. The Representative of South Africa considered that that statement highlighted the need for the Council to empower the CAEP to conduct further studies. 52. The Representative of Saint Lucia wished to associate himself with the comments made by the Representatives of Canada, Brazil and the United States, inter alia. Affirming that the Representative of Canada had very succinctly outlined the considerations to be taken into account in addressing the issue of aviation emissions, he suggested that his statement be used as a summary of the Council’s discussion. Underscoring that he did not support a unilateral approach to solving this issue, the Representative of Saint Lucia indicated that the CAEP should be allowed to continue its work and requested to report thereon to the Council at the appropriate time. Recalling the comments made by the Representative of Nigeria, he noted that, as he was also from the developing part of the world, he was likewise interested in learning the impact of emissions trading schemes on developing countries. In indicating that it was not possible to determine what the said impact would be without having a specific emissions trading scheme to study, the Secretary of the CAEP underscored that the impact would vary according to the key design elements of the scheme. 53. The Representative of India noted that the task which the CAEP had given to the Council was a difficult one given the lack of detailed information. He considered that the CAEP should be requested to continue its work as mandated by the Council and in the spirit of Assembly Resolution A35-5, without addressing political and legal issues at the present time, and to report to the Council before its 180th Session so that the latter would be able to formulate its recommendations to the Assembly. In fully sharing the views expressed by the Representatives of Canada, the United States, Australia and Japan, inter alia, the Representative of India averred that there was no scope for unilateral application of an

C-MIN 179/1 - 42 -

emissions trading scheme in Assembly Resolution A35-5 and that such action should not be resorted to before the Assembly had taken a final decision on that issue. 54. Referring to the Attachment to President’s memorandum PRES AK/1113 dated 7 November 2005 on the results of the CAEP Steering Group Meeting on market-based measures to reduce emissions held in Montreal from 3 to 7 October 2005, the Representative of India noted, from the paragraph e), that the CAEP had already recognized that States were free to pursue greenhouse gas emission charges by mutual agreement on a bilateral basis. He therefore found it difficult to understand why the CAEP was confused about accepting the same principle with regard emissions trading schemes for international aviation emissions. 55. In affirming that Assembly Resolution A35-5 did not provide any scope for unilateral action, the Representative of India noted from Resolving Clause 2 c) 2) of Appendix I that only interested States and international organizations were to participate in voluntary trading systems and that the incorporation of international aviation emissions into States’ emissions trading schemes was to be consistent with the UNFCCC process. Observing, from his discussions with the UNFCCC Secretariat, that the said process involved respect for mutual agreement and bilateral action, he questioned where there was any scope in Assembly Resolution A35-5 for unilateral action. Underscoring that ICAO was a multilateral organization which worked on the basis of the principles of consensus and cooperation, the Representative of India indicated that ICAO should continue to emphasize mutual agreement and bilateral régimes. 56. The Representative of Germany noted that European States, including Germany, held the legal view that if a State decided to establish a scheme to protect its own environment, then it was its sovereign right to include every polluter that touched its territory in that scheme. Noting, from the discussion, that there was a large number of States represented on the Council which disagreed with that view, she averred that it was thus premature for the Council to give any guidance to the CAEP concerning the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation. Having listened to the explanations provided by the Secretariat of the CAEP, the Representative of Germany could not clearly understand why the Committee could not make any more progress. Observing that she very much supported the work which the Organization was doing in this area, she indicated that the ideal solution would be for ICAO to come to a consensus on emissions trading schemes for international aviation emissions. It was clear from the debate, however, that much of the technical information required to come to any conclusions was still lacking. 57. The Representative of Germany noted that the political question of the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation was basically a question of being in favour of, or being opposed to, emissions trading in aviation: those in favour wished to have a large geographical scope to cover a large part of the Earth in order to protect it; those opposed were against having a large geographical scope. In order to reach a decision and to take a political stand on that question, it was necessary to have much more information, not only regarding the mechanics of an emissions trading scheme but also regarding such issues as whether airlines themselves or the suppliers of fuel or other entities should be included in such a scheme. Information on other issues such as benchmarking, the grandfathering of rights, the cost of certificates and whether the latter should be given free-of-charge to certain airlines which had already done much to protect the environment by modernizing their fleets was also required as it could influence the Council’s decision. Indicating that the Council was not, at this point, in a position to give unanimous guidance to the CAEP, the Representative of Germany suggested that: the Council urge the Committee to continue its work on the outstanding questions; the Secretariat proceed with the envisaged Colloquium on Aviation Emissions in April 2007; and that the Council consider the results of these actions at a later stage.

C-MIN 179/1 - 43 -

58. The Representative of Peru endorsed the comments made by the Representatives of Brazil, Nigeria, Canada, Argentina, Japan, the United States and Australia, inter alia. In voicing opposition to any type of unilateral measures, he affirmed that, in this issue, as in all other issues, mutual agreement and bilateral aspects were very important. The Representative of Peru indicated that the CAEP should continue its work for the next Assembly. 59. The Representative of Honduras voiced support for the comments made by the Representatives of Canada, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, the United States and all others who had agreed that the Council needed to take a decision so that the CAEP would orient its work on the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation on the basis of mutual agreement and no unilateral measures would be adopted prior to the Assembly in 2007. 60. The Representative of Colombia emphasized that environmental protection was a responsibility which could not be considered only from the point of view of economics, geography or industrial sectors. As pointed out by the Representatives of Canada, Brazil, the United States and others, it was necessary to reach a consensus. While recognizing the efforts made by the Secretariat, the Representative of Colombia considered that, in the absence of more information and work, the Council should urge the CAEP to continue to work on the various alternatives. He noted, in this regard, that the orientations of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Kyoto Protocol and the 35th Session of the Assembly were very important and should be taken into account as they would enable the CAEP to go into the technical aspects of an emissions trading scheme for international aviation in greater depth. The Representative of Colombia emphasized that it was also necessary to consider its legal aspects and to modify the legal framework in order to have a better environment and planet. With regard to the political aspects, he noted that the Council was to make recommendations regarding an emissions trading scheme for international aviation to the Assembly for decision. The Representative of Colombia thus considered that the Council should urge the CAEP to continue, in a spirit of cooperation, to examine the various alternatives in more depth from a technical point of view so that the Committee could provide the Council with the additional elements which it required in order to formulate its recommendations. 61. In observing that the conclusions of the discussion had been given by the Representatives of Australia, Colombia and India in their statements, the Representative of France reiterated the need for the CAEP to continue to examine the various technical issues which remained outstanding. He then touched upon three themes which had played an important role in the discussion: mutual agreement, sovereignty and unilateral action. The Representative of France recalled that the notion of mutual agreement had been raised in Assembly Resolution A35-5 in respect of greenhouse gas emissions charges. The Council was bound by that resolution and could not make pronouncements in the place of the Assembly. If the Council were to take a decision during the present meeting with regard to the application of that notion of mutual agreement to emissions trading schemes for international aviation emissions, then it would cause a legal problem. 62. With regard to the notion of sovereignty, the Representative of France averred that there was a paradox, as the measures decided upon by States in implementing the Kyoto Protocol were applied to all of the installations concerned regardless of the nationality of their owners, and there did not appear to be any reason why it would be any different in the case of aviation. This notion would thus also give rise to difficulties. 63. With respect to the third notion, the Representative of France noted that it had been said that no State should take unilateral action. He averred, however, that if the Council were to take a

C-MIN 179/1 - 44 -

decision which it was not entitled to take and which would be premature, regarding the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation, then it would encourage unilateral action. 64. The Representative of France therefore considered that, in the interest of reaching a global agreement, which was the aspiration of all Council Representatives, it would be best to request the CAEP not to take the place of the Legal Committee, which it had a tendency to do, and to instead revert to being a committee of experts and to explore all of the technical questions which remained unresolved. 65. The Representative of Italy underscored that the fact that there was not unanimously-accepted evidence on the impact of aviation emissions on the environment did not lessen the importance of undertaking precautionary action. He therefore endorsed the views expressed by the Representatives of Germany, Spain and France that the regional approach to emissions trading for international aviation emissions risked being undermined, which would result in a series of bilateral agreements being concluded. In agreeing that many technical issues remained to be discussed, the Representative of Italy suggested that the CAEP continue elaborating technical guidelines on emissions trading for international aviation emissions. He expressed appreciation for the valuable work which the Committee had already done in that regard. 66. At the suggestion of the President of the Council, the Council then agreed to resume its consideration of this subject during its next meeting, to be held that afternoon. 67. The Council adjourned at 1315 hours.

C-MIN 179/2

- 45 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2006, AT 1515 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General

PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. M. Belayneh Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti


ALSO PRESENT: Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) — Australia Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J.-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Kim, B.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S.. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States Mr. K. Edwards (Adv.) — United States Mr. K. Keldusild – Co-Rapporteur, CAEP Emissions

Trading Task Force (ETTF)

SECRETARIAT: Mr. A. Sánchez-Gutíerrez — D/TCB *Mrs. J. Hupe — C/ENV Ms. A. Andrade — ADTC Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time (

C-MIN 179/2 - 46 -

Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group (SG) Meeting (Queensland, 26-30 June 2006) on market-based measures to reduce emissions

1. The Council resumed (179/1) its consideration of the above subject on the basis of President’s memorandum PRES RK/1259 dated 9 August 2006, to which was attached a note setting out the different views on the geographical scope of emissions trading for international aviation which had been outlined to the CAEP SG. 2. In offering a summary of the exchange of views which had taken place during the previous meeting (179/1), the President of the Council indicated that all Council Representatives agreed to, and were supportive of, the development of guidance material on aviation emissions trading and agreed that the CAEP should continue its work to accomplish that as requested by the Assembly. It was clear that, in the absence of a more defined framework, it was not possible to reach a final agreement during the present meeting on the central point of dispute regarding geographical scope, namely, whether Contracting States could integrate international aviation emissions from aircraft operators of other Contracting States in their emissions trading schemes without mutual agreement. Most Council Representatives did not feel comfortable in drafting an ICAO guidance document that presumed that a State shall be part of an emissions trading scheme without mutual agreement. Other Representatives wanted flexibility to take action and had difficulties with imposing such a scheme on their aircraft operators only and not on others flying the same routes. 3. In noting that many Council Representatives felt that further information on emissions trading was needed before they could provide their views, the President proposed that that requirement be met by:

a) inviting the European Commission to brief the Council as soon as possible, preferably before the regular Council meetings in November/December 2006, on its experience with emissions trading in Europe and its approach to the inclusion of international aviation in that scheme;

b) requesting the CAEP Emissions Trading Task Force (ETTF), after its meeting in

London from 9-11 October 2006, to brief the Council on the status of the development of the various key elements proposed in its guidance material;

c) supporting the holding of the Colloquium on Aviation Emissions in April 2007 and

requesting the Secretariat to take the necessary steps; and d) requesting the Secretariat to consult with the UNFCCC Secretariat on whether under

the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol it would be possible for a State or a group of States to include in their emissions trading schemes the emissions of aircraft operators of non-Annex I States.

4. In light of the information received, the Council would return to the discussion in November 2006 on what guidance should be given to the CAEP. For the time being, the ETTF would proceed with work on the other elements of the guidance material and the preparation of the said briefing to the Council. 5. The Council accepted the above summary as its decision.

C-MIN 179/2

- 47 -

Subject No. 42.1.3: Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC)

Report on Technical Co-operation Programme Development and update of the Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) income and expenditures

for the year 2006 6. The Council then considered this subject on the basis of: C-WP/12649 [with Blue Rider (English only)], presented by the Secretary General; and oral reports thereon by the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC) and the Finance Committee (FIC). C-WP/12649 provided an overall view of the financial aspects of the Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP) for the year 2006 as of 31 March 2006. It included a forecast of the expected ultimate programme size, the income to be derived therefrom and the estimated financial position at the end of the year. The estimated total programme for 2006 was US $161.2 million, of which US $126.4 million was projected to be implemented. The estimated income for 2006 was US $8 041 000, while the estimated expenditure totalled US $7 980 000. A surplus of US $61 000 was thus currently anticipated for 2006. In response to a request by the Council during its 177th Session (177/10), the paper also provided, in Appendix A, information on, inter alia, the TCP for 2006 and its link with ICAO Strategic Objectives. 7. In presenting his oral report, the Chairman of the TCC indicated, inter alia, that the Committee had concluded that if technical co-operation projects were to be undertaken in line with the Organization’s Strategic Objectives, then more support needed to be provided to focus attention on certain regional and sub-regional issues. The TCC had also concluded that the wording of Assembly Resolution A35-20 (Update of the new policy on technical co-operation) was not sufficiently positive in promoting the support of ICAO technical co-operation activities by development partners and recommended that that be taken into account when that Assembly Resolution was reviewed and revised for presentation to the next Assembly. The Committee had noted that the amendments to Table I and Figure I of the paper set forth in the Blue Rider to the English text of C-WP/12649 applied to all language versions. It recommended that paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 of Appendix A to the paper be amended to reflect information provided by the Secretariat to the effect that the Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB) was now implementing 10 Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) projects with the participation of 85 States, including 37 States in the Africa region, and that the Co-operative Aviation Security Programme (CASP) project being implemented in the Asia and Pacific region involved the participation of 18 States. The TCC further recommended that paragraph 5.6 be reworded to reflect that the provision of technical assistance to States through COSCAP significantly reduced costs for some States. In conclusion, the Committee recommended that the Council take the action proposed in paragraph 6.1 of the paper taking into consideration its views. 8. In presenting the oral report of the FIC, the Chairman of that Committee noted that future reports on this subject should be designated as information papers. He indicated that the FIC recommended that the Council note the paper, as well as the revised financial position of the AOSC as of 31 March 2006. 9. The Council agreed that paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 of Appendix A to the paper should be amended as recommended by the TCC. 10. In then taking action on the basis of the recommendations of the TCC and FIC, the Council noted the revised financial position of the AOSC budget as of 31 March 2006 and the information provided in Appendix A to the paper on the TCP and ICAO Strategic Objectives, as amended.

C-MIN 179/2 - 48 -

Subject No. 42: Technical cooperation

Report on user satisfaction with ICAO procurement services 11. The Council next considered the above subject on the basis of C-WP/12650 presented by the Secretary General; and an oral report thereon by the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC). C-WP/12650 reported on replies received to letters sent by the Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB) to all States for which ICAO had provided procurement services in 2005 and 2006 in relation to all non-off-the-shelf purchases of over US $500 000. The letters had requested an opinion on the quality of services provided and the level of satisfaction with regard to the results achieved, from both the technical and cost-efficiency viewpoints. In presenting his oral report, the Chairman of the TCC noted that the Committee supported the present methodology for conducting a survey on user satisfaction as described in paragraph 1.2 of the paper and that it considered that that TCB customer feedback mechanism could be reviewed periodically by the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit and Management Review (EAO) rather than engaging an external body to carry out the survey. The TCC also considered that the survey should not entail increased administrative charges without any practical benefits for the improvement of TCB’s procurement services. The Committee recommended that a similar letter be sent to civil aviation authorities upon completion of technical co-operation projects implemented through trust funds and Management Service Agreements (MSAs) enquiring as to their satisfaction with the quality of services provided by ICAO. The TCC further recommended that the Council take the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12650 and note the information provided in the paper, taking into account the Committee’s views. 12. During the ensuing discussion, the Representative of Saudi Arabia suggested that the survey on user satisfaction be incorporated into a quality control mechanism. The Director of the Technical Co-operation Bureau (D/TCB) noted, in this regard, that copies of the replies received to TCB’s letters had been sent to EAO, the Office of the President of the Council and the Office of the Secretary General. 13. Observing, from paragraphs 2.10 and 2.17 of the paper, that two States, Lebanon and Venezuela, had recommended on-line access to the procurement process, the Representative of Argentina enquired as to what follow-up action was being taken. D/TCB clarified that once the requisite new technology was in place in ICAO, then users of TCB’s procurement services, as well as other interested parties such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), would have on-line access to the procurement process. 14. Recalling that the views of States on the quality of the procurement services received had been sought in response to a 2002 recommendation by the External Auditor, the Representative of India suggested that, rather than always being guided by the latter, the Organization should establish an internal mechanism so that an annual survey could be conducted on user satisfaction not only with TCB’s procurement services but with the whole range of services provided by TCB. He underscored, in this regard, that TCB played a very important role in the development of civil aviation in many developing countries. The Representative of India further suggested that the replies received from States should be analyzed by EAO, an independent office, so that the Council would have an objective assessment of the report on user satisfaction. 15. The Representative of Mexico endorsed the comments made by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia and India. Observing that some of the responses to the letters sent by TCB were from airport authorities or other non-State authorities, he suggested that, in future, such responses should be

C-MIN 179/2

- 49 -

accompanied by letters from the State authorities which had requested the procurement services indicating that those authorities were replying on their behalf, thus validating those replies. 16. D/TCB indicated that, although the letters had been sent to the highest civil aviation authority, the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), of each State which had received procurement services, in some cases, when the DGCAs were not the users of the procurement services, the letters had been forwarded to another authority. The President indicated that the source and validity of replies would be clarified in future reports. 17. Noting that the replies were extraordinarily positive, the Representative of Spain suggested that the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of the paper be amended to indicate that the Council noted “with satisfaction” the information provided therein. Referring to the comments made by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia and India, he averred that it was not necessary to render the report on user satisfaction more objective as the replies had emanated from the authorities which had received the procurement services. 18. In voicing satisfaction with the paper, the Representative of the Russian Federation underscored that the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) greatly appreciated the work which TCB was carrying out with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). He supported the proposal made by the Representative of India that an annual survey be conducted on user satisfaction with the whole range of services provided by TCB. The Representative of Argentina also supported that proposal, as well as the ones put forward by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia and Spain. 19. The Representative of Australia noted that the paper, which, under the new approach to Council documentation, was an information paper, was a useful one inasmuch as it provided the Council with feedback on TCB’s procurement services. In observing that some very good proposals for improving the paper, and the process by which information on user satisfaction was obtained, had been made, he cited the suggestion by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, supported by a number of speakers, that the survey on user satisfaction be incorporated into a quality control mechanism. The Representative of Australia also cited the proposal by the Representative of Mexico that State authorities coordinate the reply to the survey even though they might not be the ultimate users of the procurement services provided by TCB. 20. Noting that the replies received did not use language which could be easily measured, the Representative of Australia suggested that more precise information be requested in the survey so that it would be possible to measure TCB’s performance beyond a general overall pass or failure. He cited, in this context, the information requested in the questionnaire on ICAO’s Strategic Objectives sent under cover of State letter M2/5-06/50 of 23 May 2006. 21. In agreeing that it was difficult to measure TCB’s performance given the language used in the replies (“expressed its satisfaction”, “was pleased”, “was very satisfied”, etc.), the Representative of Saudi Arabia averred that if the Council were to note the information provided in the paper “with satisfaction”, as suggested by the Representative of Spain, then it might entail legal repercussions. He considered that the Council should limit itself to the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 in its present form. Affirming that the States’ expressions of satisfaction should be reflected in the action taken by the Council, the President suggested that, if the Representative could so agree, then the Council could support the said proposal by Spain. 22. The Secretary General noted, for appropriate action, the proposal by the Representative of Saudi Arabia that the survey on user satisfaction be incorporated into a quality control mechanism and

C-MIN 179/2 - 50 -

the proposal by the Representative of India that an internal mechanism be set up so that an annual survey could be conducted on user satisfaction not only with TCB’s procurement services but with the whole range of services provided by TCB, as well as the other comments made. 23. On the basis of the TCC’s recommendation, the Council then took the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12650, as amended by the President of the Council in light of the discussion, and noted with satisfaction the information provided in the paper.

ICAO’s policy on technical co-operation

24. The Council considered this subject on the basis of two papers: C-WP/12702 presented by France; and C-WP/12706, presented by Ethiopia and South Africa. C-WP/12702 stressed, inter alia, the need for clarification of the Organization’s technical co-operation policy and the need to make more readable the presentation of the actions of the Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB) and of the Organization as a whole in the field of technical co-operation. C-WP/12706 addressed some of the issues raised in the paper presented by France and supported the need to maintain the technical co-operation services currently provided by ICAO. 25. In providing clarifications regarding some points raised in the paper presented by France, the Director of the Technical Co-operation Bureau (D/TCB) underscored, with respect to paragraph 6.2, that the World Bank and the European Investment Bank did not participate in any Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) or Co-operative Aviation Security Programme (CASP) projects. Referring to the last sentence of the paragraph, which stated that the main donors of those projects directly managed most of the actions taken, with TCB only managing a part thereof, he noted that each of the said regional projects was managed by an Executive Committee comprising the States concerned and donor States. ICAO prepared an annual work plan for approval by the Executive Committee. Every six months an update was provided on TCB’s implementation of the work plan, at which time any necessary changes to the latter were approved by the Executive Committee. D/TCB stressed that, while the latter thus carried out work relating to the financing of a project, it was not involved in its execution. ICAO, through TCB, was responsible for the execution of all of the said projects. 26. Drawing attention to paragraphs 6.5.2 and 7.1 of the paper on Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) income surpluses, D/TCB noted that clarification of the management of such funds by the Secretary General pursuant to The ICAO Financial Regulations (Doc 7515) was given in the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa. He emphasized that such AOSC income surpluses were only used by the Secretary General as parabudgetary resources to strengthen or carry out activities within the Regular Programme. D/TCB recalled, in this regard, that the Council had authorized the use of US $2 million in AOSC income surplus to finance the modernization of ICAO’s financial systems. 27. In then referring to paragraph 7.4 of the paper presented by France on a project to strengthen the safety and security of air transport in Western and Central Africa approved by the World Bank in April 2006, D/TCB underscored that it was not a regional project in the ICAO sense of the term as it was for the entire region of Western and Central Africa. He observed that the US $150 million project would be carried out in three stages. The first stage, which had yet to begin, covered four States in Western and Central Africa, two of which would receive loans totalling some US $11 million and two of which would receive grants totalling some US $21 million. One of the States had already contacted TCB and requested that the latter implement the planned activities with the funds available. D/TCB noted that the other two stages of the project would depend upon the implementation of the first stage.

C-MIN 179/2

- 51 -

28. The President of the Council emphasized that, as indicated by the Representative of France in presenting C-WP/12702, the purpose of that paper was to strengthen the measures adopted by ICAO in the field of technical co-operation. He underscored that it was the right and duty of the Council to understand and properly manage all of the Organization’s activities, including those relating to technical co-operation. In observing, in this regard, that, at his request, the Secretary General would be convening a familiarization session for new Council Representatives on Friday, 13 October 2006, at 1000 hours in Conference Room 12.20.56 to brief them on the functions of the various Bureaux, the President indicated that it would assist them in understanding some of the points raised by the Representative of France in introducing C-WP/12702. He noted that the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa was quite correct in indicating that it was the sovereign right of States to decide how and with whom to contract services for improving the implementation of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Regional Air Navigation Plans (RANPs). The two papers, which were presented in order to enhance the provision of technical co-operation by ICAO to States, should be discussed within this framework. 29. Recalling that the Secretary General had indicated that TCB would be restructured, the Representative of Saudi Arabia observed that he was very interested in knowing the status of the study on the restructuring and raised the possibility of the Secretary General giving an oral report thereon, either during the present meeting or in the near future. In voicing appreciation for the paper presented by France, he affirmed that it was very useful to those States which benefited from TCB’s activities. The Representative of Saudi Arabia shared the same concerns as those raised in that paper and endorsed the action proposed. In underscoring that the integrity of the Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP) was not being called into question, he emphasized that the said paper was calling for the programme to be strengthened. In noting that Council Representatives had often underscored the need for technical co-operation activities to be monitored by the Council, he questioned why they should only be supervised by TCB. The Representative of Saudi Arabia affirmed that, in order to ensure transparency and to strengthen the Organization as a whole, the activities of all Bureaux should be monitored by the Council. 30. The Representative of Argentina noted that he was fully aware of the need for the Organization to assist its Member States not only by issuing SARPs but also by ensuring that they were effectively implemented in a concrete manner. In averring that the Organization’s mechanisms for providing assistance in that regard were sufficient, the Representative of Argentina indicated that the purpose behind the paper presented by France was to further activate the various efforts and methods. Recalling that a Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) team had been established to consider, inter alia, a new structure for TCB, he expressed interest in having a report on what was being planned as soon as possible. 31. Referring to action paragraph 8.1 of C-WP/12702, the Representative of Argentina noted that its second paragraph instructed the Secretary General to implement a number of measures set forth in paragraph 7 of that paper. He indicated that, before the Council assigned those new tasks to the Secretary General, it should consider action paragraph 3 b) of C-WP/12706, which noted that paragraphs 1 and 2 of the latter paper clarified the issues raised in paragraph 7 of C-WP/12702. The Representative of Argentina suggested that, if the Representative of France agreed, the Council could proceed directly with the action proposed in C-WP/12706. In endorsing the action set forth in paragraph 3 of that paper, he indicated that he could accept the implications of the said paragraph 7 of C-WP/12702. Above all, the Representative of Argentina could accept sub-paragraph c), which instructed the Secretary General to consider the importance of the TCP to developing States in the current studies for the reorientation of implementation functions of the Secretariat. He suggested that the Secretary General should also be instructed to consider the usefulness of the TCP to the achievement of the Organization’s Strategic Objectives and to inform the Council, as soon as possible, of the status of the study on the restructuring of TCB.

C-MIN 179/2 - 52 -

32. In underscoring the importance of the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa and its objectivity, the Representative of Spain averred that it could be adopted in its entirety without any discussion. In then referring to points raised by previous speakers, he emphasized that it was not the Council but the Secretary General who managed the Organization’s five Bureaux and that the latter did so in accordance with the criteria established by the Council. Noting that whenever TCB had required assistance in the past, it had received it from the other Bureaux, the Representative of Spain stressed that the Bureaux did share resources, as the Council had often indicated they should. In noting that the AOSC was totally independent of the Regular Programme Budget, he indicated that it drew on contributions from those States which wished to have their technical co-operation projects implemented by ICAO, through TCB, in order to enhance civil aviation in their countries in the fields of aviation safety and security, inter alia. The Representative of Spain stressed that the procedure whereby States received technical co-operation from ICAO could therefore not be changed. 33. The Representative of India indicated that it was well-known that ICAO’s role was gradually shifting to SARPs implementation and that the Organization would thus need a structure which would be responsible therefor. Such a structure could take many forms. Similarly, while TCB had delivered services to the satisfaction of States for over 50 years and played a very significant role in the development of their civil aviation, there could be many other forms of providing technical co-operation. As mentioned in the paper presented by France, there could be a “clearing house”, a platform where various financial institutions could be brought together. The Representative of India cited, as an example, the International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS). He noted, however, that in comparison with the TCP, the IFFAS had not “taken off” as it had not yet been possible to bring the various financial institutions on board. 34. Referring to the two papers under consideration, the Representative of India noted that the paper presented by France raised some legal issues, as well as issues relating to the effectiveness of TCB, the direction of its various activities, TCB’s role in procurement and the restructuring of TCB. The paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa, on the other hand, provided legal justification for the TCP and showed that TCB had been very effective. As mentioned by the President, the Council was discussing how TCB’s effectiveness could be enhanced, not whether TCB should be disbanded. Underscoring that no structure or Organization was perfect, the Representative of India noted that the Secretary General had already undertaken a study of the restructuring of the entire Organization in order to improve its effectiveness. He therefore suggested that both of the papers, as well as the views expressed by Council Representatives, be referred to the Secretary General for his detailed consideration. 35. The Representative of Nigeria observed that there were three issues which had been focussed upon in the paper presented by France, issues which had always been under consideration by his Delegation: the priorities of ICAO’s Strategic Objectives, ICAO’s role in SARPs implementation and the enhancement of ICAO’s financial contribution to the TCP. With regard to the first issue, the Representative of Nigeria recalled the view expressed by the TCC in one of its reports that States’ technical co-operation projects were carried out in accordance with their regional specificities and their own priorities and underscored that there might sometimes be an imbalance between those priorities and what ICAO considered to be the overall priority issue that needed to be addressed by States. In emphasizing the need for an indepth examination of the priorities of the Organization’s Strategic Objectives, he indicated that there could be central priorities and regional specificities to those priorities. The priorities should be considered in the same way as the allocation of resources, with the needs of the various regions being taken into account.

C-MIN 179/2

- 53 -

36. With reference to the second and third issues, the Representative of Nigeria underscored that there was no allocation within the Regular Programme budget for technical co-operation. Emphasizing that States were basically financing their own projects and thus determining how they spent their funds, he questioned how ICAO could direct their expenditures so that the projects would solve the States’ problems. Observing that ICAO had a role in SARPs implementation, as evidenced by the audits which had been conducted, the Representative of Nigeria stressed the need for the Council to examine the issue and determine if the Regular Programme budget could continue to exclude SARPs implementation. If it were to decide that it could no longer be excluded, the Council would then have to determine how to provide the resources required to fund those activities it considered to be critical. The Representative of Nigeria recalled, in this regard, that the TCP was funded by many development partners. 37. In then commenting on C-WP/12702, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that his only concern was action paragraph 8.1, the second paragraph of which instructed the Secretary General to implement the different actions mentioned in paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 and requested him to inform the Council of his position with regard to the prospects envisaged in paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6. Noting that paragraphs 7.1 to 7.4 gave rise to many questions, he cited paragraph 7.4 on the World Bank. The Representative of Nigeria recalled that World Bank officials had recently indicated that they were finding it difficult to fund regional programmes and preferred funding States’ individual projects. ICAO, on the other hand, favoured regional solutions to safety issues. Paragraph 7.5 on the possibility of ICAO acting as a “clearing house” between the requirement, the demand, the capacity and the supply, likewise gave rise to questions, such as ICAO’s liability. The Representative of Nigeria noted, however, that C-WP/12706 fortunately answered most of the questions raised in paragraph 7 of C-WP/12702. Action paragraph 3 c) of C-WP/12706, which instructed the Secretary General to consider the importance of the TCP to developing States in the current studies for the reorientation of implementation functions of the Secretariat, was key. Restructuring could be required. It was necessary to reposition ICAO so that it could play a co-ordinating role in SARPs implementation. In underscoring that the issue of priorities needed to be examined, the Representative of Nigeria queried how ICAO could ensure that the funds which States were using for their technical co-operation projects were aimed at solving the problems that were particular to those States and regions. 38. In concluding, the Representative of Nigeria commended the efforts of France in raising the various issues and the efforts of Ethiopia and South Africa in addressing them. While suggesting that the two papers be referred to the Secretary General for consideration and report to the Council, he stressed the need for the Council to answer the three questions relating to the priorities of ICAO’s Strategic Objectives, ICAO’s role in SARPs implementation and the enhancement of ICAO’s financial contribution to the TCP. 39. The Representative of Pakistan commended the work being carried out by TCB, underscoring that it contributed immensely to the Organization. He emphasized that the Bureau was self-financing, which was very difficult given the current challenging environment. In agreeing with the contents of the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa, the Representative of Pakistan noted that the legal framework for the provision of technical co-operation was well-covered. He considered that, although the paper presented by France raised a few issues, they were not that serious that they could not be clarified by TCB. Observing that TCB worked in a transparent manner, the Representative of Pakistan averred that if further checks and balances were introduced, the Bureau’s efficiency and perhaps its financial status would be affected. 40. The Representative of Australia indicated that he was encouraged by the fact that the Council was considering the direction of the Organization within the context of ICAO’s Strategic Objectives. He recalled that the Council had, in its decision of 10 June 2005 on the Report of the Air

C-MIN 179/2 - 54 -

Navigation Commission (ANC) on the Unified Strategy Implementation Plan (C-WP/12475; 175/12), indicated that the Organization should focus on the implementation of safety-related provisions and remedial action rather than on the development of new SARPs. The Representative of Australia noted that through its work processes the Organization developed SARPs, through its audit processes, assessed compliance therewith and through a somewhat scattered system of mechanisms, provided assistance to States for implementing SARPs. In emphasizing that ICAO needed to focus more on those implementation mechanisms in the future, he indicated that TCB was undoubtedly one of the Organization’s most important implementation arms which had, over a long period of time, provided a significant amount of assistance to a great many States. The Representative of Australia nonetheless considered that it was necessary to begin thinking about some of those issues from the Organization’s first principles in light of the wider decisions that had been made within ICAO. In expressing appreciation for the paper presented by France, he underscored that it challenged the Council to consider both SARPs implementation and the role of TCB in such implementation in view of other decisions made. In also voicing appreciation for the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa, which provided another view, he observed that both papers provided a good basis for the Council as it began its indepth consideration of the various issues. 41. Recalling that the Secretary General had informed the Council that consideration was being given within the Secretariat to the restructuring of the Organization and that the issue of SARPs implementation was one of the foremost issues, the Representative of Australia indicated that it would be useful if the Secretary General could give the Council a briefing thereon at a future meeting. He suggested that, in view of that additional information, both papers could be referred to the Finance Committee (FIC) and the TCC for discussion in light of some of the broader changes being considered. 42. Referring to a point raised in the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa, the Representative of Australia indicated that, while it was true that sovereign States could choose the entity they wished to undertake work on their behalf, it was also true that every organization had its own internal policies which guided its direction and the conditions for the provision of services. Within ICAO, policies had been set for TCB. It was thus necessary to recognize that the issue was not black and white. There were some shades of grey and the Organization had to try and work in a way that met both the needs of all of its Contracting States and those of individual Contracting States which were seeking assistance on a bilateral basis from ICAO. 43. Referring to the comments made by D/TCB, the Representative of France agreed that the COSCAP and CASP projects were funded mainly by other backers and that ICAO’s financial contribution thereto was marginal, the Organization often acting as the executing agency and not as a financial backer. He noted, in this regard, that France had made substantial donations to the COSCAP, and that the European Union, Boeing, Airbus, the United States and several other donors had also contributed thereto. In then drawing attention to paragraph 7.4 of C-WP/12702, the Representative of France indicated that the World Bank’s project in Western and Central Africa was “regional” in the usual sense of that term, as utilized internationally, and not in TCB’s sense of that term. 44. Noting that, although the paper presented by Ethiopia and South Africa made some good points, it did not respond to all of the questions raised in his paper, the Representative of France requested that they continue to be examined. Those questions could be summarized as follows: in ICAO, there had traditionally been an executing agency, namely TCB. However, as indicated by several speakers, the Organization was dealing increasingly with concrete SARPs implementation. It therefore needed an assistance and technical co-operation policy in all its dimensions, both at the level of ICAO and at the international level, under which ICAO would play its usual leadership role in creating a coherent framework for the work being done by the many actors, be they international financial institutions or

C-MIN 179/2

- 55 -

States with a development strategy. TCB did exist and did provide services. Many States appreciated those services. There was thus no reason to fundamentally change TCB. However, the development and application of a true policy regarding assistance and technical co-operation were still required so that the Organization would be equipped with all of the necessary tools. In proposing that such a policy be developed, the Representative of France indicated that he did not have a ready-made solution. He was requesting that the relevant Committees, the Council and the Secretariat consider the matter. In reiterating that the purpose behind presenting C-WP/12702 had only been to give the Council food for thought, the Representative of France underscored that the development of the said policy constituted a challenge for ICAO and that it should seek to meet that challenge. 45. The Representative of the United States noted that both papers presented some very thoughtful issues and history that had been very helpful to him and other Council Representatives. Observing, from the comments made by the Representative of Nigeria and others, that there were important issues that required careful consideration and that could not perhaps be resolved in an afternoon’s discussion among the 36 Council Representatives, he suggested that the TCC was the appropriate forum for those issues to be examined in greater depth and for recommendations to be formulated for the Council’s consideration. The Representative of the United States proposed that the TCC take on that task as a priority matter as the said issues were at the very heart of the Organization’s future. 46. The Representative of the United States underscored that, as ICAO had established the SARPs and the audit process, it now had the obligation to ensure that audited States had the assistance they required in addressing the identified deficiencies and in finding the capacity and capability to adhere to the SARPs. As ICAO did not have the resources to do that itself, it was a question of determining what role it could play in co-ordinating the provision of assistance in the most efficient possible way and how it could draw upon the tremendous work done by TCB and its experience in making that a central part of the Organization’s mission. He recalled, in this regard, that paragraph 7.5 of the paper presented by France had raised the possibility of ICAO acting as a “clearing house” between the requirement, the demand, the capacity and the supply. Noting that the Secretary General’s review of organizational changes would address these issues, the Representative of the United States indicated that he looked forward to the envisaged briefing. He nonetheless considered that the issues raised should be referred to the TCC for further review. 47. The Representative of Saudi Arabia supported the proposals that the two papers be referred to the Secretary General for detailed consideration, together with the comments made by Council Representatives, and that the Secretary General be requested to brief the Council on his plans to restructure TCB. He considered that the papers should be referred to the FIC and the TCC only after the Council had received such a briefing. 48. The Secretary General affirmed that it was his intention to take into consideration the contents of both C-WP/12702 and C-WP/12706 in considering the restructuring of the Secretariat as requested in the two papers. Recalling that no Council Representatives had called into question the need for technical co-operation and that all had advocated the strengthening of the TCP, he was convinced that he would be able to submit to the Council in November 2006 a new structure for the Secretariat which would respond to both papers as the TCP would be maintained and strengthened. In noting that the study on the review of the structure and organization of the Secretariat (SOS) was in the process of being finalized, the Secretary General indicated that, following its completion, it would be considered by the Senior Management Group. It was his intention to present the restructuring plan to the Council during an informal meeting towards the third week of October 2006 and subsequently during a formal meeting in November 2006.

C-MIN 179/2 - 56 -

49. In summarizing the discussion, the President of the Council noted that several Council Representatives had referred to the work being carried out to restructure the Secretariat. As indicated by the Secretary General, the Council would soon be informed of the results of those activities as they applied to the Council. He recalled, in this regard, that it had been underscored that the Secretary General was responsible for managing the Organization. In light of the views expressed, the President proposed that the Secretary General be requested to take into account C-WP/12702 and C-WP/12706, as well as the views expressed by Council Representatives, in considering the restructuring of the Secretariat with a view to improving the effectiveness of TCB. He also suggested that the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC) be requested, as a priority, to review the issues raised in both papers and to make recommendations to the Council on measures to enhance technical co-operation activities. In concluding his summary, the President expressed appreciation to France, Ethiopia and South Africa for having presented their excellent papers. 50. The Council accepted the above summary as its decision. Other business 51. In noting the comments made by the Representatives of Australia and Canada regarding the recent ICAO news releases on action being taken by the Organization following the thwarted terrorist plot against civil aircraft over the North Atlantic (cf. PIO 11/06, 12/06, 13/06 and 14/06), the President of the Council observed that both he and the First Vice-President had been consulted before the news releases had been issued, pursuant to the established procedure. In underscoring that PIO 14/06 merely reflected the work being undertaken by the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP) pending a review by the Council of the report of its recent meeting and that of the recent meetings of the International Explosives Technical Commission (IETC) and the Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE), he assured the Representatives that more care would be taken in producing future news releases. Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Report of ANC — Annual review of the Technical Work Programme (TWP) — Progress report on the transition to the Business Plan approach

52. As no request had been received by 11 July 2006 to have C-WP/12695 on the above subject tabled for discussion by the Council in response to President’s memorandum PRES AK/1231 dated 27 June 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted that paper. Subject No. 42: Technical cooperation

Information on large-scale technical co-operation projects 53. As no request had been received by 18 September 2006 to have C-WP/12732 (with Corrigendum) on the above subject tabled for discussion by the Council in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1278 dated 6 September 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted that paper.

C-MIN 179/2

- 57 -

Subject No. 27: Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention)

Celebration of International Civil Aviation Day 54. The President of the Council recalled that at the Fourteenth Meeting of its 178th Session on 15 June 2006 the Council had requested the Secretary General to further consider the theme for the celebration of International Civil Aviation Day presented in C-WP/12678 Revised (cf. C-DEC 178/14, paragraph 27). Under President’s memorandum PRES AK/1254 dated 31 July 2006, two suggestions for a revised theme had been circulated to Council Representatives for comment: Option one: Safety and Security — first and always the top priority and Option two: Women in aviation — a new generation of aviation pioneers. By close of business on 18 August 2006, Option one had received a majority of support and had become the designated theme. It had been communicated expeditiously to States in the usual manner (cf. State letter O1/6-06/78 dated 8 September 2006). Subject No. 7.2: Recruitment policy Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Reduction in the advertisement period of Vacancy Notices for Director-level posts 55. The President of the Council noted that, further to his memorandum PRES RK/1274 dated 31 August 2006 on the reduction in the advertisement period of Vacancy Notices for Director-level posts, advertisements for posts of Directors would be issued with a two-month advertisement period instead of the current three-month advertisement period. 56. The Council adjourned at 1715 hours.

C-MIN 179/3

- 59 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. M. Belayneh Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany —*Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana —*Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P Ciancaglioni (Alt.)

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain —*Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom —*Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) — Australia Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. J. Salinas (Alt.) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. H. Ohtake (Adv.) — Japan Mr. M. Franco (Alt.) — Peru Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Kang, Y.-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S.. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea *Mr. A.G. Sayce (Alt.) — United Kingdom Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB *Mr. A.R. Diallo — C/HRB *Mr. R. Barr — C/FIN *Miss D. Wall — RO/REC/EST *Mrs. L.M. Comeau-Stuart — CO/REC/EST Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/3 - 60 -

Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies Subject No. 18.1: Working capital fund

Proposals for dealing with foreign exchange fluctuations in the ICAO Budget 1. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in C-WP/12663, in which the Secretary General presented a proposal to protect and stabilize the Regular Programme Budget against adverse currency fluctuations, and in C-WP/12664, in which the Finance Committee recommended that the Council approve the concept of the establishment of a Long-term Foreign Exchange Reserve Fund and request the Secretary General to present detailed procedures for its use. 2. Under general comments, the Representative of Germany recalled that at a recent informal meeting of the Finance Committee, she had indicated that her country continued to hold the view that it was worthwhile to look in more detail at the possibility, and the advantages or disadvantages, of a split assessment system. The action proposed for the Council in the two working papers now under consideration left aside this possibility. Since a number of States were inclined to at least have a closer look at it, the Representative of Germany requested that this option also be retained. 3. The Representative of Nigeria sought clarification with respect to paragraph 6 of the Finance Committee’s report, where it was indicated that the proposed Reserve Fund would entail some risk to ICAO. The Representative of Nigeria wished to know how significant such a risk would be. The former Chairman of the Finance Committee indicated that at the time of the drafting of C-WP/12664, the Committee had been in the process of identifying risks, and that a full assessment of those risks was not available at this stage. The next paper to be presented by the Secretary General would probably cover the subject. It would depend on projections for protection against the movement of foreign exchange, which would in turn depend on advice which ICAO would receive from the banks. 4. The Representative of the United States indicated that his country supported, in principle, the creation of a foreign exchange reserve fund for managing exchange rate risk in the 2008-2010 assessed budget. Of the alternatives presented in C-WP/12663, the reserve provided a potentially promising method of managing exchange risk. He wished to clarify, however, that the United States’ support for the reserve was contingent upon two conditions. First, it was important to secure advice from the ICAO External Auditor on whether the establishment of the reserve was consistent with the International Public Sector Accounting Standards and any other relevant authorities. It would also be necessary to develop and agree on detailed procedures governing the establishment and use of the reserve fund. Subject to further discussion and subsequent agreement by Contracting States, the procedures for the reserve fund should provide for a ceiling on the amount of funds that the reserve would contain; a process for returning excess surpluses to Contracting States; segregation of the reserve funds from other ICAO funds; regular reporting to Contracting States on the status of the reserve; a sunset or renewal provision to coincide with the onset of future triennia; and the possible event that the reserve would be inadequate to cover future exchange rate losses. The Representative of the United States asked that the Secretary General consider these factors in preparing the detailed procedures for presentation to the Council. 5. The Representative of France believed that the establishment of a reserve fund was, in principle, an excellent idea; it was unfortunate that such a fund had not been established a long time ago to cover fluctuations in the United States vs. Canadian dollar, since it would have helped prevent the situation which ICAO was now facing. The Organization was now targeting the next triennial budget, and although it was difficult to know exactly where the economy was going and what the situation would be, two things were certain. Either the United States dollar would appreciate, making it possible to build

C-MIN 179/3

- 61 -

a reserve fund that could be used in the future, or the United States dollar would remain weak vis-à-vis the Canadian dollar, in which case it would not be possible to build up the fund at all. Therefore, while in favour of setting up a fund, the Representative of France did not think that it would be very useful here and now. As had been pointed out by the Representative of Germany, the only efficient solution for dealing with problems caused by fluctuations in exchange rates would be to calculate contributions in the two currencies. A split assessment would make a reserve fund redundant, and it could be set up right at the beginning of the next triennium with immediate, positive results. A split assessment would not be unique to ICAO; other UN agencies such as UNESCO, whose budget was calculated in euros and United States dollars, were practising the system. The Representative of France was surprised to see this option being dismissed so quickly, notwithstanding the interest in it shown by certain Contracting States. It would have to be explored further; the Secretary General could, for example, simulate a budget for the current (2004-2007) triennium based on a split assessment, showing what the impact would have been on Contracting States and what savings could have been made by the Organization. Such a simulation would allow Representatives to become fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages for both ICAO and its Contracting States. 6. The Representative of Saint Lucia noted that paragraph 2.1.1 b) of the Secretary General’s paper referred to paying “part” of a split assessment in Canadian dollars and “part” in U.S. dollars, and requested clarification as to what the ratios would be. States in the Caribbean, regardless of whether they paid their assessments in Canadian or U.S. dollars, would be obliged to purchase those dollars and incur a risk either way. The Representative of Saint Lucia noted from paragraph 2.3.2 of the paper that the JIU had recommended the establishment of budgets in the host country currencies only for those organizations which incurred 85 percent or more of their expenditures in the local currency, and wished to know by what percentage ICAO did not meet this criterion. He could see the need for a reserve fund as a good option which he supported, but believed that further consideration should be given to the option of a split assessment since it might offer the solution the Council was seeking. 7. Some clarifications were then provided by C/FIN, who, in adding to the information which had been provided in response to the question raised by the Representative of Nigeria, indicated that the risk which would be incurred in a fiscal year would only be if the United States dollar fell below the budgeted rate. C/FIN confirmed that the points which had been raised by the Representative of the United States would be covered in future reports. On the subject of the split assessment, he knew from his own experience with a number of UN agencies that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to forecast exchange rate fluctuations. As had been the case in 2003, the Secretariat could undertake a full review of other UN agencies’ experience on this issue, although such a review would take staff time and resources at a time when the budget for the next triennium was being developed. As had been pointed out by the Representative of Saint Lucia, the only burden which a split assessment system would impose on Contracting States would be that of having to issue two sets of payment, i.e. one in U.S. dollars and the other in Canadian dollars. If this was not an issue for the treasury systems of Contracting States, the only impact would be that the exchange risk would be moved to the States and would not affect the Secretariat in any way. The current Canadian dollar disbursements represented only 38 percent of the Organization’s budget; those were related to the salaries of General Service staff, operating expenses, and the impact of the U.S. exchange rate movements on the post adjustment for Professional staff in Montreal. A split assessment was potentially a complicated system to cover only 38 percent of the Organization’s costs, and it was possible that fluctuations in exchange rates between the time a State was assessed and the time ICAO received its contribution might create an accounting problem. Exchange rates were always an issue when it came to a split assessment. 8. The Representative of Austria noted the recommendation of the Finance Committee, but wished to convey her Delegation’s interest in keeping the split assessment as an option on the table.

C-MIN 179/3 - 62 -

C/FIN had explained some of the complexities of the system, and it would be interesting to see how agencies in which the split assessment had been introduced dealt with this problem. She therefore supported the views expressed by the Representative of France as well as the proposal of the Representative of Germany. 9. The Representative of Australia observed that the issue of split assessment had been looked at within the Organization in the past few years and had not received support, despite a fair degree of analysis. There was a connection between moving towards that kind of system and the capacity of the Organization to administer it. The next paper on the meeting’s agenda dealt with the introduction of a new financial system, and the Representative of Australia suggested that the Council would need to be careful, if it was looking at the split assessment option, as to how big a burden it would be placing on the Organization’s financial systems at a time of great change. From a national perspective, paying assessments in two currencies would seem to add an unnecessary amount of complexity for what should be a fairly simple transaction, and the Representative of Australia believed that his State would probably prefer to pay just in one currency. 10. The Representative of Japan observed that this was a difficult issue to deal with, but that his Delegation could, in principle, go along with the idea of the establishment of the reserve fund. The Japanese Government’s budget was established in his country’s currency, and a split assessment system would entail the same risk in terms of currency fluctuations whether the payments were made in United States or Canadian dollars. The split assessment system would result in a more complicated accounting exercise than was currently the case with the use of a single currency for determining assessments. While Japan could go along with the reserve fund approach, it recognized, as had been pointed out by the Representative of the United States, that there was a need to carefully look at the procedures which may be adopted in starting the operation of this system. The Representative of Japan wished to highlight the importance of the last sentence of the Finance Committee’s report, where it was indicated that Regular Programme funds would never be used to build up the reserve fund. A conservative approach would have to be taken in operating the reserve fund, since ICAO would run the risk of suffering from currency fluctuations between the first and second year, whereas the current approach covered the risk for the three years through the forward purchase of currencies at the beginning of the triennium. 11. The Representative of Mexico indicated that his Delegation did not, in principle, oppose the establishment of a reserve fund, recognizing that everything would depend upon the operating mechanism which the Secretary General would report upon in due course. However, having listened to the views expressed by the Representative of the United States, with which he agreed in general, he had some misgivings in respect of what he had asked the Secretary General to take into consideration. He wished to know how the surplus would be reimbursed to States, since it was his understanding that any surplus would go into the reserve fund in order to guard ICAO from any adverse changes in the exchange rates. The Representative of Mexico also sought clarification on the action proposed in the report of the Finance Committee, which asked the Council to endorse ICAO’s present practice of the purchase of forward currency contracts, as necessary; paragraph 2.4.5 of the Secretary General’s paper indicated that forward contracts would only be purchased for one year at a time at the beginning of each fiscal year. The Secretary General should be accorded some flexibility to conclude these forward contracts at any time of the year when exchange rates were favourable, and not necessarily at the beginning of the fiscal year. 12. The Chief of the Finance Branch thanked the Representative of Mexico for having commented on the need for some flexibility, since he found that because ICAO was an agency funded through assessments, there was a lack of management flexibility in certain financial areas. The system of true policy governance from the board level – which in ICAO’s case would be the Council and Assembly

C-MIN 179/3

- 63 -

– and responsibility at the management level would provide management with a framework of policies and procedures, within which it would report on what was being done and what the outcome would be. The Organization found itself in a unique situation because there had been a precipitous drop in the exchange rate which could not have been anticipated on the basis of the long-term historical trends. If ICAO started to generate more funds, it would have in place a procedure whereby the funds would either be refunded to States or allocated to offset the appropriations for the next fiscal year. Once that process was in place, it would not be necessary to seek the approval of the Finance Committee and Council every year, as was the case at present. A formula would be in place to calculate the ceiling which had been approved in advance, and there would be a methodology for disbursing any surplus at the end of the fiscal year in excess of that amount, whether it would be a refund or a credit against appropriations in the next fiscal year. It would not, under these circumstances, be possible to also continue the practice of forward purchasing of local currencies, since there would never be a subsequent gain or loss during the fiscal year to fund the reserve. At the beginning of a year where the exchange rate was not at the budgeted level, the Organization could have the option of making the decision to hedge because it believed it would have a loss during the year. If the Organization was in a surplus situation, it could decide not to hedge for the year. This was the type of flexibility that was required, otherwise there would never be a surplus generated in a year when the exchange movement was in ICAO’s favour. 13. The Representative of India supported the continuance of the present system of forward currency as necessary, as well as the establishment of the long-term foreign exchange reserve fund. A 2003 study which had provided comparative details of various systems in the United Nations had tested those systems on the basis of eleven criteria; it seemed that forward currency contracts had worked very well and that the establishment of the long-term foreign exchange reserve fund would also be tested on the same eleven criteria and would be found very appropriate. 14. The Representative of India wished to know whether the present practice of forward purchasing or the proposed establishment of a long-term foreign exchange reserve fund would protect the Regional Offices from foreign exchange currency fluctuations. He observed that the operation of the reserve fund would be the subject of detailed procedures which would be developed and presented to the Council, and believed that the Secretary General would have to analyze the cost benefit of entering into a forward contract for three years, as opposed to one year. Since the mechanism would be dependent upon forecasts, he wished to know if the Secretariat would be able to do this, or if a consultant or financial institution would be needed to provide some assistance. 15. Responding to the questions raised by the Representative of India, C/FIN indicated that the Regional Offices were budgeted for in United States dollars. Traditionally, outside of Europe and North America, the situation was either very stable or with a gain, over time, in local currencies to the United States dollar with the Regional Offices actually gaining in purchasing power. C/FIN agreed that potentially, ICAO could hedge all three years from the onset of the budgetary period. The Organization did receive free advice from both the Royal Bank and the National Bank in this very complex process, and would be attending another economic briefing in the coming month. C/FIN did not think that ICAO would gain anything more by an outside consultant. 16. The Representative of Canada indicated that his Delegation remained open to a procedure for a split budget in order to calculate ICAO assessments. He nevertheless noted, as had the Representative of Australia, that this subject had been considered when the current triennial budget had been prepared and that the Council had, at that time, deemed it appropriate to leave it in abeyance. Canada wished to have the subject reconsidered and awaited the Delegations and Secretariat who advocated it to provide further information. When it came to the reserve fund, the Representative of Canada would join what had been said by the Representative of France in expressing the same

C-MIN 179/3 - 64 -

reservations. The Representative of Canada wished to know if the fact that ICAO did not as yet have a computerized financial system affected the calculation of a split assessment. He also requested further clarification on the proportion of costs which ICAO incurred in Canadian dollars. 17. C/FIN indicated that it had been a misconception in the past that a majority of ICAO’s expenditures were impacted by the U.S./Canadian dollar exchange rate. On the basis of an exchange rate of 1.32, which was the budgeted rate for the current triennium, the United States dollar equivalent of ICAO’s Canadian expenditures for the year 2005 was $22.8 million against the total expenditures for the year of $60.7 million. As regards the issue of the computer system, C/FIN indicated that although a better system would help track the numbers more effectively, in terms of human resources he did not have the staff at the present time to manage a more complex system. For the same reason, although a further review could be carried out of the experience of other UN agencies with split assessment systems, he would also wish to review how many staff it took to manage such a system, since UNESCO, IAEA and FAO had substantially larger finance units than ICAO. 18. The Representative of Argentina did not share the view that a split assessment system would be a transfer of risk to the States paying their contributions; it was, rather, a duplication of risks in light of the fact that the assessment could change significantly from the time it was calculated to the time it was actually made. For those States which made the greatest sacrifices to honour their obligations vis-à-vis ICAO, either of the two currencies could be used with no different effect. As had been pointed out by the Representative of Australia and C/FIN, there would be a need to closely examine the split assessment system and see to what extent a more complex arrangement would affect both States and ICAO in calculating contributions. The Representative of Argentina did not, for his part, think that the split assessment would bring about any major benefits; it would instead simply complicate matters further. As regards the forward purchasing of currencies, it would be appropriate for the Council to specify that endorsing ICAO’s present practice would apply until the reserve fund, referred to in sub-paragraph 8 b) of C-WP/12664, was in place. The Representative of Argentina could support the action proposed by the Finance Committee, subject to the points which had been raised by the Representative of the United States. 19. The Representative of Saudi Arabia believed that the reserve fund was the optimal solution, as had been suggested by the Secretary General in paragraph 3.4 of his report. Saudi Arabia also supported the suggestion of the Representative of the United States. As for the proposal of the Representative of Germany, the Organization would have to take into account the government procedures in State budgets. As was pointed out in sub-paragraph 2.1.2 a) of C-WP/12663, a split assessment system would not protect the paying States from any negative currency fluctuations. 20. The Representative of Cameroon wished to support retaining the existing practice of forward purchasing currency contracts, noting that this was a method that had been used by ICAO very successfully for some time. His Delegation would also support, in principle, the concept of the establishment of a long-term foreign exchange reserve fund. As regards the possibility of a split assessment, although his Delegation found this to be highly complex, the possibility merited further study by the Organization. The custom had been in the past to pay contributions in United States dollars, but should it come about that the Organization was in favour of a split system, ICAO would have to establish a transition period for States to enable them to adjust to it. A model system would have to be presented to the Council to enable it to see how it would be applied in practice. 21. The Representative of China indicated that his Delegation agreed in principle with the forward purchase of currency and the use of a currency reserve fund. As could be noted from the paper presented by the Secretary General, a split currency system might result in difficulties for some countries.

C-MIN 179/3

- 65 -

He therefore agreed with the comments offered by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia and Cameroon, while being open to any means which would lead to the optimal solution. 22. The Representative of South Africa shared the views of colleagues who had voiced concern with respect to the introduction of a split assessment, which he feared might cause a great deal of confusion and present difficulties for certain States in terms of having to raise funds in two separate currencies. For the sake of simplicity, he would prefer to maintain the status quo and accord the Secretary General some flexibility in handling the budgetary process. 23. The Representative of Lebanon endorsed the establishment of a reserve fund. As for the possibility of a split assessment, he believed that such a system might complicate the process of transfer of funds for countries which had been accustomed to covering their international obligations using United States dollars. The Representative of Colombia would agree to the reserve fund and the purchase of forward currency contracts, which would afford flexibility to the Secretary General and make it possible for him to come up with the best possible solution that would work in the interest of the Organization. He also supported those speakers who favoured continuing to calculate contributions in United States dollars. The Representative of the Russian Federation also supported the forward purchasing of currency contracts, a practice which had worked in the past and would continue to work well in the future. His Delegation also supported the establishment of a reserve fund. As regards the issue of a split assessment, he was of the opinion that this would complicate matters both for the Organization as well as for States. The Representative of Peru supported the current practice regarding the purchase of forward currency contracts, as well as the establishment of a reserve fund. However, as regards the split currency system for assessments, he had doubts on the subject because he also believed it would complicate the system. 24. The Representative of Pakistan indicated that his State, like many others, dealt basically with one foreign currency, that being the United States dollar although the euro was gaining strength. It would be very difficult for the higher authorities of those countries to justify a U.S./Canadian dollar split assessment system to their governments. In view of these circumstances and the arguments presented by previous speakers, the Representative of Pakistan strongly felt that the Council should accept the recommendations of the Finance Committee, with the proviso that the Secretary General would be accorded some flexibility and the points highlighted by the Representative of the United States would be taken into account. The Representative of the Republic of Korea indicated that in principle, his Delegation, like others, was agreeable to keeping the present practice of forward currency contracts and was open to the idea of establishing a long-term reserve fund. As regards the split assessment, his Delegation would need to have more consultations with the budget authorities in his Government. 25. The Representative of France wished to respond to a number of the statements which had been made. Although it was true that the whole issue of establishing a split currency system of assessment had been studied in 2003, that had been prior to the fluctuations in the exchange rate of the current triennium which had led to disastrous results. While thanking C/FIN for having provided the Council with the exact percentage of 38% for the Canadian disbursements, the fact was that the differences in the rate of exchange had cost the Organization $5 million over the current triennium. The Representative of France had difficulty grasping the line of argumentation of Representatives who had spoken to the complexity of the system. A number of organizations already had the split assessment system in place, which meant clearly that it was feasible and worked. The States members of those organizations were also members of ICAO, and were currently paying their contributions in two currencies in organizations where the split system was applied. He therefore did not see why it would not be possible to apply the split assessment at ICAO. The Representative of France realized that the split assessment system might be more complicated for the Secretariat to manage, but believed it could be rendered much simpler by defining, first of all, a clearer framework regarding the conditions applicable to

C-MIN 179/3 - 66 -

assessments, so that all States contributed in the same manner. An additional person could be hired to deal with the different accounting system. The Representative of France emphasized that this option had to remain on the table and be studied further. 26. The Representative of Nigeria supported the proposals in the papers presented by the Secretary General and the Finance Committee, and also found the guidelines proposed by the Representative of the United States to be very logical. Since ICAO was not a profit-making organization, there should be a ceiling on the reserve fund and whenever that ceiling was exceeded in terms of surplus, it was to be credited to States either through a direct reimbursement or by being applied to future assessments. There was another fund in the Organization, i.e. the Administrative and Operational Services Cost Fund in the Technical Cooperation Programme, in which there were surpluses from time to time. The Finance Branch could look at the procedure in the Technical Cooperation Programme and apply the same guidelines to this particular fund. 27. Responding to the suggestion put forward by the Representative of Nigeria, C/FIN agreed that the same procedures should be in place for as many funds as possible. So many funds were established on a cost-recovery basis, and in an effort to not overspend those funds, the Organization sometimes ended up with surpluses which had to be resolved by a report through the Finance Committee to Council and, in some cases, the Assembly. This was a very bureaucratic and cumbersome procedure which should be changed. As an assessed agency, ICAO had a work programme that was set by the Assembly. It had no choice but to implement that suite of work. Unlike voluntary agencies such as UNICEF and the UNFPA, which used the framework of available resources to plan their activities, ICAO’s budget was based on the approved work programme and it could be argued that the Secretariat did not have the authority to change activities within the triennium. This point had been raised when the Air Navigation Bureau had had to include the avian flu on its work programme and in order to do so, had had to offset other activities that had been funded in the regular programme. In a results-based budget format, it would be recognized that in the area of aviation safety it might be necessary to change activities over the course of a year or a triennium in order to achieve certain outcomes. It would be reasonable to assume that the Secretariat could consult the United Nations agencies which had a split assessment system on their experience with it, to ascertain whether it helped, hindered, or was simply another way of allocating more resources to the organization at a time of losses due to currency, and to what extent this imposed a burden on the Secretariat or on the States making their payments. 28. The Representative of the United Kingdom observed that the intervention of C/FIN had highlighted the paradox between what the Council should be doing, which was setting the broad framework of what ICAO’s objectives were in terms of its business plan and its policy management, and the detailed work that the Secretariat should be doing. The Representative of the United Kingdom believed that the Council should expand on the action proposed in the Finance Committee’s report, in order to allow for an analysis of the split assessment system and for the elements which had been highlighted earlier by the Representative of the United States. Once the Council had the analysis of the split assessment, it could be left to the Secretariat to carry forward these procedures without undue oversight on the part of the Council or the Finance Committee. If C/FIN was to act as the chief financial officer, the Council would need to give him freedom to do so with the accountability through the business plan and the other procedures that were set in place to make sure that the Secretariat delivered the policy wishes of the Council. The Representative of Argentina supported the views expressed by the Representative of the United Kingdom, and requested clarification as to how long the Council could defer a decision regarding the system which would be used. If such a decision was deferred for too long, it could have an impact on the work of the Secretariat. The Representative of South Africa also supported the views offered by the Representative of the United Kingdom.

C-MIN 179/3

- 67 -

29. Responding to the question raised by the Representative of Argentina, C/FIN indicated that it would be preferable, given the time-frame for work on the budget, for the Council to arrive at a decision on the subject at this meeting. 30. The President of the Council observed that the Council was discussing a matter of utmost importance, which was linked to the financial stability of the Organization. The President thanked the Council for the great interest it had shown in this subject, because the Organization should be able to manage its resources in a stable manner, and all of the proposals which had been made were moving towards that goal. There were many variables that came into budgeting, and as some of the Representatives and C/FIN had said, even with advisers it was never easy to come up with 100 percent reliable, ironclad figures on what would or would not happen. The President proposed a course of action, which, after some further discussion, was accepted. In taking action on the basis of paragraph 8 of C-WP/12664, as amended in light of the debate, the Council: a) endorsed ICAO’s present practice of the purchase of forward currency contracts,

as necessary; b) approved the concept of the establishment of a Long-term Foreign Exchange

Reserve Fund as part of the 2008-2010 Regular Programme Budget, on the understanding that the Secretary General would also carry out a further analysis of the split assessment option; and

c) requested that detailed procedures for the use of the Long-term Foreign

Exchange Reserve Fund be submitted to the Council at the 180th Session, showing the relationship with the proposed new policy for the forward purchase of foreign exchange. It was understood that in preparing the detailed procedure, the Secretary General would take into account some points which had been referred to by the Representative of the United States. The first of these concerned the need to secure, from ICAO’s External Auditor, advice as to whether the establishment of such a reserve was consistent with international public sector accounting standards and any other relevant authorities, and to develop and agree on detailed procedures governing the establishment and use of the reserve fund. The procedures for the reserve fund should provide for a ceiling on the amount of funds which the reserve would contain; a process for returning excess surpluses to Contracting States; segregation of the reserve funds from other ICAO funds; regular reporting to Contracting States on the status of the reserve; a sunset or renewal provision to coincide with the onset of future triennia; and the possible event that the reserve would be inadequate to cover future exchange rate losses.

Subject No. 18.14: Other finance matters for consideration by Council

Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems

31. The Council considered the above subject on the basis of a paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/12653) and a report thereon presented by the Finance Committee (C-WP/12654). It was recalled that in Resolution A35-32, the Assembly had requested the Council to monitor progress achieved through the use of the ICT Fund and to report at the next ordinary session of

C-MIN 179/3 - 68 -

the Assembly on the use of the Fund. C-WP/12653 contained specific information on the suggested implementation approach, benefits and costs of the system, and means of financing. 32. The Council took the action proposed by the Finance Committee at paragraph 6 of C-WP/12654, and: a) noted the estimated cost of the project, to be implemented in two phases as

mentioned in Table 1 of paragraph 3.5.1 of C-WP/12653, and subject to review during the Transformation Phase;

b) noted the funding currently available and approved for the project ($5.843

million), as reported in Table 2 of paragraph 3.5.2; c) noted that the FIC had established an ICT working group which would monitor

the project; d) decided not to proceed with the establishment of the Council working group

recorded in C-DEC 174/11 and C-DEC 173/11; e) requested the Secretary General to submit an update report on the project’s

progress, and in particular the results of the Transformation Phase, during the current (179th) Session of the Council; and

f) deferred consideration of the approval of funding from the excess miscellaneous

income for 2005 [paragraph 4.1 b) of C-WP/12653] until that update report. Subject No. 7.2: Recruitment policy Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Expansion of the mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD) to include P-O level posts

33. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in C-WP/12673 and Corrigendum, presented by the Secretary General. It was recalled that at its meeting on 17 March 2006, the Council had decided to include on its work programme the question of the expansion of the mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD) to include Principal Officer (P-O) level positions. To assist the Council in its consideration of this matter, C-WP/12673 provided an overview of the history of appointment procedures for Director posts, the applicable ICAO Staff Regulations which governed the appointment to Director and P-O level positions, as well as the United Nations common system appointment practice for these category of posts. 34. Under general comments, the Representative of Canada indicated that in his former capacity as Chairman of the COPAD, he had recently had a conversation with the current Chairman and now wished to comment on the lack of consultation which had brought C-WP/12673 to this world. Some six months earlier, it had been the wish of the Council and the COPAD that the governing body of the Organization be involved in the appointment of all senior officers of ICAO in one way, shape or form; that had been the unanimous view of the COPAD. The Representative of Canada had informed the Chief of the Human Resources Branch and the Secretary General of the COPAD’s views in this regard, and had asked both of them to keep the COPAD informed and involved in the preparation of C-WP/12673. Unfortunately, the Members of the COPAD, including its Chairman, had only seen C-WP/12673 the day

C-MIN 179/3

- 69 -

it was published. Paragraph 6.1 invited the Council to note that paper, and there was really no further action which the Council could take on it. The paper was not of probative value, because it was limited to describing the status quo in ICAO and in some other organizations. The Representative of Canada was not satisfied with the manner in which the Secretariat had chosen to document the subject, and maintained that interested Delegations should have been consulted, since it had been the request of sovereign members of the COPAD that they be involved in this reflection. It was not possible to discuss the powers of a body such as the COPAD without consulting that body. 35. The Representative of Canada did not agree with the assertion in C-WP/12673 that there were mechanisms within the Secretariat to ensure that proper governance was taking place. The governance of the Organization would be improved in its transparency by having a direct involvement in the appointments of senior officers of ICAO. When the COPAD had decided that there was a need for it to be consulted, it had also decided that there would be some reforms in the way appointments were made. It had then decided, in the group which had reviewed the Rules of Procedure for the Council, that the Secretary General would make the appointments and the President of the Council would be consulted. That decision was not to be interpreted as the COPAD relinquishing its authority to the Secretary General on such appointments. It would be unconscionable that the Council would not have the possibility of vetting the appointments of senior officers of the Organization. 36. It was the understanding of the Representative of Canada that ICAO’s hiring practices were viewed rather bleakly from outside, and that there may be some concerns due to a lack of oversight of Council on senior appointments. C-WP/12673 was water under the bridge in the sense that it simply reported on the status quo. The purview of the COPAD was to have imagination and look to the future, and to not block itself into the approaches of yesteryears, bearing in mind that other organizations were making the same mistakes. 37. The Representative of Saudi Arabia observed that appointment to the post of the Secretary General was a major political decision, and reflected the confidence placed by Contracting States in the person occupying that post. It would therefore be necessary to show confidence in the Secretary General in his implementation of the policies and decisions taken in the Council. How could the Council take the Secretary General to account, if the Council appointed his assistants and others who worked for him? Freedom of choice was accorded by States to their leaders in selecting their staff. Of course, the parliament had to approve these choices, and the same practice applied at ICAO; the appointment of senior officials was done in consultation with the President of the Council, who worked on the Council’s behalf. The Council should validate the confidence it placed in the Secretary General that it had elected. The practice now was an optimal practice, and the Delegation of Saudi Arabia supported its continuation. 38. The Representative of Argentina indicated that he did not question any of the material presented in C-WP/12673, which was quite neutral. The Secretary General did not express any firm opinion, but simply offered some objective information which he had compiled from other UN organizations. The Representative of Argentina reminded the Council that it had established a working group which had, over the past few months, reviewed the Council’s Rules of Procedure with positive results. In that group, an effort had been made to follow the excellent models established in the other UN organizations. The group had concluded that the Secretary General was the only chief executive officer of the Organization, but that the Council was in a position to define certain guidelines and develop provisions without interfering any further in the Secretary General’s work. It was for this reason that the Delegation of Argentina did not share the views expressed by the Representative of Canada. The Council had recently decided to withdraw the authority of the President in the appointment process, and to simply involve him on a consultative basis. That decision had been based on the principle that the chief

C-MIN 179/3 - 70 -

executive officer should be provided with sufficient flexibility to carry out his responsibilities. In this spirit of change, the Organization had developed a business plan to meet challenges at the level of strategic objectives. If the mandate of the COPAD should be extended to PO level posts, the COPAD’s role should be of a purely advisory nature. 39. The Representative of the Russian Federation indicated that as a former member of the COPAD, he agreed with the views which had been offered by the Representative of Canada, the former Chairman of the COPAD. Although he had the utmost respect for the Secretary General and his ability to take decisions, the COPAD had a role to play as a vetting body looking at the candidacies. The COPAD reviewed the list of candidates and prepared recommendations concerning those candidates which would, in its view, be most capable of filling the position, with the understanding that the final decision was the right and the authority of the Secretary General to take. 40. The Representative of France wholly endorsed the concerns for proper governance in ICAO as expressed by the Representative of Canada. When it came to the measures proposed, he believed that they would have to be looked at on their own merits. There were two distinct mechanisms, i.e. the COPAD for appointments at the level of Directors and the Appointment and Promotions Board for lower levels. It seemed that there was some reason for this distinction, because Directors were the highest officials in the Organization and political factors came into play in their selection. On the other hand, when it came to Principal Officers, their candidacies were considered by the Directors when they looked at their possible co-workers. It therefore seemed that the Directors were in the best position to determine who they would like to work with, and whether the profile of candidates corresponded to what they sought. For P-O level posts, there was a second check in the consultation which took place between the Secretary General and the President of the Council, and all of the recourse mechanisms envisaged in the United Nations system also came into play. Was it therefore necessary for the COPAD to expand its mandate to consider P-O level posts? The Representative of France would tend to think not, for the simple reason that this might give rise to confusion as to who was responsible for what. The Representative of France understood the concerns underlying this proposal, but thought it would be better to retain the distinction between the levels of responsibility and not have the Council interfering too deeply in the management of the Organization. Clarity would dictate that the Council retain the current system, recognizing that the consultation with the President of the Council would obviate any sort of arbitrary appointment. 41. The Representative of Peru felt that the functions carried out by the Secretary General should not only be respected; they should be supported. He therefore fully agreed that the current practice should be maintained. The COPAD played an important role in the appointment of Directors, but should not interfere in the appointment of other staff members of lesser order. The COPAD was a mechanism of the Council, and the Council had to decide on exactly where its functions lay. Very often, Representatives who were not on the COPAD were not aware of what was taking place, and the Representative of Peru would not like to have two categories of Representatives in the future. It seemed that the COPAD perhaps thought that its functions went beyond those that were established by the Organization. 42. The Representative of Australia observed that whenever the Council turned its attention to staffing and human resources issues, they were always difficult to address; the subject at hand was yet another example. C-WP/12673 was an information paper and the Council was not being asked to take any action to reverse earlier decisions that were referred to by the Representative of Argentina. 43. The Representative of Australia recalled that following the Finance Committee’s consideration of the Financial Statements and Report of the External Auditor for 2005, there had been a

C-MIN 179/3

- 71 -

significant amount of criticism of the Organization in respect of its performance appraisal system. The Finance Committee had established a working group which was currently looking at issues related to human resource management. The two co-chairs, i.e. the Representatives of India and the United States, had a fairly broad scope to look at human resources because the Finance Committee had a remit on human resource issues in addition to its responsibilities in finance. One of the subjects which the working group was looking at concerned whether there was a need to revisit the way human resource issues were dealt with in terms of the governance of the Organization. The outcome of that work would be presented in due course to the Finance Committee as well as to the Council. 44. The Representative of Australia observed that the Council did have responsibilities in respect of human resources. Article 58 of the Convention said that “subject to any rules laid down by the Assembly and to the provisions of this Convention, the Council shall determine the method of appointment and termination of appointment, the training, and the salaries, allowances, and conditions of service of the Secretary General and other personnel of the Organization, and may employ or make use of the services of nationals of any Contracting State.” Clearly, the Council should not be interviewing every person who was employed by ICAO, because that would not be very practical, and an ICAO Staff Code was in place which governed the recruitment and employment action within the Organization. The Council nevertheless needed to have some way of assuring itself that it was discharging its higher level of responsibility. The concern raised by the Representative of Canada went to the heart of that issue. Did the Council have a methodology whereby it could satisfy itself that its policies and procedures were being followed, or did it need to think a bit more broadly about how that may be put in place? The COPAD was one mechanism to deal with a very specific level of recruitment, i.e. the highest positions in the Organization. The Council had, however, been informed that the Organization was currently experiencing a very high turnover of staff. D/ADB and C/HRB had presented a paper which had highlighted just how many people were coming up to their retirement age, and how many people would likely have to be recruited over the next few years. While he certainly did not want to be involved in any of those recruitment actions, as a Council Member the Representative of Australia considered it very important for the Council to have some mechanism of monitoring the changeover and maintaining the high quality of ICAO staff. That was one of the key tasks the human resource working group would have to wrestle with and then ultimately report on. 45. The Representative of Australia also wished to highlight that the significant turnover involved a large number of very senior positions which would soon be opening. The deadline for applications in respect of four Director-level posts had recently closed, and there were a number of vacancies for Regional Director positions which still had not been filled. This was of concern to many people, particularly those in the regions where those Regional Offices provided services. The Council had to be “hands on” but not “hands in”; that was the challenge before it, and certainly one that the working group and then ultimately the Council would have to tackle. The Representative of Australia suggested that the information paper now before the Council be referred to the Finance Committee and its working group for their consideration and report in due course in the context of the issues they were looking at. 46. The Representative of Saint Lucia observed that the former Chairman of the COPAD had put it very well; there was a misinterpretation of the role of the COPAD. Some people had asserted that the Secretary General was the chief executive officer of ICAO, appointed by the Council to his high-level position, and that the Council should let him go about his work. In that case, why was the COPAD needed in the first place? If such was the case, the COPAD should be disbanded. The Representative of Saint Lucia indicated that in the organization where he had been appointed Director General of Civil Aviation before coming to the ICAO Council, his appointment had been discussed by a board which wanted to be informed of appointments at a certain level. There was nothing objectionable about such an

C-MIN 179/3 - 72 -

arrangement in an organization. The COPAD was not usurping the authority of the Secretary General but was simply assisting him. It was not involved in the interviews or the actual appointments; it simply wished to be informed of the Secretary General’s intentions, and the proposal at hand simply concerned an extension of that function to cover P-O level posts. The Council, as the governing body of ICAO, had a right to be informed, and in such an arrangement was assisting the Secretary General in his work. The Representative of Canada had served as an excellent Chairman of the COPAD and what he had said at this meeting was a true reflection of what the COPAD should be, and what the Council should be looking for in the future. 47. The Representative of Japan recalled that his Delegation had agreed to the first proposal brought forward by the Representative of Canada, supported by some, if not all, of the subsequent speakers and extended just now by the Representative of Saint Lucia. While it was true that the Council should not engage in micromanagement, the appointment of the senior officials of the Organization was not a micromanagement issue and the Council, as the governing body, needed to have some mechanism to ensure its involvement in the process. The Representative of Japan also observed that it might have been appropriate in the past to draw a distinction between the mandates of the COPAD, on the one hand, and the Appointments and Promotions Board, on the other, but that in many sectors of the Organization’s activities, there were key senior people who were not necessarily Directors in charge of these matters. The distinction between the COPAD and the Appointments and Promotions Board could be reconsidered in light of recent developments in the Organization and the expectations of Contracting States. The Representative of Japan supported the expansion of the COPAD’s mandate. 48. The Representative of Italy sought clarification on the role of the President of the Council in the appointment process. The President of the Council explained that during the previous (178th) Session, the Council had decided to change the delegation of authority of the President from approval to consultation. This change was reflected in the Corrigendum to C-WP/12673. The Representative of South Africa indicated that the expression “in consultation” was not clear to him. The President explained that the Secretary General would inform the President of his intention when it came to appointing someone to a Director or P-O level post. The next step was not very clear; if the President agreed with the Secretary General’s choice, there would be no problem, but if the President disagreed, he would probably have to report on the matter to the Council. The President hoped that such a situation would never arise. 49. The Representative of South Africa maintained that there was a need to clarify the expression “in consultation”. Perhaps the Organization’s Legal Bureau could provide an interpretation. He thanked the Representative of Canada for having brought up this subject, and echoed the sentiments of the Representative of Saint Lucia. It was common knowledge that in any organization there was a board, that the board was responsible for the running of the organization, and that the board appointed a chief executive officer who reported to the board and not vice-versa. Some chief executive officers had misled organizations and had been fired or even jailed, while others had been successful. The board’s intervention in how an organization was run was paramount; it was part of what one called “corporate governance”. In any organization, it was the board that formed the finance committee and the human resource committee where senior management and members of the board worked together. As other Representatives had mentioned, the COPAD was a senior body which assisted the Secretary General in his choice. It did not exist to challenge him, but then again it must not be a rubber stamp. What happened if a chief executive officer appointed his relatives? Who would be responsible? Would the board keep quiet? What was the role of the board if the chief executive officer appointed his friends, or if he appointed Directors and managers who were incompetent? If one referred to industry, one would see that the board of troubled Airbus Industries had recently appointed a new chief executive. As the Representative of Australia had asserted, a distinction should be made between “hands on” and “hands

C-MIN 179/3

- 73 -

in”. If the Council felt that it had some concerns that should be raised, it had a right to do so. Contracting States had given the Council the responsibility to take the Organization to greater heights, and the Council should not be fearful that it was engaging in micromanagement. It should not lose sight of the fact that a good decision would carry any organization further, and that that good decision, if it was a collective decision by the parties involved – in this case the COPAD and the Secretary General – it would deliver the desired product. 50. The Representative of the United States observed that clearly, given the amount of turnover which would take place in the Secretariat of ICAO over the next year or so, the appointment by the Secretary General of the new leadership of the Organization was probably his most significant challenge, calling for some highly important decisions which would certainly determine the future of the Organization in this century of aviation. The Representative of the United States did not wish to repeat the eloquent comments and concerns of his colleagues, which would need to be fully considered as the Council tried to devise the best way to assist the chief executive officer of ICAO in making these important decisions in the near future. As the Representative of Australia had pointed out, C-WP/12673 was an information paper as opposed to a working paper. The Council was only being asked to note it, and if it were truly a working paper, it would have been developed in cooperation with the COPAD with consideration to the various ways of approaching this issue. The Representative of Australia had also made reference to the working group study on human resources which had recently been initiated. Work was just beginning, and the Secretary General had offered to provide an informal briefing in the near future. Members of the Finance Committee and other Members of the Council who were interesting in hearing a briefing on some of these human resource issues might find this an opportunity to delve in more depth into some of the questions that had been raised today. The Council should also consult the COPAD, whose membership had recently been reconstituted, on how it would wish to proceed. But hopefully in the future, ways may be found to break down some of the barriers between the Council and the Secretariat, and to work more collaboratively in developing options. When the time came for the Council to discuss these options, it would be possible for everyone to focus on issues that had been thoroughly developed through consultation in advance. 51. The Representative of Spain requested clarification on the references which had been made to a working group of the Finance Committee, since he had attended all of the Committee’s meetings and did not recall the establishment of such a group. As regards the COPAD, the Representative of Spain observed that many new Representatives on the Council were not familiar with that body; he therefore provided some background information on the COPAD’s working procedures. The Representative of Spain recalled that in the past, the COPAD had had the task of establishing a short list, on the basis of all of the candidatures which had been received, of those individuals who, in its opinion, were the most qualified. The Secretary General would then, in consultation with the President of the Council, select one of the short-listed candidates and inform the Council of his intention to appoint that individual. This procedure had worked well, but had been changed some five or six years ago when one individual who had presented himself as a candidate had not been chosen for the short list, and the Council Representative of his State had complained. Since that time, the practice was now for only the members of the COPAD to have the right to review the curricula vitae of candidates. It was impossible for Representatives who were not members of the COPAD to make any value decision on candidates in the absence of complete information on their qualifications. 52. The Representative of Honduras supported the views which had been expressed by the Representatives of Canada, Saint Lucia, Japan and South Africa. It would be of interest to the Council to decide whether the COPAD was useful, and to simply discontinue it if it was not. It would also be necessary to clarify what was meant by “micromanagement” in the Council, since there were different

C-MIN 179/3 - 74 -

interpretations. The Representative of Honduras agreed with the views expressed by the Representative of Australia, to the effect that the COPAD was simply providing guidance in a consultative process. 53. The Representative of Colombia understood that references to “micromanagement” did not concern decisions regarding appointments to Director-level posts, but rather the other staff of the Organization. The working paper now under consideration was for information purposes only, and did not conceal some ulterior motive such as discontinuing consultations with the COPAD or with the President of the Council. The oversight controls provided by the Council would also continue to be in place. There needed to be a balance among the various controls, as was the case in States in order to ensure proper governance and good management. Very often, the parliament of a State had the responsibility of approving the appointment of ministers and other high-level officials. In ICAO, when dealing with disputes among States, the Council often acted like a court or a tribunal, and should follow the example of the United Nations’ governing court in The Hague. Having noted the background information which had been provided by the Representative of Spain, the Representative of Colombia believed that the COPAD should function as it had in the past, and that information on all of the candidates should be made available not only to the COPAD, but also to the other Members of the Council in the interest of transparency. The deadline for applications for a number of Director-level posts had passed some time ago and no information had been provided on the nominations which had been received. It was important that the Council be informed of the candidates in order to take the best possible decision for the proper governance and success of the Organization. 54. The Representative of Saudi Arabia noted that some Representatives had indicated that the COPAD’s function was to assist the Secretary General, and wished to point out in this respect that the COPAD was also a supervisory authority, made up of Members of the Council, and tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the conduct of the Secretary General to make sure that the appointment of individuals to Director-level posts was satisfactory to the Council. 55. The Representative of Australia noted with interest the background information which the Representative of Spain had provided on the procedures followed by the COPAD, and agreed that the Council needed to avoid politics in the selection of the senior officials and management team that directed the Organization. He wished to clarify, however, that the establishment of the human resource working group referred to by the Representative of Spain had been based on the concerns raised by a number of Committee Members about the personnel administration of the Organization. The proper processes for establishment of the group had been followed, and the group had not yet had its first meeting, so it was somewhat premature to say that some people were being excluded. 56. The Representative of France observed that the discussion was going somewhat beyond the issue of expanding the mandate of the COPAD. He shared the concerns which had been expressed by the Representatives of Peru, Colombia and Spain, and hoped that the “new” COPAD with an expanded mandate would respect the Council’s wishes for complete transparency. He referred, in this connection, to Annex IV-A (Consolidated Procedures for the Appointment of Directors of Bureaux) of the ICAO Service Code, whose paragraph 6 indicated that “the results of the Commission’s work shall be communicated without delay to the Representatives on the Council by the Secretary General, together with a brief summary of the information provided by the candidates identified as qualified.” While respecting the confidentiality of curricula vitae, the Representative of France observed that there seemed to be a contradiction between the current procedure, in which the majority of Council Members had no information on the candidates, and paragraph 8 of the above-mentioned Annex IV-A which stipulated that “unless the Council expresses disapproval by a secret vote of the majority of its members, the Secretary General shall, pursuant to the procedure in force, appoint the candidate he has chosen”. Going beyond the specific subject addressed in C-WP/12673, the Representative of France believed that some thought

C-MIN 179/3

- 75 -

should be given, if not to the very existence of the COPAD, then at least to its modus operandi and its relationship with the Council. 57. In summarizing the views expressed, the President of the Council observed that the Representative of Spain had provided some historical information on the COPAD. Whereas the subject at hand solely concerned the expansion of the COPAD’s mandate, the COPAD should, in light of the views expressed at this meeting, review its earlier decision to not make curricula vitae available to Council Members who were not members of the COPAD. The President also noted that there were, at this time, 17 P-O level posts in the Secretariat of ICAO, and that the expansion of the COPAD’s mandate as proposed in C-WP/12673 would have the effect of increasing its workload from the current five Director-level posts to a total of 22 posts. 58. The Council noted the information provided in C-WP/12673 and Corrigendum and, on a proposal put forward by the Representative of Argentina, supported by the Representatives of Honduras and Spain, referred the proposal addressed therein concerning the expansion of the mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level to the COPAD for its consideration. Other business 59. The Representative of Argentina indicated that because of the late hour, he would circulate the text of a report he had intended to pronounce orally concerning his recent visit to the Romanian National Institute of Aeronautical and Space Medicine. It was understood that the report would be incorporated in the minutes of the meeting. The report reads as follows: “Invited by the Ministry of Defence of Romania, I took part in an academic exercise organized by the Romanian National Institute of Aeronautical and Space Medicine, which addressed the contributions that airspace medicine has made to aviation safety throughout history. “The defence authorities also coordinated a meeting with the National Civil Aviation Authorities, a body of the Ministry of Transportation. “In both events, I had the opportunity to appreciate the professional excellence, commitment, enthusiasm and dedication with which all levels, managerial as well as operational, address their duties to ensure that Romania fully meets or even exceeds international standards. “This commitment for improving aviation safety in Romania, which was demonstrated from the highest levels of government all the way to the levels of execution, impressed me in such an excellent and satisfactory manner that I wished to share it with my colleagues on the Council”. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60. Further to concerns expressed by the Representative of South Africa and clarifications provided by the President of the Air Navigation Commission in connection with a recent visit by ANC Members to Africa, and a personal note which the President of the ANC had subsequently drafted with the aim of stimulating debate in the Commission, it was understood that a consolidated report which the ANC would prepare in light of its visit, with conclusions and recommendations aimed at helping ICAO solve some of the problems which the Commission had noted, would be made available to the Council. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

C-MIN 179/3 - 76 -

Closed meeting 61. The Representative of Saudi Arabia pronounced the following statement, which would be brought to the attention of the Technical Cooperation Bureau. 62. The meeting adjourned at 1400 hours.

C-MIN 179/4

- 77 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TUESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Decon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT: *Mr. A.G Sayce. (President, ANC) Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB Mr. R. Barr — C/FIN Mr. J. Begin — DD/ATB *Mr. P. Lamy — C/FLS Mr. H. Belai — A/C/S&F *Mr. O.N.V. Magnusson — C/EPM Ms. J.M. Bacon — ADAN *Mr. J.D. Haidar — A/CAD Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/4 - 78 -

Welcome to new Representative on the Council 1. The President of the Council extended a warm welcome to Mr. T. Mekonnen, who was attending a meeting of the Council for the first time in his capacity as Representative of Ethiopia, and bade farewell to the former Representative, Mr. M. Belayneh. Tribute to Mr. M. Belayneh, Representative of Ethiopia 2. The Representative of Spain, as Dean of the Council, then paid tribute to Mr. Belayneh. Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Addition of three new items to the work programme for the 179th Session 3. The Council agreed to include the following three items on its work programme for the current (179th) session: “Composition and mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD)”, to be considered on the basis of a report by COPAD, further to a request from the former Chairman of COPAD; “Proposal for settlement of arrears of contributions by Roberts FIR for Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone”, to be considered on the basis of a paper by the Secretary General; and “Proposal of the Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) Team”, to be documented for Council’s consideration by the Secretary General, further to a request from the Representative of Argentina. It was noted that a corresponding Addendum would be issued to the work programme (C-WP/12651).

Schedule for consideration of items during the 179th Session of the Council 4. The Council noted the revised meeting schedule for the 179th Session presented in the President’s memorandum PRES RK/1285 dated 25 September 2006, subject to the following amendments: the meeting of the Council Working Group on Meetings planned for the afternoon of Thursday, 16 November 2006, was advanced to the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 November 2006, in light of the informal briefing to be given by officials from the European Commission (EC) on Thursday, 16 November 2006, at 1430 hours on the EC’s experience with emissions trading (cf. President’s memorandum PRES RK/1311 dated 10 November 2006); the formal meeting of the Finance Committee (FIC) scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday, 21 November 2006, was changed to an informal meeting of that Committee; and a formal meeting of the FIC on the afternoon of Thursday, 23 November 2006, was added. It was understood that interpretation services would be provided during the said meeting of the Council Working Group on Meetings and that additional meetings of the Council and its Committees could be convened, if necessary. 5. The Council then noted the schedule for consideration of items during the 179th Session as set out in the President’s memorandum PRES RK/1294 dated 27 October 2006, subject to the following: Week of 14 to 17 November 2006 Consideration of the item “2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) Budget Estimates and Update of the 2006 AOSC Income and Expenditure” (C-WP/12734) was deferred to later in the current session, following its consideration by the FIC on 23 November 2006.

C-MIN 179/4

- 79 -

Week of 27 November to 1 December 2006 The item “Progress report regarding Contracting States that have given their consent to the publication of relevant safety oversight audit information” (C-WP/12775) would not be referred to the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) for consideration as the report was now in the form of a short information paper. The reference to an ANC report (C-WP/12781) on the item was thus deleted. Week of 4 to 8 December 2006 With regard to the item “Format and content of the financial statements of the Organization — Policies for Technical Co-operation Programme revenue and expenditure recognition”, the reference to a written report by the Finance Committee (FIC) (C-WP/12743) was changed to an oral report by the FIC. Consideration of the item “TCC Report — ICAO’s policy on technical co-operation” (C-WP/12801) was deferred to the next session in light of the second informal briefing of the Council, on 20 November 2006 at 1000 hours, on the results of the review of the structure and organization of the Secretariat. With regard to the item “Level of the Working Capital Fund” (C-WP/12736), the reference to a written report by the FIC (C-WP/12737) during the next session was changed to an oral report by the FIC, to be presented during the current session. As a result of the postponement of the formal meeting of the FIC from 21 to 23 November 2006, which impacted the distribution deadlines of the FIC reports, consideration of the item “Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems” (C-WP/12740) was deferred to the next session. Subject No. 19.1: Reports by the President of the Council

President’s report on activities during the recess 6. The Council then considered the President’s report on developments that had taken place during the recess (C-WP/12721). The Appendix to the paper on the status of certain international air law instruments was updated to reflect: the ratification by the Government of Barbados, on 1 November 2006, of the Protocols of Amendment to the Chicago Convention relating to Article 56 (1989), the Final paragraph referring to the authentic Arabic text (1995) and the Final paragraph referring to the authentic Chinese text (1998), which increased the total number of ratifications to 118, 57 and 42, respectively; and the accession by the Government of Luxembourg, on 6 November 2006, to the 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, which increased the total number of parties to 130. It was noted that Luxembourg’s Instrument of Accession had included a declaration made in accordance with Article XIII, paragraph 2, of the said Convention that Luxembourg was not a producer State. Oral report on President’s mission to Washington, D.C. 7. Referring to paragraph 30 of his report, the President elaborated on his mission to Washington, D.C., from 31 October to 1 November 2006, which he had undertaken at the invitation of the Government of the United States and in the company of the Representative of the United States on the

C-MIN 179/4 - 80 -

Council. In noting that meetings had been held with high-level officials from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of State, the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the Transportation Security Administration, he indicated that their discussions had focussed primarily on the ICAO safety and security audit programmes, integration of the AVSEC Plan of Action into the Regular Programme Budget, aircraft engine emissions, the structure of the ICAO Secretariat and the agenda for the next session of the ICAO Assembly in 2007. The President thanked the Representative of the United States for all the arrangements which he had made for the visit. Oral report on Secretary General’s missions to Thailand and Egypt 8. After welcoming the new Representative of Ethiopia on the Council, the Secretary General provided additional information regarding his recent missions to Thailand and Egypt (cf. paragraphs 15 and 16) undertaken since the publication of C-WP/12721. He noted that he had been in Bangkok from 30 October to 3 November 2006, where he had addressed the opening of the Tenth Global TRAINAIR Training Symposium and Conference. A copy of his address had been posted on the ICAO website. The event had been held at the Civil Aviation Training Centre of Thailand and had been attended by 153 participants from 43 countries and two international organizations. The event had been divided into two parts: the first three days had been organized as a training symposium with the theme “Global Co-operation in training as a contributing factor for a safe and secure operation” and had been divided into four panels. The remaining two days had been dedicated to the Conference to discuss the reorganization, operation and priorities of the TRAINAIR Programme. 9. As it had been the Secretary General’s first visit to the Asia and Pacific (APAC) Regional Office, he had toured the office premises, including the conference facilities of the Kotaite Wing, and had met with the staff and apprised them of recent developments. 10. The Secretary General had had meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Director General of Civil Aviation and other senior officials, during which he had expressed gratitude for the support and co-operation rendered by the Government of Thailand to ICAO. Topics of discussion had included aviation safety and security issues, the effectiveness of the ICAO audit programmes, the air services operations and facilities of the newly-opened Suvarnabhumi Airport and related issues and environmental problems, and work currently underway with the Safety Management Systems in Thailand. A commitment had been received for continued support to the COSCAP-South East Asia project and appreciation had been expressed for the excellent assistance and co-operation received from the ICAO Regional Director and other officials of the APAC Regional Office. The Secretary General had presented a proposal for the establishment of a joint ICAO-Thailand Developing Country Training Programme aimed at assisting developing countries through the provision of fellowships for training at the Civil Aviation Training Centre. The proposal had been received with much interest and consideration would be given thereto once a formal proposal had been formulated and submitted by ICAO. In recalling that he had received a tour of the new Suvarnabhumi Airport by the Executive Vice-President of Airport Operations and other officials of the airport and of AEROTHAI, the Secretary General noted that that impressive airport consisted of a passenger terminal building with a total floor space of 563 000 sq. metres — the largest single building in the world — and a control tower 132 metres high — the tallest one in the world. 11. The Secretary General acknowledged, with thanks, the courtesies extended to him by the Government of Thailand during his visit, as well as to Mr. L. Shah, the ICAO Regional Director.

C-MIN 179/4

- 81 -

12. The Secretary General noted that, following his trip to Bangkok, he had made a stop in Cairo where, at the invitation of the Secretary General of the African Airlines Association (AFRAA), he had been a keynote speaker at the opening ceremony of the 38th AFRAA Annual General Assembly. The theme of the meeting had been “Winning Strategies for African Airlines”. The meeting had been attended by over 300 participants representing major African airlines, airports, air navigation service providers, aircraft manufacturers, regional and other organizations. The Secretary General’s address had outlined, inter alia, the outcome of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety and the Unified Strategy to resolve safety-related deficiencies, with emphasis on the need for Safety Management Systems. A copy of his address had been posted on the ICAO website. The meeting had expressed a sense of urgency to reduce the level of the accident rate on the continent and to comply with the recommendations of the DGCA Conference. It had conveyed the strong sentiment that ICAO should continue its leadership role in aviation. The meeting had made a recommendation in the form of a “motion” urging AFRAA member airlines to support the full implementation of the Yamoussoukro Decision, compliance with the requirements of the ICAO English language proficiency and human factors in aviation maintenance. 13. While in Cairo, the Secretary General had taken the opportunity to visit for the first time the Middle East (MID) Regional Office and had met with the staff and informed them of recent developments. He had had the privilege of meeting with His Excellency A. Nazeef, the Prime Minister of Egypt, as well as with the Minister of Civil Aviation, the Secretary General of the League of Arab States, the Chairman and other officials of the EgyptAir Group and officials of the Egypt Civil Aviation Authority. The Secretary General had expressed ICAO’s thanks for the continuous support and co-operation of the Egyptian Government, in particular for hosting the MID Regional Office. Discussions had centred mainly on the developments with civil aviation activities in Egypt, particularly the expansion underway at the Cairo airport, measures being taken to improve facilitation to reinforce aviation security at Egyptian airports and action being taken to issue biometric passports in the very near future. Much interest had been expressed in ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) and Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP). The Secretary General had toured EgyptAir’s Aviation Training Division and the National Civil Aviation Training Organization, as well as the recently-inaugurated Egyptian Meteorological Training Centre during a visit to the Egyptian Meteorological Authority. 14. The Secretary General expressed thanks and gratitude to all of the officials of the Government of Egypt and to the Representative of Egypt on the Council for their excellent assistance in the organization of a very fruitful mission and for the kind courtesies which had been extended to him during his visit, as well as to Mr. C. Folly-Kossi, the Secretary General of AFRAA, and Mr. M. Khonji, the ICAO Regional Director. 15. The Council noted the information contained in C-WP/12721, as updated, as well as the supplementary information provided orally by the President of the Council and the Secretary General on their recent missions. Subject No. 18.14: Other finance matters for consideration by Council

Financial situation of the Organization 16. The Council then considered C-WP/12735, in which the Secretary General reported on developments in the financial situation of the Organization from 1 January 2006 to 30 September 2006. It was noted that a State letter would be issued at the end of November 2006 on States’ assessments due and payable on 1 January 2007.

C-MIN 179/4 - 82 -

17. Referring to Appendix A to the paper setting forth the receipts and disbursements for the Regular Programme for the nine-month period ended 30 September 2006, the Representative of France noted, from Note (1), that total cash in banks as at 31 December 2005 amounted to US $22.6 million less US $1.2 million pertaining to Regional Offices. Expressing surprise at the separation between the Headquarter’s accounts and those of the Regional Offices, he underscored that it had always been the aim to integrate the latter into the Organization. Emphasizing that there was only one budget for the Regular Programme, the Representative of France sought clarification. In then drawing attention to Appendix C on the status of receipts of assessments for the General Fund, he queried how the number of States whose voting privileges were suspended could have changed since the last Assembly, averring that only the Assembly had the authority to suspend those privileges under Assembly Resolution A35-26 (Discharge by Contracting States of financial obligations to the Organization and action to be taken in case of their failure to do so). 18. The Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) noted that, as the current financial system did not provide for automatic cash transfers to the Regional Offices, the latter were operated as if they were a large petty cash fund and were treated as an “imprest” account. As there was a lag between the time when expenditures were effected and when they were reported, the exact amount of cash available for the Regional Offices on a particular day was not known. A separate figure for the Regional Offices was thus given in Note (1) of Appendix A to the paper. 19. In enquiring as to the reasons for the Headquarter’s cash balance of US $21.4 million as at 31 December 2005, the Representative of India queried whether it was due to the slow pace of expenditures or to the slow payment of assessed contributions. He observed that the Organization’s cash balance was better than that indicated in the last report, being the equivalent of nearly three months’ average expenditure as compared with two months’ in the previous reporting period. The Representative of India further noted that the recovery of assessed contributions was better, with approximately 72 per cent of the assessed contributions for 2006 having been collected as at 30 September 2006, compared with 70 per cent as at the same period in 2005. In then referring to Appendix B to the paper, he enquired as to the identity of the two major Canadian banks with which ICAO’s funds were invested. The Representative of India underscored that, although Bank II offered a higher interest rate for term deposits, fewer funds were invested with that bank: 46 per cent of the Organization’s funds were invested in Bank II, whereas 54 per cent were invested in Bank I. He queried whether the situation could be rectified when the term deposits reached maturity. The Representative of India then sought information regarding the other bank accounts referred to in the Note to Appendix B. 20. C/FIN emphasized that the cash balance, excluding the US $6.0 million in the Working Capital Fund (WCF), was approximately US $15.4 million. If the amount of money carried over to 2006 were deducted, then the cash balance was the equivalent of only two months’ average expenditure. While that was not problematic, it was tantamount to living “hand-to-mouth”. As the Secretary General had indicated in presenting C-WP/12735, there was a potential cash flow problem. Observing that most Organizations which were the size of ICAO had a cash reserve of three months’ average expenditure, he underscored that the Organization did not have such a financial cushion which would ensure its survival in the event of delays in the payment of assessed contributions by major contributors. C/FIN emphasized that it would thus be preferable if, as requested in Resolving Clause 1 of Assembly Resolution A35-26, States paid their assessed contributions at the beginning of the year in which they fell due. 21. With reference to Appendix B to the paper, C/FIN clarified that Bank I was the Royal Bank of Canada and Bank II, the National Bank of Canada. Noting that the Canadian market was controlled by the Government and that there therefore was not much difference in the interest rates paid

C-MIN 179/4

- 83 -

by Canadian banks for the kind of investment vehicles the Organization had, he emphasized that the difference in the interest rates offered by the said two banks was due to the timing of the investment cycle. C/FIN further noted that the Finance Committee (FIC) was considering the possibility of establishing an investment committee to create a more dynamic investment portfolio for ICAO. The Representative of India suggested that the committee examine the issue of the interest rates offered for term deposits. 22. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of France regarding the suspension of States’ voting privileges, the Representative of Saudi Arabia averred that the Assembly had accorded the Secretariat the right to decide to suspend the voting privileges of those States which met the conditions specified in Resolving Clause 6 of Assembly Resolution A35-26. 23. Indicating that he did not consider that the Assembly had delegated to the Secretariat the authority to decide on the suspension of States’ voting privileges, the Representative of France averred that it was for the Council to decide on the suspension of such privileges. He suggested that the issue be referred to the Legal Bureau for clarification. Concurring that the right to suspend voting privileges should rest with the Council, the Representative of India supported this proposal. 24. The Council noted the information contained in C-WP/12735. It was understood that the Secretary General would report to the Council during a subsequent meeting regarding the authority to suspend States’ voting privileges under Assembly Resolution A35-26 and that he would present another report on developments in the financial situation of the Organization during the next (180th) Session. Subject No. 18.4: Contributions by Contracting States and methods of assessment

Proposal for settlement of arrears of contributions by Georgia 25. Tabled next for consideration was C-WP/12773, in which the Secretary General presented a proposal by the Government of Georgia to settle its arrears of contributions. 26. In taking the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12773, the Council approved the proposal by the Government of Georgia to enter into an agreement with ICAO to settle the balance of its arrears of contributions of US $402 090 over a period of fifteen years in annual instalments of US $26 806 and to pay future annual assessments as they become due each year. Subject No. 5: Election of Vice-Presidents of the Council

Election of First Vice-President of the Council 27. On a nomination by the Representative of Chile, seconded by the Representative of Australia, the Council elected Mr. I.M. Lysenko, the Representative of the Russian Federation, as its First Vice-President for the remainder of the 2006-2007 term, to succeed Mr. M. Belayneh (Ethiopia), who had departed from the Organization (C-WP/12809). 28. The President of the Council expressed appreciation to the outgoing First Vice-President of the Council and congratulated the newly-elected First Vice-President, who would also serve as the Chairman of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD). The President indicated that he would ensure that the COPAD represented all regions of the world by including in the membership of that important body a Council Representative from the African region and one from the Middle East region

C-MIN 179/4 - 84 -

Subject No. 46: Edward Warner Award

Election of a Member on the Edward Warner Award Committee 29. The Council then reviewed C-WP/12810, which presented a nomination to fill a vacancy in the Edward Warner Award Committee due to the departure of Mr. M. Belayneh (Ethiopia). The Council elected Dr. D. de Deus (Mozambique) to fill the vacancy. Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Report on action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 178th Session 30. The Council next considered C-WP/12753 on this subject, presented by the President of the Council and the Secretary General. 31. Drawing attention to the item “Financial Statements and Report of the External Auditor for the Financial Year 2005”, the Representative of Australia noted that the Secretary General was to meet with the External Auditor to “inform her of the areas on which he wishes her to focus in her next external audit once the review of the structure and organization of the Secretariat had been completed in the Fall of 2006”. In seeking clarification, he indicated that, as a general rule. governing bodies liaised with external auditors to address the areas of focus. Chief Executive Officers, such as Secretary Generals, generally conveyed areas of focus through the governing bodies rather than directly to the external auditors. 32. In then referring to the item “Review of the Rules of Procedure for the Council — Report of the Working Group”, the Representative of Australia sought an oral update regarding action taken with regard to the guidelines for preparation of Council papers and the guidelines on the issues which would normally cause the Council to hold meetings in closed session [C-DEC 178/9, paragraph 17 b) and c)]. It was understood that information thereon would be provided by the Secretary General during a subsequent meeting. 33. In noting that the Secretary General and members of the Secretariat held a meeting with the External Auditor at least once a year to review areas where the latter should focus her audit, the Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) indicated that the said meeting had already taken place. Two managerial-level areas of concern had been identified: the control points for projects undertaken by the Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB) to ensure that expenditures matched the approved projects’ budgets; and the capacity of the Organization to support, both in technical and functional terms, the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. He underscored that any concerns which the Council or the FIC wished to have the External Auditor address would be conveyed to the latter with a request that they be included in her work plan. 34. The Representative of India suggested that before the External Auditor was informed of those areas on which she should focus her audit the Council should be informed thereof, either by way of discussion or by way of a memorandum. He also suggested, with respect to the action taken regarding the item “Status report of the External Auditor’s recommendations on the 2004 and prior financial years”, that a study be carried out to determine the impact of the reduction in the period of time for the advertising of international Professional posts from two months to one month on the receipt of applications. These suggestions were noted by the Secretary General.

C-MIN 179/4

- 85 -

35. To a further point raised by the Representative of India regarding the item “Recruitment and Status of Women in ICAO”, the Director of the Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) noted that, pursuant to C-DEC 178/14, paragraph 2 a) iv), a senior female staff member had been appointed as a member of the Advisory Joint Appeals Board (AJAB). Information regarding action to implement paragraph 2 b) of C-DEC 178/14 was not provided in C-WP/12753 as there was a separate paper thereon (C-WP/12806 — Task Force on Gender Equality and Gender Equity: Terms of reference, status and implementation actions). 36. Responding to a query by the Representative of Argentina regarding paragraph 2 a) i) of C-DEC 178/14, D/ADB noted that the ICAO Focal Point for Women (IFPW) would be devoting 50 per cent of her time to her duties as Recruitment Officer and 50 per cent of her time to her duties as IFPW. While the Secretary General wished to appoint one full-time IFPW, resources were limited, making it necessary to resort to that arrangement. The Secretary General would review the position and increase the functions of the IFPW as necessary. 37. It was understood, further to an additional point raised by the Representative of Argentina, that information regarding the action taken to implement C-DEC 178/14, paragraph 20 d), regarding the item “Delegation of Authority to the President of the Council — Report of the Working Group”, in particular, the development by the Secretary General, in conjunction with the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC), of proposals for improving the Council’s oversight of technical co-operation projects, would be provided by the Secretary General during a subsequent meeting. 38. In responding to points raised by the Representatives of Spain and France regarding the item “Reconstitution of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP) as the Aviation Security Commission”, the Chief of the Aviation Security and Facilitation Branch (C/S&F) recalled that the Council had decided (178/10) that the AVSECP should continue its work in its present form, subject, however, to an improvement in its working methods. The terms of reference initially suggested for the proposed Aviation Security Commission had been referred to the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) for consideration to further enhance the working methods of the AVSECP and for report to the Council. Noting that the said terms of reference were acceptable to the AVSECP, C/S&F indicated that it remained for the Council to consider them on the basis of the envisaged UIC report. 39. To a query by the Representative of Nigeria, C/S&F noted that under the AVSECP’s current terms of reference, the Panel was responsible for the development of guidance material. It had, however, been very difficult for the AVSECP to develop such material on a timely basis. If the said new terms of reference were approved by the Council, then it would be for the Secretariat, either with the assistance of experts or on its own, to develop the first draft of guidance material. Such material would be internally reviewed then provided to AVSECP Members for their comments and approval before being submitted to the Secretary General for final approval and publication. 40. Responding to a further point raised by the Representative of Nigeria regarding the Council’s decision (178/10) that consideration be given to convening a worldwide conference or Divisional Meeting on aviation security, C/S&F indicated that the Programme of Meetings for 2007 (C-WP/12797), to be tabled for Council’s approval later in the current session, included a First AVSEC Symposium/Conference to be held in the second half of 2007 and funded under the ICAO Aviation Security Plan of Action on a cost-recovery basis. It was planned to convene such an AVSEC Symposium/Conference every other year. 41. Referring to a query by the Representative of India regarding the item “Outcome of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety 2006

C-MIN 179/4 - 86 -

(DGCA/06)” the Acting Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (A/D/ANB) clarified that the delay in issuing State letter E 4/210.4-06/92 was due to the detection of incorrect technical information in the State letter, which had regrettably caused its planned September distribution date to be missed. 42. The Council then noted the action taken to implement the decisions which it had taken during the 178th Session as set forth in C-WP/12753. Subject No. 17.1: Joint financing agreement with Iceland Subject No. 17.5: Joint financing agreement with Denmark

Information on crossings of the North Atlantic during the calendar year 2005 43. The Council then noted the paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/12720) on the above subject. Subject No. 17.5: Joint financing agreement with Denmark

Report of JSC — Approval of audited actual costs under the Danish Joint Financing Agreement for the year 2005

44. Following a review of the report of the Joint Support Committee (JSC) (C-WP/12762) on this subject, the Council took the action recommended in paragraph 5.1 of the paper and:

a) approved the audited actual costs of the services for 2005 in the amount of D.Kr.44 203 627 (equivalent to US $7 468 059)1, in accordance with Article VIII(4) of the Danish Joint Financing Agreement;

b) approved the additional amount of capital (D.Kr.4 796, equivalent to US $810)1,

required for a new capital item, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the paper; c) agreed that Annex II (18th Edition) to the Agreement be amended to correspond with

the audited capital investment figures; and d) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Denmark and other

Contracting Governments of the above action, pursuant to Article VIII(5) of the Agreement.

Subject No. 17.1: Joint financing agreement with Iceland

Report of JSC — Approval of audited actual costs under the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement for the year 2005

45. The Council then examined the report of the Joint Support Committee (JSC) (C-WP/12763) on the above subject and, in taking the action recommended in paragraph 5.1 thereof:

1 US$ equivalent at exchange rate of US $1.00=D.Kr.5.919025, the average of the agreed quarterly rates for 2005.

C-MIN 179/4

- 87 -

a) approved the audited actual costs of the services for 2005 in the amount of US $29 143 536, in accordance with Article VIII(4) of the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement;

b) approved the additional amount of capital (US $41 214) required for new capital items, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the paper;

c) agreed that Annex II (18th Edition) to the Agreement be amended to correspond with

the audited capital investment figures; and d) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Iceland and other

Contracting Governments of the above action, pursuant to Article VIII(5) of the Agreement.

Subject No. 17.5: Joint financing agreement with Denmark

Report of JSC — Review of the Danish estimates for 2007 46. The Council next considered the report of the Joint Support Committee (JSC) (C-WP/12764) on this subject. In taking the action recommended by the JSC in paragraph 5.1 of the paper, the Council:

a) decided that it was satisfied that the 2007 cost estimates submitted by the

Government of Denmark in JS-WP/1879 and summarized in Table 1 on page 3 of the paper, amounting to D.Kr.45 554 260 (equivalent to US $7 863 945)2 had been drawn up in accordance with Article VIII of the Agreement and with Annexes II and III thereto (as last amended by the Council);

b) approved the incorporation of the proposed new capital expenditures for 2007,

subject to audit, in Annex II to the Agreement, as shown in paragraph 3 of the paper; and

c) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Denmark and other

Contracting Governments of the above action. Subject No. 17.1: Joint financing agreement with Iceland

Report of JSC — Review of the Icelandic estimates for 2007 47. The Council took the action recommended by the Joint Support Committee (JSC) with regard to the above subject, as indicated in paragraph 5.1 of C-WP/12765, and:

a) decided that it was satisfied that the 2007 cost estimates submitted by the Government of Iceland in JS-WP/1880 and summarized in Table 1 on page 3 of the paper, amounting to US $31 200 455, had been drawn up in accordance with Article VIII of the Agreement and with Annexes II and III thereto (as last amended by the Council); and

2 US$ equivalent at exchange rate of US $1.00=D.Kr.5.7928, the market rate provided by Denmark for August 2006.

C-MIN 179/4 - 88 -

b) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Iceland and other

Contracting Governments of the above action.

Subject No. 17.5: Joint financing agreement with Denmark

Report of JSC — Settlement of obligations up to 31 December 2005 and assessments, user charge and advances for the year 2007 under the Danish Joint Financing Agreement

48. Having considered the report of the Joint Support Committee (JSC) on this subject, contained in C-WP/12766, the Council took the action recommended in paragraph 9.1 thereof and:

a) pursuant to Article XIV and Annex III, Section III, of the Agreement, determined that

the single user charge per civil aircraft crossing for the calendar year 2007 for the Jointly Financed Services in Greenland be D.Kr.112.35 (equivalent to US $19.39)3 per crossing;

b) approved the assessments for 2007 in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article VII of

the Agreement, adjusted as shown in Appendix B to the paper, including the credits from estimated user charge revenues for 2007;

c) approved advances to Denmark for 2007 in the amount of D.Kr.43 276 547

(equivalent to US $7 470 747.65)3 in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article IX of the Agreement, as indicated in paragraph 8 of the paper; and

d) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Denmark and the other

Contracting Governments of the above action.

Subject No. 17.1: Joint financing agreement with Iceland

Report of JSC — Settlement of obligations up to 31 December 2005 and assessments, user charge and advances for the year 2007 under the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement

49. The Council considered C-WP/12767 on this subject and, in taking the action recommended by the Joint Support Committee (JSC) in paragraph 9.1 thereof:

a) pursuant to Article XIV and Annex III, Section III, of the Agreement, determined that the single user charge per civil aircraft crossing for the calendar year 2007 for the Jointly Financed Services in Iceland be US $84.68 per crossing;

b) approved the assessments for 2007 in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article VII of

the Agreement, adjusted as shown in Appendix B to the paper, including the credits from estimated user charge revenues for 2007;

3 US $ equivalent at exchange rate of US $1.00=D.Kr.5.7928, the market rate provided by Denmark for August 2006.

C-MIN 179/4

- 89 -

c) approved advances to Iceland for 2007 in the amount of US $29 640 432 in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article IX of the Agreement, as indicated in paragraph 8 of the paper; and

d) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Iceland and the other

Contracting Governments of the above action. Subject No. 17.1: Joint financing agreement with Iceland Subject No. 17.5: Joint financing agreement with Denmark

Report of JSC — ICAO administrative fee to be added to the combined Danish and Icelandic

user charge per single aircraft crossing for the year 2007 50. Having reviewed the report of the Joint Support Committee (JSC) (C-WP/12768) on the above subject, the Council took the action recommended in paragraph 2.1 thereof, as amended by the President of the Council in light of the discussion, and:

a) pursuant to Annex III, Section IV, of the Danish and Icelandic Joint Financing Agreements, established the ICAO administrative fee per civil aircraft crossing for the calendar year 2007 at US $1.89 per crossing, to be added to the combined user charge under the Danish and Icelandic Joint Financing Agreements for the calendar year 2007; and

b) requested the Secretary General to expeditiously inform the Contracting

Governments, and the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as the collecting agency, of the above action.

Subject No. 14.5: Safety oversight

Report of ANC — Progress report on the Unified Strategy Programme (USP) 51. The Council then gave initial consideration to C-WP/12692, in which the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) reported on the activities undertaken by the USP for the period June 2005 to May 2006. 52. Observing that the information in the paper was rather dated, the Representative of Canada sought information regarding any further progress which had been made regarding the implementation of the USP. 53. The Representative of the United States affirmed that the USP was absolutely key to the Organization’s change in focus from the development of Standards and Recommendations (SARPs) to the implementation of SARPs and to the important mission which it was undertaking in the 21st century. He averred that the progress made in implementing the USP was quite significant given the very small number of staff and the small amount of resources which had been allocated to the programme. The Representative of the United States underscored that it was necessary to find additional resources to allocate to the USP in order to continue to emphasize the importance of that endeavour. Noting that action paragraph 5.1 c) of the paper invited the Council to request the Secretary General to ensure the allocation of staff and budgetary resources to the USP, he enquired as to where such staff and resources would be obtained for 2007. The Representative of the United States emphasized that that issue should be a key consideration in looking for ways to advance results-based budgeting in preparing the Draft Programme

C-MIN 179/4 - 90 -

Budget for the 2008-2010 triennium. Recognizing that all States faced severe fiscal constraints, he underscored that it was unlikely that there would be any increases in the budget in the coming years and that the Organization would have difficult issues to confront. Maintaining that the USP was one programme which deserved budgetary support, the Representative of the United States indicated that it would be necessary to find such support from other activities which were less central to the core Strategic Objectives of ICAO and to its Business Plan. 54. The Representative of France enquired whether there had been any movement forward in the implementation of the USP, whether there had been any resistance thereto and whether there was a clear view of where progress might be made. Observing that the Council was invited, in paragraph 5.1 b) of the paper, to reaffirm its commitment to, and support of, the promotion of regional safety oversight organizations, he queried what such action would entail. The Representative of France emphasized that it was essential to have a more worldwide view of the USP, which was a fundamental programme of ICAO, and of its future direction. Underscoring that there was also the problem of human and financial resources to be addressed, he indicated that the Organization could turn to States for assistance. 55. The Representative of Japan fully shared the views expressed regarding the importance of the USP and understood the need for the appropriate resources to be allocated thereto. He could therefore support the policy direction set forth in the paper. Referring to action paragraph 5.1 c), the Representative of Japan stressed that he was not, however, in favour of a piecemeal approach to resource allocation and averred that that issue needed to be addressed in formulating the Draft Programme Budget for the next triennium. 56. Averring that the paper did not convey the unified nature of the programme, the Representative of Japan suggested that its structure be enhanced so that it would not give the impression that the USP was a collection of individual projects. In then drawing attention to action paragraph 5.1 e), he queried how the USP could be a coordination focal point for assistance programmes to States when normally it was an entity which was designated as a focal point. 57. Observing that the paper had been issued some six months earlier, the Representative of Nigeria enquired as to what action had been taken in the interim to strengthen the USP. In agreeing with the Representatives of Canada and the United States that the USP was a very important programme, he underscored that it was key to the Organization’s activities in the next few years, particularly as ICAO shifted focus from the development of SARPs to their implementation. While respecting the efforts which had been made to implement the USP within budgetary constraints, the Representative of Nigeria averred that not enough support was being given to the programme. Maintaining that more could be done, even within the current budget, to support the USP, he suggested that the Secretariat be requested to explore avenues to strengthen the programme and to give it more visibility, to the benefit of Member States. The Representative of Nigeria recalled, in this regard, that the Secretary General, with the Council’s agreement, had given a high degree of visibility to safety oversight audits through the comprehensive systems approach. 58. Referring to the pertinent issue raised by the Representative of Japan regarding the USP being the coordination focal point for assistance programmes to States, the Representative of Nigeria queried whether the USP could be recognized as an entity. He averred that if it could be so recognized, then it would facilitate the discussion of the allocation of resources, both now and during consideration of the Draft Programme Budget for the next triennium. In then drawing attention to paragraph 3.7 of the paper, the Representative of Nigeria enquired whether the USP Unit had attended the COSCAP-Banjul Accord Group (BAG) Steering Committee Meeting in Abuja from 21 to 22 February 2006, and in the negative, why it had not done so. Recalling the comments made by the President of the ANC in

C-MIN 179/4

- 91 -

presenting the paper, he indicated that the USP was focussing on the COSCAP-BAG and the Pacific Aviation Safety Office (PASO) as they were at the forefront in implementing regional safety oversight initiatives. In concluding, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized the need to report clearly to the Assembly on the results of action taken to implement Assembly Resolution A35-7. 59. Referring to requests made for more updated information regarding activities undertaken by the USP, the President of the ANC indicated that, as the Commission had not reviewed any activities after the period June 2005 to May 2006 covered by its report, he was not in a position to present any additional information thereon on the Commission’s behalf. Noting that he was nonetheless aware that some activities had been undertaken, he suggested that it might be more appropriate if information thereon were presented in another paper at another time. In then referring to comments made regarding the allocation of budgetary resources to the USP, the President of the ANC observed that, while the Council might have expected that the shift in focus from the development of SARPs to their implementation would enable resources to be allocated to the USP during the current triennium, it was his view that the transfer of resources was a difficult task which would take time to accomplish. The fundamental problem of providing adequate budgetary resources to the USP during the present triennium therefore remained. 60. Recalling the comments made by the Representative of Japan, the President of the ANC agreed on the need to make clear what needed to be done during the next triennium to implement the USP. In also concurring that the structure of the paper was not ideal as it presented many individual projects, he noted that it had been difficult for the Commission to consider the USP as a single, coherent, unified programme at the present stage. Averring that it was for the Secretariat to provide the Council with its vision of what the USP was meant to achieve, he suggested that the Secretariat consider reporting thereon during the next session. 61. In responding to some of the points raised, the Acting Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (A/D/ANB) noted that the primary objective of the USP was to facilitate the sharing of critical safety information among States. Recalling that it was for that reason that the Flight Safety Information Exchange (FSIX) had been created, he emphasized that the FSIX was one of the USP’s successes. Observing that the second main objective of the USP was to provide assistance directly to individual States or groups of States and to facilitate the provision of assistance to States. A/D/ANB noted that one of ICAO’s goals was to help foster the grouping of States as they could do more together than individually. He recalled that the Organization was building on the pattern of COSCAP projects and transforming them into more permanent regional safety oversight organizations. 62. A/D/ANB noted that, if all else failed, then there was a procedure under Article 54 j) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation to report to the Council in cases where ICAO had been unable to bring about an improvement in an individual State where safety oversight was grossly deficient and an offer of assistance had not met with approval. He underscored that the fact that it had not been necessary to invoke that procedure was a measure of the USP’s success. 63. With reference to resources, A/D/ANB noted that while the Chief of the USP Unit had left the Organization, a new Technical Officer had been recruited. There was now a minimum of two Professionals in the USP Unit, as well as a Programmer/Analyst who was assisting with the FSIX and one General Service category staff member. Emphasizing that that was a very small number of staff, he indicated that it was planned to increase the number of Professionals by two in 2007 by recruiting one Professional and by transferring another to the USP. A way would be found, through the reallocation of resources in 2007, to provide adequate support by General Service category staff. It was to be hoped that

C-MIN 179/4 - 92 -

the budget preparations for the next triennium would enable the USP to be placed on a more secure footing. 64. Recalling that the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (Montreal, 20 to 22 March 2006) had recommended that ICAO conduct a feasibility study for a direct assistance scheme, which would be a management task for ICAO rather than the direct provision of expertise in the field, A/D/ANB indicated that the study was being carried out and that reports thereon would be presented to the Council during the coming year in time for the Council to determine whether or not the results should be reported to the Assembly. In concluding, he emphasized that the Secretariat was doing its utmost to give definition to the USP with the means available. 65. It was agreed to resume consideration of this item during the next meeting (179/5). Other business Subject No. 10: ICAO Relations with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations

Report of JIU — “Policies of United Nations System Organizations towards the Use of Open Source Software (OSS) in the Secretariats” (JIU/REP/2005/3 and Corr. 1)

and Report of the JIU for 2005 and Programme of Work for 2006 66. As no request had been received by 7 November 2006 to have C-WP/12729 and C-WP/12790 on the above subjects tabled for discussion by the Council in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1299 dated 23 October 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted those papers. Subject No. 6.3: Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Appointment of a Member on the Air Transport and Technical Co-operation Committees 67. The Council appointed Mr. T. Mekonnen (Ethiopia) to succeed Mr. M. Belayneh as a Member on the Air Transport Committee and the Technical Co-operation Committee, with effect from 14 November 2006. 68. The Council adjourned at 1740 hours.

C-MIN 179/5

- 93 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada —*Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy —*Mr. S. Monti

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain —*Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. H. Altimari (Adv.) — Austria Mr. F. Paes (Adv) — Austria Mrs. M. Deshaies (Alt.) — Canada Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt) — Finland Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. M.F. Lynch (Alt.) — Peru

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB Ms. M.K. McMunn — C/SGM Mr. H. Belai — A/C/S&F Mrs. H.M. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. M. Ramos Gaytan — TO/USP Mr. M. Siciliano — TO/SGM Mr. J. Thaker — TO/SGM Mr. M. Ramos Gaytan — TO/USP Dr. S.W. Schreckengast — TO/USP Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/5 - 94 -

ALSO PRESENT (CONTINUED) : Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. A. Alharthy (Alt.) — Saudi Arabia Mr. J. Herrero (Alt.) — Spain Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States

C-MIN 179/5

- 95 -


Report of ANC — Progress report on the Unified Strategy Programme (USP) 1. The Council resumed (179/4) and completed its consideration of C-WP/12692, in which the Air Navigation Commission reported on the activities undertaken by the USP for the period June 2005 to May 2006. 2. The Representative of India observed that the USP would establish ICAO’s leadership role, and was therefore an extremely significant programme for the provision of assistance to States and for resolving safety-related deficiencies. The effectiveness of the USP would depend upon a clearly delineated and defined role. In this connection the Representative of India had the understanding that similar functions were being discharged by various other units of the Organization. The role of USP should be to coordinate these units and oversee the functioning of IFFAS, the Technical Cooperation Bureau, and other entities which were working to resolve safety-related deficiencies. This coordinating role was not a function which would require vast financial resources, although the USP should be strengthened if this was necessary. The issue could perhaps be addressed in the Finance Committee or at another appropriate level. 3. Recalling some of the elements which had been highlighted at the previous meeting, the Representative of the United Kingdom observed that the United States and Japan had talked about the question of accountability. It had also been noted that the paper now before the Council had been prepared six months or so previous to today’s discussion. The Council would have to decide whether or not it was still relevant. To a large degree it was, but the action paragraph was perhaps somewhat out of date and it was difficult for the Council to agree on the action proposed. This arose not least because of the Secretariat reorganization, and it seemed that the USP would fit somewhere within the Implementation Bureau that was being envisaged in that reorganization. The United Kingdom was supportive of the general thrust of the work, encouraging the work to continue but recognizing that there needed to be some reorganization within the Secretariat to make sure that the work was done effectively. 4. The Representative of Mozambique requested more concrete information on the “progress” which was mentioned at paragraph 3 of the paper, recognizing that the information it contained was perhaps somewhat dated and that there probably were more recent achievements. 5. The Representative of Mexico observed that the comments which had been offered by the United States and Nigeria at the previous meeting should be kept in mind in the future in regard to the USP. He requested clarification on the Secretariat’s vision with regard to this Programme, since it was not clear what real support was being supplied by States. Over the past year and a half, the Council had talked about assigning resources at the highest priority, but since that time the staff in the section had not increased; it seemed that now, although at least temporarily, the section had even less staff than it had had in the past. The Representative of Mexico also wished to know how the Programme was to be coordinated with the other areas in the Organization, and requested information on the progress which had been made since issuance of C-WP/12692 and on the next steps envisaged by the Secretariat. 6. The Representative of Argentina considered that C-WP/12692 was obsolete, since the Secretariat had already presented a draft for the re-organization of ICAO that responded to what the Assembly had decided with regard to future strategy, i.e., going from just drafting Standards to taking an active role in auditing States’ compliance, and a pro-active role in providing assistance in the achievement of that compliance. He supported the views of the Representative of India; the assistance provided by the Organization to Contracting States to help them resolve deficiencies that were discovered during audits

C-MIN 179/5 - 96 -

should be an integral part of its work and should touch on all of the areas in which ICAO was concerned, i.e. safety, security and the environment. In order to avoid a duplication of effort, a more integrated approach was needed, with the USP as an integral part of the complex system through which the Organization provided assistance in resolving deficiencies. Certain measures would be temporary, pending some final decisions about the longer term proposals. The Representative of Argentina supported the comments which had been made by the Representative of United States and supported by a number of other speakers; the Council could not ask the Secretary General to guarantee resources, since such resources had not been allocated in the current triennial budget. 7. The Representative of Australia agreed with previous speakers who had observed that the USP was a very important programme and a priority for the future. The Unified Strategy had a strong basis on modern understanding of how States met their international obligations. When the Programme had been discussed in the Council several years earlier, there had been discussion about States’ capacity to meet international obligations as well as their intentions, and the concept of those two aspects had been reinforced in the DGCA/06 Conference. Where there was a lack of capacity, the Organization had two mechanisms. There was the very important mechanism of the flight safety information exchange (FSIX) which provided information and best practice for institutions to share, where they perhaps did not have the ability to develop them themselves. There was also the concept of assistance to States, where an international organization could provide the appropriate coordination to enable groups of States to develop collective solutions or, alternatively, just provide the interface between the State that was experiencing the problem and the large international donors. Positive steps had been made in that regard, because the World Bank was now adopting a fairly favorable approach to lending to countries which needed assistance to develop their aviation sectors with ICAO playing a role. There was also the Article 54 (j) procedure in which, despite all the best efforts in the world, some States just did not deal with the problem. The Council had heard from A/D/ANB how that procedure, or even the threat of it, could have a very positive effect for international safety regulation. The USP was thus at the core of what ICAO was doing; its development was supported by the Council and the Assembly, and had been reaffirmed at the DGCA/06 Conference. 8. Commenting on the fact that only limited resources had been devoted to the Programme, the Representative of Australia observed that there had been a considerable amount of activity. Coordination work was quite time consuming, particularly when such coordination was on a global basis. It also had to be recognized that the Unified Strategy had been intended to provide various options that would meet the needs of different States. C-WP/12692 made reference to the COSCAP-Banjul Accord Group and the Pacific Aviation Safety Office. The two regions which those bodies served were dramatically different: one consisted of a large number of islands whose only means of communication was aviation or shipping and which were spread over the largest geographical area of any region in the world; the other region was essentially made up of States which were adjacent and which perhaps had more common historical links. While there was a common approach, the practical political problems in running coordination and facilitating would be different, with some different speeds and results depending on the politics of the region. 9. The Representative of Australia concurred with Representatives who had pointed out that C-WP/12692 had been prepared some time ago, and that the new proposal for the re-structuring of the Secretariat had to some degree overtaken some aspects of the paper. However, given the time line of that proposal there was still a need to address what the Programme could accomplish until the resources and allocations were settled for the next triennium. The limited resources at this time were due to the fact that decisions taken at the Assembly had not been linked to resourcing. Preparations had also been inadequate in other areas for new programmes and units. States had already indicated that it was relatively easy for ICAO to make Standards, but that implementing them was the hard work. While ideas had been offered

C-MIN 179/5

- 97 -

for the next triennium, in the shorter term it would be useful to develop a preparatory step to that longer-term goal, in the form of a full explanation of the Programme and where it was going. 10. Preparatory work would include a number of elements, the first being funding. Within the budget allocations which had already been settled, there might still be some flexibility in allocating other priorities to increase resources in the short term. There would also be the need to establish milestones for achieving certain outcomes, and to identify the specific risks. If, for example, fifty States did not want to receive missions or to cooperate, there was a significant risk that the Programme would not be successful. There would be a need to learn more about the external parties and the stakeholders, since this was a programme in developing partnerships. The Representative of Australia welcomed the news that Airbus, Boeing and a few other players were very much interested in cooperating. Perhaps the most significant aspect concerned the need to determine some criteria for accessing ICAO’s success in this endeavor. This aspect was linked to both the Business Plan and the results-based budget. Two other aspects concerned some governance arrangements such as how often reports would be presented to the Council and whether reporting would be direct or through the ANC. Some specific resourcing issues would include the possible use of secondees. 11. The Representative of Austria observed that it went without saying her Delegation supported the Unified Strategy Programme and attached great importance to it. She also wished to support the statements made by the Representatives of the United Kingdom, India, and Argentina, who had emphasized the need for coordination in the strategy programmes. It was unfortunate that the Council was discussing a report that was six months old, but that was not the fault of the Secretariat. It was more the Council’s problem that it had not completed its work programme during the last session. The Representative of Austria referred to paragraph 3.11 of the paper, and wished to know if any progress had been made with regard to the implementation of the IFFAS grant referred to therein. 12. Some additional information was then provided by A/D/ANB, who indicated that the Secretariat recognized the desirability of giving clear indications of the future and the location of the USP within the overall mission of ICAO. The USP was designed to help make a reality that the necessary assistance was provided, and that such assistance was not coming merely from ICAO but could come from anywhere in the world. It was a very ambitious task to coordinate on a global level, and it therefore took some time. Part of the problem concerned the need for States to cooperate. There were very high expectations of ICAO’s ability to orchestrate improvements in the world by persuading outside donors to provide assistance on a bilateral basis or in monetary form, but assistance also needed the recipients’ cooperation. It was here that problems were being encountered, along the same lines as the problems that USOAP had run into. Some administrations were so small that they were not adequately staffed and resourced to give the proper answers. ICAO needed to assess the precise needs of those States, and it could not meet all the demands simultaneously. It was hoped that within the current budgetary allocations it would be possible to reassign more resources. 13. Responding to the question which had been raised by the Representative of Austria with reference to paragraph 3.11 of C-WP/12692, A/D/ANB indicated that the Secretariat had collected the information necessary for the release of the grant that had been approved in principle by the IFFAS Governing Body, and was now satisfied that all conditions had been met. The actual payment was imminent. 14. A/D/ANB agreed that there was a need to look at structure, and to determine more accurately where the Programme fit in the overall work of the Secretariat. This was work in progress in all respects, and the budget and organization of the Secretariat were processes which went in parallel, aiming at the same results. Funding in the longer term for the Programme would be part of that effort. In

C-MIN 179/5 - 98 -

the development of the Business Plan for ICAO for the next triennium, and in particular with respect to the Air Navigation Integrated Programme, an effort was underway to define milestones and criteria to assess the success in a results-based approach as opposed to merely budgeting. In that process, the Secretariat was trying to estimate the risk of failure as well as the need for success. The success of the Programme depended in large part on parties outside of ICAO. In addition to the information provided in C-WP/12692, there were other initiatives involving regional cooperation efforts by States where industry was involved. As regards the resource issues, it was recognized that certain skills were required and the use of secondees was an option for strengthening the Programme without tapping additional resources in ICAO. 15. Offering some comments in light of the debate, the President of the Council observed that there existed an Assembly Resolution, i.e. Resolution A35-7 (Unified strategy to resolve safety-related deficiencies) which referred specifically to this issue. The sixth operative clause of that Resolution directed the Council “to promote the concept of regional or sub-regional safety oversight organizations”, and the tenth operative clause encouraged all States able to do so “to participate in, or provide tangible support for, the strengthening and furtherance of regional safety oversight organizations”. One could see from this that a number of the paragraphs in the Council action proposed in C-WP/12692 were perfectly aligned with the Assembly Resolution. Whereas some Representatives had mentioned that the paper was already somewhat dated, the Representative of Austria had pointed out that this was due to unforeseen circumstances since it had not been possible for the Council to address the subject during the past session and there had been a long gap over the summer recess. 16. Having noted some of the references which had been made to a possible update of the information provided in the paper, the President suggested that an informal briefing of Representatives be arranged. This would clarify a number of doubts which, he sensed, continued to exist on such matters as the progress which had been made, the future direction of the programme and the coordination that would be required. 17. The President observed that many Representatives had mentioned that the USP was a coordination programme, but had expressed concern as to whether sufficient resources were being allocated to it. He observed in this respect that at the 35th Session of the Assembly, the subject of the Unified Strategy Programme had been handled at the same time as the budget, and that the USP was not provided for in the Regular Programme Budget for the current triennium. The Secretary General had made an effort to bring this into line in order to further the work on this programme. No Representative taking part in the debate had indicated in any way that they were opposed to the unified strategy. The President believed that the Council felt the programme to be of paramount importance, and that an informal briefing along the lines of what he had described would simply review what had been achieved. Some achievements had, indeed, been made, and it would be necessary to recognize that progress, and be clear as to how the programme would work. The briefing would focus on the coordination activities, the internal and external resources that should be allocated, the participation of staff, and financial contributions. With a clear mind on this subject, the Council would be in a position to advise the Secretary General on the future of the USP. 18. The Representative of Cameroon endorsed all those who had stressed the importance of the USP and the need to allocate the necessary resources within the framework of the Regular Budget. Resolution A35-7 represented the legal basis for the Programme; its fourteenth operative clause directed the Council “to adopt a flexible approach for the provision of assistance through the ICAO Regional Offices to support regional and sub-regional organizations responsible for safety oversight tasks and to implement an efficient system to monitor implementation of the unified strategy”. This was absolutely

C-MIN 179/5

- 99 -

essential to the follow up. The Representative of Cameroon agreed that the Council needed a briefing in order to be able to clarify the Programme further. 19. The Representative of China observed that the various projects mentioned in C-WP/12692 were very important; he was personally involved in the COSCAP-North Asia programme. Such missions showed ICAO working in the regions, and helped countries develop regulations, standards, and manuals, and also to train inspectors. This was the real work of ICAO. In terms of resources, China was prepared to provide an expert free of charge, to support the Programme both in the region as well as at Headquarters. 20. The Representative of Germany wished to add her voice to those who had stressed the utmost importance of the USP to the work of ICAO. The Representative of the Republic of Korea also supported the paper in principle, and shared the concerns expressed by the Representatives of the United States, Japan, Canada, Nigeria, and others. He observed that a progress report was to be submitted to the next session of the Assembly, but that a link among the different projects appeared to be missing. A more systematic and unified management was required, and the Representative of the Republic of Korea suggested that the Secretariat develop an action plan for the Programme. The budgetary staff allocations could be reviewed by the Finance Committee during the next (180th) session. As regards the financial support of States, in addition to voluntary contributions the Secretariat could consider exploring a way to foster bilateral and multilateral safety-related financing and partnerships amongst States and regional organizations. 21. The Representative of Ghana did not think that the fact C-WP/12692 was six months old made any difference. The strategic change from developing SARPs to implementation had all kinds of implications, especially on the ANB and the ANC, which had not really been discussed, but the USP raised expectations in States. For no action to be taken, or for the very limited actions that had been taken, had a demoralizing effect because the Programme had not been empowered. Empowering the USP itself was a clear indication that the shift in emphasis was not just a statement of good intentions, that work needed to be done and work was going to be done in States to help them develop their capacity to solve problems. When it came to cooperation and partnerships, there was some work being done, but if States were paying for these cooperation projects they could not be referred to as “assistance”. Once there was a change in emphasis, ICAO had to look at how it was going to deal with problems. If the solution was found in assistance-giving, that was the way the Organization should be viewed. The Representative of Ghana endorsed a comment which had been made by D/A/ANB at the previous meeting, to the effect that the application of the Article 54 j) procedure did not mean that only the States had failed; the Organization had failed because there were no results and such results would have to be found outside of ICAO. When it became possible to predict consistently that safety was at a level which was acceptable to all, ICAO would have achieved the desired result. 22. The Representative of Nigeria observed that a decision to de-emphasize making Standards and emphasize implementation was not reflected in ICAO’s activities. When the Council spoke about allocating resources to the Unified Strategy Programme, it was not requesting the Secretary General to squeeze water out of a stone; it was asking the Secretary General to reassign some of the current resources for development of Standards to implementation. The Representative of Nigeria had the impression that the enthusiasm attached to the Programme had dissipated in recent months. 23. A/D/ANB welcomed the opportunity to respond to the points raised by Nigeria about shifting focus and understood his desire to see more. He gave assurances that the Secretariat’s enthusiasm had not waned at all. The Secretariat was committed to the Programme and wanted to make it work, not only to provide solutions for those States that needed help and cooperation, but also in the

C-MIN 179/5 - 100 -

larger picture of a shift in focus of what the Organization was doing, from developing Standards towards assisting in implementation of not just Standards but the infrastructure of facilities and services in the Regional Air Navigation Plans. A/D/ANB had set a target for reducing by 50 percent the time spent in developing Standards or maintaining the existing Standards. A proposal to the ANC to this effect would be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007. 24. The Representative of Saint Lucia observed from his two years with the Council that the term “technical assistance” had not been transferred into anything physical or tangible. It was really frustrating and demoralizing, because there was no point in writing nice papers if there was nothing to show at the end of the day. As an example, he noted the information which paragraph 3.17 of C-WP/12692 provided on the Republic of Seychelles, a country which reminded him of his own State. Seychelles had had a number of aircraft on its register, and with the threat of the application of Article 54 j), had quickly taken action to remove these aircraft off its register. Paragraph 3.17 asserted that “this was a successful illustration of how, when working together, Regional Offices, States and ICAO Headquarters can work toward sustainable solutions to identified safety oversight problems”. The Representative of Saint Lucia questioned this assertion, since ICAO, apart from threatening the use of Article 54 j), had not done anything to assist Seychelles. Assistance from ICAO did not have to be financial; it was just a redeployment and more effective use of human resources. 25. The Representative of Australia supported the observations and comments made by the Representatives of Ghana, Nigeria and Saint Lucia. The Council had taken a strategic decision in June 2005 and the Organization still had a long way to go to implement that strategic decision. In terms of the prioritization of resources, some positive steps had been made in relation to the activities of the Air Navigation Bureau. Nevertheless, out of some 750 staff in the Organization, only three were working on the major strategy of the environment with four or five working on security outcomes. There was a broad issue of the appropriate resourcing of those areas, and the comments made during the three previous interventions were very valid in that respect. Referring to the question which had been raised by the Representative of Austria in relation to the IFFAS grant to the Pacific Aviation Safety Office, the Representative of Australia was pleased to hear that it looked like it would be progressing, because there had been a lot of demoralization and frustration in that part of the world and it was good to see that there were some positive steps towards results in a region which clearly needed some hand-holding assistance from the major international organizations. 26. The Representative of India requested that the President arrange informal briefings of the Council on perhaps a quarterly basis so as to allow Representatives to monitor progress until such time as a report on quantifiable achievements was prepared for the next Session of the Assembly. The Representative of India observed that there was a need for more oversight of the safety programmes, and suggested that the Council establish a Committee of the Council on Unified Strategies of the Organization. 27. The Representative of South Africa commended previous speakers who had spoken about deliverables, specific achievements, and the need to be action-centered. ICAO had to exercise action-centered leadership with instructions, timeframes, deliverables and measurable goals. 28. The Representative of Colombia observed that this item had been accorded the highest importance by the Assembly and of course the Council also felt it to be of paramount importance, as had been made clear in past discussions and the discussions here today; nevertheless, the latest comments by Saint Lucia, Nigeria and Ghana had all indicated that the results of the Programme had been rather precarious, and that there had not been sufficient coordination. He therefore considered it essential for Representatives to have a briefing to know what was the future policy envisaged by the Secretary General

C-MIN 179/5

- 101 -

to pursue the USP so that the Council, when reporting to States on the subject, would be in a position to endorse it fully. 29. With the understanding that the above-mentioned informal briefing of Representatives would be arranged, the Council took action on the basis of paragraph 5.1 of C-WP/12692, as amended in light of the debate, and: a) noted the contents of that progress report;

b) reaffirmed its commitment to, and support for, the promotion of regional safety

oversight organizations; c) encouraged the Secretary General to consider fully the allocation of staff and

budgetary resources in improving the Unified Strategy Programme; d) requested the Secretary General to send a State letter to States requesting long-term

secondees for the USP; and e) reiterated to States, international organizations and industry that the Unified Strategy

Programme is a valuable means to coordinate assistance to States to implement their corrective action plans, establish regional safety oversight initiatives and help to identify the most appropriate assistance mechanism.

Subject No. 15.4: Facilitation

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD)

30. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12803, in which the Secretary General presented the final draft of the Memorandum of Understanding that was proposed to be the instrument to be signed by ePassport issuing States and other entities wishing to commence participation in the Public Key Directory. 31. Under general comments, the Representative of Saudi Arabia had the understanding that in order to participate in the PKD, States must have machine-readable passports in place. The Delegation of Saudi Arabia had concerns because some States might set conditions for others that were participating in the PKD when it came to the introduction of e-Passports. The Representative of Saudi Arabia asked that the States in question undertake to grant a moratorium before they took any decision with regard to the prohibition of access to citizens of certain countries in their territory. 32. The Representative of France felt that the rationale behind the proposal – i.e. the existence of a centralized registry – was justified, but had some doubts about the way the subject had been dealt with at the onset. Some subjects should have been coordinated earlier with the Council, because it would be necessary to keep in mind the views of the States and to know whether the Directory was going to be managed within ICAO, or whether it would be entrusted to an outside contractor. For the future, when it came to other subjects, it should be recalled that the best approach was always to cooperate as openly as possible and as early as possible. The Representative of France thanked the Secretariat for the efforts they had made over recent months to increase the flow of information to the Council, and appreciated the way that the Secretariat had taken into account some of the comments that had been made.

C-MIN 179/5 - 102 -

33. The Representative of Lebanon thanked the Secretariat for a working paper which was a major step towards the implementation of an essential programme, although there were some issues that still needed to be clarified. In the Definitions, Contracting States or other entities that had issued or intended to issue electronic machine-readable travel documents would be referred to as Participants. There was another category comprised of the beneficiaries who needed to download information from the Directory. The Organization had not really dealt with the issue of the people who would benefit from the Directory, although reference was made in paragraph 7.1 to ICAO’s responsibility with regard to the users. The Delegation of Lebanon felt that the status of these users should be defined as the system was developed. There was a need to deal with various issues, such as how ICAO would allow users access to the Directory, that would have to be dealt with to take account of the status and position of the various users. Referring to paragraph 9 of the MOU and the PKD, the Representative of Lebanon felt that if the Council was to approve the final text of the MOU, any amendment should be applicable after the various participating entities had settled their contributions. The ICAO Council should also approve the text amending the MOU on the basis of this principle of equality. 34. The Representative of Finland observed that this was an issue that had been considered many times by the Council; it was now two years since the PKD concept had first been presented to the Council after having been debated by experts in panels and various groups. Many meetings and informal briefings had been convened where the Council had been fully informed about the details. The text being referred to as the “final draft of the MOU” had, to a large extent, been agreed upon last spring. Experts and Council Members had since had the opportunity of making comments on the text and the MOU had accordingly been fine-tuned. Finland was now in a position to endorse the document as is without any need to change any provision. Finland was fully satisfied with the draft which had had a very laborious road to walk until it had come to this stage. The Representative of Finland had only one question for clarification which did not affect the text of the MOU. One sticking point throughout the Council’s long debate had been the liability of ICAO; he noted that it was the intention of ICAO to take insurance to cover its possible liability, and wished to know if any information was available on the present status of discussion between ICAO and insurers, and, if the document was approved, whether ICAO would be able in the very short term to get the insurance necessary to cover its possible liabilities. 35. In response to the point raised by the Representative of Finland, C/SGM indicated that with regard to the insurance, ICAO had received a proposal from an insurance company that was experienced in international business insurance. The Secretariat was reviewing that proposal with the aim of further negotiating on a couple of points. A policy was thus available and could be taken in a very short time. With regard to the comments of the Representative of Saudi Arabia, C/SGM wished to clarify that machine-readable passports were not to be confused with ePassports. It was true that a new Standard in Annex 9 (Facilitation) required that all States begin issuing machine-readable passports no later than the year 2010. It was understood by all that the new provision concerned the basic machine-readable passport and States would not be able to institute any discriminatory measures before 2010 against other States because of a lack of machine-readable passports. An ePassport was also a machine-readable passport which had been enhanced by the addition of a chip. There were no SARPs being contemplated at this point with regard to implementation of ePassports. It was still a new concept, with only 30 States having implemented them thus far. The reason participation in the PKD was limited to States issuing ePassports was that only ePassports required the distribution of document signer keys. It concerned no more than a technical facility which would facilitate distribution of a means of verifying the authenticity of data in a chip The inspection of passports at borders, if ePassports were presented, would use this facility; if ePassports were not presented they would be read with the standard machine-readable passport readers. There would thus be no discriminatory effect on States that were not yet issuing ePassports.

C-MIN 179/5

- 103 -

36. The Representative of Japan indicated that on the matter of the PKD, his Government had three matters of interest. One of them concerned the liability issues which would be covered by the insurance, a matter which had been resolved. The second issue concerned the payment, and the question of to whom the government would make the payment had also been resolved in the new draft before the Council. The third element concerned the nature of the MOU. The premise was that this document was not of a legally binding nature as was the case with an international agreement, such as a treaty. The Representative of Japan sought confirmation on this last point. If the confirmation was given, some fine tuning on the draft might be necessary. C/SGM confirmed that the intent of the document was that it was not a treaty, it was simply a document that a participating entity would sign indicating it understood certain elements regarding how the relationship under the PKD would work. It was not intended to be a binding agreement. The Representative of France observed in this connection that the MOU was a customary instrument in Anglo-Saxon legal systems, but that in those countries where other legal systems applied, the text would not have the same thrust and could not be interpreted in the same fashion. There was possibly a conflict between different legal systems. That was not all that unusual in international civil law but it should be borne in mind. ICAO should not pretend to assume that it had a universal-type instrument because the modalities of signature or approval of the text would vary according to the different countries. It would be up to each country individually to interpret the legal scope of the text and to draw its respective conclusions. 37. The Representative of the United Kingdom saw the ePassport as being a very valuable tool and the PKD an important part of delivering the required security elements. Without the PKD, it would not be possible to authenticate the ePassports. ICAO had already determined that ePassports should be introduced. Having answered these questions on liability and financing, there was now no need to delay the introduction of the PKD. Like Finland, the United Kingdom was ready here today to agree the MOU as it was currently drafted. ICAO should not be seen to continually postpone decisions when a decision was in front of it and there was no real impediment to agreement. 38. The Representative of Australia observed that C-WP/12803 provided a very solid base for the establishment of a Directory which, once it came into operation, would provide border agencies and others with verification that an electronic passport was issued by the entity authorized to do so, and that the data on the chip, including the very important image in the passport, had been put there by an authorized entity and had not been changed. Australia recognized that a lot of work had gone into the project, and, subject to a couple of very minor points, was prepared to make a decision today as well. Australia was looking to start processing electronic passports early in 2007 and would like the Directory to be operational as soon as possible. 39. The major issues which were obviously of concern included the issue of liability which, as others had said, had now been addressed through the mechanism of insurance. There was also an issue in relation to governance which had been addressed by the proposed board, and an issue about the form of the document which had been clarified by C/SGM in response to the question from the Representative of Japan. There remained a couple of housekeeping points to ensure that the language was indeed a Memorandum of Understanding and did not contain text that would be more properly in a binding legal agreement. The Representative of Australia recalled that there had been some confusion earlier on about what the PKD was. He suggested that the text be expanded to make reference to an “electronic passport public key directory” to make it clear in the Council’s decision and in the appropriate press release. He was otherwise ready to support positive action and a decision by the Council today. The Representative of Canada wished to be associated with the comments of Finland, the United Kingdom and Australia. The Council had been dealing with the PKD for the last two years and it was time to move forward. Therefore Canada was in a position today to endorse the final draft of the MOU.

C-MIN 179/5 - 104 -

40. The Representative of Austria was satisfied with the proposal before the Council, and commended the Secretariat for all the work it had done. Austria had supported the PKD from the beginning and had started issuing ePassports in August of 2006. Of course with regard to the MOU there were some points, such as the fees, with which Austria was not happy, but in a spirit of a compromise and with the objective of easier and more secure air travel Austria fully supported the project and hoped that the Council could conclude its work on it today. The Representative of the Russian Federation was also in a position to endorse the draft MOU regarding the PKD at this meeting. 41. The Representative of Argentina was also in a position to approve the MOU at this meeting, but sought clarification on the voluntary nature of participation in the PKD. C/SGM confirmed that it would not be a requirement to participate in the PKD even if a State was issuing ePassports. The Secretariat believed, however, that any State which proposed to go out on its own and distribute its own document signer keys to all corners of the world, would find that that was an extremely inefficient and cumbersome method of distributing keys and also a very cumbersome and chaotic method of obtaining the document signer keys of other countries. The PKD would be a means of facilitating the distribution of keys; it would be the single place to which States who were issuing ePassports could send their document signer certificates and the single place from which users all over the world could download the document signer keys. 42. The Representative of the United States also wished to be associated with the position stated by the Representatives of Finland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Austria and the Russian Federation. The United States was fully prepared to endorse C-WP/12803 and the MOU today. He understood and appreciated that in indicating approval of the MOU, the Council would offer the Secretariat the discretion to continue to make the fine tuning adjustments to ensure that the States were comfortable with the form of the document and that it was not a treaty or binding agreement. Such fine tuning would be within the discretion of the Secretariat, consistent with the direction of the Council. The Delegation of the United States suggested that in drafting the disclaimer of liability referred to in Section 2.2 of the paper, it would be indicated on the ICAO web site that the Secretariat had sought strong legal advice as well as the consent of the insurer to ensure that the best possible language was used and applicable in all the participating States. With those considerations, the United States enthusiastically endorsed the excellent work on the part of the Secretariat and the outside experts and commended them for taking ICAO forward on this important step. The Representatives of Nigeria and Cameroon also spoke in favour of taking action at this time. 43. The Representative of Saint Lucia commended the Secretariat on the work which had been carried out and on meeting the concerns which had been expressed by his Delegation and others. Article 9 (Amendments to the MOU) was a very important part of the MOU since States would have the opportunity to put forward any amendments that they had in mind. The Representative of Saint Lucia wished to lend his voice to all those who wished to complete action on the subject. He requested clarification, however, on the possible discrepancy in fees between those States which joined very late in the game, when the fees were low, and those who had joined earlier at a higher fee. C/SGM indicated that there would be two types of fees: one would be a joining fee which would be the same for everyone and which was not expected to change over the years, at least not over the first five years. The annual fees would be subject to change as participation increased. That second fee would go up or down for the benefit or detriment of everybody participating in the system. 44. Further to concerns raised by the Representative of Saudi Arabia in connection with the calculation of registration fees and their effect on developing countries with very large populations, C/SGM clarified that the fees had been calculated making certain assumptions about the level of participation. The annual fee was based on the number of passports the country had in circulation and not

C-MIN 179/5

- 105 -

the number of people in the country. There were some countries which had a large population but which may have fewer passports in circulation than a smaller country. The Expert Advisory Group had recommended that the fees be based on a number of passports in circulation. In most countries, at least, a passport was a revenue generating activity similar to the ICAO system of assessing contributions based on the size of a country’s economy. The issue of very small States which had even fewer than a million passports and the issue of very poor developing States would have to be taken up by the PKD Board after it was formed. The fee schedule was subject to change if a decision was taken to re-calculate it. 45. The Representative of Colombia observed that it would be very important to clarify who would sign the Agreement. C/SGM indicated that the parties signing the MOU would be officials of those Participants. A Participant was an entity which would be issuing ePassports and sending document signer certificates to the PKD. ICAO was not considered a Participant, under its aegis ICAO was sponsoring the PKD and would not be signing the document. 46. The Council commenced its review of the draft MOU appended to C-WP/12803. The Representative of France observed that the preambular part of the draft MOU made reference to ‘Participants’ before that term was defined in Section 1 (Definitions). The reader would not really understand what was meant by ‘Participant’, which should be expanded to refer to ‘Participants as defined in the section on Definitions’. Also, the list of Participants would evolve over time as States would join the system at different stages. There was a degree of ambiguity because in an international treaty the words ‘the Participants hereby’ referred to the list of signatories to the treaty and appeared at the end of the document. It concerned the States that concluded this agreement and not a list of potential participants that would be created under the agreement. The Representative of France requested that the Legal Bureau review the wording. 47. The Representative of Ghana sought clarification on the definition of ‘PKD Regulations’, since the MOU did not contain any regulation at all. In reference document C-WP/12574, paragraph 4.2, it was said that the PKD regulations would also form part of the MOU, but they were not included. C/SGM confirmed that at the time C-WP/12574 had been prepared, it had been thought that the regulations could be part of the MOU. After the Secretariat had begun developing the regulations and considering the whole matter further, it had realized that the regulations were technical in nature and had to do with the State operation of the PKD. It would therefore be more practical to separate the two documents so that the PKD regulations would be subject to the approval of the PKD Board and not call for an amendment to the MOU. PKD regulations were defined in the MOU because they were mentioned later on in the text. 48. The Representative of Argentina expressed the view that an since a certain number of doubts had been raised and a request had been put forward for an opinion from the Legal Bureau, an informal briefing from the Secretariat should be arranged in order to provide more information about certain details. The Council could return to the subject when it had a thorough understanding and could then deal with it quickly. In response to a query raised by the Representative of Argentina in connection with paragraph 2.3, C/SGM indicated that the words “seek the PKD Board’s approval in consultation with ICAO” referred to consultation with the ICAO Secretary General and not necessarily the Council. 49. The Representative of France sought clarification on the definition of Participants, and the expression “intending to issue eMRTDs” . In legal documents, the use of the term ‘intending’ was somewhat unusual. As regards the question raised by the Representative of Argentina in connection with paragraph 2.3, the Representative of France maintained that the Council should have a say in the matter.

C-MIN 179/5 - 106 -

50. Commenting on the use of the phrase “intending to issue eMRTDs” C/SGM recalled that this issue had come up when discussing the draft in an informal meeting of Representatives in April 2006. A State or other entity may want to sign up and pay its joining fee before its first ePassport was issued, and it was for this reason the words “intending to issue” had been inserted. As a practical matter, a State that was intending to issue eMRTDs at some time in the future was probably not going to put forward the money to join the PKD beforehand; the intention was simply to have a State issuing ePassports without already being in the PKD. The Representative of France suggested that words such as “engaged in the process of issuing” be used to cover such a situation. 51. Further consideration of C-WP/12803 was deferred to the next meeting, and the meeting adjourned at 1300 hours.

C-MIN 179/6 (Open)

- 107 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT: Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. V.V. Postnov. (Alt.) — Russian Federation Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States

SECRETARIAT: Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB Ms. M.K. McMunn — C/SGM Mr. H. Belai — A/C/S&F Ms. C. Zuzak — C/ASA Mr. D.M. de Andrade Filho — SO/ATB Mrs. H.M. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. A. O’Hara — SO/TCB Mr. M. Siciliano — TO/SGM Mr. J. Murphy — Consultant, ASA Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

(

C-MIN 179/6 (Open) - 108 -



1. The Council resumed (179/5) its consideration of C-WP/12803 [with Blue Rider (Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish only)], in which the Secretary General presented the draft of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that was proposed to be the instrument to be signed by e-passport issuing States and other entities wishing to commence participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD). The Secretariat proposed amendments to the draft MoU which had been prepared taking into account the comments and suggestions made by Council Representatives during the previous meeting. It was, however, decided to continue reviewing the draft MoU without taking those amendments into consideration. 2. Under general comments, the Representative of Nigeria sought clarification as to whether the PKD was a “for-profit” or a “not-for-profit” entity and as to how operational surpluses and deficits would be handled. 3. In also enquiring as to the nature of the directory, the Representative of Mozambique observed that the registration fee of US $85 000 was double many States’ assessed contributions. While recalling that when the PKD had first been discussed by the Council it had been indicated that the intention was not to create an exclusive club for a few States, he expressed concern that some States would nevertheless be a priori excluded from participating in the PKD due to their inability to pay the fees. The Representative of Italy underscored, in this regard, that many States, including the Holy See, found the registration fee to be too high. 4. The Chief of the Specifications and Guidance Material Section (C/SGM) clarified that the PKD would be implemented on a cost-recovery basis, with all of the costs incurred by ICAO and the operator being covered by the fees collected from participants. She underscored that it was not a “for-profit” system. In recalling that the fee schedule had been initially proposed on the assumption that there would be a low participation rate in the PKD, C/SGM noted that the situation had since changed following the adoption of the Council of the European Union Order 15152/04, with many more States now issuing e-passports. She emphasized that if the actual number of PKD participants differed from assumed number, 17, then the fees would be reviewed by the PKD Board and adjusted as appropriate. To concerns expressed regarding the level of the fees, she noted that passport issuance was a revenue-generating activity. If a State decided to embark on a project to implement e-passports, then it would have to approve a budget therefor. The fees which the State would pay to participate in the PKD would constitute only a very small percentage of that budget. 5. The Representative of Pakistan supported a suggestion made earlier by the Representative of Australia that the name of the PKD be amended to clearly indicate that the directory related only to e-passports. He shared the concerns expressed by the Representative of Saudi Arabia that the registration and annual fees were excessively high, particularly for developing countries. The Representative of Pakistan noted that his State had begun to issue machine-readable passports and was carrying out a pilot project for e-passports. He underscored, however, that, due to Pakistan’s large population and financial constraints, it would be two to four years before e-passports would be issued. Pakistan nonetheless supported the PKD as it offered considerable advantages at the global level and was to be implemented on a voluntary basis.

C-MIN 179/6 (Open)

- 109 -

6. The Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he could accept the draft MOU in the form presented, subject to the language being verified by the Secretariat to ensure that it was consistent with that used in other MOU. 7. Observing that his greatest concern was with regard to the fee schedule, the Representative of India noted that no information was given in the paper on how the seemingly high registration fee and annual fee had been determined. He emphasized that it was contrary to economic reasoning to have the annual fee increase with the number of e-passports and non-e-passports in circulation, averring that the cost should decrease with economies of scale. The Representative of India underscored that his State, which had a population of some 110 million, would find it very difficult to participate in the PKD as the financial burden posed by the fee schedule would be immense. To a further point raised by the Representative, C/SGM indicated that detailed information on the calculation of the fees and the case scenarios would be provided in a memorandum by the Secretary General. 8. Noting that the PKD was a practical tool for the broad use of e-passports, the Representative of Japan affirmed that its implementation on a cost-recovery basis was most appropriate. Underscoring that the PKD offered savings to all user States, both from the developed and developing world, he indicated that he could not accept having the fees based on States’ assessed contributions to ICAO. The Representative of Japan recalled, in this regard, the experience with Globaltime. 9. The Representative of Australia suggested that the fees be considered on a provisional basis for those States which had already indicated their willingness to pay them and that the views expressed by Council Representatives regarding the fees be conveyed to the PKD Board with a request that it prepare a revised fee schedule that would apply to other States joining the PKD at a later date. While indicating that some consideration could be given to reducing the registration fee in due course, he emphasized that that fee was a very small component of the cost of establishing an e-passport system. 10. The Council then continued its review of the MOU. Drawing attention to paragraph 2.2, the Representative of Spain averred that the Secretary General was not in a position to decide whether an e-passport issued in one State should be valid in other States. He thus suggested that the reference made to the submission of Notices of Participation to the Secretary General be amended to refer to the President of the Council, on the understanding that the Council would approve States’ participation. The Representative of the United States indicated that he could accept that change. 11. Responding to a point raised by the Representative of France regarding paragraph 2.3, C/SGM clarified that the intent was that the PKD Board would consult with the Secretary General regarding the participation of other entities in the directory. The decision to allow a prospective participant to join the system would be made on the basis of technical issues, such as whether or not it was a legitimate issuer of e-passports. It was not deemed necessary for the Council to consider such administrative matters. 12. Noting that passports were issued by Kosovo and other places that were not recognized by the international community and were not Contracting States of ICAO, the Representative of France stressed that the participation of entities in the PKD was not an issue which would necessarily be settled on technical grounds. In some instances, it would be a political issue which would require a decision by the Council. The Representatives of Spain and Peru concurred. The latter expressed concern, however, over the use of the ambiguous term “entity” in paragraph 2.3. 13. In voicing support for that paragraph in its present form, the Representative of the United States emphasized the importance of retaining the flexibility to deal with entities that might not be States, such as emerging States. The Representatives of Germany, Japan and Italy shared this view. To a query

C-MIN 179/6 (Open) - 110 -

by the latter, C/SGM cited, as examples of entities which might wish to become PKD participants, the following: territories of countries which were not necessarily States, such as Guam, which was a dependent territory of the United States but which issued its own travel documents, and the Channel Islands, British dependencies which had recently established their own three-letter code, presumably to issue their own travel documents; the organization entitled “The Sovereign Military Order of Malta”, which had diplomatic status and issued diplomatic passports which were accepted by many States; and the United Nations, which issued laissez-passer which could become e-passports. 14. Drawing attention to Part 3 on the role of ICAO, the Representative of Argentina suggested that, with the exception of sub-paragraph b) on the appointment of the PKD Board delegates, references made to ICAO should be amended to refer to the Secretary General. Averring that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary General to appoint the said delegates “through the ICAO Council”, he underscored that the Council itself should appoint them. 15. Recalling that ICAO had been entrusted by the United Nations to deal with travel documents since the 1940’s, the Representative of Canada expressed concern that this proposal would lead to a contradiction in matters of law. 16. Averring that the language used in Part 3 was weak from the legal point of view, the Representative of India suggested that the paragraph be reviewed to clarify which functions would be performed by the Council and which by the Secretary General. 17. Maintaining that the PKD Board, an external body, did not have the authority to establish its own procedures, the Representative of Spain suggested that sub-paragraph b) be amended to indicate that the PKD Board delegates would be appointed in accordance with the procedures proposed by the PKD Board and approved by the Council. 18. The Representative of Lebanon proposed that sub-paragraph c) be amended to clarify that the PKD system had been established by the Council. 19. Referring to sub-paragraph d), the Representative of Argentina emphasized that the costs which ICAO incurred in administering the PKD should not be subject to approval by the PKD Board. 20. Recalling his earlier comments regarding paragraph 2.3, the Representative of France indicated that he could not accept the wording of Part 4 relating to registration with the operator. The Representative of Ghana considered that paragraph 4 was unnecessary as the issue was already addressed in paragraph 2.2. A Technical Officer of the SGM (TO/SGM) clarified that there were two different registration processes: registration with ICAO to participate in the PKD, which was covered in paragraph 2.2; and registration with the operator to be able to technically access the directory, which was covered in Part 4. To a point raised by the Representative of Nigeria, TO/SGM indicated that a flowchart outlining the actions to be taken by the various parties to the PKD would be included in the envisaged Secretary General’s memorandum. 21. Averring that Part 7 on liability and indemnification had not been clearly drafted, the Representative of France suggested that paragraph 7.1 be amended to clarify that since ICAO would bear no liability towards users of the PKD, it would not be necessary for it to obtain insurance to cover such liability. Noting that paragraph 7.2 called for ICAO to obtain insurance to cover liability arising from its own negligent acts or omissions in performing the role and responsibilities established in the MOU, he indicated that it would be preferable for ICAO to obtain “no fault” insurance.

C-MIN 179/6 (Open)

- 111 -

22. The Representative of Argentina emphasized that the cost incurred by ICAO for securing such insurance, which was to be recovered through participants’ fees, should not be subject to separate approval by the PKD Board as indicated but should instead be approved by the latter as part of the fee schedule. 23. Responding to a query by the Representative of Mozambique regarding paragraph 7.3, C/SGM noted that PKD participants were not responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of the operator. As the MOU would not be signed by the operator, it did not set forth the latter’s liability. Such liability would instead be laid out in the contract which the operator would sign with ICAO. 24. Recalling that ICAO had been involved in years of litigation over a contract for a technical co-operation project, the Representative of Spain emphasized that the Legal Bureau (LEB) should review the MOU to ensure that the Organization was exempted from any liability arising from the implementation or operation of the PKD. 25. Referring to Part 8 on the PKD Board, the Representative of Saudi Arabia suggested that a new paragraph 8.4 be added which would indicate that the Board could increase the maximum number of delegates if required. Such a provision would avoid the need to obtain the approval of all PKD participants for such an increase in membership. 26. Drawing attention to paragraph 8.3, the Representative of France noted that when the number of participants exceeded the maximum number of delegates, 15, the Chairperson of the Board might not necessarily recommend 15 participants to the Council for approval as delegates and that he might only recommend five or six. He thus suggested that the last line of that paragraph be amended to indicate that the Chairperson would recommend the participants who would constitute the Board. 27. With reference to Part 9 on amendments to the MOU, the Representative of Lebanon stressed the need to include a caveat to the effect that Council approval would be required for amendments of important provisions of the MOU such as Part 3 on the role of ICAO and Part 7 on liability and indemnification. 28. The Representative of India underscored that it was a basic principle that the entity which approved a MOU should be the one which approved amendments thereto, unless it delegated that authority to another entity. While he had no difficulty in accepting paragraph 9.1 which set forth the procedure for initiating amendments to the MOU and for consulting with participants, he considered that substantive amendments should not only be accepted by two-thirds of all participants but also be adopted by the Council. The Representative of India suggested that a provision to that effect should be included in Part 9. He underscored, that, as the MOU would not be amended very often, consideration and adoption of amendments would not consume too much of the Council’s time. The Representative of India noted the such amendments could also be adopted by the Council by circulation. 29. In supporting the comments made by the Representatives of Argentina, Lebanon and India, the Representative of France maintained that as the MOU required approval by the Council, any amendments thereto should also require the latter’s approval. Part of the procedures set forth in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2 could still be retained, however, subject to their being amended to indicate that proposed amendments would be submitted to the Council for approval. He indicated that it was paradoxical that copies of amendments would only to sent to participants when copies of the MOU were to be sent to all Contracting States.

C-MIN 179/6 (Open) - 112 -

30. The Representative of Nigeria also endorsed the comments made by previous speakers regarding the role of the Council in the amendment of the MOU. 31. Referring to Part 11 on the settlement of disputes, the Representative of Pakistan enquired whether the negotiations between participants would be done independently or through the PKD Board. The Representative of Argentina averred that any disputes should be referred to the PKD Board before being referred to the Council. 32. With regard to Part 12, the Representative of France recalled that the original text of that provision had specified that six Notices of Participation would be required for the MOU to come into effect, whereas the current text indicated that five such Notices were required. He noted that it was the practice in international law to stipulate that instruments which were designed to be universally-accepted enter into force upon ratification by ten States. It was a slightly different situation for the MOU, as not all States would be participating in the PKD, at least not in its early stages. However, as the estimated level of participation had been revised upwards in light of developments in Europe, the Representative of France considered that it would be reasonable to specify a higher number of Notices of Participation for the coming into effect of the MOU without necessarily delaying its entry into force. Emphasizing that five Notices of Participation was not even equal to the number of States which had pioneered the launch of the PKD, six, he suggested that the number be revised upward. The Representative of France affirmed that ten would be an adequate number of Notices of Participation. 33. A linguistic point then raised by the Representative of Cameroon regarding the French text of Part 12 was noted for verification and appropriate action. 34. In drawing attention to Attachment B to the paper on cost sharing and the fee schedule, the Representative of Argentina underscored the need to ensure that the PKD, which would contribute substantially to the development of international civil aviation, was available to all States and not only to a select few. Observing that participation in the PKD would be very expensive for some States, he stressed that the fees should be based on States’ capacity to pay and that a cap should be placed on the annual fee which would be directly linked to States’ assessed contributions. The Representative of Argentina suggested, in this context, that a new paragraph 1.1.4 be added to indicate that the annual fee should not exceed one-third of States’ assessed contributions. That provision should be subject to the same amendment procedure as had been proposed earlier. The Representative of Argentina maintained that such subsidization by the international aviation community was necessary to ensure that the PKD was available to all States. 35. Noting that the issuance of e-passports was not only a facilitation matter but also a security matter, the President of the Council affirmed that the international aviation community would wish to promote participation in the PKD by as many States as possible. 36. The Representative of Saudi Arabia reiterated that basing the annual fee on the number of e-passports and non-e-passports was unfair, particularly for developing countries. In emphasizing that it should not be assumed that States would earn sufficient income from the issuance of e-passports to cover the cost of participating in the PKD, he underscored that some least developed countries did not even have sufficient funds to ensure that their citizens had enough to eat. The Representative of Saudi Arabia therefore supported the above proposal by the Representative of Argentina. 37. In sharing the concern expressed by previous speakers regarding the fee schedule, the Representative of Tunisia underscored that a number of developing countries might find it impossible to

C-MIN 179/6 (Open)

- 113 -

join the PKD, which would be contrary to ICAO’s objective of ensuring the broadest possible participation. The Representative of Cameroon shared this view. 38. In also agreeing that the annual fee was high and that it might thus preclude the participation of some States, the Representative of Saint Lucia also endorsed the said proposal. Noting that it had been calculated based on the membership of 17 participants, which in his view was too low a number, he suggested that an analysis be done on the basis of 20, 30 and 50 participants in order to have a better idea of what the annual fee would be with a larger membership. 39. The Representative of Ghana emphasized that the generation of revenue from the issuance of e-passports was a matter of State policy and not an issue in which ICAO should be involved. He averred that the comment made that the PKD was a not-“for-profit” project was not valid as the operator was a private business and as such based its decisions on the ability to cover its risks with profits. The Representative of Ghana queried why, if that was the case, the operator did not carry insurance which encompassed ICAO’s liability as well as its own. Responding to another point raised by the Representative, as well as by the Representative of the Russian Federation, C/SGM recalled that it had been considered impractical to base the annual fee on the number of e-passports in circulation or the percentage of e-passports in circulation as the number and percentage would be continually increasing. Such bases would also not have changed the proportionality of the different tiers of the annual fee schedule and the amounts which participants would pay. Noting that it was now considered, in light of new information received, that there would be considerably more than 17 participants in the PKD, C/SGM indicated that the assumptions on which the fee schedule had been based would be revised. It was anticipated that the annual fee would be substantially lower than that set forth in paragraph 1.1.3. 40. The Representative of Nigeria supported the comments made regarding the cost of participating in the PKD and the importance for States of issuing e-passports, particularly from the points of view of facilitation and security. In noting that his State, with a population of some 130 million, was planning to issue e-passports either in 2007 or in early 2008, he underscored that it was not considered to be a business venture. In observing that there were many issues of concern regarding the fee schedule, the Representative of Nigeria enquired whether there was a cap on the operator’s overhead charge and how that charge would be negotiated. He stressed that, although the PKD project itself might be “not-for-profit”, the operator was taking part in it in order to generate revenue and the higher the profits, the better it would be for the operator. In welcoming the suggestion made by the Representative of Saint Lucia, the Representative of Nigeria maintained that 17 participants was the minimum number required in order for the international aviation community to derive benefits from the PKD. 41. Responding to queries by the Representative of India, C/SGM indicated that the registration fee was intended to cover both registration with ICAO and registration with the operator. She also clarified that ICAO would convey the annual fees to the operator after deducting an amount as reimbursement for its costs in administering the PKD. In further noting that funds had not yet been committed for the operation of the PKD, C/SGM underscored that the only funds which had been committed were those received as advance contributions from certain States, which had been used for setting up the directory. 42. Observing that in some States the financial year began in January and that they therefore might not be in a position to pay their annual fee on 1 January, the Representative of Saudi Arabia suggested that paragraph 2.5 on the failure to pay the PKD fees be amended to indicate that the participant’s service would be withdrawn three months after the month in which the payment had been due instead of at the end of that month. Concurring that the one-month deadline in which to pay the annual fee was too short, the Representative of Cameroon endorsed this proposal.

C-MIN 179/6 (Open) - 114 -

43. To a point raised by the Representative of Tunisia, C/SGM clarified that if a participant’s service were withdrawn, then the PKD would no longer accept document signer certificates sent by that participant and that e-passports covered by such certificates would not be able to be checked in the entry system of receiving States. Passengers would therefore have to be examined as if they were carrying non-e-passports. 44. In enquiring what would happen to a participant’s delegate to the PKD Board if its service were withdrawn, the Representative of Ghana suggested that paragraph 8.1 of the MOU be expanded to refer to paragraph 2.5 of Attachment B. 45. The Representative of Canada indicated that he could support the proposal by the Representative of Saudi Arabia if, at the end of three months, participants were considered to have an outstanding debt and the service were terminated. He did not want there to be an arrangement such as existed for the payment of arrears of contributions to ICAO. 46. The Representative of Lebanon emphasized the importance of informing other participants when a participant’s service was withdrawn in light of the impact which the termination of such service would have on them. 47. In seeking further clarification regarding the withdrawal of service, the Representative of Ethiopia underscored the need to consider its effect on the travelling public, the operator and the participant itself. 48. Drawing attention to Part 4 on financial verification, the Representative of India suggested that it be amended to indicate that a final adjustment to the accounts would be made in light of the outcome of the annual verification, depending on if there had been an under-recovery or over-recovery of costs. 49. Referring to Attachment C, the Representative of France indicated that paragraph 1.2, sub-paragraph c), should be deleted as it was for the Council and not the PKD Board to amend the latter’s Terms of Reference. He also suggested that sub-paragraph n) on the resolution of disagreements be deleted as it contradicted Part 11 of the MOU. 50. The Representative of Nigeria sought clarification regarding sub-paragraph c), as well as regarding sub-paragraphs e) and f), particularly with regard to the Board’s policy oversight of the PKD. 51. The Representative of Colombia noted that, although the Council was to oversee the activities of the Board, there was no explicit mention in the MOU that the Board would report to the Council. The President of the Council indicated that these and other points raised would be covered in the Secretary General’s memorandum. 52. The Representative of India suggested that paragraph 1.2 be amended to clarify which duties the PKD Board was to perform itself and which it was to perform in consultation with, or with the prior approval of, the Council. 53. The Representative of Saudi Arabia suggested that the wording of paragraph 2.4 on the attendance of non-participants as observers in PKD Board meetings be clarified.

C-MIN 179/6 (Open)

- 115 -

54. Referring to Part 3, the Representative of India suggested that it be amended to clarify how the rotation of the Chairperson position would be carried out, whether on the basis of seniority, alphabetical order, consensus or some other basis. To a further point raised by the Representative, the President of the Council indicated that information regarding the administrative structure of the PKD and the human and financial resources required for its operation would be provided at a later date. 55. Drawing attention to paragraph 5.2, the Representative of Argentina suggested that the wording be amended to indicate that the President of the Council and the Secretary General would be permitted to participate in PKD Board meetings. 56. The comments and suggestions made during the discussion were noted by the Secretariat and would be taken into account, together with those made previously, in redrafting the MoU. The resultant text of the draft MoU would be presented for Council’s consideration later in the current session, together with information on the fee schedule. A Secretary General’s memorandum providing information on the other issues raised would be issued beforehand. 57. The Council reconvened in closed session at 1255 hours to consider the next item on its order of business.

C-MIN 179/6 (Closed)

- 117 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING


CLOSED MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT: Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. V.V. Postnov (Alt.) — Russian Federation Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States

SECRETARIAT: Mr. H. Belai — A/C/S&F Mrs. H.M. Biernacki — TO/SGM Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/6 (Closed) - 118 -

Subject No. 52: Unlawful interference with international civil aviation and its facilities

Review of the Report of the Sixth Session of the International Explosives Technical Commission (IETC/6) and the Sixteenth Meeting of the

Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE/16) 1. The Council considered this subject on the basis of a paper presented by the President of the Council (C-WP/12711 Restricted), which summarized the reports of the AH-DE/16 Meeting (Montreal, 25 and 26 September 2006) and the IETC/6 Session (Montreal, 27 and 28 September 2006), and a report thereon by the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) (C-WP/12712 Restricted). It was noted that the first sentence of paragraph 3.3.1 of C-WP/12711 Restricted should be amended to refer to Standard 4.5.1 of Annex 17 instead of to Standard 4.4.8. It was also noted that the Secretariat had accepted the amendment to paragraph 2.3.1 of C-WP/12711 Restricted relating to the Fifth Informal Workshop of the AH-DE set forth in paragraph 2.2 of the UIC report. The Representative of Saudi Arabia underscored, in that regard, that the said workshop had not been held in Riyadh by decision of the AH-DE Members and not “due to difficulties beyond the control of the individual members” as indicated in paragraph 2.3.1 of C-WP/12711 Restricted. 2. The Representative of India voiced satisfaction that the AH-DE was proposing that a workshop take place in February/March 2007 to facilitate not only the sharing of the results of the work in progress but also the development of common approaches and best practices for the longer term [cf. paragraph 2.5.3 d) of C-WP/12711 Restricted]. He emphasized that, in convening the workshop, there should be wide consultations with airport organizations, airline organizations and other stakeholders so that a harmonized multilateral regulatory framework could be developed. The Representative of India also underscored that the workshop should consider how airports could continue to function as they currently did without compromising security. The Chief of the Aviation Security and Facilitation Branch (C/S&F) noted that it was envisaged that invitations to attend the said workshop would be extended to Members of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP) and to observers. 3. In supporting the comments made by the Representative of India, the Representative of Australia observed that the issues being addressed were very difficult ones which had an impact across a wide range of stakeholders. It was necessary to ensure that those stakeholders were able to present their positions so that the Council would, in due course, be able to take an informed decision. 4. In also endorsing the observations made by the Representative of India, the Representative of South Africa noted that the travelling public did not know when, and which, liquids could be carried on board aircraft. He cited, as an example, the case where a passenger consumed a bottle of whisky before embarking as it was not permitted to carry it on board the aircraft. Cautioning that such action could lead to unruly or disruptive behaviour, the Representative of South Africa stressed the need to ensure that solving one problem did not create another one. 5. Further to an additional point raised by the Representative of India regarding the amendment of the ICAO List of Prohibited Items, C/S&F indicated that an information paper thereon relating to C-WP/12710 Restricted (Report of UIC — Review of the Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation Security Panel) would be presented for Council’s consideration later in the current session. 6. In then taking action on the basis of paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12711 Restricted, as recommended by the UIC in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12712 Restricted, the Council:


- 119 -

a) noted the Reports of the AH-DE/16 Meeting and the IETC/6 Session, as well as the report thereon by the UIC; and

b) approved the course of action recommended by the AH-DE and the IETC as

described in paragraphs 2.5.3 and 3.2.3 of C-WP/12711 Restricted, namely, 1) that States should be encouraged to investigate the feasibility of regulating or

controlling critical chemical or precursor materials from homemade explosives, recognizing that States should not inhibit the legitimate uses of such materials;

2) that the focus should be on developing appropriate processes and technologies

for dealing with the real threat from homemade explosives and that, with respect to liquids, aerosols and gels, States should be encouraged to continue their work plans, including the bilateral and multilateral collaboration and co-operation already evidenced;

3) that States should be encouraged to continue research and development activities

into technologies for detecting improvised explosives devices and their components, including explosive materials and initiating systems;

4) that, as it was not considered that the currently available technology provided a

complete response in the short term, some form of control or restriction on liquids through the screening points might be appropriate;

5) that an AH-DE workshop should be held in February/March 2007 to facilitate not

only the sharing of the results of the work in progress but also the development of common approaches and best practices for the longer term, with the output from the workshop being conveyed as advice to the Council;

6) that States should be encouraged to plan and prepare for the expiration of any

military stocks of unmarked plastic explosives and that it be suggested that such plans embrace the following principles in order that States remain compliant with Article IV of the 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, which required States to exercise strict and effective control over the possession and the transfer of possession of unmarked plastic explosives:

i) that the transfer of unmarked material for destruction or rework should take

place in accordance with the authorized procedures of the States involved; and

ii) if the rework was being handled as a commercial operation, then it should

also be in accordance with authorized procedures and under the supervision of the two States involved.

7. The meeting adjourned at 1315 hours.

C-MIN 179/7 (Open)

- 121 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr.H. Altimari (Adv.) — Austria Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt) — France Mr. H. Ohtake (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. J. Maguire — C/EAO *Mr. R. Barr — C/FIN Mr. H. Belai — C/S&F Ms. M.K. McMunn — C/SGM Ms. C. Zuzak — C/ASA Dr. A. Evans — C/MED Mr. J.S. Thaker — TO/SGM Mrs. H. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. M. Siciliano — TO/SGM Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/7 (Open) - 122 -

Subject No. 10: ICAO Relations with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations

Report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2006/2)

1. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in C-WP/12745, presented by the Secretary General. 2. Under general comments, the Representative of France requested further information on paragraph 4 of C-WP/12745, which presented a brief outline of ICAO’s views on the Annexes in the JIU report. Although there were certain recommendations, such as the establishment of term limits for external auditors, with which ICAO already conformed, in the case of several others ICAO only partially met the JIU suggested standards or did not meet them at all. The Representative of France wished to know if ICAO should consider having an external monitoring body. Although the Council could ask the Finance Committee to inspire itself on the report of the JIU in acting as an oversight board, the FIC was not an independent body. 3. C/EAO indicated that the overall context of the JIU’s report had to do with a number of accounting scandals which had happened both in private and public enterprise, and specifically with the backdrop of the “Oil-for-Food” Programme. The JIU’s intention was to enhance reporting and oversight in order to not have additional problems. Although ICAO did not have nearly as many problems as other agencies, it could take certain measures that may be needed in the future. These included the ethics function, the protection of whistleblowers, and the financial disclosure forums. The recommendation for an oversight board was beyond the purview of the Secretariat for action or guidance, and the extent to which the Organization should go in that direction was a matter for the Council to decide. Even the suggestion for referring the matter to the Finance Committee would call for a decision by the Council. The mandate of the Finance Committee allowed for oversight activities; the follow-up of audit recommendations and interaction with the JIU were areas with which the Finance Committee was currently dealing. There was therefore a possibility that the Finance Committee could continue in this area. The members of the oversight board would have to act on behalf of member States, and the Finance Committee would therefore be appropriate in terms of its composition. 4. The Representative of Australia observed that C-WP/12745 went to the heart of oversight since it reflected upon the significant criticisms that had been made of the United Nations and highlighted the need to make sure that good processes were in place in ICAO, although ICAO did not have the problems that many Organizations had. The Council should nevertheless take this opportunity to make sure it had the best practices and continue its trend of being one of the better performing specialized agencies. 5. The Representative of Australia believed that a code of conduct was an important management tool which could positively shape the culture of an entity, set out the standards of behavior expected of staff, and help them solve ethical dilemmas they faced with work. It was also an important element in setting standards aimed at preventing corrupt and illegal practices within an entity and, as such, it was a necessary ingredient in the corporate governance of an entity. The advantages set out for a code of conduct included more effective compliance with relevant laws, more effective management, and maintenance of the integrity and reputation of the entity. The United Nations had some high standards in terms of the ideals for an international civil servant. Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Standards of Conduct indicated that “the international civil service bears responsibility for translating the ideals of the UN into reality. It relies on the great traditions of public administration that have grown up in member

C-MIN 179/7 (Open)

- 123 -

States: competence, integrity, impartiality, independence and discretion. But over and above this, international civil servants have a special calling to serve the ideals of peace, of respect for fundamental rights, of economic and social progress, and of international cooperation. It is therefore incumbent on international civil servants to adhere to the highest standards of conduct; for, ultimately it is the international civil service that will enable the United Nations system to bring about a just and peaceful world.” In the United Nations, there had been some noble aims but some problems in their execution which had led to the scandal resulting in the Oil-for-Food, and the recommendations of the JIU were an attempt to put in place mechanisms which would catch such problems well before they became quite as significant as they were. 6. The Representative of Australia believed that a number of the proposals and recommendations of the JIU needed to be looked at in far greater detail. He therefore proposed that the Council refer not just Recommendation 1, but the entire paper to the Finance Committee to allow everyone time to read the JIU’s report and make decisions as to whether all the recommendations made to ICAO were appropriate, and whether ICAO was responding in the right way as an Organization. The Finance Committee could report back to the Council on the subject in due course. 7. The proposal of the Representative of Australia was supported by the Representative of Japan, who suggested that an informal briefing of the Finance Committee would be helpful. The Representatives of the United Kingdom and Argentina also supported the proposal of the Representative of Australia. 8. The Representative of the United States had no objection to referring C-WP/12745 to the Finance Committee. He noted, however, that some of the issues addressed in the paper had deadlines early in 2007, and that much of the work needed to proceed full speed ahead. He therefore hoped that by referring the subject to the FIC and providing for additional briefings, the Council would not slow down the process of adopting some of the very important recommendations. The establishment of an Ethics Officer, for example, and the establishment of a policy on whistle blowing were matters on which the Secretariat was moving forward, and it would be important to proceed quickly while recognizing that it would be beneficial to have the views of the Finance Committee. 9. The Council referred C-WP/12745 to the Finance Committee for its review and report back to Council during the next (180th) Session. The President of the Council would, in consultation with the Secretary General and Secretariat, look into the possibility of arranging an informal briefing on the subject. Subject No. 15.4: Facilitation

Report of ATC – Adoption of Amendment 20 to Annex 9 – Facilitation 10. The Council reviewed C-WP/12788, which reported on the Air Transport Committee’s review of the proposals for new health-related measures for Annex 9 – Facilitation, and which recommended the adoption of Amendment 20 to Annex 9. 11. Referring to Recommended Practice 18.6.1, the Representative of France had the understanding that Contracting States would be required to fill out Public Health Passenger Locator Cards for all flights. C/MED clarified that this was not the case; Passenger Locator Cards would only have to be completed when there was a potential need to trace passengers who may have been exposed to a serious communicable disease. The Representative of France believed that it would be useful to review the provision. There could, for example, arise a situation in which, two or three days after arrival, a passenger

C-MIN 179/7 (Open) - 124 -

presented symptoms and no Public Health Passenger Locator Card had been filled out. C/MED indicate that the related guidelines would be verified, but believed that in the case where a passenger arrived from a State where there was an outbreak, there would already be a suspicion that a passenger might have the disease in question. If there really was a risk that passengers may have contracted a serious disease that needed to be traced, the Public Health Authority could use a Passenger Locator Card if it wished to. It was the prerogative of the Public Health Authority of the State of arrival to make that decision based on all the medical evidence at hand. 12. The Representative of Nigeria observed that once a Passenger Locator Card was completed, nothing seemed to require the passenger in question to be informed. He wished to know if the intention was to inform passengers that the forms had been completed and what action was intended. C/MED indicated that it was the responsibility of the Public Health Authority and the airport authorities to ensure that the passengers were briefed as to what the risk was. One of the key issues was communication between the Public Health Authority and the passengers, who should be briefed as to the purpose of the completion of the Passenger Locator Card. In the guidelines, communication was the key point for planning; it was of vital importance that communication links be set up and ready to be implemented in the case of an outbreak of a serious communicable disease. It would be difficult for States to read the guidelines and not understand that communication with the passengers was an important aspect of preparedness planning. 13. The Representative of China indicated that when his State had, some two or three years earlier, experienced the SARS outbreak, it had used hundreds of thousands of locator cards every day. In the case of a large outbreak of a communicable disease, every passenger had to file such a card. If there was evidence of a case of SARS on a particular flight, it was the responsibility of the Public Health Authorities to notify the relevant passengers. 14. The Council approved the proposal for an additional Note 2, suggested by the Secretariat and presented in paragraph 2.2 of C-WP/12788. The new Note 2 would read as follows:

Note 2.- In the event of a case of suspected communicable disease on board an aircraft, the pilot-in-command may need to follow his airline’s protocols and procedures, in addition to health-related legal requirements of the countries of departure and/or destination. The latter would normally be found in the Aeronautical Information Publications (AIPs) of the States concerned.

15. The Council, by 34 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, adopted, as Amendment 20 to Annex 9, the amendments contained in Appendix A to C-WP/12788. The Council approved the Notes as part of Amendment 20 in Appendix A; and approved the Draft Resolution of Adoption in Appendix B, including the dates of effectiveness (15 March 2007), notification (by 15 June 2007) and applicability (15 July 2007) indicated in paragraph 5 of C-WP/12788. 16. The Representative of the United States observed that this was an opportunity to make a more urgent appeal for States to reply in a timely way in filing any differences. Since this was a global problem which involved all States, it was important that all States respond in a timely way. 17. The Representative of Australia was pleased that the Council had put in place revised Standards which would help safeguard many parts of the world against outbreaks of infectious diseases and, in particular, any future outbreak of the avian flu. Something was now in place which provided aviation’s response. The report addressed many aspects of the Council’s guidelines on working papers, and contained the first Standard adopted by the Council since those guidelines had been adopted.

C-MIN 179/7 (Open)

- 125 -

Additional information that could be provided by the Secretariat would include options for action, including the option of not taking any action. There were clearly some costs associated with the fact that airports would have to expand their programmes to deal with the implementation costs, and States would have to put in place a national strategy. 18. The Council considered the next three items on its order of business in closed session, and reconvened in open session at 1610 hours. Subject No. 52: Unlawful interference with international civil aviation and its facilities

Implementation of activities under the Aviation Security Plan of Action 19. The Council reviewed the above subject on the basis of an Information paper (C-WP/12708) presented by the Secretary General, providing a progress report on the activities of the ICAO Aviation Security Plan of Action, specifically on the progress made under the Coordinated Assistance and Development Programme (CAD), and C-WP/12709, which reported on the consideration of C-WP/12708 by the Committee on Unlawful Interference. 20. Under general comments, the Representative of Nigeria observed that most of the concerns that had been expressed (178/2) regarding the strategy for the enhancement of assistance and development to States in the field of aviation security applied also to the Coordinated Assistance Development Programme. There was a need to see more resources channeled to this Programme. 21. The Representative of Austria had the understanding that following the Council’s consideration of the last report on this subject, it had been decided that the Council would receive a paper that addressed and provided an update on all of the activities in the Aviation Security Plan of Action. C-WP/12708 did not provide such a full picture. A letter on the subject of voluntary funding would be issued to States quite soon, and it was therefore disappointing that States did not have updated information on what the Secretariat was planning in the security field. Such information could perhaps be included in the State letter on voluntary funding. 22. C/S&F indicated that although the Coordinated Assistance and Development (CAD) Programme had only been established in March of 2006, assistance had previously been provided to States under several programmes, either at their request or on the basis of the USAP findings. Appendices A and B to the paper provided information on assistance missions completed or planned to be conducted before the end of 2006. Information on financing could not be included because of time constraints, but the intention was to henceforth produce annual reports with the new format requested by the Council. The Representative of Austria clarified that her comment was not related to the CAD Programme, but rather to all of the other programmes in the Aviation Security Plan of Action. 23. The Representative of Argentina recalled that during the Council’s consideration of the CAD proposal, it had been emphasized that transparency was paramount and that the donor States must always see the link between the strategy and the provision of resources. While understanding the Secretariat’s constraints, he believed that this urgent issue had to be much clearer than was the case at the present time. Unifying funds for assistance was one of the major reasons his Delegation encouraged this long-term proposal. 24. The Representative of Australia agreed with the views expressed by the Representatives of Nigeria, Austria and Argentina, and wished to highlight the fact that both the USP and CAD would

C-MIN 179/7 (Open) - 126 -

depend on voluntary assistance for their effectiveness. States needed to see the direct link between resources and the outcomes, to be able to provide funding. 25. Some clarifications on financial aspects were provided by C/FIN in response to queries raised by the Representative of India. C/FIN gave assurances that the Council’s request for better detail had been noted, and that over the next year and a half it would be possible to reflect expenditures against results and outcomes. A full assessment of income to expenditure for any of ICAO’s work would have to wait for the introduction of a new financial system. 26. The Representative of France requested clarification on the selection criteria for the States listed in Appendices A and B of C-WP/12708, and believed that the Council should ask the Secretariat to specify the methods they used to evaluate the results of the Plan of Action. A separate column could indicate what the long-lasting effects of the action were. There would also be a need to clarify the accounting methods. The Representative of France noted that a clearer presentation would only be available during the 181st Session, and, while realizing that the Secretariat had a very high workload, believed that the timing could be brought forward to the 180th Session, given the importance of this issue. C/S&F suggested that administrative matters such as selection criteria could be entrusted to the Secretariat. Information on the procedures which were followed could be made available to interested Representatives at their request. 27. The action proposed at paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12709 was expanded in light of the views expressed during the debate. In taking action on the subject, the Council noted the information contained in C-WPs/12708 and 12709, and requested that the Secretary General present a more comprehensive report, covering programmes other than the CAD, as well as a number of points in connection with the CAD Programme such as the selection criteria, the methods used to evaluate results, and funding and accounting practices, during the next (180th) Session. Other business Subject No. 18.4: Contributions by Contracting States and methods of assessment

Contributions in arrears 28. Some clarifications were provided by C/FIN on the application of Resolution A35-26 (Discharge by Contracting States of financial obligations to the Organization and action to be taken in case of their failure to do so) during the 36-month period in between Regular Sessions of the Assembly. Subject No. 33: Rules of procedure of the various representative bodies in ICAO Subject No. 41: Character and working methods of representative bodies in ICAO (Council,

Committees, etc.)

Structure and presentation of working papers and other documents to Council 29. Further to the Council’s consideration (179/4) of C-WP/12753 reporting on action to implement decisions taken during the 178th Session, some additional information was provided by D/ADB on action taken and planned to implement Rule 29 b) of the revised Rules of Procedure for the Council and Annexes C and D of C-WP/12683 (Review of the Rules of Procedure for the Council – Report of the Working Group). Consultations between the Secretariat and the Council Working Group on Review of the Rules of Procedure for Standing Committees of the Council would be arranged to obtain further guidance on implementation of Annex D.

C-MIN 179/7 (Open)

- 127 -

Subject No. 10: ICAO Relations with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Request of the European Commission to attend Council’s discussion on emissions trading

30. The Council granted the request of the European Commission to be present at the Council’s discussion of matters related to emissions trading. The EC would thus be available to respond to any questions directed at its EC official during the discussion.


- 129 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1530 HOURS)

CLOSED MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. H. Altimari (Adv.) — Austria Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. H. Ohtake (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. H. Belai — C/S&F Ms. M.K. McMunn — C/SGM Ms. C. Zuzak — C/ASA Mr. J.S. Thaker — TO/SGM Mrs. H. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. J. Huang — LO/LEB Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

C-MIN 179/7 (Closed) - 130 -


Definition of In-flight Security Officer 1. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in a paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/12713 Restricted) and a report thereon presented by the Committee on Unlawful Interference (C-WP/12714 Restricted). C-WP/12713 presented the definition of In-flight Security Officer (IFSO) proposed by the Aviation Security Panel, during its eighteenth meeting held in Montreal from 11 to 15 September 2006, for the Council’s consideration and instructions for its inclusion in Annex 17. The definition would read as follows:

In-flight Security Officer. A person who is authorized by the government of the State of the Operator and the government of the State of Registration to be deployed on an aircraft with the purpose of protecting that aircraft and its occupants against acts of unlawful interference. This excludes persons employed to provide exclusive personal protection for one or more specific people travelling on the aircraft, such as personal bodyguards.

2. The Secretary General’s paper also contained the panel’s recommendations regarding guidance and training material relating to IFSOs for the Council’s information. C-WP/12714 Restricted presented the results of the UIC’s deliberations on the definition of In-flight Security Officer. 3. A correction to the French language version of the term In-flight Security Officer was noted by the Secretariat. 4. Further to a query raised by the Representative of India in connection with the reference, in paragraph 2.2 of C-WP/12713, to a Memorandum of Understanding, C/S&F indicated that the Republic of Korea had already developed such an MoU for the deployment of IFSOs and had offered to make it available to the Secretariat. The Secretariat was currently studying the template for a proposed model agreement and would be forwarding it to the panel members for their review and comments. The intention was to adapt the MoU to ICAO’s requirements and to include it in the Security Manual. To a question raised by the Representative of Lebanon, C/S&F confirmed that the State letter which would be issued to notify States of the Council’s decision regarding the definition for IFSOs would include a clarification as to which States would need to agree to deployment of IFSOs. LO/LEB then provided some clarifications on the use of the term “State of Registration” in the definition for IFSOs. Although the Chicago Convention used the term “State of Registry”, Article 3 of the Tokyo Convention, which had also been widely accepted by many States, referred to the “State of Registration”. Seen in the context of aviation security, the term was more related with jurisdiction, and, in particular, criminal jurisdiction; in this instance, therefore, the Secretariat had not raised any objection with the phrase “State of Registration”. LO/LEB considered that the two terms could, in fact, be used interchangeably. 5. The Council took action on the basis of the recommendations in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12713 and paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12714, as expanded to include the last two sentences of this paragraph. In so doing, the Council noted the information contained in C-WPs/12713 and 12714 and, having considered the definition of In-flight Security Officer as proposed in paragraph 2.1 of C-WP/12713 Restricted with a view to its inclusion in Annex 17, taking into account comments provided by the Committee in C-WP/12714 Restricted, agreed that the definition of In-flight Security Officer be included in Annex 17 in its next amendment and that States be informed of the definition in a State letter, as recommended in paragraph 2.1 of C-WP/12714. The Secretary General was requested to circulate an Information Paper on the results of the consultation regarding deployment of In-flight Security Officers. Should a Member of the Council so request it, the subject would be tabled for discussion in the Council.


- 131 -

Report of UIC – Review of differences to Annex 17 notified by States

6. The Council reviewed C-WP/12707 Restricted, in which the Committee on Unlawful Interference presented the results of its consideration of the report on differences to Annex 17, including Amendment 11, notified by States. Appendix A to the paper was updated to include Finland, Germany, Japan and the Republic of Korea in the list of States which had notified compliance with Annex 17 (including all amendments up to and including Amendment 11). Malaysia was deleted from that list. A point raised by the Representative of Colombia, whose State had replied in due time to the State letter on this subject but was not included in Appendix A, was noted by the Secretariat. 7. The action recommended at paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12707 was expanded to include sub-paragraph d) shown below. In taking the action as amended, the Council: a) noted the report on the status of compliance with Annex 17; b) agreed that the differences notified by States with respect to Annex 17 be

transmitted to Contracting States by way of a State letter, with a reference to specific Annex provisions without disclosing the details of the difference; and

c) agreed that, in this letter, States be strongly encouraged to share the differences

notified with all the entities involved in the implementation of the National Aviation Security Programme as well as all national airlines, where appropriate.

d) urgently appealed to all States to provide future notifications of differences with

respect to Annex 17 on or before the deadline provided. Subject No. 52.1: Universal Security Audit Programme

Progress report on the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP)

8. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12715 Restricted, in which the Secretary General reported on progress made in the execution of the ICAO Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP), and a report thereon presented by the Committee on Unlawful Interference in C-WP/12716 Restricted. 9. Referring to the action proposed at paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12716, the Representative of France suggested that the reference, in sub-paragraph 3.1 f), to the possible application of Article 54 j) of the Convention be the subject of a separate sub-paragraph in order to create a delineation between the assistance strategy, which was not limited to Article 54 j), and the application of that Article. His suggestion was supported by the Representative of Australia, who offered an editorial suggestion with respect to sub-paragraph 3.1 e). The Representative of Australia noted that the additional information provided on the forty States highlighted that while the follow-up visits had increased compliance significantly on most indicators, the oversight and enforcement capabilities continued to have 24 percent non-compliance and the certification of screening personnel had 28 percent non-compliance. It was quite important that both elements, i.e. assistance and application of Article 54 j), be developed in order to increase compliance. 10. The Representative of Nigeria agreed that the issues of assistance and the application of Article 54 j) should be separated into different sub-paragraphs for a number of reasons, including the fact

C-MIN 179/7 (Closed) - 132 -

that the Coordinated Assistance Development (CAD) Programme was already in existence. The concept of application of Article 54 j) to security shortcomings was a new idea, and while the ICAO Assembly had given the Organization the directive to apply Article 54 j) to safety deficiencies, such was not the case with security. If the prevailing opinion was to extend it to security deficiencies, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Assembly for adoption of an appropriate resolution. Aviation security was not only within the purview of the civil aviation sector of individual States, but involved a number of other sectors. The Representative of Nigeria cautioned against taking action that would go beyond the mandate which the Assembly had given the Council. 11. The Representative of Argentina commended the Secretariat on the progress which had been made on a subject which not only dealt with the ongoing activity of audit evaluation and developing methods of assisting, but which also served the long-term interests in terms of the restructuring the Organization. The Representative of India also wished to place on record his appreciation for the report. The paper did, however, draw attention to the fact that there was a need to continue developing a strategy for providing assistance to States, while also developing an equivalent to the Article 54 j) which currently applied to safety. While there was no doubt a need to place more emphasis on providing assistance to States, the issue of Article 54 j) would require more examination and, perhaps, consultation with States. 12. The Representative of Ghana wished to add his voice to the views expressed by the Representative of Nigeria regarding the application of Article 54 j). He suggested that the scope of the Audit Results Review Board be broadened; the Board should look at the problems which the Organization had with States that were unable to provider proper oversight for both safety and security, and should also look at States which did not respond properly to State letters, since the same States belonged to both groups, and identify the root causes. It was possible that technological advancement was not being met by those States’ ability to change, and lack of resources and attitudinal factors would also have to be taken on board and examined. 13. The action recommended at paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12716 was amended in light of the suggestions offered by the Representatives of France and Australia, and the Council, in taking the action as amended: a) noted the progress made in the implementation of Strategic Objective B3 in

relation to enhancing global civil aviation security through the conduct of aviation security audits;

b) noted that the audit findings indicate that many States have committed increasing

resources to aviation security through the acquisition of new security equipment and technology, but that continuing effort is required by States in developing a comprehensive national oversight framework for ensuring long-term sustainability of security measures;

c) noted with encouragement that the audit follow-up results indicate that States are

generally making progress in the implementation of their corrective action plans; d) expressed concern that there are some States that are not responding effectively

to the audit process, either by failing to submit a corrective action plan following an audit, or by demonstrating little progress in the implementation of their corrective action plan at the time of the audit follow-up visit;


- 133 -

e) noted the initiative of the Secretary General to establish a high-level Secretariat Audit Results Review Board (ARRB) to examine the specific safety and security histories of individual States referred to it;

f) requested that the Secretary General develop further the assistance strategy for

working with States that are found to have significant compliance shortcomings with the security-related SARPs; and

g) requested the Secretary General to consider the development of appropriate

procedures for the possible application of Article 54 j) of the Chicago Convention by the Council, and to report to the Council on the subject during the 181st Session.

14. The Council reconvened in open session at 1610 hours.

C-MIN 179/8

- 135 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING


OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González First Vice-President of the Council: Mr. I.M. Lysenko


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT:

*Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. J. López González (Alt.) — Argentina Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB *Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB *Mr. V. Zubkov — C/RAO *Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB *Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB *Mr. J. Augustin — SLO *Ms. J.M. Bacon — ADAN *Mr. O.F. Fabrici — C/RDS Ms. A. Andrade — ADTC Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

(

C-MIN 179/8 - 136 -

Subject No. 19: Delegation of authority to the President of the Council

Delegation of Authority to the President of the Council 1. The Council considered this subject on the basis of President’s memorandum PRES AK/1236 dated 21 July 2006. It was recalled that the delegated authority contained in Section L of the Attachment to PRES AK/713 dated 26 April 2000 and Corrigendum thereto dated 16 October 2000 was not covered in the new Delegation of Authority approved by the Council on 9, 12 and 15 June 2006 (178/9, /10 and /14) which had taken effect on 1 August 2006 and had not been discussed in the Council. The President was authorized, under Section L, to: a) deal with requests to attend ICAO meetings from various interested aviation-related organizations and on an ad hoc basis if they were not on the list approved by the Council to attend suitable ICAO meetings; b) approve/appoint/adjust membership of the various Planning and Implementation Groups (PIRGs); and c) approve the requests of States and international organizations to participate as observers in meetings of the PIRGs, when the States and international organizations concerned met the necessary conditions. In accordance with the last paragraph of President’s memorandum PRES AK/1236, the President had exercised the powers embodied in Section L on a temporary basis as from 1 August 2006, pending a decision by the Council during the current session on the delegation of authority thereof. 2. In affirming that it was reasonable to continue to delegate to the President of the Council the authority contained in Section L, paragraphs a), b) and c), the Representative of Argentina emphasized that those paragraphs provided him with the flexibility necessary for the speedy resolution of issues and for the efficient operation of the Organization. 3. The Representative of France recalled that when the Council had revised the Delegation of Authority, it had reasserted the collegial authority which it had been accorded under the Convention on International Civil Aviation and underscored that in certain matters the President of the Council was to act under its supervision. While he did not consider that paragraph c) would give rise to any problems, he emphasized the need to clarify the meaning of the term “necessary conditions”. Noting that paragraph a) related to requests from aviation-related organizations which were not on the list approved by the Council to attend suitable ICAO meetings, the Representative of France questioned whether the Council wished to grant the President the power to take decisions thereon without its endorsement. He suggested that Council Representatives be notified of the President’s intended decisions regarding such requests so that they would have the possibility of raising objections. The Representative of France also suggested that the same procedure be followed for paragraph b) on the approval/appointment/adjustment of membership in the PIRGs. 4. Concurring that the changes made to the Delegation of Authority had reasserted the Council’s authority, the Representative of Australia underscored the need to determine if any issues or problems had subsequently arisen before moving away from that approach. Referring to paragraph b), he observed that PIRGs were relatively stable bodies in that individual members represented States and the States were from regions which had a fairly fixed State membership. The Representative of Australia considered that the only issue that might arise would be when a new State was formed, in which case it would be appropriate for the Council to decide on the State’s participation in the relevant PIRG. 5. With regard to paragraph a), the Representative of Australia indicated that, in his view, the term “ICAO meetings” meant any ICAO meetings rather than Council meetings. He therefore suggested that the same procedure be followed for those meetings as was followed for Council meetings. The Representative of Australia recalled, in this regard, that in the case of the special closed session of the Council convened on 17 August 2006 an electronic message had been sent to all Representatives

C-MIN 179/8

- 137 -

informing them of the President’s intention to invite Airports Council International (ACI) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to attend as observers and requesting that they notify him of any objections by close of business the following day. In the absence of any such objections, the President would proceed, on behalf of the Council, with the invitations. In affirming that this procedure was the right way forward, the Representative of Australia maintained that it was not overly bureaucratic and that it provided the Council with the opportunity to take a decision on requests to attend ICAO meetings if they considered that the participation of an organization would give rise to problems. He also averred that the procedure was consistent with the collegial approach that was the underlying philosophy of the revisions made by the Council to the Delegation of Authority. The Representative of Australia thus considered that decisions regarding the issues covered in paragraphs a) and b) should involve the Council and that a written procedure should be put in place which would minimize the number of times the Council would need to discuss such issues. With reference to paragraph c), he indicated that the approval of requests of States and international organizations to participate as observers in PIRG meetings could be covered by a list if it were not already so covered. 6. Averring that the term “ICAO meetings” used in paragraph a) was too broad, the Representative of Canada emphasized that it did not refer to Council meetings, which were covered by the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559), but to other meetings, such as meetings of panels or commissions of experts. He considered that the President could therefore approve organizations’ requests to attend such meetings. The Representative of Canada stressed the need to avoid mixing apples and oranges and to recognize that States, which constituted ICAO’s members, could de jure participate as observers in Council meetings under the Convention on International Civil Aviation whereas organizations, which did not have such a right, would have to request authorization to participate in Council and other meetings. 7. The Representative of India was of the view that the President of the Council could continue to exercise the delegation of authority for the issues addressed in paragraphs a), b) and c) on the understanding that the term “ICAO meetings” meant meetings other than Council meetings and subject to electronic messages being sent to Council Representatives requesting comments on the President’s intended decisions. With reference to paragraph c), he maintained that the approval of requests of States and international organizations to participate as observers in PIRG meetings would not give rise to any difficulties if the said “necessary conditions” had been duly approved by the Council. The Representative of India requested that the text of the said conditions be circulated to Council Representatives. He underscored that, by delegating authority to the President to deal with the matters covered in paragraphs a), b) and c), the Council would avoid having to meet every time such an issue arose, which would be very time-consuming. 8. In emphasizing that involving the Council in decisions regarding the issues covered in paragraphs a), b) and c) would be overly bureaucratic and a waste of time, the Representative of Spain cautioned that it would also send the message that the Council did not have trust in its President. Maintaining that the delegated authority set forth in Section L was clear and not problematic, he underscored that it was not necessary to introduce any provisos into its text. 9. As a compromise solution, the Representative of Argentina suggested that the Delegation of Authority contained in Section L be retained, subject to the addition of a new paragraph indicating that there would be preliminary consultation by electronic means with Council Representatives and if, within 48 hours, no objections were raised, then the matter would not be discussed in the Council and the President would proceed with his intended decision. He noted that 48 hours would be sufficient time for Council Representatives to express their views while not unduly delaying a response to the requests received. In commending this proposal, the First Vice-President of the Council, in his capacity as

C-MIN 179/8 - 138 -

Representative of the Russian Federation, endorsed it, as did the Representatives of Nigeria and Honduras. 10. The Representative of Finland recalled that the said powers had been exercised for a long time under the previous version of the Delegation of Authority. He emphasized that, in the four months following the adoption of the revised Delegation of Authority in which the President had exercised the powers set forth in Section L on a temporary basis pending a decision by the Council no problems had been raised and that only suggestions for additional bureaucracy had been made. He agreed with the Representative of Canada that the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559) should be fully followed. In expressing reluctance to impose a further burden on the President by having the latter circulate information on his intended decision to Council Representatives and inviting comments, the Representative of Finland underscored that it might be necessary to convene a Council meeting to discuss a very minor matter if only one Council Representative had raised an objection. He therefore preferred approving the Delegation of Authority contained in Section L in its present form, on the understanding that paragraph a) did not apply to Council meetings. 11. Stressing that decisions were taken either by the Council or by the President, the Representative of Colombia affirmed that, as the President had the trust of the Council, the Delegation of Authority set forth in Section L, which had evolved over the years, should be approved in the form presented. He noted that otherwise, the workload of the Council would increase. The Representative of Colombia maintained that it was unnecessary for the President to notify Council Representatives of his intended decisions. 12. Observing that his only concern related to paragraph a), the Representative of Japan indicated that it should be clarified that the term “ICAO meetings” did not include meetings of the Council and its subordinate bodies. While he was prepared to join in the consensus reached on the other matters raised, he did not consider that a new procedure should be established whereby the President communicated electronically with Council Representatives before taking a decision based on his delegated authority. In his view, there was no point in delegating authority to the President if it were necessary for the latter to consult Council Representatives. 13. In supporting the comments made by the Representatives of Japan and Finland, the Representative of the United States noted that he would have no difficulty approving the Delegation of Authority set forth in Section L subject to the exclusion of Council meetings from paragraph a). To the extent that the wording of that paragraph was not clear, he could accept an interim process of electronic communication with Council Representatives as proposed by the Representative of Argentina pending clarification by the President that paragraph a) did not refer to Council meetings, which would be handled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559). 14. The Director of the Legal Bureau (D/LEB) confirmed that the reference made in paragraph a) to “ICAO meetings” did not mean Council meetings, which were governed by Rule 32 of the said Rules of Procedure. He noted that, if the Council were to decide to add a paragraph to the Delegation of Authority set forth in Section L to provide for consultation with Council Representatives, then it would be necessary to specify the number of objections required for the convening of a Council meeting to discuss the issue. 15. The First Vice-President of the Council suggested, in light of the divergent views expressed, that the Council defer taking a decision regarding the Delegation of Authority set forth in Section L and establish a working group to consider the matter.

C-MIN 179/8

- 139 -

16. Referring to the objections raised by some Council Representatives to maintaining the said Delegation of Authority in its present form, the Representative of Mexico enquired as to what substantive problems they had with the Delegation of Authority. While he considered that the compromise solution proposed by the Representative of Argentina was good, he underscored that it would greatly overburden the Council if it were necessary to convene a meeting when only one Council Representative disagreed with the President’s intended decision. The Representative of Mexico therefore supported the comments made by the Representative of Finland. He averred that if the Council wished to amend the Delegation of Authority contained in Section L to include the said consultation process with Representatives, then it would be preferable not to delegate authority to the President of the Council and to deal with the matter directly. 17. The Representative of the Republic of Korea shared the view expressed by the Representatives of Finland, Spain and the United States that the Delegation of Authority set forth in Section L should be approved in the form presented. He emphasized that the Organization should be as open as possible to participation in its various meetings, with the exception of Council meetings. The Representative of the Republic of Korea underscored that according the President delegated authority, in paragraph a), to deal with requests to attend ICAO meetings on an ad hoc basis if the organizations were not on the list approved by the Council to attend suitable ICAO meetings would facilitate decision-making. He noted that if the President were not comfortable in dealing with a request from a given organization, then the Council might take a different position the next time that organization made such a request. 18. The Representative of Cameroon affirmed that the Council should place its trust in its President. He nevertheless stressed the need for Representatives to be fully informed and endorsed the collegial authority of the Council. While the Representative of Cameroon supported the comments made by the Representative of Spain, he could also accept the suggestion made by the Representative of Argentina. He agreed with the Representative of France that the term “necessary conditions” used in paragraph c) should be clarified. 19. In light of the explanation provided by D/LEB, the Representative of Pakistan supported the Delegation of Authority contained in Section L in the form presented. He expressed full trust in the President. Averring that the functions set forth in paragraphs a), b) and c) were very minor, the Representative of Pakistan maintained that the Council should not place any restrictions on them as that would complicate the President’s work as well as the Council’s decision-making. 20. Affirming that the suggestion by the Representative of Argentina was a good compromise, the Representative of France underscored that it not be asking too much to have the President inform Council Representatives electronically of his intended decisions. If any objections were raised, it would be for the President to determine how to deal with them. In endorsing the clarification provided by D/LEB regarding paragraph a), the Representative of France suggested that that paragraph should be amended to refer to “ICAO meetings other than Council meetings” He further proposed that the meaning of the term “necessary conditions” used in paragraph c) be set forth in the summary minutes of the meeting rather than in the paragraph itself. The Representative of Canada supported the suggested amendment to paragraph a). 21. The Representative of Peru indicated that, although he had no problem approving the Delegation of Authority contained in Section L as presented, he could likewise agree to the proposed amendment. In also speaking in favour of the said amendment, the Representative of Australia noted, from past reports of the President of the Council, that there had not been many occasions when the latter

C-MIN 179/8 - 140 -

had been required to deal with requests to attend ICAO meetings and PIRG meetings under delegated authority. 22. Referring to the comments made by D/LEB, the Representative of Argentina recalled that Rule 57, paragraph a), of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559) relating to the approval of draft Council decisions already set forth a procedure for dealing with objections raised by Council Representatives: the President was to attempt to resolve them with the Representatives concerned. If the objections were not resolved, then the matter was to be considered by the Council if at least two Representatives so requested. The Representative of Argentina suggested that the same procedure be followed for objections raised to the President’s intended decisions regarding the issues covered by paragraphs a), b) and c). 23. The Representative of the United Kingdom had no difficulty in accepting the Delegation of Authority in the form presented. While he was not certain that there was a need for the President to consult Council Representatives before taking a decision, he would bow to the view of the majority. The Representative of the United Kingdom suggested that the Council approve the said Delegation of Authority, with the proviso that in a year’s time a working group would be established to evaluate how it had functioned and to determine whether or not it should be amended. The Representative of Australia voiced support for such a review. 24. Averring that there was no need to complicate the matter further by introducing a consultation process, the Representative of India spoke in favour of simply clarifying in paragraph a) that the term “ICAO meetings” excluded meetings of the Council and its subordinate bodies. In sharing this view, the Representative of Spain underscored that the Council would not, in fact, be delegating authority to the President if it were to require that the latter consult with Representatives prior to taking a decision. He noted that at the beginning of every Council session the President reported on action which he had taken during the recess under delegated authority. The Representatives of Italy and Nigeria also supported the comments made by the Representative of India. 25. In light of the clarification provided by the Secretariat regarding the reference made to “ICAO meetings” in the first line of paragraph a) of Section L, the Council agreed to amend that paragraph to read as follows: “deal with requests to attend ICAO meetings, other than those of the Council and its subordinate bodies, …” (new text appears in bold). It was also agreed to request the Secretariat to analyze what was meant by the term “necessary conditions” used in the last line of paragraph c) of Section L. 26. Subject to the above, the Council confirmed the Delegation of Authority to the President of the Council of the said powers embodied in Section L of the Attachment to PRES AK/713 dated 26 April 2000 and Corrigendum thereto dated 16 October 2000, for inclusion in the new Delegation of Authority to President approved by the Council on 9, 12 and 15 June 2006. Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Report on progress made by the Organization towards its Strategic Objectives and the objectives of the Business Plan

27. Tabled next for consideration was C-WP/12800 (Revision No. 1), in which the Secretary General presented a progress report on the development of ICAO’s Business Plan for the next triennium, 2008-2010, with a target date of completion of January 2007. Appendix A to the paper contained a flowchart indicating the hierarchy of the planning process and Appendix B, a sample Action Plan.

C-MIN 179/8

- 141 -

28. In expressing satisfaction with the Business Plan approach, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that it would have a significant impact on the Programme Budget for the next triennium when it was completed in January 2007. Recalling that State letter M 2/5-06/50 dated 23 May 2006 had solicited States’ views on the Strategic Objectives of ICAO for 2005-2010, he emphasized the need to take into account the responses received in reviewing the Strategic Objectives as the Organization proceeded with the business planning for the forthcoming triennium. The Representative of Nigeria underscored the importance of the priorities established in the Strategic Objectives for the allocation of resources with which to meet those objectives. He stressed that, while the Strategic Objectives set forth ICAO’s general priorities, it was necessary to also identify regional priorities and specificities and to take them into consideration in the business planning process and in the allocation of resources so that States’ expectations would be met. Such priorities and specificities could be determined on the basis of the results of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) and the reports of the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs). Referring to Appendix B to the paper, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized that the action plans should be considered both “top-down” and “bottom-up” to ensure that their implementation would result in the expected outputs. 29. Recalling that the ANC had undertaken its annual familiarisation visit with industry by visiting four States in the Africa-Indian Ocean (AFI) region in August 2006, the Chief of the Regional Affairs Office (C/RAO) noted that one of the key elements of the report thereon (AN-WP/8176) was the identification of the challenges facing the AFI region and the proposal of solutions to improve safety in that region. He considered that that report would be a direct contribution to the reallocation of resources. Observing that it also suggested increased involvement of Headquarters staff members in addressing safety-related issues requiring attention, C/RAO indicated that the report would lead to the inclusion of a new element in planning and implementation for the AFI region which would be fully reflected in the Organization’s Business Plan. 30. The Representative of Australia underscored that C-WP/12800 was supposed to indicate the progress made in implementing the Business Plan and not merely provide an update on the planning process. In requesting that the next report set forth the action taken to implement the Business Plan, he emphasized that that would give the Council a better idea of how that plan could be utilized and would provide useful data on which to base action to be taken in the next triennium. In his capacity as Chairman of the Council Working Group on Strategic Objectives, the Representative of Australia noted that the Working Group was reviewing the replies received to State letter M 2/5-06/50 dated 23 May 2006 and would be presenting a report to the Council later in the current session. He concurred with the Representative of Nigeria that there needed to be regional priorities in addition to global priorities. 31. Voicing full support for the Business Plan, the Representative of India underscored that it reflected the operational, managerial and financial functioning of the Organization. He observed that there had been a paradigm shift in ICAO’s planning process, with States having been consulted regarding the Organization’s Strategic Objectives and their expectations having been reflected in the process. Noting that the Finance Committee (FIC), of which he was the Chairman, would be considering the draft Programme Budget for 2008-2010 in January 2007, the Representative of India expressed concern that the Business Plan would not be completed beforehand. He queried whether a draft of the Business Plan could be circulated to FIC Members to facilitate their deliberations. 32. In expressing satisfaction that the Business Plan focussed on chain management, the Representative of India emphasized that the plan’s implementation could only be successful if there were a strong co-ordination, monitoring and review mechanism in place. Noting the proposal to set up a

C-MIN 179/8 - 142 -

Planning and Co-ordination Unit (PCO), he indicated that one of its most important functions would be to carry out such co-ordination, monitoring and review. The Representative of India underscored that, if the new financial system were not in place by the time the Business Plan were implemented, then the Secretariat should continue to use traditional means to collect financial data to enable the requisite co-ordination, monitoring and review to be done. Stressing the importance of providing staff members with rewards and incentives, he supported incorporating the implementation of the Business Plan in their Performance and Competency Enhancement (PACE) reports. 33. In underscoring the high importance of the relationship between the Business Plan and the Programme Budget, C/RAO noted that his Office was working closely with the Finance Branch (FIN). 34. Emphasizing that what was of interest to States were the results achieved in implementing the Business Plan, the Representative of France enquired whether there was a mechanism to assess the outcome of the activities undertaken from 2005 to 2007. In endorsing the comments made by the Representative of India, he underscored that the Business Plan had no practical value until it was implemented and it was possible to identify what human and financial resources were required. Noting that his State had replied to State letter M 2/5-06/50 dated 23 May 2006, the Representative of France expressed interest in learning the views of the other States which had submitted their comments on the Strategic Objectives. 35. C/RAO clarified that the assessment of actions taken in 2005-2007 would only be done next year, on the basis of the draft key performance indicators currently under consideration by the Council Working Group on Strategic Objectives. Noting that the latter would be reporting to the Council on those indicators later in the session, the Chairman of the Council Working Group requested that the next report to Council show progress to implement the Business Plan using the said indicators. 36. The Representative of the United States congratulated the Secretariat on the progress made in developing a strategic approach to using the Organization’s limited resources. In agreeing with the views expressed by the previous speakers, he emphasized that what was of importance to the Council were the results achieved in the real world in applying that approach. While noting that the said ANC trip to the AFI region had identified specific issues which provided the opportunity for a co-ordinated effort to find solutions, the Representative of the United States enquired as to how those issues could be addressed in specific terms to ensure that the Regional Offices would have the expertise needed to make sustainable progress. He further queried how measurable indicators could be put in place so that in a year’s time it would be possible to determine if the air traffic controllers in the AFI region had been receiving the requisite training and if the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) was being implemented in that region in a timely manner. Underscoring that the Council was eager to receive clear, measurable indications of results achieved through the Unified Strategy Programme (USP), the Representative of the United States stressed the need to determine which activities carried out under that programme were successful and which were not. He queried how resources could be reallocated among the various Regional Offices and Headquarters to ensure that the necessary technical expertise was in place. Emphasizing that resources were not sufficient to solve all problems, the Representative of the United States also enquired as to how the activities of ICAO’s stakeholders and donor States could be co-ordinated to ensure that all efforts were directed toward the same strategic result that could be measured and reported on to the Council as evidence that the whole process was working in the real world. 37. In voicing satisfaction with the progress being made in developing the Business Plan, the Representative of Cameroon endorsed the statement made by the Representative of Nigeria regarding the need to place emphasis on regional priorities in addition to global priorities.

C-MIN 179/8

- 143 -

38. Concurring with the comments made by the Representatives of Nigeria, the United States, Cameroon and India, the Representative of the Russian Federation reiterated that the results of the actions taken in implementing the Business Plan were very important for the Organization’s future. He suggested that the format of the Action Plans be amended to include, beside the “expected output” column, a column in which to indicate the level of satisfaction of States and regions with the activities carried out. 39. Responding to points raised, C/RAO indicated that one of the key issues was to translate Headquarter’s activities into regional programmes. Recalling that the said ANC report proposed that ICAO co-ordinate international assistance activities and mobilize donors and stakeholders, he observed that, although many States were offering assistance to States in need in Africa and other regions of the world, that assistance very often was provided outside of the relevant ICAO Regional Air Navigation Plan and the programmes sponsored by the Organization. Emphasis would thus be placed on co-ordinating those activities. C/RAO agreed with the comments made on the need to have results in the regions. To a query by the Representative of the Russian Federation, he noted that the Air Navigation Implementation Programme (ANIP) would be a very useful assessment tool. 40. The Representative of Argentina shared the views expressed by the Representative of India, among others. While commending the Business Plan, he stressed the need for it to be implemented. The Representative of Argentina also emphasized the importance for the activities carried out under the Business Plan to be linked to the Organization’s Strategic Objectives as in the sample Action Plan set forth in Appendix B to the paper. Noting that a Council Working Group had been established to review the said Strategic Objectives, he suggested that a similar body be created to enable the Council to oversee the implementation of the Business Plan. Reports would still be presented to the Council on the activities carried out under that plan. 41. While agreeing that the Business Plan was on the right track, the Representative of Chile stressed the need to proceed cautiously with its implementation as it constituted a major change to how ICAO operated and would be the foundation for the Organization’s future actions. He underscored the importance of a transition period to allow for an orderly switch-over to the Business Plan. 42. The Representative of Ghana emphasized that planning should not be done just for the sake of planning; rather, it should be done for a purpose and when that purpose was achieved, the plan should be updated. Noting that he failed to understand why the former Strategic Action Plan was being updated and replaced, he queried whether the decisions which had been taken had not been sufficiently effective, making it necessary to change the plan. Underscoring that it was necessary, in determining the strength of the Organization, to have both measurable actions and accountability, the Representative of Ghana requested that the next report on this subject address the latter issue. 43. The Council noted the progress achieved in the finalization of the Organization’s Business Plan as set forth in C-WP/12800 and elaborated upon during the discussion. The Council emphasized the need for the next report to Council to show progress to implement the Business Plan using the draft key performance indicators. Subject No. 24.2: Assembly agenda and documentation

Revised Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly 44. The Council then reviewed the revised draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly on the basis of a paper presented by the President of the Council and the Secretary General

C-MIN 179/8 - 144 -

(C-WP/12750), to which it had given preliminary consideration on 13 June 2006 (C-WP/12639; 178/11), together with a series of reports presented by the various subordinate bodies [Report of the ANC (C-WP/12777); Report of the ATC (C-WP/12787); Report of the FIC (C-WP/12744); Report of the UIC (C-WP/12799); and Report of the TCC (C-WP/12792)]. The revised draft Provisional Agenda set forth in Appendix A to C-WP/12750 reflected the amendments recommended by the said bodies. It was noted, from paragraph 1.2 of that paper, that the ANC had, in its report, presented the items for the Technical Commission in a more streamlined format aligning the items to the Organization’s Strategic Objectives, and that it recommended that such a format be used for the items of the other bodies of the Assembly. It was further noted that paragraph 1.7 of C-WP/12750 should be amended to indicate that the TCC had recommended, in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12792, that in preparing the new draft consolidated Assembly Resolution on technical co-operation the Secretariat should consider the proposals made by the Committee in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of its report. 45. It was recalled that the Council had, at the time of its preliminary consideration of the draft Provisional Agenda, approved, on a tentative basis: the items and corresponding notes for the Plenary Meetings and for meetings of the Executive Committee, with certain exceptions as recorded in C-DEC 178/11; and the items and corresponding notes for the Legal Commission. 46. The Representative of Cameroon considered that the excellent format used by the ANC in presenting the items for the Technical Commission should be used for the items of the other bodies of the Assembly so that they would be harmonized. The Representative of Nigeria agreed. 47. In also concurring, the Representative of Australia proposed that the Council approve the individual items of the revised draft Provisional Agenda set forth in C-WP/12750 and request the Secretariat to classify them according to the Organization’s Strategic Objectives. 48. Commending the work done by the ANC, the Representative of South Africa supported this proposal. The Council then agreed that the items for each body of the Assembly should be reorganized in accordance with ICAO’s Strategic Objectives. 49. The Representative of India suggested that Assembly working papers reporting on progress made in the implementation of Assembly Resolutions indicate what action had been taken clause-wise and in very concrete terms. This was noted by the Secretariat. 50. During the review of the items for the Executive Committee, the Chairman of the TCC underscored, with regard to Item X3: Transition to a new policy on technical co-operation, that the Secretariat should take into account the proposals made by the TCC in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of C-WP/12792 regarding the new draft consolidated Assembly Resolution on technical co-operation. 51. Recalling that the Council had decided (178/11) that Item X10: Passenger and crew health and the prevention of spread of communicable disease should be transferred to the agenda for the Economic Commission in light of the economic impact of diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the Representative of South Africa enquired whether there were any new developments which warranted moving that item back to the agenda for the Executive Committee. 52. In observing that the said item was not strictly confined to communicable diseases such as SARS and avian influenza, the President of the ANC underscored that it could also encompass issues such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) experienced by passengers, contaminated air affecting passenger and crew health and other issues which also had a technical component. As the subject was multidisciplinary in nature, having both economic and technical elements, the ANC had considered that Item X10 should be

C-MIN 179/8

- 145 -

moved back to the agenda for the Executive Committee, where it would be possible to address both elements. 53. Noting that she had been the person who had suggested that Item X10 be transferred to the agenda for the Economic Commission, the Chairperson of the ATC indicated that she had needed to be convinced to re-locate the item in the agenda for the Executive Committee. During the Committee’s review of the draft Provisional Agenda of the Economic Commission, the explanation had been given that Assembly Resolution A35-12 on passenger and crew health and the prevention of spread of communicable disease was wide in scope and that the Council’s report to the Assembly on action taken to implement that resolution would cover not only economic issues requiring review by the ATC but also technical issues requiring review by the ANC. The Chairperson of the ATC therefore supported retaining Item X10 in the agenda for the Executive Committee. 54. The Representative of Spain emphasized that it would be possible for the Executive Committee to refer the said item to the relevant Commissions for consideration. 55. In speaking in favour of keeping the item on the agenda for the Executive Committee, the Representative of Australia suggested that, in preparing the related draft Assembly working paper, the Secretariat consider whether there should be one consolidated Assembly Resolution or two separate Assembly Resolutions, one on health issues on board aircraft and one on diseases which could be transported via aircraft. He noted that if there were two resolutions, the Assembly could refer them to the two relevant commissions, the Economic and Technical Commissions. 56. The Representative of the Republic of Korea indicated that if the contents of Item X10 had been limited to Amendment 20 to Annex 9 (Facilitation), then the item could have been transferred to the agenda for the Economic Commission and considered under Item E3: Facilitation. Such action would have helped minimize the number of agenda items to be dealt with by the Assembly. However, as indicated by the Chairperson of the ATC, the item was multidisciplinary in nature. The Representative of the Republic of Korea thus considered that Item X10 should be retained in the agenda for the Executive Committee. The Representative of Nigeria was of the same opinion. 57. Referring to Item X12: Term limits for the Offices of Secretary General and President of the Council, the Representative of Argentina reiterated his view (cf. C-MIN 178/9, paragraphs 22 and 43) that the Council’s proposal to limit the number of terms of the President of the Council to two, set forth in the draft Assembly Resolution appended to C-WP/12683, would necessitate an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. He indicated that he would prefer that the note to Item X12 be drafted differently. 58. Drawing attention to the agenda for the Economic Commission, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized the need to revise Strategic Objective D: Efficiency to reflect more of the items listed therein. 59. The Representative of India noted, in this regard, that during the meeting of the Council Working Group on Strategic Objectives the previous day he had indicated that the items under consideration by the Economic Commission should be highlighted in the Strategic Objectives, particularly in Strategic Objective D. The Representative of South Africa and the Representative of France shared this view. In underscoring that air transport issues should be accorded an appropriate place in the Strategic Objectives as they were encompassed in the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the Representative of France stressed that each State and region was now implementing its own air

C-MIN 179/8 - 146 -

transport policy and that ICAO did not have a mechanism with which to co-ordinate their activities. These comments were noted by the Secretariat for appropriate action. 60. In taking the action recommended by the ANC, ATC, FIC, UIC and TCC in their reports (C-WPs/12777, /12787, /12744, /12799 and /12792), the Council gave final approval to the items and corresponding notes for the Plenary Meetings, the Executive Committee, the Technical Commission, the Economic Commission, the Legal Commission and the Administrative Commission as presented in the revised draft Provisional Agenda set forth in Appendix A to C-WP/12750, subject to the reorganization of the items for each body in accordance with the Organization’s Strategic Objectives as had already been done for the Technical Commission. The Council authorized the Secretary General to transmit the Provisional Agenda to States as documentation for the 36th Session of the Assembly. Other business 61. The Representative of Lebanon expressed his deepest thanks to the Council and its President for their sympathy during the recent tragic events in Lebanon. He noted that Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport, which had been the target of an assault in July 2006, had been rapidly repaired and that five minutes after the cease-fire had been announced and the embargo lifted the airport had become operational again. As his Government had not wished to involve the Council in such a sensitive political issue it had, with the agreement of the President of the Council, referred the issue to the United Nations Security Council. 62. The Representative of Lebanon reiterated his thanks to the Organization, and especially to the President of the Council, for having sent a delegation of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) and an expert to help Lebanon restore and preserve the safety of civil aviation in the region during the war and to co-ordinate between Lebanon and Israel through Cyprus and through the financial support of the French Government. He noted that the importance of this issue had been reflected in the rapid action of ICAO and the President of the Council. The Representative of Lebanon indicated, in this regard, that States always wished to have a strong Organization and a strong President of the Council who could meet such challenges. In emphasizing the need to maintain the strength and reputation of ICAO, he observed that one of the most difficult things for him as a Director General of Civil Aviation would be to call the President of the Council to ask for assistance and to be referred to another organization for help. 63. The Representative of Lebanon underscored that his State was trying to forge ahead with democracy, freedom and stability, especially in the field of civil aviation, which had become a model of liberalization, as well as with peace and security. While this was recognized by all of the international organizations and entities that had seen Lebanon during the said incident, there were some parties in the region who were not willing to acknowledge that. Tragically, Lebanon’s Industry Minister had been assassinated the previous day, 21 November 2006. It had thus unfortunately been necessary to cancel today’s reception commemorating Lebanon’s independence. In concluding, the Representative of Lebanon thanked the Council and its President again for their sympathy, continuing support and encouragement.

64. Recalling that he had expressed his condolences to the Representative of Lebanon on the assassination of Lebanon’s Industry Minister, the President of the Council indicated that he hoped that peace would come to the region as soon as possible. 65. The Council adjourned at 1315 hours.

C-MIN 179/9 (Open)

- 147 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING


OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi

Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Mr. S. Eid (Alt.) Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J.-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. A. P. Singh — D/ADB *Ms. L. Boisvert — C/EPO Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB Mr. H. Belai — C/S&F Mr. P. Lamy — C/FLS Mrs. H.M. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. O.F. Fabrici — C/RDS Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

(

C-MIN 179/9 (Open) - 148 -

Subject No. 24.1: Selection of Assembly site and date

Site and date of the 36th Session of the Assembly 1. This subject was documented for Council’s consideration in C-WP/12727, presented by the Secretary General. It was recalled that, during its earlier (178/11) examination of the draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (C-WP/12639), the Council had deferred a decision regarding the duration of the Assembly to the current session. 2. The Representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that, while he supported the convening of the Assembly at ICAO Headquarters in Montreal, he considered that none of the three proposed dates was appropriate as they overlapped, either partially or entirely, with the holy month of Ramadan (12 September to 11 October 2007), which entailed fasting during daylight hours. It would be preferable to hold the Assembly outside the period of Ramadan in order to ensure the full participation of Muslim States at the appropriate level of representation. Noting that the last ten days of Ramadan were the most important, and that Ramadan was followed by Eid El Fitr, one of the most important feasts for Muslims, the Representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that the dates proposed in paragraph 1.4 a) of the paper, Tuesday, 18 September to Friday, 28 September 2007, were the most acceptable of the three options as those dates corresponded to the beginning of them month of Ramadan. He urged the Council to accept those dates. 3. In expressing satisfaction that the Assembly was planned for only eleven days, the Representative of Finland underscored that it was an indication that ICAO and those participating in the Assembly were becoming more efficient, as the number of agenda items and the volume of documentation were increasing from one session to the next. He suggested that, to further enhance efficiency, consideration should be given to the long period of time devoted to general statements by delegations of Contracting States and of Observers. While recognizing that many States considered it important to make general statements, he underscored that the audience listening to such statements tended to be rather limited. Furthermore, the five-minute time-limit per delegation was not always respected. In also indicating that consideration should be given to improving the voting for the election of the Council which took place during the Assembly, the Representative of Finland emphasized that the current procedure was old-fashioned and very time-consuming and suggested that the possibility of introducing electronic voting be explored. 4. While welcoming the measures outlined in paragraph 3.1 of the paper to reduce the number of printed and distributed documents during the Assembly, which would result in a savings of some two million pages, the Representative of Finland observed that that was a savings for ICAO and not for those participating in the Assembly, who would have to print the documents. With reference to the dates proposed for the convening of the Assembly, he indicated that, from the point of view of the Nordic States which he represented, the second option, Tuesday, 25 September to Friday, 5 October 2007, was the best and the most suitable. In noting the comments made by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the Representative of Finland indicated that the Nordic States were, however, flexible and could accept an alternative. 5. The Representative of the Republic of Korea, as the Co-ordinator of the Montreal Group which comprised all seven Asian Council Representatives, and the Representative of Chile, as the Co-ordinator of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), expressed support for the dates preferred by the Representative of Saudi Arabia.

C-MIN 179/9 (Open)

- 149 -

6. Recognizing that none of the three proposed dates was fully acceptable to all Council Representatives and all Contracting States, the Representative of the United States endorsed the recommendation of the Representative of Saudi Arabia and the Co-ordinators of the Montreal Group and GRULAC that the Assembly be convened at the earliest date, Tuesday, 18 September to Friday, 28 September 2007. 7. The Representative of Canada voiced full agreement with the comments made by the Representative of Finland regarding the substance and the convening of the Assembly. Observing that none of the proposed dates for the latter was fully acceptable or practical for the Representative of Saudi Arabia and other Council Representatives, he enquired whether it would be possible to convene the Assembly after Eid El Fitr. The President of the Council noted that holding the Assembly after 12 October 2007 would give rise to complications as the Committee phase of the 182nd Session of the Council was tentatively scheduled to take place from 15 October to 2 November 2007 and the Council phase, from 19 November to 14 December 2007. 8. While endorsing the comments made by the Representative of Finland regarding the dates put forward by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the Representative of France stressed the need to take into consideration the practical constraints on the Organization. He underscored, in this context, that it was necessary to have sufficient time prior to the Assembly for the Secretariat and the Contracting States to prepare for the meeting. Furthermore, it was necessary that the Assembly end early enough so that the newly-elected Council could begin its work during the Fall Session. It was also necessary to take into account the fact that in August many people were on vacation, both at ICAO and in States’ civil aviation administrations. The Representative of France therefore favoured the second option for convening the Assembly, namely, Tuesday, 25 September to Friday, 5 October 2007. 9. Noting that the screening of carry-on baggage would create difficulties for those Delegates bringing laptop computers to the Assembly, the Representative of South Africa queried why full documentation would not be provided. 10. In supporting the dates preferred by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, Tuesday, 18 September to Friday, 28 September 2007, the Representative of Tunisia recalled that the 31st Session of the Assembly had opened on 19 September 1995. 11. The Representative of Nigeria shared the concerns expressed by the Representative of South Africa regarding the carriage of laptop computers. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of Finland, he indicated that the fact that the State letter inviting States to attend the Assembly mentioned that general statements should focus on high-level policy issues should solve the problem of lengthy opening statements. The Representative of Nigeria voiced support for the dates put forward by the Representative of Saudi Arabia for the Assembly. 12. As a Member of the Montreal Group, the Representative of India also supported those dates. While expressing satisfaction that the proposed new measures to reduce the number of printed and distributed documents would result in a savings of approximately two million pages, he queried whether it would be possible to further decrease the number of copies of documentation given to delegations with Internet access from six to two. He observed, in this regard, that if delegations required more copies, they could download electronic copies from the dedicated ICAO website. 13. In elaborating on the said new measures referred to in paragraph 3.1 of the paper, the Director of the Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) noted that the Assembly Hall and all conference rooms would be equipped with wireless network facilities and printers. Furthermore, there

C-MIN 179/9 (Open) - 150 -

would be an ICAO Internet Café, a computer centre with twenty computers which Delegates could use to download and print Assembly documentation, including reference material. A technician would be on hand at all times to provide assistance. 14. In emphasizing that distribution of printed documents would be substantially reduced and would be linked to the seating capacity in the Assembly Hall, D/ADB indicated that delegations with six or more Delegates would be given a maximum number of six copies of documentation. He noted that while reducing the maximum number of copies to two as suggested by the Representative of India would result in a savings of some 3.3 million printed pages, the Secretary General had decided that the maximum number should be six in light of the fact that some Delegates were not very familiar with computers and would have difficulty printing their own copies and that some preferred to have a printed copy to refer to instead of viewing a document online. In observing that reference material would only be distributed to the Chief Delegate and Alternate Chief Delegate, D/ADB underscored that it would be available in the ICAO Library for consultation, together with Assembly documentation. 15. Concurring with the Representative of Saudi Arabia that none of the proposed dates for the Assembly was suitable in view of Ramadan, the Representative of Lebanon indicated that consideration should be given to convening the Assembly after Eid El Fitr as suggested by the Representative of Canada. While aware that the 182nd Session of the Council was to take place after the Assembly, he did not consider that delaying the Assembly by ten to fourteen days would make that much of a difference. The Representative of Lebanon underscored that it would send a very positive signal to all States in the Middle East if a date outside the month of Ramadan were selected and would enable Delegates to work without having to fast. 16. The Representative of Cameroon noted that, while he was open to any of the three dates for the Assembly set forth in paragraph 1.4 of the paper, he could support convening the Assembly from Tuesday, 18 September to Friday, 28 September 2007 in light of the concerns raised by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. 17. The Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he was completely flexible with regard to the dates for the Assembly. In urging the Secretariat to examine ways to keep general statements short and to the point, he suggested that a very large clock be placed near the podium to indicate to the speakers the amount of time taken up by their speeches. The President of the Council spoke in favour of using a clock. 18. The Representative of Australia noted that his position regarding the dates for the Assembly had already been stated by the Co-ordinator of the Montreal Group. Referring to the suggestion made by the Representative of Canada, he indicated that he would be open to having a shorter Council session (Committee phase and Council phase) immediately after the Assembly to accommodate a later Assembly. The Representative of Australia endorsed the comments made by the Representative of Finland regarding Assembly documentation, general statements and the voting procedure for the election of the Council. In expressing satisfaction with the efforts being made to reduce the volume of Assembly documentation, he noted that there were usually 250 to 300 working papers and 150 to 200 information papers issued for each Assembly, which was a considerable amount for anyone to digest, even those well-versed in ICAO’s procedures, such as Council Representatives. A suggestion then made by the Representative that the guidelines for the production of Council documentation also be followed for the production of Assembly documentation and that they be brought to the attention of States and organizations in the State letter inviting attendance at the Assembly was retained by the Secretariat.

C-MIN 179/9 (Open)

- 151 -

19. The Representative of Saint Lucia observed that the Co-ordinator of GRULAC had expressed his view regarding the dates for the Assembly. In agreeing with the comments made by the Representative of India on the number of sets of Assembly documentation to be given to Delegations, he averred that six sets was rather high and that that number should be reconsidered. The Representative of Saint Lucia averred that the Secretariat should know from experience which States sent Delegations comprising only one or two Delegates and would therefore not need to provide those Delegations with six sets of documentation. He further indicated that, in the case of small Delegations, Delegates could share a set of documentation. In emphasizing that the production of documentation had not only an environmental cost but also an economic one, the Representative of Saint Lucia enquired as to what the envisaged savings of 2 million printed pages represented in terms of cost-savings. 20. In sharing the views expressed by the Representatives of India and Saint Lucia, the Representative of Argentina indicated that States should be informed that they would only receive two sets of Assembly documentation and that those States which required additional copies but which were not able to download electronic copies from the dedicated ICAO website should contact the Organization for extra copies. Such States should receive a maximum of six sets of Assembly documentation in total. 21. The Representative of Hungary spoke in favour of convening the Assembly from Tuesday, 18 September to Friday, 28 September 2007 as proposed in paragraph 1.4 a) of the paper. Endorsing the comments made by the Representative of Finland, he voiced support for the introduction of electronic voting. In sharing the view expressed by the Representative of India regarding the distribution of two sets of Assembly documentation to delegations, with the proviso that support would be provided to those States which could not download electronic copies, the Representative of Hungary indicated that he advocated such an approach not because of the cost-savings but because it reflected the working culture of the modern world. Supporting the suggestion made by the Representative of the United Kingdom to use a clock to indicate to the speakers the length of their general statements, he emphasized that the latter should not exceed five minutes. In proposing that a clock also be used in the Council, the Representative of Hungary indicated that Council Representatives’ interventions should be limited to three minutes. 22. The Representative of South Africa likewise supported convening the Assembly on the said dates in light of the recommendation of the Representative of Saudi Arabia. While also endorsing the proposal made by the Representative of the United Kingdom, he noted that not many speakers would look at the clock when they were giving their general statements and emphasized the need to consider other means of enforcing the time-limit, such as switching off the microphone. To a further point raised by the Representative, D/ADB elaborated on the procedure followed for the allocation of seats in the Assembly Hall. 23. Responding to other queries, D/ADB noted that reducing the number of printed pages by 2 million would result in considerable savings, in the order of US $6 000 for paper and US $66 000 for printing. With regard to the suggestion that only two sets of Assembly documentation be distributed to delegations, with additional copies being provided upon request, he underscored that it would be necessary to establish a cut-off date of at least fifteen days in advance of the Assembly for such requests to enable the Secretariat to prepare the pigeon-holes for the documentation. Referring to the comments made on electronic voting, D/ADB noted that the Secretariat had undertaken some preliminary work on various options. There had, however, been very unfavourable reports on electronic voting in Canada and the United States. In emphasizing that the entire voting process would have to be changed if electronic voting were introduced, he indicated that it might be necessary to set the voting equipment up in a separate room instead of in the Assembly Hall. Underscoring that there were also certain risks associated with electronic voting, D/ADB noted that it would be necessary to have a back-up system, which would

C-MIN 179/9 (Open) - 152 -

add to the expense of holding the election of the Council. He would welcome further guidance on this issue. 24. The Representative of France observed that an electronic voting system such as was used in parliaments, where members voted at their seats by pushing a button, would be simpler and more reliable. D/ADB averred that, while such a system could work for the election of the Council, it would be more expensive than setting up an electronic voting system in a separate room. 25. Noting that there were other ways, apart from introducing electronic voting, to reduce the amount of time spent by the Plenary on the election of the Council, the Representative of Australia emphasized that the voting could be done in parallel, rather than in sequence, with meetings of the Plenary, with voting booths being made available in a separate room. A whole day could be allocated for Parts 1 and 2 of the election and another whole day for Part 3, with roll calls being given to indicate which States had not yet voted. 26. Agreeing that there were more modern voting systems which could be used, the President of the Council suggested that the Council request the Secretariat to examine the various options and report to the Council with specific proposals. 27. The Representative of India strongly supported the proposed cut-off date and the introduction of electronic voting. Noting that his State, which was a vibrant democracy with a population of some 1.1 billion, had instituted electronic voting on a national scale, he suggested that D/ADB consult with the Indian election commission. 28. Voicing opposition to introducing electronic voting, the Representative of Italy affirmed that the election of the Council was one of the best moments of the Assembly, as well as of the lives of Delegates. He underscored that the election did not take up more than a couple of hours. In questioning why the Organization should spend a substantial amount of money on a voting system which had not functioned well in some major States, the Representative of Italy suggested that the Council take more time to consider the matter. The President of the Council concurred that the election of the Council was part of the ceremony of the Assembly. 29. The Representative of South Africa underscored that having the Chief Delegates or Ministers go up to the podium and cast their ballots bound everyone together in the spirit of ICAO. Emphasizing that that human touch should not be lost from sight, he urged Council Representatives to maintain the current voting system for the upcoming Assembly and to only consider introducing an electronic voting system for future Assemblies. 30. Observing that Rule 60 of the Standing Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (Doc 7600) referred only to ballot papers, the Representative of Honduras enquired whether it would be for the Assembly or for the Council, on behalf of the latter, to take a decision on the use of electronic voting. He noted that potential cost-savings was an argument in favour of introducing such a voting system. 31. In underscoring the need to consider the issue of electronic voting more carefully, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that a cost/benefit analysis should be done, with a critical look being taken of what such a system was intended to achieve, whether savings in cost or time. Noting that, whereas parliamentary voting only required indicating “yes” or “no” to a given question, voting in the election of the Council involved selecting a large number of candidates, he stressed that more technological support would be required if the same electronic voting system used in parliaments were

C-MIN 179/9 (Open)

- 153 -

introduced in ICAO. In further noting that it would be necessary to test the new voting system and to familiarize Delegates with it, the Representative of Nigeria suggested that the possible introduction of electronic voting for future Assemblies be broached during the forthcoming Assembly on the basis of the preliminary work carried out by the Secretariat. 32. The Council then decided that the 36th Session of the Assembly would be of eleven calendar days’ duration and would be held at the Organization’s Headquarters in Montreal from Tuesday, 18 September to Friday, 28 September 2007 [cf. paragraph 1.4 a) of C-WP/12727]. It requested that the Secretariat examine the various options for electronic voting for the election of Contracting States to be represented on the Council and report thereon to the Council for its decision. Subject No. 24: Sessions of the Assembly

Invitations to observers to attend the 36th Session of the Assembly 33. The Council next considered C-WP/12726 on this subject, presented by the President of the Council. Appendix A to the paper contained the list of ICAO non-Contracting States (as of 22 June 2006) and Appendix B, the list of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings as approved by the Council and set forth in the Attachment to Memorandum SG 1870/06 dated 6 February 2006. A linguistic point raised by the Representative of Saudi Arabia regarding the Arabic text of paragraph 1 of the paper was noted by the Secretariat. It was noted, with regard to Appendix B, that, as indicated by the Representative of Honduras, the reference made in Part 3) (Intergovernmental organizations) of the list to the Organization of Central American States (ODECA) should be amended to refer to the Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana (SICA), which had replaced ODECA. 34. It was agreed that, as suggested by the Representative of Nigeria, the organizations referred to in paragraph 1 c) of the paper, namely, the African Civil Aviation Commission (AFCAC), the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC) and the African Union (AU), would be included in Part 3) of the said list of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings. 35. The Representative of Australia recalled that when the Council had reviewed the revised draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (C-WP/12750; 179/8), it had had agreed to the addition of a sentence to Item X4 [Progress report on the implementation of the ICAO Unified Strategy Programme (USP)] to indicate that the Council’s progress report on the implementation of the USP would “also encourage the leadership of ICAO in establishing RSOOs in regions where they do not currently exist and identify new solutions to resolve safety-related deficiencies”. He suggested that Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs) be invited to attend the Assembly as they would benefit from the discussion of some of the Agenda items. The Representatives of France and Saint Lucia supported this proposal. 36. Noting that the Inter-American Development Bank financed aviation safety-related projects, the Representative of Honduras suggested that that institution also be invited to attend the Assembly. Observing that all regional development banks took part in Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) projects, the Representative of France proposed that an invitation to attend the Assembly be extended to all of them. He recalled, in this context, that the World Bank was already included in the list of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings under Part 2) (Specialized Agencies). In supporting this suggestion, the Representative of South Africa underscored that the African Development Bank was very involved in aviation infrastructure development projects.

C-MIN 179/9 (Open) - 154 -

37. Referring to Appendix A to the paper, the Representative of India enquired as to why the five States listed therein (Dominica, the Holy See, Liechtenstein, Montenegro and Tuvalu) were not Contracting States of ICAO and as to what initiatives were being undertaken to encourage them to join the Organization. The President of the Council noted that Montenegro was included in Appendix A as a result of its recent separation from Serbia. He emphasized that there were ongoing efforts to encourage the said five States to become Contracting States. The Representative of France indicated that the fact that the Holy See and Liechtenstein did not provide air navigation services themselves and instead had them provided by Italy and Switzerland, respectively, was one reason why they had not joined ICAO. The Representative of Saint Lucia noted that Dominica was in the process of becoming an ICAO Contracting State. 38. In then taking the action proposed by the President of the Council on the basis of paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12726 and suggestions made during the discussion, the Council agreed that invitations to be represented as observers at the 36th Session of the Assembly be extended to:

a) non-Contracting States members of the United Nations or a Specialized Agency or the International Atomic Energy Agency (cf. Appendix A to C-WP/12726), and those that may become members of those organizations in the interval before the Assembly, it being clear that any non-Contracting States which adhered to the Chicago Convention before the opening of the Assembly or during the Session would be able to participate as a Contracting State;

b) international organizations appearing on the list of organizations that may be invited

to attend suitable ICAO meetings (cf. Attachment to Memorandum SG 1870/06 dated 6 February 2006, reproduced in Appendix B to C-WP/12726), as amended above, and those that may be added to the list in the interval before the Assembly;

c) Palestine, in accordance with Assembly Resolution A22-6; d) Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs); and e) regional development banks. 39. It was noted that the President would notify Council Representatives by memorandum regarding those organizations not included in the said list approved by the Council of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings, which he, under delegation of authority, was inviting to attend the Assembly and that, if any requests to attend the Assembly as observers were subsequently received from other organizations, they would be given due consideration by the President and the Council would be informed accordingly.

C-MIN 179/9 (Open)

- 155 -


Request of the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) for inclusion in the list of organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings

40. After reviewing C-WP/12719 on this subject, presented by the President of the Council, the Council agreed to include the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) in the list of organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings (cf. Attachment to Memorandum SG 1870/06 dated 6 February 2006). It was noted that a revised list reflecting this change, as well as the changes agreed to under the previous agenda item (cf. paragraphs 33 and 34 above) would be issued under cover of a Secretary General’s memorandum. 41. The Council went into closed session at 1625 hours to consider the next item on its order of business, then reconvened in open session at 1735 hours to consider “Other business”. Other business Deferment of an item to the 180th Session 42. The Council deferred consideration of the following item to its 180th Session:

- Report of ANC — Progress report on the notification and publication of differences between national regulations or practices and ICAO Standards

Subject No. 12.5: Plans for legal meetings Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization Subject No. 16.3: International air law conventions

Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 43. It was noted that, as the Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 had not yet completed its work, it was considered premature to present a written report on its deliberations to the Council. An oral report would therefore be given later in the current session. Subject No. 10: ICAO Relations with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations

Report of JIU — “A Common Payroll for United Nations System Organizations” (JIU/REP/2005/4)

44. As no request had been received by 15 November 2006 to have C-WP/12730 on the above subject tabled for discussion by the Council in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1305 dated 1 November 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted that paper.

C-MIN 179/9 (Open) - 156 -

Subject No. 10.1: Reports on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented

Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented during the second quarter — 1 April to 30 June 2006

45. As no request had been received by 20 November 2006 to have C-WP/12793 on the above subject tabled for discussion by the Council in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1306 dated 3 November 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted that paper.


- 157 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING


CLOSED MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J.-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB Mr. H. Belai — C/S&F Mr. P. Lamy — C/FLS Mr. D. Antonini — C/SGM Mrs. H.M. Biernacki — TO/SGM Mr. J. Huang — LO Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/9 (Closed) - 158 -


Review of the Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP/18) 1. The Council considered this subject on the basis of two reports: a report by the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) (C-WP/12710 Restricted), which set forth the results of the Committee’s consideration of the Report of the AVSECP/18 Meeting (Montreal, 11 to 15 September 2006), and Information Paper No. 1 (English only) relating thereto; and a report by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) (C-WP/12804 Restricted), which set forth the outcome of the Commission’s review of the relevant elements of interest to the ANC of the Report of the AVSECP/18 Meeting. The Appendix to C-WP/12710 Restricted contained the conclusions and recommendations of the AVSECP/18 Meeting. Related Information Paper No. 1 presented interim security measures and proposed screening guidelines for liquid explosives. Paragraph 3.1 thereof was updated to indicate that comments on the said additional measures had been received from Saudi Arabia. 2. Under general comments, the Representative of Canada drew attention to the proposed screening guidelines set forth in paragraph 2.1 of Information Paper No. 1 and noted that Canada and the United States had recently agreed on a harmonized exception for juice for small children. Observing that it was not explicitly listed in sub-paragraph d), he enquired whether it was an omission. In then referring to paragraph 2.3, the Representative of Canada suggested that the term “tamper-proof” be replaced with the term “tamper-evident”. 3. The Representative of Singapore underscored that his State fully understood the importance of aviation security and the seriousness of the possible threat posed by the carriage of liquid explosives on board aircraft. Singapore considered that, if it were intended to issue a State letter including the information contained in paragraph 2 of Information Paper No. 1 as interim security measures to be implemented before 1 March 2007 on a worldwide basis as indicated in paragraph 3.1 thereof, then the subject needed to be studied in a comprehensive manner taking into account inputs from States and relevant international organizations given the screening guidelines’ global impact on air travel. The proposed implementation date of 1 March 2007 should also be reviewed to ensure that it was practical and suitable for application on a worldwide basis. That was in accordance with the AVSECP’s recommendation set forth in paragraph 2.2.1 c) 9) of the Appendix to C-WP/12710 Restricted that the envisaged State letter “remind Contracting States of the need to ensure that any new measures are not only effective but also practicable and sustainable, and take into account as far as possible the practices of other States, as well as facilitation issues”. 4. The Representative of Singapore noted that, from the security viewpoint, his State understood the intent of the proposed restrictions on the carriage of liquids set forth in paragraph 2.1 of Information Paper No. 1 and supported the harmonization of such aviation security restrictions and procedures across all States in the interests of effective aviation security and to ensure clear and consistent information to passengers worldwide on what they could carry on board aircraft. He observed that currently the measures taken by certain States to impose restrictions on the carriage of liquids on board aircraft and to allow the carriage of liquid duty-free purchases only from their airports or airlines was causing considerable confusion and inconvenience for transiting passengers originating in other States. The Representative of Singapore noted that while his State agreed in principle with paragraph 2.3 of Information Paper No. 1, which indicated that States should also consider exemptions in respect of liquids purchased either at airport duty free shops or on board aircraft, on the condition that the liquid was packed in a sealed plastic bag that was both tamper-proof (or tamper-evident) and displayed satisfactory proof of purchase at airport duty free shops or on board aircraft on the day(s) of the journey, it considered that those exemptions should also be extended to duty free purchases in sealed bags of transiting passengers as


- 159 -

otherwise such passengers would be greatly inconvenienced and would suffer financial loss if their purchases were confiscated at the point of transfer. Singapore considered that protocols must be established to facilitate passengers transiting through airports with duty free items that were purchased under appropriate security controls at the airport of origin. To enable transiting passengers to carry their duty free purchases on board their connecting flight, Singapore strongly recommended that States should mutually recognize the sealed bag procedure of other States as long as those procedures were essentially similar. The Representative of Singapore therefore proposed that paragraph 2.3 of Information Paper No. 1 be redesignated as paragraph 2.1 e) and amended to read along the following lines: “Exemptions should also be made for liquids purchased at airport duty free shops or on board aircraft on the condition that the liquid is packed in a sealed plastic bag that is both tamper-evident and displays satisfactory proof of purchase at airport duty free shops, or on board aircraft, on the day(s) of the journey for both departing as well as transiting passengers”. 5. The Representative of Singapore observed that his State recognized that there might be concerns among some States regarding the difficulties in recognizing another State’s sealed bag procedure without some form of validation. At the same time, it understood that resources would be needed to undertake such validation. Singapore therefore considered that instead of cumbersome bilateral arrangements, it would be more effective for ICAO to set up a multilateral arrangement to harmonize the requirements for the sealed bag procedure and to have a system to enable those States which wished to participate to have an independent validation of compliance with the sealed bag requirements in a simple and fast manner. Such a multilateral arrangement would be similar to the measures which ICAO had taken to assist States in implementing anti-SARS measures in 2003, as well as to the recent ICAO project on co-operative arrangements for preventing the spread of communicable diseases through air travel. The Representative of Singapore thus proposed that a new paragraph 2.3 be inserted in Information Paper No. 1 which would read along the following lines: “In the interests of facilitation, ICAO will set up a multilateral arrangement to harmonize the requirements for a sealed bag procedure and put in place a system to enable States which wish to participate to have an independent validation of compliance with the sealed bag requirements in a simple and fast manner.” He recommended that, if the Council were of the view that the proposed implementation date for the screening guidelines of 1 March 2007 should not be changed, then ICAO should urgently put in place the said multilateral arrangement as early as possible before that date. 6. The Representative of Japan noted that, as a Member of the UIC, he supported the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12710 Restricted. He also supported the proposed screening guidelines for liquid explosives set forth in paragraph 2 of the related Information Paper No. 1. In affirming that the improvement of aviation security was of extreme importance, the Representative of Japan underscored that, as indicated by the Representative of Singapore, it was necessary to minimize the impact of the introduction of the said guidelines on the entities concerned. While he was not at present able to take a position on the proposal by the Representative of Singapore, he was of the view that measures to minimize the impact of the guidelines should be considered when the latter were established. The Representative of Japan underscored that the important points raised in paragraph 1.3 of Information Paper No. 1 should be taken into account in finalizing the guidelines. In supporting the establishment of a Secretariat Study Group in order to develop, before the end of June 2007, long-term, cost-effective and harmonious security measures as proposed in paragraph 3.2 thereof, he indicated that Japan was willing to take part in that initiative. 7. The Representative of South Africa noted, from paragraph 2.3 of C-WP/12804, the conclusion of the AVSECP not to include “stowaways” in the definition of “Aircraft security check” in Annex 17 (Security) and the conclusion of the ANC that that would not adversely affect flight safety. Averring that no stone should be left unturned in facilitating a safe and secure environment for

C-MIN 179/9 (Closed) - 160 -

international civil aviation, he emphasized the need to give careful consideration to the issue of stowaways. In endorsing the comments made by the Representative of Singapore, particularly with regard to the extension of exemptions to duty free purchases in sealed bags of transiting passengers, the Representative of South Africa recalled the comments which he had made during the Council’s earlier review (179/6) of the Report of the Sixth Session of the International Explosives Technical Commission (IETC/6) and the Sixteenth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE/16). Underscoring that the lack of knowledge of restrictions on the carriage of liquids on board aircraft could lead to the consumption by passengers of alcohol before embarkation and to subsequent unruly or disruptive behaviour, he reiterated the need to ensure that solving one problem did not create another one. 8. The Chief of the Aviation Security and Facilitation Branch (C/S&F) noted that the AVSECP had decided that the issue of stowaways was not an aviation security matter for several reasons, including the fact that most stowaways were airline or airport employees who were dissatisfied with their lives and wished to migrate to another State and not saboteurs. The Panel had not indicated, however, that the issue of stowaways should not be addressed in other fora or under other circumstances. 9. Observing that there was some tension between security requirements and the commercial requirements of certain airline and airport operators, the Representative of the United Kingdom emphasized that it was necessary to address the serious threat posed by liquid explosives and that security should not be compromised. While he would be happy if a Secretariat Study Group were established to develop long-term, cost-effective and harmonious security measures and would be willing to engage in that process, he found it difficult to escape the conclusion that whenever safeguards were set up, there was always someone who would try to circumvent them. The Representative of the United Kingdom noted, in this regard, how passports were forged despite all of their tamper-evident features. He had no doubt that it would be possible for anyone with a serious intent to circumvent any measures put in place to protect liquid duty free purchases. The Representative of the United Kingdom urged that careful consideration be given to where priorities should lie: in security or in the commercial elements involved in duty free goods. In advocating caution, he emphasized that the tendency should be to err on the side of security. 10. During the ensuing review of C-WP/12710 Restricted, the Representative of India emphasized the need for the said harmonized security measures to encompass liquid retail items purchased by transiting passengers at the point of origin. He suggested that the security measures be developed as soon as possible and presented to the Council for consideration during its next (180th) Session so that they could be put in place by 1 March 2007. In response to a further point raised by the Representative, C/S&F elaborated on the sequence of the actions to be taken in the short-, medium- and long-term outlined in paragraph 2.2.1 of the Appendix to C-WP/12710 Restricted. 11. The Representative of Argentina noted that the AVSECP had concluded that the definition of “Acts of unlawful interference” should be retained and its existing wording should be reviewed and had recommended that the Legal Bureau (LEB) be requested to thoroughly study the definition and advise the Panel of the outcome [cf. paragraphs 3.1.1 f) and 3.2.1 c] of the Appendix to C-WP/12710 Restricted] and that the ANC had concluded that a suitable definition of that term was necessary to ensure appropriate application of Standards where the term “unlawful interference” was used (cf. paragraph 2.3 of C-WP/12804 Restricted). Recalling that the definition had been included in Amendment 11 to Annex 17 at the request of a Council Representative, he enquired as to what problems the AVSECP had encountered with its existing text. C/S&F noted that a proposal had been made to delete the said definition from Annex 17 as some AVSECP Members had considered that it was confusing, imprecise and inaccurate and did not properly reflect existing treaty law or States’ practices. The Panel


- 161 -

had, however, concluded that it should be retained for the time being as its deletion would necessitate an amendment to Annex 17. It recommended that LEB examine the issue and propose a solution. To a further query by the Representative, C/S&F clarified that the results of LEB’s study would be brought to the attention of the AVSECP as well as of the UIC. 12. Responding to a point then raised by the Representative of Australia regarding paragraph 5.2.1 c) of the Appendix to C-WP/12710 Restricted, C/S&F indicated that the Council would be provided in due course with information regarding the review of guidance material on security measures relating to diplomatic pouches to be included in the next edition of the Security Manual. 13. In the course of the review of Information Paper No. 1 to C-WP/12710 Restricted, the Representative of India underscored the problem posed by the lack of technology to detect liquid explosives, homemade or otherwise, and cautioned that if the Secretariat did not promote the development of such technology, then it would be unable to find a long-term solution to the threat posed by liquid explosives. C/S&F noted, in this regard, that the AH-DE would be holding a workshop in February/March 2007 to facilitate not only the sharing of the results of the work in progress but also the development of common approaches and best practices for the longer term. To an additional point raised by the Representative, C/S&F indicated that paragraph 2.3 of the paper, as amended by the Representative of Singapore, addressed the concerns expressed regarding the carriage by transiting passengers of liquids purchased at the point of origin. 14. The Representative of Australia indicated that screening for liquid explosives was a difficult issue as it involved items which were commonly carried on board aircraft. In observing that the proposals to limit individual quantities of liquids allowed to be carried on board to 100 ml per container and to require that containers be placed in a transparent re-sealable plastic bag of a maximum capacity of 1 litre were intended to be temporary measures, he indicated that serious consideration should be given thereto during the longer-term analysis of the threat posed by liquid explosives. Noting that he was prepared to move forward with the actions proposed in the paper on an interim basis, the Representative of Australia emphasized that the suggestions put forward by the Representative of Singapore deserved consideration. While he, like the Representative of Japan, considered that there had not been sufficient time in which to consider the said suggestions, he agreed with their underlying principles. Noting that many problems had arisen with the introduction of screening measures for liquid explosives in some States, the Representative of Australia underscored the need to establish a review date for the proposed measures to ensure that they did not become de facto permanent measures. He also stressed that the work set out in the Report of the AVSECP/18 Meeting should proceed with a very high degree of priority given the significant impact which the measures would have on aviation facilitation and security processes. Responding to further point raised by the Representative, C/S&F clarified that the proposed new terms of reference for the AVSECP would be presented to the UIC for consideration during the next (180th) Session prior to being submitted to the Council later in that session. 15. The Representative of China voiced support for the proposal made by the Representative of Singapore regarding the carriage by transiting passengers of liquids purchased at the point of origin. He emphasized the need to consider the issue of facilitation in formulating screening guidelines for liquid explosives. 16. The Representative of Nigeria noted that his concerns regarding the carriage of liquids by transiting passengers had been met by the proposal made by the Representative of Singapore to amend paragraph 2.3 of Information Paper No. 1 to C-WP/12710 Restricted. In agreeing with the Representative of the United Kingdom that when there were issues of facilitation and security it was better to err on the side of security, he underscored that that would also ensure flight safety. Observing that there was a

C-MIN 179/9 (Closed) - 162 -

global routing network for aircraft and that what happened at one airport had a ripple effect on the operation of other airports, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized the need for harmonized procedures so that responses to given situations could be co-ordinated. He underscored that if screening guidelines for liquid explosives were implemented at one airport, then it would be best if passengers departing from other airports were aware of the restrictions on the carriage of liquids as it would facilitate travel. The Representative of Nigeria stressed that if there were not a harmonized approach to responding to situations, then it would be difficult to sustain smooth civil aviation operations and keep the disruption of flights to a minimum. 17. The Representative of the United States indicated that the excellent suggestions put forward by the Representative of Singapore and other Council Representatives should be reviewed by the said Secretariat Study Group as soon as possible but not later than June 2007. He considered that there was sufficient flexibility in paragraph 2.3 of Information Paper No. 1 to C-WP/12710 Restricted for adjustments to be made within the interim screening guidelines to provide for transiting passengers. The Representative of the United States urged the Secretary General to issue the envisaged State letter as soon as possible and to incorporate therein the interim additions to the List of Prohibited Items. He voiced support for the proposal made by the UIC in paragraph 2.3 of its report that the Secretariat prepare a draft Press Release concerning action taken by ICAO in response to the alleged terrorist plot against civil aviation over the North Atlantic for the Council’s review. 18. In also endorsing the proposal for a Press Release, the Representative of Spain suggested that it be circulated to Council Representatives under cover of a memorandum by the President of the Council 19. Noting that he had attended some of the AVSECP’s meetings when the Panel had been discussing the issue of liquid explosives, the President of the Council recalled that the AVSECP had requested more time to revise the List of Prohibited Items as it was necessary to collect additional information on the threat posed by liquid explosives. Observing that different actions were being taken by different States to address that threat, he indicated that ICAO should try to harmonize the screening procedures and requirements of all States given the urgency of the issue. 20. In taking the action then proposed by the President of the Council on the basis of paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12710 Restricted and paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12804 Restricted and in light of the discussion, the Council:

a) noted the Report of the AVSECP/18 Meeting, as well as the reports thereon by the

UIC (C-WP/12710 Restricted and Information Paper No. 1) and the ANC (C-WP/12804 Restricted);

b) accepted the Panel’s conclusions and recommendations as presented in the Appendix

to C-WP/12710 Restricted, taking into account the comments provided by the UIC and the ANC in their reports;

c) accepted the proposed interim security measures regarding screening guidelines for

liquid explosives set forth in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of Information Paper No. 1 related to C-WP/12710 Restricted for worldwide implementation before 1 March 2007;


- 163 -

d) requested that the envisaged Secretariat Study Group comprising members of the AVSECP, the Facilitation Panel (FAL), the Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP), and economic and industry experts take into consideration the comments and suggestions made by Council Representatives in developing with the Secretariat, before the end of June 2007, long-term, cost-effective and harmonious security measures and that a report on the outcome of that work be presented for Council’s consideration during the 181st Session;

e) requested the Secretary General to issue a State letter as soon as possible alerting

States to the threat disclosed by the United Kingdom concerning the assembly of liquid explosives carried on board aircraft as consumer products and containing the elements detailed in paragraph 2.2.1 c) of the Appendix to C-WP/12710 Restricted. The State letter should include an amended List of Prohibited Items addressing the vulnerabilities posed by liquids, aerosols and gels and the screening guidelines for liquid explosives referred to in sub-paragraph c) above and the exemptions of duty-free items carried by departing and transiting passengers as proposed by several Council Representatives. Furthermore, it should emphasize the importance of States sharing information internationally regarding emerging threats and developing a co-ordinated response, as well as of using the Aviation Security Point of Contact (PoC) Network not only for inbound communication but also for the dissemination of urgent aviation security information among States at a time of increased threat level or new emerging threats and for sharing short-term responses developed by States to counter such threats; and

f) requested the Secretariat to draft a Press Release concerning action taken by ICAO in

response to the alleged terrorist plot against civil aviation over the North Atlantic and circulate it under cover of a President’s memorandum to Council Representatives for comment prior to issuance.

21. The Council reconvened in open session at 1735 hours to consider “Other business”.

C-MIN 179/10

- 165 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING


OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Atl.)


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. H. Altimari (Adv.) — Austria Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. S. Watanabe (Adv.) — Japan Mr. M.F. Lynch (Alt.) — Peru Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. P.M. Perguillan — EPM Mrs. J. Hupe — C/ENV Mrs. M. Boulos — EPM Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

C-MIN 179/10 - 166 -


Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group (SG) Meeting

1. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in C-WP/12760 and Corrigendum No. 1, presented by the Secretary General. The paper presented results of the third CAEP SG Meeting, summarized the deliverables to be provided to CAEP/7, and requested further instruction for related activities and suggestions for future work. 2. Under general comments, the Representative of the United States indicated that to save time, he would summarize the six points which he wished to emphasize in connection with C-WP/12760. 3. First, in any future CAEP assessment of policies or Standards, there would be a need to explicitly analyze and account for trade-offs between noise and emissions. 4. Second, in the area of local charges, the United States felt that there was a lack of transparency in current local charging schemes; it was very important to have a cost benefit analysis of these schemes. In order to do that, there was a need to obtain specific information and details from the States that imposed such local charges, so that ICAO could make an assessment of the cost and benefits of various approaches. The United States believed that more work needed to be done in this area and that more cooperation was needed from States in obtaining the requisite information. 5. Third, the United States fully endorsed the good work that was being done on producing inventories but, again, stressed the importance of understanding not simply what emissions were being emitted, but what damage to the environment was being done, and what the impact of specific emissions was on the environment. 6. Fourth, on web-based information, the United States viewed it as a constructive step, but urged the Secretariat to have in place rigorous protocols to ensure that the information provided on the web site had been thoroughly vetted and was good information for all. 7. Fifth, in terms of the operational measures specifically noted in paragraph 3.2.2 of the paper, the United States would point out that such measures could have a great benefit not only on greenhouse gas emissions but also on local emissions and on noise reduction, and that there were many environmental benefits that could be achieved through operational measures such as improvements in descent procedures. 8. Finally, the Representative of the United States requested clarification from the Secretariat on the proposal for a database presented at paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12760. 9. Responding to the points raised by the Representative of the United States, C/ENV indicated that future assessments including the trade-offs with noise and emissions represented a concern that was present in other CAEP work and that was in fact part of the main framework of the CAEP. One of the points in the CAEP’s terms of reference was to assess the trade-offs within the various measures, and a framework was being developed for the assessment of those measures that would include a better consideration of the trade-offs between not only noise and emissions but among emissions when taking a decision for any measures.

C-MIN 179/10

- 167 -

10. C/ENV indicated that she would bring the point raised by the Representative of the United States concerning local charges to the attention of the CAEP. The CAEP did not usually carry out monitoring activities per se, but could collect more information on local charges. 11. C/ENV confirmed that the CAEP had been considering how to move forward in better assessing aviation impact on the environment. As an example, she referred to the work programme for local air quality which comprised two steps. The first covered the inventory and the second, referred to as the dispersion phase, addressed the impact of those emissions. It was very important realize that the first step to solving any problem was to correctly characterize it. The Committee had to ensure that when it was assessing noise, global emissions, local air quality, etc., it had the right data so that it could then make the right assessments and the right policies. 12. The CAEP shared the concerns expressed by the Representative of the United States in connection with the web site, and wanted the best possible information for States and the public without overwhelming them with information or losing sight of the main objectives and messages from the Organization. 13. As regards operational measures, the CAEP could not agree more with the views expressed by the Representative of the United States. Among the deliverables of the CAEP, there were some assessments on how different procedures would affect noise and emissions. One project involved the publication of a circular that would outline the possible benefits of optimizing flight operations. Recognizing that operational measures results did not apply only to global climate but also to noise and local air quality, the CAEP was working towards showing such benefits. 14. C/ENV concluded by referring to the development and maintenance of databases. The CAEP had not been working in isolation, but was involved in the work of the Secretariat to generate data on traffic, fuel consumption, etc. The Secretariat had, some time earlier, presented a request to the Council for funds to improve a project that would allow it to better estimate fuel consumption for aviation; the Secretariat was addressing possibilities for a series of data bases that would, in the long run, form part of the “GAS Porthole Project”, which would not only provide reliable information on traffic, passenger movements, etc., but also on noise, emissions and other areas. Within that context there were already two main databases that had been developed through the CAEP process, dealing with the noise certification and emissions certification. Those data bases were already available on the web site and their maintenance would be included in the general reference to data bases in paragraph 4.1. 15. The Representative of France thanked the Secretariat for the presentation of C-WP/12760, and wished to pay tribute to the CAEP for all the work done to date. He nevertheless wished to recall that the Council and CAEP were working under Resolution A35-5 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection), which, in its Appendix A, spoke to the need for ICAO and its Contracting States “to achieve maximum compatibility between the safe and orderly development of civil aviation and the quality of the environment”. The Organization had an obligation to strive to limit or reduce the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, and in so doing use all instruments that it had, including operational, technical, and market-based instruments, to ensure the greatest possible compatibility. Under Appendix H of the same Resolution, the Council was asked “to continue to study policy options to limit or reduce the environmental impact of aircraft engine emissions and to develop concrete proposals and provide advice as soon as possible to the Conference of the parties of the UNFCCC, placing special emphasis on the use of technical solutions while continuing its consideration of market-based measures, and taking into account potential implications for developing as well as developed countries.” The Council was therefore not in a position to take a final decision at this time.

C-MIN 179/10 - 168 -

16. The Representative of Australia observed that the CAEP was making good progress on its work programme, with most of its tasks on track. Work on operational measures would need to be fully developed, and he supported the observations which had been made by the Representative of United States on that point. Australia supported the revised recommendations of the Council, particularly in the areas of future work. Australia wished the CAEP to be able to move to determine the effectiveness of ICAO’s efforts to deal with environmental issues through that Committee. It would be useful if further thinking could be focused on the role of ICAO, as well as that of the industry and States. For the future, there would need to be an estimate of resources required for future work. 17. The Representative of Argentina referred to the future tasks which should be brought to the attention of the CAEP in connection with the action proposed at paragraph 5.1 b) of C-WP/12760, and suggested, depending upon on the resources that were available, that the CAEP explore some market-based approaches that would make it possible to attain the objectives of Resolution A35-5 with a better balance between the economic burden on aviation and the growing emissions from that activity. Consideration should be given to the possibility of creating mechanisms that would provide the resources for fleet renewal and make current technology available to everybody. This would allow for a much more environmentally friendly worldwide aircraft fleet. 18. The Representative of India noted with satisfaction that the CAEP was undertaking a study on the magnitude of application of night curfews, and wished to know whether the study would result in some monitoring of noise at local airports or also result in the imposition of certain charges relating to noise, as was being contemplated under the emission charges. C/ENV indicated that in accordance with the request of the Assembly, the CAEP had studied the status of the implementation of such measures. It had simply made a panorama of what was going on in the world in terms of application of curfews, when they occurred, where they occurred, and at what level, and had not gone beyond that step. A report would be presented to the Assembly on the results, and the Assembly would then decide if there was a need for a second step. 19. Further to a query raised by the Representative of South Africa, C/ENV clarified that where reference was made to 3,000 feet for distinguishing between local and global emissions, that measure concerned the level of the airport itself, and not sea level. The 3,000 foot landing and take-off cycle applied to all airports in assessing emissions. The first 3,000 feet above the level of the airport was used to measure the local air quality emissions and anything above that would be considered for assessing climate change. Many different approaches were taken when making a general assessment of emissions; these included scheduled traffic, performance of aircraft, rudder data, and gate-to-gate data. 20. The Representative of Nigeria observed that the issue of emissions was very technical in terms of operational procedures at airports or the policies that were applied and the cross effect between noise and emissions. It was for this reason that the issue that had been raised by the Representative of Argentina was pertinent. It might be necessary to give consideration to other forms of looking at how to balance the issue of emissions with the growth of air transport. The Representative of Nigeria wished to know what action would be taken with respect to the suggestion of the Representative of Argentina. He also wished to know if the issue of night curfews, that had been rightly posed by India, would be documented for discussion in the Council so that it could advise the Assembly accordingly. 21. C/ENV indicated that the process for the development of the work programme of CAEP involved input from the various groups of CAEP, its members and the observer organizations at meetings, as well as suggestions from the Secretariat which took note of the suggestions put forward during the discussions in Council. All of these elements would be brought under the last agenda item at the CAEP

C-MIN 179/10

- 169 -

meeting, which concerned the preparation of the work programme. In light of all the suggestions, the CAEP would establish priorities which would be included in the report to Council for its approval during the next session. The Council would have an opportunity to comment on that work programme and suggest changes. In principle, the suggestions that were being made today were being noted by the Secretariat and would be considered at the CAEP meeting. As regards curfews, the subject would be included among the deliverables that would be presented to the CAEP for approval or amendment as part of its report to Council during the next session. It was expected that a report would be presented to Council in March 2007 since the next CAEP meeting would take place in February. 22. The Representative of Cameroon suggested that the instructions which the Council was being requested to provide to the CAEP on the basis of Resolution A35-5, Appendix H, include an instruction to CAEP to continue to study the policy options, looking at the possible impact for developing countries. 23. The Representative of South Africa shared the views expressed by the Representatives of Argentina and Nigeria, and, commenting on the issue of night curfews, believed that information was available to indicate that airplanes today were less noisy than those of earlier generations. The Representative of South Africa wished to know if night curfews, especially in Europe, were being discontinued because of this. C/ENV indicated that the CAEP would be delivering a study on curfews, but wished to point out that under the current policy of ICAO, curfews were considered as part of an operating restriction at an airport and represented one of the four elements of the balanced approach. Curfews were decided on a case-by-case basis taking into account the situation of each airport. 24. The Representative of Saint Lucia wished to be associated with the views expressed by the Representatives of Argentina, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. 25. In taking action on the basis of the revised paragraph 5.1 presented in Corrigendum No. 1 to C-WP/12760, the Council acknowledged the substantial work being undertaken in the CAEP in preparation of the Seventh Meeting of CAEP, scheduled to take place from 5 to 16 February 2007. The Council agreed with the deliverables envisaged, while noticing that the deliverable of the guidance on emission trading depended on the guidance to be provided by the ICAO Council in connection with the next item on the order of business (C-WP/12807; Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading). As regards the future work of the CAEP, the Council agreed with the initial Secretariat proposal. The Secretary of the CAEP took note of the comments arising during the Council’s consideration of this issue, and would communicate these proposals, and any other proposals that may emerge during the discussion of the subsequent environment-related papers, back to CAEP. The Council would consider the future work programme of the CAEP as part of its consideration of the CAEP/7 report.

Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading

26. The Council commenced its review of C-WP/12807, in which the Secretary General presented the information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading. 27. Under general comments, the Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he had consulted the UNFCCC Secretariat on the meaning of the expression “not provided for”, and had ascertained that “not provided for” meant simply that it was not included in the text. There was nothing in the UNFCCC or Kyoto Protocol that would prevent States from including emissions from non-Annex I

C-MIN 179/10 - 170 -

States and Annex I States in any emissions trading scheme they should develop. There was a need to be very clear that this was a discretionary regime and nothing prevented the inclusion of aviation emissions in an emissions trading scheme. 28. The Representative of Finland observed that the Council had a difficult task in providing guidance to CAEP. Recalling the previous discussion in the Council and the two briefings, he observed that most of the Representatives had certain preconceived notions and were not much influenced by additional information or briefings. There also seemed to be a tendency to interpret various statements, papers and resolutions in different ways in order to support one’s view. In one respect at least, Resolution A35-5 was very clear; the Council’s guidance for an emissions trading scheme should be consistent with the UNFCCC process. As C/ENV had pointed out in her introduction to the paper, there were definitions of domestic and international flights and both stated that an emissions scheme should apply regardless of the nationality of the carrier. The Representative of Finland was grateful for the additional information provided by the United Kingdom, stating quite clearly that any State or any group of States had the discretion to take certain action or to refrain from taking certain action. The Council had been informed that the European Commission was finalizing a proposal which would no doubt be very useful for continuing discussion. Any developments would take place slowly and discussion would continue. If the Council insisted on trying to give useful information to the CAEP at this time, it would have difficulties reaching any kind of consensus. 29. The Representative of France supported the views expressed by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Finland. It was important to note, from paragraph 2.4 of C-WP/12807, that the only mention of international aviation in the Kyoto Protocol was found in Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Protocol where reference was made to ICAO. The Kyoto Protocol only related to domestic aviation which ICAO did not regulate. Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol did not contain any relevant provisions for international aviation emissions and handed back to ICAO its own responsibilities, those being what was found under Appendix A of Resolution A35-5. It was up to ICAO and its Contracting States to determine what that regime might be, quite independent of what was found in the Kyoto Protocol. As regards the guidance that was being sought of the Council at this time, the Representative of France observed that Resolution A35-5 envisaged a study of all options, and that it would be premature to close the door on any of them by taking a decision in this area today. 30. The Representative of Japan referred to the comments which had been offered by the Representative of the United Kingdom, and observed that notwithstanding the question of whether a State had the discretion to include international civil aviation in an emissions trading system, the emissions or reductions in international civil aviation could not be taken into account in assessing whether a State could meet the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol because the emissions from international civil aviation were outside the scope of the Kyoto Protocol. 31. The Representative of Spain observed that the optimal solution would be for civil aviation throughout the world to follow the same Standards to reduce emissions whatever way possible. The proposal for an emissions trading scheme, originated by the United States, had not been received well at the beginning, but States had eventually recognized that it could be a good procedure for reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Given the specific nature of aviation and the fact that it needed fossil fuel to operate, a process would have to be agreed upon to offset the impact of aviation on the atmosphere, and it was generally agreed that the best way to go about it would be to go for emissions trading. Taking into consideration that this would be applied equally and simultaneously by all, one could make some headway, perhaps not by tackling the whole world at once but by starting with one region.

C-MIN 179/10

- 171 -

32. The Representative of the United States observed that it should come as no surprise that neither the UNFCCC nor the Kyoto Protocol provided guidance on the inclusion of international aviation emissions in trading schemes, and it did not really matter whether Annex I or non-Annex I Parties were involved. In this sense, he agreed with the Representative of France that the issue was irrelevant to what was before the Council today, because in the end the issue of emissions was the responsibility of ICAO. The Organization’s first Standards on aviation emissions were set in 1981, far pre-dating the existence of either the United Nations Framework or Kyoto. It was crucial that ICAO carry out its responsibilities in this area. ICAO operated on the basis of agreement among States, and it rejected the concept that one State or group of States could impose an emissions scheme on other States without their consent. ICAO also operated on the principle of non-discrimination among States. Therefore, allowing a State or group of States to impose its system on other Contracting States without their consent would establish a bad precedent. 33. The Delegation of the United States appreciated the fact that Representatives of the European Commission had traveled to Montreal to provide a briefing. From that briefing and the questions and answers, the Council had learned that the European Union was at a very preliminary stage in considering how to apply emissions trading systems to international aviation. The Council had been given no specific proposals. It had, however, learned that the current trading system within Europe had problems. There was price volatility, some companies were gaming the system to generate large profits, and there were lawsuits against States. The Council had learned that much work needed to be done to improve and mature the current system. Although at least three Members of the Council had asked the question, the Representative of the United States did not believe that the Council ever got an answer to what had to be a critical question for those on the Council. Specifically, if South African Airways wished to initiate a flight from Cape Town to Madrid, or if Qantas wished to initiate a flight from Sydney to Brussels, or if American Airlines wished to initiate a flight from Los Angeles to London, how much would these airlines have to pay for emissions credits for the right to take off from Cape Town, Sydney or Los Angeles to fly over their own airspace and then over the high seas and to land in Europe? And who would benefit from this economic penalty? Would it be the German steel companies, or the British utilities, that were selling these emission credits? Perhaps there was no answer to that question yet, but without any specific information on how Europe would apply its yet undeveloped system to the airlines of other States, they could not write a blank cheque here today. 34. More importantly, how would CAEP finish its work without any knowledge of how the European Union system would apply to international aviation? It was essential that CAEP finish its work and provide the guidelines on an emissions trading system to meet the directive of the Assembly in Resolution A35-5, and that directive specifically instructed the Council to provide guidance on “the structural and legal basis for aviation’s participation in an open emissions trading system”. Guidance from the Assembly also required the Council to take into consideration the interests of all parties concerned, including developing countries. There had been an excellent briefing by CAEP’s Emissions Trading Task Force, reflecting thoughtful analysis and many hours of hard work. Now the Council had to do its job. It had to act today to provide the guidance that CAEP had asked so that they could finish the job that was to the benefit of every Member of the Council, to complete its work on the premise that emissions trading systems would be instituted only on the basis of mutual agreement among States. Everyone would benefit, including States who were members of the EU, if CAEP completed the guidelines. At the same time, the Council should continue its dialogue with the EC on its proposal as it was developed further. Market-based systems could be more efficient than taxes, charges and command and control regulation. Everyone could learn from the work of the EC on this important issue, so it was necessary to keep that dialogue open. As that proposal became more concrete and its implications for international aviation clearer, CAEP might want to take a look at that proposal and see how it would be implemented.

C-MIN 179/10 - 172 -

35. The Council’s task today, however, was clear. The Council would have to recommit to the principle that ICAO worked by agreement among the States and that one State or group of States could not impose its particular design of an emission trading system on other States without their participation and consent. If the Council failed to take action today, CAEP might fail and the Council would fail to complete the specific work directed by the Assembly, the development of guidelines on emission trading systems, which would benefit everyone, including the EC which had said that it was looking forward to reviewing and following those guidelines. The Delegation of the United States would strongly support guidance and instructions to CAEP from the Council to complete its work based on the premise of mutual agreement among the parties, and to continue the discussion with the EC. As that proposal became more concrete, the CAEP might wish to continue to develop an alternative approach that would be based on the specific proposal developed through the EU process. The United States had no objection to CAEP looking at that second issue as well, but urged the Council to finish the work in time for the Assembly and start with the premise that States must agree and consent to participation in such a system. 36. The Representative of Australia concurred that the position of most States was fairly well established at this point, and while much of the information received was useful in bringing a few more facts to the table, positions were unchanged from when the Council had last had this debate in October. Australia appreciated the UNFCCC advice. There was nothing new in that advice; it was the settled accepted interpretation of that Treaty and the issue of allocation of emissions arising from mobile sources such as aviation had not been settled. The issues of measurement and of units exchange had been highlighted in the briefing from the ETTF. The UNFCCC provided for flexible approaches; trading was one mechanism, and there were others. Overall, that scheme gave considerable flexibility to States as to how they met targets. While Australia had not actually ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it had elected to meet the target in that document and was on track to meet it. Australia’s position on fuels was identical to that of the Kyoto Protocol. 37. The issue at hand had a number of aspects. Apart from the UNFCCC and its regime, there was the Chicago Convention, and the Council was now dealing with the interaction between those two conventions. An Assembly Resolution directed the Council to do particular work. The Council was in the middle of the work cycle for that, and the Representative of Australia was very pleased to hear that the European Commission would be respecting ICAO processes. He assumed that would be the position of most European States as well. The Representative of the United States had made a number of valid points with which Australia agreed, and the Representative of Australia asked that in its decision, the Council urge Contracting States to refrain from unilateral action to implement an emissions trading system for international aviation before the Council reported to the Assembly on its work to implement Assembly Resolution A35-5. 38. The Representative of Argentina fully agreed with what had been said by the Representative of Spain. It was true that the Council had to do something at this time. Although the Representatives of Finland and France had expressed their views saying that the Council could not resolve anything right now, it could always refers to bilateralism and agreement among States no matter what measures were being referred to. The CAEP had indicated that it wanted to make progress regionally. The Council had to admit that it really could not resolve the matter today, but it could not let it go under full silence. The Council had to applaud the efforts that were being made, but had to follow up on Resolution A35-5 as well. The Representative of Argentina suggested that the Council take into consideration the fact that no matter what convention or agreement was struck bilaterally or by participating States initially, ICAO’s recommendation would be that no matter what trading scheme was

C-MIN 179/10

- 173 -

opted for, the emissions produced in the airspace of the countries that had reached such an agreement would be reduced. 39. The Representative of Canada fully supported the statements by the Representatives of the United States and Australia; there should be no imposition of a group of States on others. CAEP should be directed by the Council to continue its work. There should hopefully be a consensus on doing that, or at least non-opposition from Council members who advocated a minority position. The Representative of South Africa also endorsed the intervention by the Representative of the United States, as did the Representative of the Republic of Korea, who emphasized that the EC’s policy should not go ahead of ICAO’s process. 40. The Representative of Germany could wholeheartedly support the intervention of the United States, in as far as her delegation also thought that the work of CAEP needed to be continued, and would clearly favour a multilateral solution for the problem of environmental protection to any regional solution. However, if no real tangible progress was made, regions had to be free to protect themselves, their citizens, and their territory from any risks that they may consider to be imminent, including risks that may emerge from environmental change. This included protection from aircraft from third country carriers. To establish a scheme in a region did not mean imposing that system on the rest of the world. It was just a question of equal treatment and non-discrimination. If it were not applied to third country carriers it would discriminate against the region’s own carriers because obligations would be imposed on them which third country carriers would not have to bear; clearly, a competitive economic disadvantage to the region’s industry. It would not mean that the region who applied a certain scheme imposed its will on the rest of the world, because it would not force third countries to adopt the same scheme. These countries, even though not doing anything to protect the environment against potential damage, would be free to do nothing and still have their carriers participate in bilateral trade to the region which implemented a scheme, provided the carriers complied with the same rules as carriers in the region. It was a question of non-discrimination and national treatment. 41. Resolution A35-5 did not necessarily set a need or obligation for the Council to give guidance one way or another for a voluntary scheme or for an open emissions trading scheme on a non-mutual agreement basis, it simply indicated that under both approaches, the Council should ensure the guidelines for an open emissions trading system should address the structure and legal basis for aviation’s participation in an open emissions trading system. The resolution clearly spoke about both options which could be kept open until the next Session of the Assembly. If the Council took any decision one way or the other today, it might close the door to further cooperation towards a compromise that might be found during the coming months when, for instance, the proposal of the EU was on the table. The European Community offered full cooperation with CAEP discussions, taking into account arguments that might be elaborated and discussed in the CAEP. The work of the Organization might be an input to the work of the EU in the further development of the proposal. Germany would favour a multilateral solution. However, it would be strongly opposed to any decision by the Council today which would exclude individual regions from taking the steps they considered to be necessary to protect themselves. 42. The Representative of Austria shared the views of Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Germany. It was her Delegation’s position that emissions from aviation did have a global impact; the problem should therefore be addressed on a global level. Closing the door would not be the right way forward and might also not be a good signal for any future discussions. 43. The Representative of India recalled that in its presentation, the EC had clearly stated that it expected ICAO’s procedure to be evolved in due course. ICAO worked on the principle of cooperation and consensus and even under the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I Parties were only supposed to pursue and

C-MIN 179/10 - 174 -

work through ICAO. The most important word was to “pursue”. The Assembly had resolved that there would be no unilateral imposition of emission-related levies. The Assembly Resolution with regard to emissions trading was very clear; it simply referred to developing work further. The Council had the task of giving guidance to the CAEP so that it could come up with recommendations while keeping the spirit of cooperation, consensus and mutual agreement of Contracting States in view. 44. The Representative of Nigeria agreed with the Representatives of the United States, Australia, and India regarding the need for mutual agreement and to refrain from a unilateral approach to this matter. There were no commitments in terms of deadlines for those States who were non-Annex I Parties. Non-Annex I States nevertheless decided to take commitments on themselves, and the Kyoto Protocol also referred to the need to rely on the support of those countries. These underlying principles should guide the work of the Organization, and whatever it did should be in consonance with what was happening overall in the world. The Representative of Nigeria wished for the guidance to CAEP to address the issue of mutual agreement, the issue of a unilateral approach being refrained from, but also to pay attention to the targets, commitments and underlying principles that were set for countries in Annex I, countries in Annex II, and non-Annex I countries. 45. The Representative of Saudi Arabia did not doubt that Representatives on the Council had predetermined positions and that these were based on what had been already been agreed on in the Resolutions of the Assembly; any additional information would be welcomed as long as that information did not require any action inconsistent with the Assembly Resolutions. Saudi Arabia wished to join Australia, Canada, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, India and Nigeria in supporting the statement that had been made by the Representative of United States, who had reminded the Council of very fundamental issues that had to be taken into consideration. 46. The Representative of Saint Lucia wished to associate himself with the views of the United States, Canada, India, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, the Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia. His concern was with the future of the Organization. On any matter, be it the environment or another subject, if ICAO sat back and allowed States to unilaterally take decisions, such action would destroy the whole premise on which the Organization was built and continued to grow. It was for this reason that previous speakers had said that the unilateral position was not the way forward. Guidance to CAEP should be in accordance with the comments made by the Representative of India. 47. The Representative of Pakistan indicated that his Delegation completely supported the environment; there was no denying that ICAO was in danger of taking a back seat on the subject. The issue of emissions trading and emissions charges was a very sensitive one, and the ICAO principle of globalization and bilateralism should be totally reinforced. At the EC presentation, a number of questions from Council Members had gone unanswered as the EC was in a very preliminary stage. The EC had accepted the principle that it would follow ICAO guidelines and not take unilateral action. The Representative of Pakistan supported the comments made by the Representative of the United States, as well as the views offered by the Representatives of Australia, India, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. The CAEP should be given a clear signal to proceed further but while respecting the Assembly Resolution and the Council decisions. 48. The Representative of the United Kingdom observed that as Germany had pointed out, there was a clear tension between non-discrimination and imposition which could not be resolved at this time because there was not enough information. If the Council were to decide today to give instructions to CAEP in the direction of only having mutual agreement, it would in effect be endorsing discrimination, and that clearly was something it could not do. The terms of Resolution A35-5 were very clear; there was

C-MIN 179/10

- 175 -

no need for additional guidance to CAEP. The CAEP needed to carry on and follow through on the instructions it had been given by the Assembly and to complete its task and to report back to the Council. 49. The Representative of Colombia supported all efforts to protect the environment, but maintained that with regard to the CAEP and the work it was doing, any decision taken by ICAO had to be based on agreement and not on unilateralism. The Committee was there to evaluate, to assess the various possibilities and, when the subject was mature, to come before the Council with the various options and the scientific justification, on the basis of which the Council may take a decision. The discussions at this and earlier meetings had shown very clear positions. The CAEP should continue to work and when the proposals were sufficiently mature, the Council would be prepared to take a decision. 50. The Representative of France observed that there were certain elements which Representatives could all agree on. There was the desire to reduce pollution caused by aviation, and a recognition of ICAO’s responsibility in this area. The measures ICAO could take were reflected in Resolution A35-5, and would involve setting up a multilateral, mandatory international arrangement. Was ICAO capable of doing this? Was it ready to do it? The only alternative would be national or regional systems, the possibility of which was recognized in Resolution A35-5. Those who seriously and sincerely wanted to reduce aviation-caused pollution could undertake such measures. CAEP had raised a question that should not have been raised and the Council should not answer that question because as far as national and regional systems were concerned, Resolution A35-5 did not set any particular limitations. It was not for the Council to take the place of the Assembly and decide on something that the Assembly had not decided. With regard to non-discriminatory treatment, it was true that there was an economic aspect. Obviously, if a regional emissions trading system only applied to the airlines of the States in that region, there could be a lack of equity and an economic imbalance, but it was possible the countries in a region that wanted to do something might be dissuaded by the idea that their own airlines would be penalized and that there could really be discrimination. There was a need to look at the other texts on the environment, i.e. the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements. Those texts talked about fixed sources and nationality was never taken into account. The subsidiary of an American company that set up in Europe was counted in Europe not in the United States. The same applied in aviation; there was no distinction on the basis of nationality. The CAEP should really not have asked this question and the Council should not answer it because if it did, it would be going beyond its powers and taking the place of the Assembly. 51. The Representative of Mexico recalled that at the time of the presentation by the European Commission, he had had the impression that many questions had not been answered with regard to the maturity of the system for emissions trading. This obviously created a situation in which there was not enough information to be able to set up a global emissions trading system. It would not in his view be sensible to allow one region to set up a globally applicable emissions trading system. Similar situations had arisen in the past with other issues, when a Contracting State had tried to impose internationally its will in a particular area. There had been opposition from other States and it had been felt that this was a unilateral measure with a significant impact, calling for cooperation in order to find a different solution. Various solutions had been put forward. As the Representative of United States had asserted, the Council had to give direction to the CAEP and ask it to continue to move forward in developing material, particularly in the area of scientific evidence that could support a global system. In any case, if a State or region wanted to establish an emissions trading system, it would have to be done on a bilateral or multilateral basis. 52 The Representative of Honduras believed that the Council we should support bilateralism but also encourage regional multilateral arrangements. His Delegation therefore supported what had been said by the United States, Canada, Australia, Nigeria, India, and others.

C-MIN 179/10 - 176 -

53. Commenting briefly, the Representative of Peru also support the statements made by the United States, Australia, Canada, and others. 54. The Representative of Cameroon understood the importance and urgency of environmental problems in certain parts of the world, especially in Europe, and believed that ICAO must play a leadership role in this area. His Delegation was particularly inclined to support one solution, working within the framework of Resolution A35-5, which made it quite clear that there was a need to abstain from unilateral measurements, as the Representatives of the United States, Canada, and others had said. 55. The Representative of Italy fully supported the views of the Representative of Germany, and asked Members of the Council to reconsider their views on the problems which existed and the efforts of a region which was willing to do something. 56. The Representative of China supported the view of the majority and supported full consultation in order to achieve a consensus. 57. In suspending discussion on the subject, the President of the Council wished to remind Representatives that the CAEP was a Council Committee; it was not a body that could take decisions without the support of the Council, and certainly not without the support of the Assembly. If the Council decided here to give instructions of any kind, it must never feel that it was closing any doors because the Council had to receive information from CAEP and decide what was to be proposed to the Assembly. The Assembly would take the final decisions. The President encouraged Representatives to think about what had been said at this meeting, to think about the Assembly Resolution, the commitment and the understanding of the Council vis-à-vis the Assembly. Representatives should give further thought to any complete or partial guidance that the Council might be able to adopt so that it could move forward. This complex issue had many technical, social and political aspects. 58. Further consideration of the subject was deferred to the next meeting. Other business Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Addition of item to the work programme for the 179th Session 59. In accordance with a request put forward by the Representative of Japan, an item entitled “The principle in the determination of scales of assessment”, documented in C-WP/12815 presented by Japan, was added to the work programme for the current (179th) Session. Subject No. 6.3:Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Selection of the President of the Air Navigation Commission 60. The President of the Council indicated that following the distribution of his memorandum PRES RK/1314 dated 15 November 2006 attaching the “Procedures for the selection of the candidate preferred by the Commission for President of the ANC”, he had received a suggestion that the Council may wish to interview both candidates on their vision for the ANC.

C-MIN 179/10

- 177 -


Request for approval by the Council for the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Minister of Transport of Singapore

61. The President referred to his upcoming mission to Singapore to address as a keynote speaker the World Civil Aviation Chief Executives Forum of the Singapore Aviation Academy, and informed the Council of his intention, unless he heard from the Council to the contrary, to seize this opportunity to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Minister of Transport of Singapore which would extend and expand the ICAO-Singapore Developing Country Training Programme for a further three years. 62. The meeting adjourned at 1330 hours.

C-MIN 179/11

- 179 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 27 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada —*Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Atl.)


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. S. Watanabe (Adv.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB *Mr. A.R. Diallo — C/HRB *Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB *Mr. B.M. Perguillan — EPM *Mrs. J. Hupe — C/ENV *Mrs. M. Boulos — EPM *Miss N.E. Onyedim — FO/FAF *Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB *Miss D.Wall — A/C/REC/EST *Mrs. L.M. Comeau-Stuart — CO/REC/EST Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/11 - 180 -


Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading

1. The Council resumed (179/10) and completed its review of C-WP/12807, in which the Secretary General presented the information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading. 2. After considering the additional information provided by the CAEP Emissions Trading Task Force (ETTF) on the status of the development of the various key elements proposed in their guidance; by the European Commission on their experience with emissions trading in Europe; by the UNFCCC Secretariat, on whether under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol it would be possible for a State or a group of States to include in their emissions trading schemes the emissions of aircraft operators of non-Annex I States; and in light of substantial discussions, the Council:

a) noted, based on the information provided by the UNFCCC Secretariat:

i) that emissions trading is one of the three voluntary flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol;

ii) that the inclusion of international aviation emissions, of either Annex I

Parties or non-Annex I Parties is not provided for in emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol; and

iii) that the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol confer no guidance in relation to

emissions trading schemes that are not provided for in either of these agreements, such as those developed by Parties or groups of Parties, but instead, in its Article 2.2, the Kyoto Protocol states that the Parties included under its Annex I (developed countries) should pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases from aviation working through ICAO;

b) remained supportive of the development of guidance on aviation emissions

trading and agreed that CAEP should continue its work to complete this guidance as requested by the Assembly, while acknowledging that emissions trading is an evolving subject in various fora and that in light of further developments this guidance can be reviewed and updated at the discretion of Council;

c) agreed that, in view of the lack of experience on international aviation emissions

trading, CAEP should ensure that its guidance be as general as possible and that it should not contain material that conflicts with the principles of the Chicago Convention, the UNFCCC, or Assembly resolution A35-5 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection), and that, in addition, the guidance should avoid any provisions that could result in the duplication of emissions accounting by ensuring that the inclusion of international aviation in any existing scheme provides for the linkage with other schemes;

d) requested that CAEP, in completing its draft guidance, adopt the same principle

used in the drafting of other key elements of this guidance, by including the

C-MIN 179/11

- 181 -

different options to geographic scope describing their advantages and disadvantages and start to address the integration of foreign aircraft operators under a mutually agreed basis, and continue to analyze further options ;

e) requested CAEP to consider the addition of a new item in its future work

programme related to the economic analysis of the financial impact of including international aviation emissions in existing trading schemes;

f) urged Contracting States to refrain from unilateral action to implement an

emissions trading system for international aviation before the Council reports to the Assembly on its work to implement Assembly Resolution A35-5; and

g) agreed to return to this subject while considering the CAEP/7 Report, at its

180th Session.

Review of the implementation of Assembly Resolution A35-5 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection)

3. The Council reviewed C-WP/12761 presented by the Secretary General. The paper presented the actions taken by ICAO in response to the requests to Council emanating from Resolution A35-5, discussed outstanding issues responding to the requests related to aviation emissions reduction measures in Appendices H and I of this resolution, and provided information on ICAO’s relationship with other UN bodies. Council was requested to consider a process for these issues and options, which addressed long-term action on aviation emissions. 4. Introducing C-WP/12761, C/ENV informed the Council that after issuance of the paper, another substantial meeting on the Framework Convention process had taken place. The UN Climate Change Conference had been held in Nairobi from 6 to 17 November 2006 and had involved a series of UN meetings including the twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP/12) and the UNFCCC, and the second conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties of the Kyoto Protocol, COP/MOP/2. These events had been substantial and had been attended by almost 6,000 participants. Among the important developments, the COP/MOP/2 parties had taken up issues related to the Protocol’s flexible mechanism and in particular the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. They had taken many steps related to the practicalities of the implementation of such flexible mechanisms. Another major outcome from that meeting had been a first Amendment to the Protocol. There had been an agreement that Belarus would now take on an emissions reduction commitment under Annex B to the Protocol. Annex B of the Protocol now included Belarus. 5. The meeting’s primary focus had been on long term action on climate change, and on developing a framework of actions once the Kyoto Protocol first commitment period would finish in 2012. A multi-track approach to those issues agreed in COP/11 and COP/MOP/1 which had taken place in Montreal had continued in Nairobi under the Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention, held on 15 and 16 November 2006. This workshop had focused on advancing development goals in a sustainable way and realizing the full potential of market-based opportunities. The dialogue had also considered the newly published Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. 6. Together with the COP/MOP meeting there had been some meetings of their Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI). Of main interest for aviation, the SBSTA had under its agenda the discussion on methodological

C-MIN 179/11 - 182 -

issues related with international bunker fuels. Although on the meeting’s agenda, discussion on the issue had been postponed to the next meeting with no specific decision taken. 7. The Representative of the United Kingdom wished to know if any documentation on the discussions of the SBSTA was available to the Council and/or the CAEP, and requested more information on the membership and status of the group which would examine and prepare an emissions plan. C/ENV indicated that thus far, the discussions in the SBSTA had not resulted in an agreement and there was therefore no specific paper to refer to other than the papers that had been presented in its 22nd session and that were available on the web-site under the Framework Convention Secretariat and under the ICAO web-site on the statements that it had provided to other organizations. As regards the emissions plan, in accordance with the established CAEP process, the Secretariat was envisaging a consultative group. The CAEP did not have a Chairperson as such between meetings; CAEP/7 was expected to define a structure for undertaking the regular work programme with specific tasks, and from the Secretariat’s point of view it would be helpful to have a temporary group in the CAEP, along the same lines of those established in the past, that the Secretariat could consult with to ensure that the experts in CAEP would be more involved in preparations for the Assembly. It would be very helpful to have that group’s input while preparing the aviation emissions plan in addition to overviewing activities in general. 8. The Representative of France had difficulty accepting the proposal for establishing a group which would provide guidance with preparations for the Assembly, since he believed that the CAEP could be relied upon to carry out that task. The Representative of Austria indicated that she was also not convinced about the need to establish a group which, as described by C/ENV, seemed quite informal, and wished to know what mechanism had been used in preparing for the last Assembly. She also wished to know to whom the group would report and how the members would be selected, and requested more information on the mandate of the group. 9. C/ENV indicated that at the time of the last Assembly, there had been sufficient time for the CAEP itself to discuss policy issues, redraft proposals for Assembly Resolutions, and present recommendations directly to the Assembly. The situation was not the same for the forthcoming Assembly session; not as much progress had been made on various elements, and it was for this reason that the Secretariat considered it appropriate to have the support of a group whose members would be elected by the CAEP itself. It would, in fact, be up to the CAEP to take a decision on whether to form such a group. 10. The Representative of Japan was open to the proposal for establishing a small group to discuss aviation emissions, but requested clarification on the expected outcome of the group’s work. Would it aim to produce a work plan of CAEP- or ICAO-related activities, or to produce an overview of measures taken or to be taken? The first outcome would be inconsistent with the established process for managing the Organization’s work, and the second would touch upon matters of substance. The Representative of Japan observed that in any case, the composition of the group would need to be based upon a fair regional balance. 11. The Representative of Spain indicated that like some previous speakers, he would have difficulty with the proposal for yet another sub-group. It seemed that the members of the CAEP should be capable of communicating amongst themselves by e-mails or video conferencing. 12. The Representative of the United States observed that there were some very positive suggestions in C-WP/12761, and strongly supported ICAO’s continued leadership in taking cost-beneficial actions to address both aviation emissions and noise impacts. It seemed, however, that the Secretariat was proposing a set of actions that involved assigning a certain priority of work to CAEP and restructuring CAEP to carry out that work; that would involve the use of resources by CAEP members.

C-MIN 179/11

- 183 -

This would have a financial impact that would have to be clarified. There were many good ideas in the paper and in the work plan in Appendix A, and it was important that there be a more complete and fuller consultation with CAEP/7. The Representative of the United States suggested that the proposals and work plan be submitted to CAEP/7 for a full consultation. On the basis of the views and recommendations of CAEP, the Council would be able to consider further how to proceed, what the costs and benefits were of each proposal, and what work might have to be set aside in order to pursue some of the initiatives that were suggested in the work plan. During the 177th Session (177/11), a number of suggestions had been made by Representatives during its review of a paper on market-based measures to reduce aircraft emissions; perhaps those could also be taken into account in considering what the best use of resources would be going forward. 13. The Representative of South Africa noted with interest and gratitude the CAEP developments described in paragraph 4 of C-WP/12761, and endorsed the action proposed in the paper. Some previous interventions seemed to indicate that the Council wishes to involve itself in matters which should be left to the CAEP itself. 14. The Representative of India indicated that his Delegation had always been supportive of the initiatives taken by ICAO with regard to the environment. A careful reading of Assembly Resolution A35-5 revealed that the Assembly had given a definite framework to the CAEP, or whichever body was established, to work within. That Resolution said that ICAO should maintain the leadership role, that ICAO should assess continuously the environmental impacts, that it should disseminate information, that it should assist other bodies, and that it should provide a work programme for the CAEP to develop guidance and continue study. The Representative of India did not find a mention of development of an action plan anywhere in the Assembly Resolution. He therefore questioned the Secretariat’s concern with regard to the absence of a plan of action, especially since there was no input from CAEP, and the CAEP had nowhere mentioned that the absence of a plan was a cause of concern for that group. In accordance with Resolution A35-5, the task of ICAO should be to continuously monitor implementation of Standards and Recommended Practices, to see that guidance material developed by ICAO was being adhered to by States, and to encourage States to address environment-related matters. The proposal of the Secretariat seemed to be rather premature because if it was proposing the establishment of a special emissions group tasked with producing a plan of action, there would definitely be financial consequences which had not been elaborated in C-WP/12761. In the absence of views from the CAEP on this matter, the Representative of India suggested that it was premature to consider the proposal at this stage. 15. C/ENV had the impression that the proposal of the Secretariat was being understood as something much more significant than what the Secretariat envisaged. She did not think that there would be great financial implications for the creation of that group; the two previous “groups” had not met physically but had simply worked through e-mail communications. The Secretariat was trying to ensure that it had a process and a way of consulting with the experts in the time after the CAEP meeting and before the Assembly. The group would not create anything that would impose a financial burden on States, but would put together information that would convey, in a more easy to digest way, all the good work that the Organization had done and the plans that it had to continue to consider. More than anything else, the aim of the emissions plan was simply to convey information on the Organization’s ongoing work. The maximum financial implication would be that involved in convening a meeting of the group in order to make more progress. The practice was usually to communicate through conference calls and the e-mail system, with minimal financial implications. 16. The Representative of Germany fully supported and appreciated the leadership role ICAO had taken and should take in the future on environmental issues. Concerning the action plan and the establishment of a small group, after having listened to C/ENV she wondered if the Council really

C-MIN 179/11 - 184 -

needed to take action on a matter which in her view fell within the mandate of either the CAEP or the Secretariat. On the other hand, if the Council endorsed setting up such a group, it might be misinterpreted and seen as something that involved financial implications. As regards the action proposed in paragraph 5.1 b) 4) regarding the development of an ICAO emissions management policy, the Representative of Germany believed that inspiration should be taken from the balanced approach. The German Delegation could only regard local air quality, and not global climate, because it was very different from the noise abatement policy that was being implemented at airports at a local level. Differing circumstances may make different approaches necessary; but the protection of global climate was the same around the world. 17. The President of the Council trusted that the issue of the proposed group could be set aside at this time. C/ENV, the Secretary of the CAEP, would bring the matter to the attention of the CAEP/7 meeting without requiring a decision on the part of the Council as to whether or not to establish the group. 18. The Representative of Nigeria requested that any report material on the meeting that had taken place in Nairobi be circulated or at least provided to his Delegation. Referring to paragraph 4.7 of C-WP/12761, which described the sources from which further ICAO discussion on aviation emissions should draw, the Representative of Nigeria supported the suggestion put forward by the Representative of the United States concerning the need to take into account some of the suggestions that had been provided in earlier discussions in the Council. Recognizing that the Council should not discuss further the proposal for a small group, the Representative of Nigeria trusted that whenever and by whatever means that group was formed, all of the interests associated with the subject should be taken into account. As regards the action proposed in paragraph 5.1 b) 4) of the paper, the Representative of Nigeria requested that the issue of cross effect between the management of emissions and the management of noise be addressed as well. 19. The Representative of Cameroon added his Delegation’s support to the role of ICAO regarding environmental issues, and in light of the clarifications provided by C/ENV, suggested that the Council simply note the proposal of the Secretariat regarding the establishment of a group without taking a decision as to whether it should be set up or not. 20. The Representative of Australia wished to acknowledge a very useful working paper that underlined what work had been undertaken and where the Organization was going in the future. The Council had had some useful discussions highlighting what was in the paper and what was appropriate for Council to make decisions on at this stage. C/ENV had clarified that the resource implications would be minimal, with no additional resources required to carry forward the emissions plan. A great deal of the work was in the nature of planning for the future, and any more substantive resource requests would of course be brought forward by the Secretary General as part of the Budget process. The Council was, in essence, being asked to look at another deliverable from the process. Australia fully supported the proposal to have an emissions plan because it was important for ICAO to highlight the work that had been done. The Australian Delegation nevertheless believed that ICAO could be doing more. There was at the moment no agreed methodology for determining an emissions baseline for aviation emissions, nor any agreed way in which emissions reductions could be aggregated and reported at the airport or national level. Australia would agree with Nigeria that the methodology for trade-offs between noise and emissions was an important area that needed to be looked at in the future, and hoped that it could be included as a component of the emissions plan. 21. The Council took action on the subject on the basis of paragraph 5.1 of C-WP/12761, as amended in light of the debate, and:

C-MIN 179/11

- 185 -

a) acknowledged the substantial work and steps taken in response to the requests to the ICAO Council contained in Resolution A35-5 and continued to support these initiatives;

b) agreed in principle with the Secretariat proposal to develop a plan to pursue

aviation’s own dialogue on actions to address aviation emissions (local air quality (LAQ) and global climate), and to ensure ICAO’s leadership role in this matter. Possible next steps might include:

i) to develop an ICAO Emissions Plan with the support of CAEP based on

previous work by ICAO and Assembly policies in this area, the CAEP/5 Action Plan on Emissions, recommendations emanating from CAEP/7, and consultation with States and international organizations, taking into account the results of the Colloquium on Aviation Emissions;

ii) to propose the development of ICAO emissions management policy,

taking into account, amongst other things, the balanced approach to noise management and including the consideration of possible trade-offs between actions on noise and emissions as a future work item for CAEP; and

c) agreed that the Emissions Plan should be submitted to the Council prior to

submission to the 36th Session of the Assembly for consideration as ICAO’s input to the discussions in the UNFCCC process.

Subject No. 4: Appointment of the Secretary General

High-level Goals for the Secretary General 22. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in C-WP/12749, presented by the Secretary General. Further to the request which had been put forward during the 178th Session of the Council, the paper presented information on the concept of setting high-level goals for the Secretary General, as Chief Executive Officer of the Organization. 23. The Representative of Argentina observed that paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12749 contained a general listing of the responsibilities which fell to the Secretary General as the Chief Executive Officer of the Organization. If the action proposed in paragraph 6.1 was adopted, it should be expanded to include the fact that the Secretary General was responsible for implementing the Business Plan of the Organization. Everyone was expending a great deal of effort in developing this Business Plan, which would clearly delineate the action, responsibilities, and performance indicators being striven for, as well as the budgetary implications. 24. The Representative of Australia could appreciate the effort the Secretariat had put into the preparation of C-WP/12749, which was a useful paper but still had some way to go on a few issues. The Council and the Secretary General were the most significant parts of the governance of ICAO, and the Organization needed clarity of purpose for its effective governance. It was well established that organizations that did not operate with a clear purpose had a limited capacity to define long-term goals and were unlikely to meet the expectations of stakeholders. ICAO’s stakeholders were the governments and the peoples of its member States, and through the Strategic Objectives and the development of the

C-MIN 179/11 - 186 -

Business Plan, ICAO now had a far better set of long-term goals, such that it could start to meet the expectations of Contracting States. 25. The Representative of Australia agreed with the Representative of Argentina’s observations on the need to implement the Business Plan. The concept of success was another essential element of good governance; clear measures of success provided greater transparency about a body’s performance. For a regulatory coordination body like ICAO, the success could be determined by the levels of compliance or implementation of its Standards and other guidance material. The Organization had a process in train whereby it was starting to understand those levels of compliance through its two Audit Programmes. However, a body such as ICAO would also have to be able to build and maintain the respect of its stakeholders, and the individual stakeholders in ICAO’s communities did not always have to agree with the decisions of the Council; it was nevertheless essential that an organization like ICAO be regarded by its stakeholders as operating with competency and equity within its responsibilities. 26. C-WP/12749 correctly identified the fact that the Council was responsible for the appointment of the Secretary General and of the personnel, and Article 58 (Appointment of personnel) of the Convention went on to further expand on the strategic nature of the Council’s responsibilities in relation to staffing. The decision the Council had made was that the Secretary General was responsible through the Staff Code for the appointment of staff and the general administration. Since it was such an important position, the Council did devote a great deal of time in the selection process. Whereas the Council had access to useful information in the form of the Strategic Objectives, the Business Plan, and the various decisions and resolutions, the paper now under consideration could have benefited from an elaboration on the means to that end. There were two aspects, the concept of “how” and the values. It would be useful for the Council to clarify what those expectations were in terms of the “how” and the values, because where there was a lack of clarity there was a risk that a body would operate in a manner that was somewhat wider than what had been intended by its governing body. This could in turn lead to inappropriate use of resources and unintended outcomes. The Organization needed a mechanism that enabled Member States, through the Council, to have greater clarity on the methods, or the “how”, without necessarily impinging on the level of independence or objectivity that a CEO like the Secretary General should have. Perhaps a smaller group of the Council could have a closer look at the subject and report back, particularly since any action by the Council on these issues would have to be taken in a fully considered way. 27. The Representative of the United Kingdom suggested that in addition to the governance and success which the Representatives of Australia and Argentina had spoken about, the Council should add the question of transparency. He explained the process that was in place in his State for the appointment of senior ministers, whereby letters of appointment and the terms of appointment were accessible publicly on a website. The Representative of the United Kingdom would strongly associate himself with the ideas proposed by Argentina and Australia, and suggested that the elements set out in C-WP/12749 be codified in a more formal mechanism, either in a letter from the President on behalf of the Council or directly from the Council itself, to the Secretary General, giving him the opportunity to respond, explaining how he was going to achieve those objectives. As Australia had suggested, the subject could be analyzed by a small group. 28. The Representative of the United States appreciated the comments from Argentina, Australia and the United Kingdom as important food for thought. Paragraph 3.2 of C-WP/12749 described the two organizations that set high-level goals for their CEO’s, and pointed out that these high-level goals were closely linked to the high-level goals of their organizations; it seemed that ICAO now had in place the Strategic Objectives and a Business Plan, and was moving at a good pace to modernize its management systems to be more effective and efficient. It might be that there was an opportunity to

C-MIN 179/11

- 187 -

provide an additional link between the Council and the Secretariat, where the expectations of the Council from the Chief Executive Officer could be set forth more clearly in line with meeting the Strategic Objectives and implementing the Business Plan. The Representative of the United States agreed that a working group could be established, but wondered whether the Council did not already have in place an appropriate body which was the Working Group on Strategic Objectives. 29. The Representative of Colombia wished to pick up on the same line of reasoning and philosophy put forward by the Representatives of Argentina, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States regarding good governance, transparency and success as well as efficiency. In the light of all these points, his Delegation felt that both the Council and the Secretary General had common objectives and challenges to make sure that not only were they transparent in their management but that they were as ethical as possible in the development of their activities and in carrying out their public services. As regards professional responsibility, this was not simply a question of setting up a code of ethics, but rather of changing cultural policy. The Secretary General would make sure that each of the civil servants in ICAO was fully aware of the public values of transparency and that they adhered to these values in order to achieve the Organization’s objectives. This was absolutely essential in order to achieve specific results and to establish an ethical framework. 30. The Representative of Spain had difficulty with the goals and objectives listed in paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12749, which in his opinion fell under the mandate of the Council rather than the Secretary General. As ICAO’s CEO, the Secretary General managed the operations in the different Bureaux of the Organization. The Representative of Spain would have no problem with tasking a Council Study Group to study this paper in greater depth, and since there was already a considerable number of Council groups that already existed, the proposal of the Representative of the United States proposed was an excellent one. 31. The Representative of Canada did not support all of the points of view that had been expressed thus far; since he saw a need to not only clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary General but to clarify the institution of the Secretary General and to develop objectives which would help the individual surpass himself in carrying out his responsibilities. To simply compare ICAO with other specialized agencies and the United Nations was not a way of raising the standard; ICAO should reach higher and any comparison with the other specialized agencies of the United Nations would be useful only insofar as raising ICAO’s levels. Although the high-level goals and objectives listed in paragraph 4.1 were quite useful, the paper otherwise needed to be strengthened and expanded. 32. Responding to the observations of the Representative of Canada, the Secretary General recalled that C-WP/12749 had been developed by the Secretariat at the request of one Representative, and did not have the objective of presenting the high-level goals and objectives since it was not the Secretariat’s place to do so. The standardization of work across the board in the UN Common System was a recommendation of the United Nations, and the Secretariat had therefore turned to the other UN agencies to see how they worked. The Secretary General had endeavored to standardize procedures at ICAO by consulting the various Bureaux at Headquarters as well as the Regional Offices in order to unify the Organization. It was expected that this effort would eventually be extended to the entire United Nations. The procedure described by the Representative of the United Kingdom for selecting Department Ministers was appropriate when it concerned one State or administration, but in the case of ICAO there were 189 Contracting States which also belonged to a vast system of the United Nations with agencies throughout the world. 33. The Representative of France acknowledged that the Organization had a certain framework, including Strategic Objectives per activity, and that the Secretary General had the task of

C-MIN 179/11 - 188 -

achieving those objectives. It was also quite true, however, that the Council was in a position on a case-by-case basis to set operational objectives and assign them to the Secretary General. As an example, he recalled that at the end of the last session, the Council had mentioned the integration of the AVSEC Plan of Action into the Regular Programme Budget. Other objectives could also be envisaged, such as improving the efficiency of the financial system and adopting a better computer technology system. What the Organization was grappling with was how this general framework which was set by the Assembly worked, and what concrete measures could be adopted in order to achieve the Strategic Objectives and develop the Business Plan. The Representative of France could support the idea of assigning further work on this subject to the Working Group on Strategic Objectives. There would be a need to link this initiative with the appointment process. Before reviewing nominations to the post of Secretary General, the Council would have to deal with all of the possible operational problems that could arise within the Organization, whether financial, legal or other, and ask the candidates how they would resolve these problems. 34. The Representative of Pakistan believed that it was appropriate for ICAO, as a specialized agency of United Nations, to be compared with other United Nations specialized agencies. The Organization had taken the leap forward of formulating its Strategic Objectives and the same objectives were in place for the Assembly, the Council, the Secretary General and the Secretariat. At present, ICAO itself was going through a transformation phase where it was trying to introduce a new Business Plan, the first part of which some Council Members might have seen. Once the Council had complete documentation on the Business Plan which would be based on the Objectives, it would no longer be necessary to define other specialized objectives for the Secretary General because his definitely could not be different from the Organization’s. 35. In the present scenario, the Council had given a lot of hard work to the Secretary General. He had numerous agendas to deliver and had to show performance on many fronts. He worked under great pressure under the oversight of the Council. The Representative of Pakistan felt strongly that the Secretary General’s objectives should be the same of the Organization, as highlighted in the Business Plan. They were adequate and enough to gauge his effectiveness, efficiency and success. The result-oriented performance indicators in the Business Plan were quite elaborate. All precautions would have to be made for those performance indicators to become very qualitative and quantitative so that it would be possible to measure how the Business Plan was being implemented, how the Secretariat was working, and how the objectives were being achieved. The Representative of Pakistan could go along with the high-level goals and objectives outlined in paragraph 4 of C-WP/12749, with the understanding that the third and fourth bullet points were strengthened so that they conformed to the performance indicators. From his point of view, in the present scenario those performance indicators would be the ones which would help the Council to judge the performance of its Secretary General and the Secretariat. Once the Council had gained experience from this Business Plan, had matured, had received some feedback and had taken corrective actions, it would come to a stage where for the next Secretary General it could draft a very detailed appointment letter highlighting what were its expectations from him and how he was supposed to achieve them. For the present time, that should be enough and further complications should not be transferred to the Secretary General. 36. The Representative of Nigeria observed that the Organization was without a doubt going through a phase of reform while its normal programme of work was ongoing. Depending on the extent to which an Organization wanted to go, sometimes the best solution was to stop all work, put in place all of its reforms, and start again on a new slate. But in real life this was not possible. There was therefore always the problem of how to undertake reform in a way that the work would continue uninterrupted and the reform itself did not constitute a problem for that continuation of work. There lay the balance that the Organization would have look for in whatever it did. What was the Secretary General’s position? Was it

C-MIN 179/11

- 189 -

a position that was being balanced against that of the Council? Or was the President being balanced against the Council? The Organization needed to be clear on some of these issues. 37. To the extent that the Secretary General of ICAO was the Secretary of the ICAO Council, the Representative of Nigeria could agree to much of what had been said by the Representative of Pakistan. The Strategic Objectives, or by whatever term those principles were called, were the same for the Council and the Secretariat. The Council set the Strategic Objectives. The Secretary General responded with a proposal for a Business Plan. The Organization’s evolution towards a new way of budgeting was in the right direction. The Council was now talking of setting high-level goals and objectives for the Secretary General, and the Representative of Nigeria agreed with those who had observed that there was a need for some clarification on the institution. Whatever the Council decided, it would have to give consideration to the fact that ICAO did not exist on its own; it was a specialized agency of the United Nations and there was a need for special harmony. ICAO faced innovation, but there were still grounds for some harmonization to be within the UN System. It was not impossible that the Organization could provide good examples to the other UN agencies to follow. To that extent, it might have some new innovative ideas. It had implemented some of them when approaching the appointment of the Secretary General, because it had sent letters out and interviewed the candidates. That had been a new innovation, and there could be several additional innovations for the future which ICAO could work on. 38. A key element would be how to harmonize operations at the UN level. Some examples had been offered of what happened at the national level in various administrations, and whereas these could be looked at the difficulty remained that States used different systems in order to achieve transparency and delivery of service. An element common to everyone would be at the multilateral, UN level. Whether the President, the Council, and the Secretariat each had their own goals, the three all had the same objectives and there could not be much difference in what they did. The Assembly was there to set the general direction, the Council was supposed to undertake day-to-day monitoring of activities and giving guidance, and the Secretariat was supposed to implement. Matters should not be further complicated. 39. The Representative of Egypt observed that ICAO was witnessing a transformation in the sense that it was moving from the development of SARPs towards their implementation. Any stated objectives would have to be clear and specified, and the paper presented by the Secretariat covered those objectives which were based on the Strategic Objectives of the Organization, the Assembly Resolutions and the Council decisions, as well as in the Business Plan of the Organization. Such specific objectives would also help in the accountability issue. Commenting briefly, the Representative of Ethiopia concurred with the views and suggestions offered by the Representatives of Pakistan and Nigeria. 40. The Representative of Saudi Arabia pointed out that whereas past Council sessions had customarily addressed approximately thirty items, the most recent session had had forty items on its agenda and it had not been possible to complete all of them. The current session had some seventy-seven items and the Representative of Saudi Arabia had no idea how the Council would complete them. The Council was nevertheless still asking for more and more from the Secretariat. As had already been pointed out by the Representative of Australia, the Council had elaborated on this issue before the appointment of the Secretary General and the former Representative of Germany had, during the last session, indicated that the post of Secretary General was a high-level political post. The Saudi Arabian Delegation proposed that the Council stop discussing C-WP/12749 and give the Secretary General and the Secretariat the chance to focus on the main functions assigned to them, based on the Strategic Objectives developed for them. However, if the Council wished to continue the discussion on this matter, Saudi

C-MIN 179/11 - 190 -

Arabia believed that the proposals of the United States, Spain and France should be accepted and the issue should be referred to the Working Group on Strategic Objectives. 41. The Representative of Cameroon fully supported what had been said by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, because the Council had to avoid putting pressure on the Secretary General. For his part, the paper presented by the Secretariat was rather clear. ICAO was a UN agency and should align itself with the best practices of the UN. The Representative of Cameroon believed that paragraph 4.1 of the paper was sufficiently detailed and did not think that the Council should spend too much time on it but should let the Secretary General work. 42. The Representative of Italy observed that C-WP/12749 was well done, and that a number of interesting interventions had been made on the subject. He complimented in particular the Representative of Pakistan and also agreed with Saudi Arabia and Cameroon. The Council could postpone further consideration of the subject for one or two years and after that consider the situation again. 43. The Representative of Tunisia also supported the interventions of Pakistan, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, and cautioned against placing more pressures on the Secretariat in a way that would negatively affect performance. Paragraph 4.1 of the paper was sufficiently detailed and gave more information to the Council about how work is performed in the Secretariat. 44. The Representative of Japan added his support to the proposal that the issue be considered by the Working Group on Strategic Objectives. The paper was not, to his understanding, aiming to criticize or pressure the Secretary General; it could provide a good opportunity for the Secretary General to express how he could attentively and effectively implement his management business, the framework of which was provided by the Strategic Objectives, the Business Plan, and other mechanisms. Before considering the matter in a lengthy discussion, the idea needed to be elaborated and more structured so that the Council could have a discussion on the same understanding. The Working Group on the Strategic Objectives would be the better vehicle to initiate this project. 45. The Council referred the information presented in C-WP/12749 to its Working Group on the Organization’s Strategic Objectives, with the understanding that a further report on the subject could be presented to the Council at an appropriate time and as priorities in its work programme allowed. Subject No. 7.2: Recruitment policy Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Task Force on Gender Equality and Gender Equity: Terms of Reference, Status and Implementation Actions

46. The Council noted an Information paper on the above subject, presented by the Secretary General in C-WP/12806. In its conclusion, C-WP/12806 indicated that efforts to improve the recruitment and status of women had been intensified. The Council would be apprised of the results and further developments in the annual Council working paper on the recruitment and status of women which would henceforth include a report of the Advisory Body to the Secretary General on Gender Equality and Gender Equity.

C-MIN 179/11

- 191 -

Other business Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Additional ANC Report to Council 47. The Council noted that in connection with its forthcoming review of C-WP/12704 [Report of ANC – Review of the Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the AFI Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APIRG/15) – Need for a RAN meeting for the AFI Region], the ANC would present an Information paper (C-WP/12816) on civil aviation safety and efficiency in the AFI Region. Subject No. 6.3: Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Selection of the President of the Air Navigation Commission 48. The Council noted that Mr. Thomas Burlage, the Member of the Air Navigation Commission who had been nominated by Germany, had withdrawn his candidature for the Presidency of the Air Navigation Commission in light of the result of the selection process recently developed by the Commission, i.e. “Procedures for the selection of the candidate preferred by the Commission for President of the ANC”, The Council requested its Working Group on the Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committees of the Council to review this matter and to clarify the meaning of the words “after consulting the Commission” in the recently amended Rule 16 c) of the Rules of Procedure for the Council, which, as amended, indicates that “the Council shall appoint the President of the Air Navigation Commission, after consulting the Commission”. 49. The meeting adjourned at 1800 hours.

C-MIN 179/12

- 193 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING


OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Mr. T. Burlage (Alt.) Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suarzo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Dr. H. Chaouk Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. M. Franco (Alt.) Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom —*Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) — Australia Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. W. Amaro — A/D/TCB Mr. P. Lamy — C/FLS Mr. H. Gourdji — C/SOA Mr. A. Quiroz — ACR Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

(

C-MIN 179/12 - 194 -

Subject No. 42: Technical co-operation

Transmission of information on technical co-operation activities — recruitment, fellowships and procurement

1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12733, in which the Secretary General reported on recruitment, fellowships and procurement activities which took place during the period 1 January to 31 December 2005 under the Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP), as well as on their relationship to ICAO’s Strategic Objectives, and provided a summary of the activities envisaged for the year 2006; and C-WP/12808, a report thereon by the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC). Paragraph 2.1.2 of C-WP/12733 was amended to indicate that the total of all ICAO personnel working in field projects in 2005 was 1 762 and paragraph 3.2.1 thereof was amended to indicate that 509 fellows had been trained in 2005, in alignment with paragraph 2.2.1. It was noted that the TCC was recommending, in paragraphs 2.2, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of its report, that future reports by the Secretary General: ensure the correlation of information provided for successive years; incorporate additional information in order to clearly indicate how recruitment, fellowship and procurement activities were related to the Organization’s Strategic Objectives, how they were progressing in achieving their specific goals and how they were related, if applicable, to deficiencies identified through the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) and the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP); provide more detailed information regarding the purchase of equipment and indicate major items acquired for the TCP and the Regular Programme. 2. The Representative of France suggested that future papers on this subject more clearly distinguish between those experts who were recruited by ICAO for Governments, to serve as advisers to national civil aviation administrations, instructors at training centres or on-the-job and as executive personnel providing operation and administrative services, and those who were recruited by the Organization to prepare technical co-operation projects. Noting that there was a tendency for the same experts to be recruited, he further suggested that the next report address that issue and propose measures to promote the recruitment of new experts, such as utilizing the Regional Offices. 3. Referring to paragraph 2.1.5 of C-WP/12733, the Representative of South Africa observed that, although the African region ranked among the highest in terms of safety concerns, it had the lowest level of recruitment of new experts, accounting for 17.2 per cent of the experts hired to work on technical co-operation projects administered by ICAO during 2005. The Acting Director of the Technical Co-operation Bureau (A/D/TCB) clarified that the recruitment level was low as there were not many national projects being carried out in the African region, due mainly to a lack of resources. TCB was trying to increase the number of such projects and the involvement of the Regional Offices in Dakar and Nairobi in providing support to African States. 4. While agreeing with all of the observations made by the TCC in its report, the Representative of Australia averred that stronger language could have been used in the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 b) of C-WP/12808, with the Committee requesting that future reports provide the information referred to in paragraphs 2.2, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 instead of requesting that they be merely taken into consideration by the Secretary General in preparing such reports. He suggested that the Chairman of the TCC could liaise with TCB regarding the format of future reports and address that issue in the Committee. In concurring with the comments made by the Representative of France regarding the recruitment of experts, the Representative of Australia indicated that it would be useful if future reports provided information on the assessment of experts. Noting that the summary of the activities envisaged for 2006 was only being presented in November 2006, he underscored that such outlooks should be presented to the Council earlier in the year. The Representative of Australia emphasized that the Council should now be reviewing the 2007 outlook, rather that the 2006 outlook that benefited from hindsight. To

C-MIN 179/12

- 195 -

a further point raised by the Representative, the Chairman of the TCC clarified that the Organization had no control over the number of technical co-operation projects which were carried out. The volume of activities was dependent on requests from States, which provided almost 100 per cent of the funding for the projects. The highest volume of activities was in Latin America as the States in that region were using the TCP more intensively than other States and applying their resources to civil aviation projects. 5. Referring to comments made by the Representative of France, the Chairman of the TCC noted that TCB was working on the basis of the core staff concept, in other words, they had the minimum permanent staff required to implement the TCP. Any assistance needed to carry-out technical co-operation projects was provided through the recruitment of experts. The latter were usually resident in Montreal as that decreased costs. He recalled that several papers had been presented to the Council which had called for the whole process of the recruitment of experts, both those recruited for the TCB and those recruited for the Regular Programme, should be reviewed to make it as efficient and cost-effective as possible. A/D/TCB further clarified that TCB maintained a roster of experts according to their specializations which was updated continuously to include new experts. States were presented with a shortlist of candidates derived from that roster for their decision. 6. The Representative of Mozambique suggested that, in future, reports provide information on the recruitment of experts and the awarding of fellowships according to gender so that the Council would have a better understanding of the progress being made on gender issues. 7. In sharing the concerns expressed by the TCC in its report, as well as those expressed by the Representative of Australia, the Representative of Pakistan averred that the Secretary General’s paper left a lot to be desired. He emphasized that it could be improved by including the suggested detailed information on technical co-operation activities. In stressing the need for additional information, the Representative of Pakistan underscored the importance of the TCP to developing countries. He proposed that an informal briefing be given to address questions raised regarding recruitment, fellowships and training activities. 8. The Representative of Colombia noted that the number of technical co-operation projects being implemented in Latin America was high as the States in that region considered that TCB was providing excellent service. They were of the view that TCB was efficient and that the experts whom it recruited were highly competent. He recommended that TCB’s services be used in other regions. 9. The Representative of Argentina underscored that the TCP enabled States to remedy their safety-related deficiencies. 10. Further to a suggestion then made by the Representative of India with reference to paragraph 1.1 of C-WP/12733, the Council agreed that it was not necessary to await the publication of the Annual Report of the Council before presenting the report on recruitment, fellowships and procurement activities carried out under the TCP as previously decided (147/5) and that instead the report should be presented soon after the circulation of the draft Annual Report to Council Representatives for comment, in the second quarter of the year. Consequently, the next report on this subject would be presented for Council’s consideration during the 181st Session in May/June 2007 instead of in the 182nd Session in November/December 2007. 11. In taking the action proposed by the TCC in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12808, the Council: a) noted the information provided in C-WP/12733; and

C-MIN 179/12 - 196 -

b) requested that the Secretary General, in future reports on technical co-operation activities, take into consideration the above-mentioned recommendations by the TCC contained in paragraphs 2.2, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of C-WP/12808 and suggestions by Council Representatives and that the Secretary General also take the Committee’s said recommendations into account for other reports.


Review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach

12. Tabled next for consideration were two papers: C-WP/12774 (with Blue Rider) presented by the Secretary General, which, pursuant to a recommendation made by the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) and endorsed by the Council (178/1), proposed a mechanism to deal with significant safety concerns identified during the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach, as well as consequential changes to the generic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on such safety oversight audits to address both increased transparency and the treatment of significant safety concerns; and C-WP/12779, a report thereon by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). The Chief of the Safety Oversight Audit Section (C/SOA) provided further details regarding the proposed mechanism, as well as examples of what would constitute a significant safety concern. 13. The Representative of Australia agreed with the direction of the changes to the MOU recommended by the ANC and saw value in implementing a number of them. Referring to the Commission’s proposal, set forth in paragraph 2.4 of its report, that the word “potential” should be replaced with the word “preliminary” in paragraph 2.3.1 of C-WP/12774 and that Articles 14 and 17 of the MOU should be amended accordingly, he questioned whether there was even a need for that concept. Underscoring that a problem was either a significant safety concern or it was not, the Representative of Australia averred that having a qualifier such as “potential” or “preliminary” would confuse matters. 14. Referring to the Council’s discussion of the MOU relating to the Public Key Directory (PKD), the Representative of Australia recalled that a number of interventions had been made regarding the format of that MOU and whether it correctly reflected a document which was not intended to have a legal effect as a treaty. In reviewing the MOU on safety oversight audits, he had observed that there was a considerable number of references which many States would regard as language which implied a legally-binding agreement. The Representative of Australia considered that the changes proposed by the ANC could result in ICAO taking a more active role in safety oversight than had been intended. It was thus necessary to ensure that the nature of the MOU was appropriate. He noted, in this context, that the identification by an ICAO safety oversight audit team of safety issues to be resolved would be difficult to fit in to his State’s legal processes. The Representative of Australia emphasized that, in light of the fact that the Council fully supported the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP), a programme which was extremely important, consideration should be given to whether there was a need to strengthen the MOU and to whether it should be concluded in the form of a legally-binding document in order to give the MOU the appropriate weight and to enable the steps set forth therein to be undertaken. 15. The Representative of France supported the underlying philosophy of C-WP/12779. He nonetheless considered that the amended definition of a “significant safety concern” proposed by the ANC in paragraph 2.2 of its report should be revised to refer to the minimum requirements established by the State and (not or) by the provisions set forth in the ICAO Annexes as the whole purpose was to meet

C-MIN 179/12

- 197 -

the more stringent of the two requirements. The Representative of France concurred with the Representative of Australia that the qualifiers “potential” and “preliminary” should not be used. 16. While the Representative of the United States supported the ANC’s comments on the MOU in general, he agreed that it was not necessary to have the words “potential” and “preliminary” qualifying a significant safety concern in Articles 14 and 17 of the MOU. He suggested that no qualifier be used, unless the Secretariat considered it important to use the word “preliminary” as proposed by the ANC. The Representative of the United States agreed that the time-limit of thirty calendar days for the notification by ICAO of the existence of any significant safety concerns set forth in Article 15 of the MOU should be changed to read “as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen calendar days” as suggested by the ANC, if the Secretariat also agreed to that amendment. Referring to Article 21 of the MOU concerning the chart depicting a State’s level of implementation of the critical elements of a safety oversight system, he recalled that when the Council had first approved the concept of such a chart, it had reserved the right to consider further how the information should be presented in light of feedback received from States and perhaps the public, in particular, if the chart could be made clearer and more objective based on practical experience. In his opinion, the language used in Article 21 would enable such revisions to be made to the chart. The Representative of the United States therefore considered that it could be retained. With regard to the comment made by the Representative of Australia on the form of the MOU, he indicated that the Secretariat could continue to consider ways of fine-tuning the MOU so that it met the needs of particular States in terms of their own laws and requirements. 17. The Representative of Japan indicated that he had no difficulty in supporting, in principle, the proposals made by the ANC. He did not have a strong view regarding the retention or deletion of qualifiers of the term “”significant safety concerns” in Articles 14 and 17 of the MOU and thus was open to whatever consensus the Council reached. In sharing the concerns expressed by the Representatives of Australia and the United States on the legally-binding nature of the MOU, he underscored that his support for the proposed amendments of that document were contingent upon it being possible for the MOU to be fine-tuned at the time of its conclusion with States so that it would be in accordance with each State’s legal system. 18. The President of the ANC underscored that the Commission had not been in favour of the use of the qualifier “potential”, particularly as there were several different possible Spanish translations of that word. The ANC had been convinced by the Secretariat that the correct qualifier to use was “preliminary”. C/SOA clarified that the Secretariat had considered that it was important to use the word “preliminary” in order to be consistent with the audit methodology currently being followed. He noted, in this regard, that Article 17 of the MOU referred to a list of “preliminary findings and recommendations”. The word “preliminary” was used to qualify significant safety concerns, findings and recommendations in order to reflect the fact that they had yet to be validated by the SOA through its Quality Management System. 19. The Representative of Argentina shared most of the views expressed by previous speakers, in particular, the view that the word “preliminary” should replace the word “potential” in Articles 14 and 17 of the MOU and the view that the timeline given in Article 15 thereof for the notification by ICAO of significant safety concerns should be reduced from thirty calendars days to a maximum of fifteen calendar days. Referring to the amended definition of the term “significant safety concern” proposed by the ANC, he suggested that the word “provisions” be replaced by the word “Standards” as “provisions” encompassed both Standards and Recommended Practices and a “significant safety concern” could only arise from non-compliance with a Standard. C/SOA indicated that the word “Standards” would work as well as the word “provisions” in the said definition.

C-MIN 179/12 - 198 -

20. The Representative of Austria voiced support for the Secretariat’s proposed MOU, as well as for the amendments thereto recommended by the ANC and the comments made by previous speakers regarding the use of the qualifiers “potential” and “preliminary”. She averred that the use of such qualifiers was unnecessary. In underscoring the importance of the publication of uncorrected significant safety concerns, the Representative of Austria enquired as to when such concerns would be posted on the ICAO secure website. C/SOA clarified that the notification identifying the confirmed/validated significant safety concern would stipulate the timeframe in which the State was to take immediate corrective action. While the timeframe would depend on the type of significant safety concern, it was anticipated that it would be very short, such as five or seven days. If no response were received, ICAO would communicate with the State to determine why it had not replied. If the State failed to respond, the significant safety concern would be posted immediately on the ICAO secure website. 21. Expressing full support for the thrust of the Secretary General’s paper, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized the importance of bringing to States’ attention deficiencies of critical importance so that immediate action could be taken to preserve safety. Observing that many definitions could have been given for the term “significant safety concern”, he underscored that the examples of significant safety concerns cited by C/SOA should be included in the Safety Oversight Audit Manual (Doc 9735) to guide States and audit teams. The Representative of Nigeria did not hold any strong views regarding the use of the qualifiers “potential” and “preliminary”. Recognizing that the word “preliminary” was being proposed by the ANC in order to reflect that the identification of significant safety concerns would be validated b SOA to reduce subjectivity, he indicated that he could accept the use of that qualifier if the Council could. If, however, the Council could not support the use of the word “preliminary”, then the Representative of Nigeria would propose that Article 17 of the MOU be amended by deleting the qualifier “potential” and adding the words “including identified” so that it would read as follows: “… provided with a list of preliminary findings and recommendations, including identified significant safety concerns …”. In that manner, the word “preliminary” would apply to the significant safety concerns. 22. In noting that the time required to remedy the safety risks varied according to the nature of the risk, the Representative of Nigeria observed that while it might take only a few days to withdraw the non-compliant licence, more time might be required to rectify deficiencies in infrastructure. He stressed the importance of the safety oversight audit team conferring with Headquarters staff to determine the appropriate course of action to be taken by the State to solve the identified problem. In further emphasizing the need to bring such safety risks to the attention of all operators while remedial action was being taken, the Representative of Nigeria proposed that the mechanism for reporting on significant safety concerns to be incorporated into the MOU be amended to include the issuance of NOTAMs in cases where the deficiencies affected operations. He underscored, in this regard, that information posted on the ICAO secure website regarding significant safety concerns was only accessible by States and not by operators and it took time for such information to be conveyed to operators. 23. Voicing support for the Secretary General’s paper, the Representative of the Republic of Korea underscored that the proposed changes to the MOU were consistent with the DGCA/06 recommendations and the policy of ICAO to shift away from SARP development towards SARP implementation. Noting that field validation could be used to resolve urgent safety-related deficiencies directly, he questioned whether sufficient time was allocated during the safety oversight audits for such validation. The Representative of the Republic of Korea observed, in this regard, that although audits were usually eight days in duration, only one day was allocated for field validation. In clarifying that such validation was not limited to one day, C/SOA indicated that its duration was determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the level and scope of activity in the audited State.

C-MIN 179/12

- 199 -

24. Recalling that he had been present when a USOAP audit had been conducted in his State, the Representative of India indicated that he thus knew both sides of the picture. Underscoring the horrific nature of the examples of significant safety concerns cited by C/SOA, he emphasized the importance of addressing such concerns on a priority basis. The Representative of India underscored the need to act in accordance with the DGCA/06 Recommendation 2/5 a) 2) and develop an additional mechanism to enable the rapid resolution of significant safety concerns identified under USOAP. 25. Referring to Articles 14 and 17 of the MOU, the Representative of India stressed that the term “potential significant safety concerns” implied future deficiencies, whereas the purpose of the USOAP audit was to identify and remedy existing deficiencies. He could accept whatever alternative to the word “potential” the Secretariat chose as long as it emphasized that the significant safety concerns were already in existence. In questioning whether the audit team should be bound by a definition of the term “significant safety concern”, the Representative of India suggested that the Secretariat reconsider that issue. He further proposed that the existence of significant safety concerns should be brought to the attention not only of civil aviation administration officials but also of higher level government officials so that the governments were also seized of the situation. 26. With regard to the time-limit for notifying States of significant safety concerns, the Representative of India maintained that it could not be thirty calendar days as in Article 15 of the MOU or even fifteen calendar days as proposed by the ANC given the extraordinary nature of the situation. Emphasizing that such concerns should be addressed within 48, 72 or 96 hours, he noted that, as the audit team was in constant communication with the State’s authorities, it could immediately convey information regarding the significant safety concerns to them so that they could take immediate remedial action. In questioning the need for SOA to validate such concerns, the Representative of India averred that such action would only constrain the audit team. He considered that the latter should be given some flexibility in that matter. Underscoring that the timeframe for the rectification of significant safety concerns should be determined in consultations between the State and the audit team, the Representative of India maintained that there was no need for communication between the State and ICAO Headquarters regarding that issue. He stressed that the type of immediate corrective action required should also be discussed by the audit team with the audited State. Noting that greater emphasis was being placed on transparency, the Representative of India queried whether the MOU covered the transparency of both the comprehensive safety oversight audit and the identification of significant safety concerns. 27. The Representative of Saint Lucia shared these views. Observing that he had also been on the other side of audits, he underscored that civil aviation administration officials looked to the audit team to provide assistance and not to make their decisions. Agreeing on the need to inform higher level government officials of significant safety concerns, he noted that in some cases the civil aviation authorities encountered problems in having their governments take corrective action quickly and that a notification from ICAO could change that situation and result in prompt action. 28. Referring to paragraph 2.4 of the ANC’s report, the Representative of Saint Lucia averred that a significant safety concern could not be “potential” or “preliminary”. He underscored that a problem could arise if auditors interpreted deficiencies differently, with some considering them to be significant and others, insignificant. Recalling that during a previous meeting the Secretariat had been reluctant to divulge the names of States with significant safety concerns on the basis that the MOU had been concluded between the State and the Secretary General, the Representative of Saint Lucia emphasized that the amended generic MOU now presented for Council’s approval should not contain any restriction whereby the Council would not be able to obtain details of such deficiencies.

C-MIN 179/12 - 200 -

29. Expressing support for the two papers, the Representative of China observed that they illustrated how ICAO was shifting away from SARP development towards SARP implementation. He agreed that the qualifier “potential” should be replaced by the word “preliminary” as recommended by the ANC. In endorsing the comments made by the Representative of India, the Representative of China noted that as any safety-related deficiencies were discovered in the preliminary phase of safety oversight audits, it was necessary to use the qualifier “preliminary” when referring to their identification. He suggested that the definition of “significant safety concern” as amended by the ANC be incorporated into the Safety Oversight Audit Manual (Doc 9735) to ensure that the term was clearly understood by the auditors. In then referring to comments made regarding field validation, the Representative of China averred that the safety oversight audit team would not be able to carry out the necessary detailed work within the time allocated for the audit and that the audited State should therefore conduct the field validation. 30. The Representative of Argentina spoke in favour of including the said definition in Doc 9735. 31. Emphasizing that the subject under discussion was critical to the safety of international civil aviation, the Representative of Cameroon voiced support for the proposed mechanism for reporting significant safety concerns. In endorsing the views expressed by the ANC in its report, he stressed that immediate action was required to remedy such deficiencies. Speaking in favour of using the qualifier “preliminary”, the Representative of Cameroon underscored that it reflected the need to validate the significant safety concerns identified during the audit so as to avoid any subjectivity. Noting that an audited State could require help in resolving such concerns, he enquired whether there was a rapid procedure in place to meet requests for immediate assistance. 32. C/SOA indicated that, even without the proposed mechanism to address significant safety concerns, such concerns were automatically resolved 99 per cent of the time when the auditor verbally mentioned that they were significant. It was therefore likely that, once the mechanism was in place, significant safety concerns would be remedied even before the auditor contacted Headquarters regarding their preliminary identification. 33. Responding to other points raised, C/SOA noted that the opening meeting of safety oversight audits was held with all the key players, including the DGCA and, in some cases, the Minister. The issue of who should be briefed whenever significant safety concerns were identified was addressed at that meeting. Even after the closing meeting, arrangements were often made for the team leader to meet with the Minister or a higher-level official to give a summary of the main concerns identified during the audit. Noting that a State did not have to develop its action plan or respond to the safety oversight audit report until it had received it in its official language (one of the six ICAO languages), C/SOA underscored that a State similarly would not have to respond to a significant safety concern until it had received a notification in its official language. Thus while SOA could validate a significant safety concern within a few hours and draft the notification, it was often necessary to have the latter translated, which prevented the notification from being issued as quickly as desired. C/SOA noted that the details of the mechanism for the reporting of significant safety concerns and the examples which he had given of the latter would have to be incorporated into the Safety Oversight Audit Manual (Doc 9735), as suggested by some Council Representatives. 34. In endorsing the recommendations made by the ANC in its report, the Representative of Colombia advocated replacing the qualifier “potential” with the word “preliminary”. In also supporting changing the time-limit for the notification of the existence of a significant safety concern from 30 calendar days to a maximum of 15 calendar days, he emphasized that the new time-limit reflected the urgent need to resolve the problem. The Representative of Colombia shared the view expressed by

C-MIN 179/12

- 201 -

previous speakers on the need to inform States of significant safety concerns as soon as they were identified. 35. The Representative of Italy agreed, in general, with the recommendations of the ANC. In also supporting the proposal made by the Representative of Argentina that the word “provisions” be replaced by the word “Standards” in the amended definition of a “significant safety concern” proposed by the ANC, he suggested that the reference to “the minimum requirements established by the State” be deleted as ICAO’s Standards constituted the minimum safety standards that were to be complied with. The minimum requirements established by a State could be higher than those minimum Standards. The Representative of Italy he averred that the safety oversight audit team was not supposed to refer to States’ requirements. 36. The Representative of Pakistan indicated that he had been convinced that qualifiers such as “potential” and “preliminary” should not be used when referring to significant safety concerns as they had different connotations. However, in light of the explanation given by C/SOA, he now agreed that the word “preliminary” should be utilized. In expressing support for the MOU, as well as for the USOAP, the Representative of Pakistan underscored that the safety oversight audit conducted in his State had had some very good results, with many reforms now being undertaken to improve performance. He stressed that, with the identification of significant safety concerns and a rapid mechanism for resolving them, aviation safety would be enhanced. 37. The Representative of Ghana shared the views expressed by almost all of the previous speakers. Underscoring that every non-compliance was a deficiency and therefore required remedial action, he queried why Articles 17 and 19 of the MOU stated “Should action be necessary to remedy deficiencies …”. C/SOA clarified that the language used was a polite way of indicating that States with deficiencies would have to take the action specified in those Articles. If States did not have any deficiencies, then they would not have to take the action indicated. 38. The Representative of South Africa averred that using qualifiers such as “potential” and “preliminary” when referring to significant safety concerns would only confuse States as they were open to various interpretations. In making an analogy with aviation incidents, he noted that, regardless of whether the latter were characterized as being small or big, they were incidents. In further observing that an aircraft was either in the air or on the ground, the Representative of South Africa affirmed that a safety concern was a safety concern, whether significant or not — there was no in-between. C/SOA underscored that the ANC had considered that, in order to avoid ambiguity, it would be more appropriate to refer to “preliminary identification of a significant safety concern” rather than to “potential significant safety concerns” in Articles 14 and 17 of the MOU. 39. The Representative of France agreed that the word “provisions” should be replaced with the word “Standards” in the definition of a “significant safety concern” as proposed by the Representative of Argentina. He considered, however, that it would be difficult having two sets of standards being referred to in the definition. Averring that ICAO Standards should be the ones which applied as they were the ones which were used in the safety oversight audits, the Representative of France indicated that the issue should be clarified. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of Saint Lucia, he agreed that, as the Council represented the Organization, there was no reason for it not to receive information regarding States with safety-related deficiencies. Observing that the discussion of the qualifier “preliminary” had given rise to a substantive problem, the Representative of France stressed the need to clarify whether the treatment of significant safety concerns would fall within the purview of the standard audit procedures or whether emergency audit procedures would have to be established.

C-MIN 179/12 - 202 -

40. C/SOA clarified that the said definition referred to the “minimum requirements established by the State or by the provisions set forth in the ICAO Annexes” as the safety oversight audit teams audited, first and foremost, to the State’s requirements. However, if the State had not established adequate requirements, then it audited to the minimum provisions contained in the ICAO Annexes. In noting that the word “provisions” was used as the audit encompassed ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), as well as best safety practices, he indicated that he would hesitate to replace “provisions” with “Standards” as proposed by the Representative of Argentina without first consulting the Legal Bureau (LEB). 41. Maintaining his position that the reference to “the minimum requirements established by the State” in the proposed amended definition of a “significant safety concern” should be deleted, the Representative of Italy expressed surprise that the Organization audited according to States’ requirements. He questioned how auditors could familiarize themselves overnight with each State’s different requirements, which were usually higher than the minimum requirements set forth in the ICAO Annexes. The Representative of Italy averred that the safety oversight audits should be limited to ICAO Standards and not to the provisions set forth in the Annexes as the auditors were dealing with exceptional circumstances. 42. The Representative of the Russian Federation supported the two papers, as well as the MOU, subject to the said amendment suggested by the Representative of Argentina. In endorsing the comments made by the Representatives of Saint Lucia, France and Nigeria, he emphasized that the presentation of the audit report was a very significant event in many States. 43. In also supporting the papers, the Representative of Chile stressed that ensuring the safety of civil aviation was a continuous process, with States’ civil aviation authorities working 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to safeguard aviation. Underscoring that States’ efforts in that regard should not be underestimated, he noted that a safety oversight audit by ICAO was only one event in that ongoing process and that States’ civil aviation authorities handled significant safety concerns year-round. 44. Recalling his comment on the ANC’s proposed amendment to Article 15 of the MOU, the Representative of Argentina suggested that, as all significant safety concerns required immediate corrective action, the last phrase of that Article (“requiring immediate corrective action by the State”) should be deleted. Observing that the Secretariat and the ANC had chosen what they considered to be the most appropriate wording for the MOU, the Representative of Spain maintained that the ANC’s proposed text of the Article should not be changed. The Representatives of India and South Africa were of the same view. While indicating that he could accept the ANC’s text, the Representative of Argentina averred that it was inconsistent to imply that there could be a significant safety concern which did not require immediate corrective action. The Representative of Australia considered that the Representative of Argentina was correct as Article 15 was introducing another concept of a significant safety concern that also required immediate corrective action. In emphasizing that there should be one simple concept of a significant safety concern which was evenly applied, he noted that the mechanism for addressing significant safety concerns required States to take action anyway. Furthermore, as indicated by the Secretariat, States generally did take the necessary action. It was thus an issue of consistency. Underscoring that the ANC had discussed the MOU at great length, the President of the Council suggested that the Commission’s proposed text of Article 15 be retained in the form presented. 45. The Representative of Australia suggested that, to reflect his earlier intervention, which had been supported by the Representatives of the United States and Japan, the Council’s decision indicate that the MOU retained the character of a non-legally-binding agreement and was not subject to the general rules of international law. In then drawing attention to Article 8 of the MOU on the provision of

C-MIN 179/12

- 203 -

immunity from legal process to the ICAO safety oversight audit team, he emphasized that the correct instrument for granting such immunity was the 1947 United Nations Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies. Referring to Article 25 of the MOU, the Representative of Australia stressed the need to clarify to whom the audited States would appeal the audit findings and the audit process, particularly as the envisaged amendments to the MOU might give rise to disagreements. 46. The Representative of France maintained that the Council should not take a stance on the status of the MOU as it would vary according to States’ legal systems. 47. Underscoring that all MOUs had universal legal implications, the Representative of India averred that according the MOU the status of a non-legally-binding agreement might discourage States from taking action to remedy significant safety concerns. Referring to Article 15 of the MOU, he indicated that he had no difficulty in accepting the ANC’s proposed amendment to the time-limit for notifying the existence of significant safety concerns as long as efforts were made by the Secretariat to issue the validation of such concerns within 72 hours. 48. Responding to a query by the Representative of Argentina regarding Article 16 b) of the MOU, C/SOA noted that the interim safety oversight audit report would indicate if significant safety concerns had been identified during the audit and, in the affirmative, if they had been resolved. He emphasized that the intent of that provision was to be as transparent as possible. 49. In light of the discussion, the Council agreed that the amended definition of the term “significant safety concern” proposed by the ANC in paragraph 2.2 of its report be modified to read as follows (new text appears in italics): “A significant safety concern occurs when the audited State allows the holder of an authorization or approval to exercise the privileges attached to it, although the minimum requirements established by the State or and by the provisions Standards set forth in the ICAO Annexes are not met, resulting in an immediate safety risk to international civil aviation.” 50. The Council further agreed that the above definition would be included in ICAO Doc 9735 — Safety Oversight Audit Manual, together with examples of significant safety concerns to guide States and audit teams. It was understood that the procedure for addressing such safety concerns outlined in paragraph 2.3 of the ANC’s report would also be incorporated into Doc 9735. 51. In reviewing the proposed mechanism to deal with significant safety concerns set forth in paragraph 2.3 of C-WP/12774, the Council agreed that, as proposed by the ANC in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 of its report, the word “potential” should be replaced with the word “preliminary” in paragraph 2.3.1 and that the time-limit of thirty calendar days referred to in the first line of paragraph 2.3.2 should be amended to read “as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen calendar days”. Agreeing that the generic MOU should be revised accordingly, the Council accepted the amendments thereto proposed by the ANC in paragraph 2.6 a) and b) of its report, whereby the term “potential significant safety concerns” used in Article 14 and 17 of the MOU would be replaced with the phrase “preliminary identification of a significant safety concern” and Article 15 would be amended to read as follows (new text appears in italics): “ICAO undertakes to notify to State [abbreviated name] in writing, within thirty calendar days as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen calendar days after the last day of the audit, the existence of any significant safety concerns requiring immediate corrective action by the State”.

C-MIN 179/12 - 204 -

52. The Council further agreed that the last sentence of Article 21 of the MOU should be amended to refer to the public area of the ICAO website instead of to the public area of the Flight Safety Information Exchange (FSIX) website, as suggested by the Representative of Australia. Linguistic points raised by the Representative of France regarding the French translation of the term “safety” used in the third Preambular Clause of the MOU and by the Representative of Honduras regarding the Spanish translation of the term “calendar days” used throughout the MOU were noted by the Secretariat for verification and appropriate action. 53. In taking the action indicated in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12774, the Council:

a) approved the mechanism proposed in paragraph 2.3 of the paper to deal with significant safety concerns identified during the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach, as amended above; and

b) approved the proposed changes to the generic MOU relating to the conduct of safety

oversight audits appended to the paper, as amended above. Subject No. 42.1.3: Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC)

2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) budget estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure

54. The Council then gave initial consideration to the above subject on the basis of: C-WP/12734 [with Blue Rider (English only)], presented by the Secretary General; a report thereon by the Technical Co-operation Committee (C-WP/12791); and an oral report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC). C-WP/12734 provided an update of the 2007 AOSC budget estimates approved by the 35th Session of the Assembly on an indicative basis, as well as an update of the AOSC income and expenditure for 2006. It also reported on the development of the Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP). 55. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.1 c) of the TCC’s report, the President of the Council underscored that it was not possible to reimburse to the accumulated AOSC surplus the amount reserved by Assembly Resolution A35-32 to finance the ICAO financial system as proposed. The Representative of Mexico thus suggested that sub-paragraph c) be deleted. 56. Noting that he found it difficult to accept the action proposed by the TCC in paragraph 3.1 c) and d), the Representative of Japan sought further information thereon. Referring to sub-paragraph b), which called for all technical assistance activities carried out by the Organization to continue to be based on the principle of cost-recovery “to the extent possible”, he enquired as to the meaning of that phrase. Referring to paragraph 2.9 on the identification of direct and indirect costs resulting from technical co-operation activities, the Representative of Japan also enquired as to the philosophy and practice of other international organizations regarding such costs and cross-funding. 57. In providing clarification, the Chairman of the TCC recalled that some 90 per cent of technical co-operation activities were funded through contributions from States to carry out projects that normally were intended to benefit those same States. The administrative charges levied on such activities had resulted, over the years, in a surplus of some US $8 million, US $2 million of which had been set aside to fund the new ICAO financial system. It was when the AOSC fund was used to pay for activities not related to technical co-operation that the problems of cross-funding and double contributions arose. With reference to paragraph 3.1 b) and the meaning of the phrase “to the extent possible”, the Chairman of the TCC noted that, as indicated in paragraph 2.3, the administrative charges for technical assistance

C-MIN 179/12

- 205 -

activities should continue to be based on the principle of cost-recovery and, as far as possible, should not produce surpluses. Observing, from Figure 1 of-WP/12734, that the amount of AOSC surplus had been reduced over time, he emphasized that that illustrated good management on the part of TCB in determining administrative costs. 58. The Representative of Spain emphasized that there should be no cross-funding between the Regular Programme and the TCP. 59. Noting that the UNDP provided funds for ICAO’s technical co-operation activities, the Representative of Nigeria queried how it would feel if it knew that some of those funds were being used to finance the Organization’s Regular Programme. He underscored, in this regard, that those States which had difficulty funding their own projects and thus sought assistance from ICAO would also find it hard to accept that some of the funds which had been contributed for technical co-operation activities were been utilized for a purpose other than the intended one. In seeking clarification regarding paragraph 3.1 c) and d) of the TCC’s report, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized that the accumulation of a surplus was an indication that something was wrong with the costing structure of the TCP. He considered that the fact that ICAO was a not-for-profit organization supported the recommendations made by the TCC in those two sub-paragraphs. 60. Further consideration of this subject was deferred to the next (179/13) meeting. 61. The Council adjourned at 1330 hours.

C-MIN 179/13

- 207 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, THURSDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. J. López González (Alt.) Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria —*Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Mr. T. Burlage (Alt.) Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Dr. H. Chaouk Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

*Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. M.A. de Jong (Alt.) — Austria Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB *Mr. Y. Beliaev — C/LPB *Mr. J. Maguire — C/EAO *Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB *Mr. R. Barr — C/FIN *Mr. V.P. Galotti — C/ATM *Ms. J.M. Bacon — ADAN *Mrs. R. Zagoritis — COS Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/13 - 208 -

Subject No. 42.1.3: Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC)

2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) budget estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure

1. The Council resumed (179/12) and completed its consideration of the above subject on the basis of: C-WP/12734 [with Blue Rider (English only)], presented by the Secretary General; a report thereon by the Technical Co-operation Committee (C-WP/12791); and an oral report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC). C-WP/12734 provided an update of the 2007 AOSC budget estimates approved by the 35th Session of the Assembly on an indicative basis, as well as an update of the AOSC income and expenditure for 2006. It also reported on the development of the Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP). 2. In agreeing to the action proposed by the President of the Council taking into account the views expressed during the previous meeting and the recommendations of the TCC and the FIC, the Council took the action indicated in paragraph 5.1 of C-WP/12734 and:

a) noted the revised financial position of the 2006 Technical Co-operation AOSC budget as of 30 September 2006; and

b) approved the 2007 AOSC budget estimates as detailed in paragraph 3.2 of

C-WP/12734, to be financed by the AOSC income and, if required, the accumulated AOSC surplus.

The Council also:

c) requested that future reports on the update of the AOSC budget provide information

on the number of staff and costs of resources in the Regular Programme funded through the AOSC Fund;

d) noted that all technical co-operation activities carried out by the Organization

continued to be based on the principle of cost-recovery; and e) noted that the exceptional transfer of US $2 million from the accumulated funds of

the AOSC to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund to fund part of the cost of modernizing the financial and related systems approved by Assembly Resolution A35-32 had been implemented.

3. With reference to the recommendation made by the TCC in paragraph 3.1 d) of C-WP/12791, it was understood that, once the new financial system was in place, the Secretary General would consider the feasibility of a mechanism to return the annual AOSC surpluses to States which originated them, taking into account the need to maintain a reserve to cover termination benefits of staff and possible deficits in AOSC operations.

C-MIN 179/13

- 209 -

Subject No. 18.4: Contributions by Contracting States and methods of assessment

Proposals for settlement of arrears of contributions by Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Roberts Flight Information Region (FIR)

4. The Council next considered C-WP/12812 presented by the Secretary General regarding proposals by Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Roberts FIR for tripartite agreements to settle the arrears of contributions for those three States over a period of 20 years. 5. In taking the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12812, the Council approved ICAO’s proposal for the settlement of arrears of contributions as outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the paper, according to which an agreement would be made with each of the said three States as a party and with Roberts FIR as an additional party which undertook to make the payments on behalf of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The annual instalment payments to be made over a 20-year period were set at US $9 331 for Guinea, US $12 783 for Liberia and US $13 963 for Sierra Leone, in addition to the current year assessments, when due. Subject No. 24.2: Assembly agenda and documentation

Draft Assembly working paper — Election of Contracting States to be represented on the Council

6. The Council then undertook a review of the draft Assembly working paper attached to C-WP/12751 presented by the Secretary General, which was traditionally prepared in order to assist the regular triennial Session of the Assembly in electing a new Council. 7. The Representative of the Republic of Korea noted that, since it was established in 1947, ICAO had played a key role in the advancement and development of international civil aviation, one of the most important factors that had enabled ICAO to contribute to such progress being the well-organized activities of the Council. The reasonable three-part classification of the election of the Council set forth in Article 50 b) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation resulted in a very efficient procedure for the election. The Convention remained silent, however, on the concrete criteria for the distribution of seats in each part; consequently, there was no long-standing principle for assigning the number of States to be elected in each one. The number had varied from time to time, reflecting the wishes of the Council in light of the situation in international civil aviation at the time. 8. The Representative of the Republic of Korea cited the case of his State, which had been elected under Part 3 (States not otherwise included whose designation will insure that all the major geographic areas of the world are represented on the Council). He noted that the Republic of Korea, a Contracting State of ICAO since 1952, had the world’s eighth largest air transport volume in terms of tonne-kilometres and passenger-kilometres performed on scheduled services in 2005. It had a new international airport, which had opened in March 2001 and which was currently going through its second phase of construction to fully expand all necessary facilities by 2008. When combined with the Republic of Korea’s active policy for air transport liberalization, its contribution to international air transport was expected to continue in the coming years. Its partnership with ICAO created a strengthened role. The Republic of Korea’s contribution to the Regular Programme Budget of ICAO was recorded as being the eighth largest in the world in 2005. It also contributed to the Aviation Security Plan of Action and to the International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS), which were designed to enhance the security of the skies and the aviation safety of Member States. The Republic of Korea was also an active member in, as well as a major contributor to, the North Asian branch of the Co-operative Development of

C-MIN 179/13 - 210 -

Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP), which was part of ICAO’s Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP). In addition, the Republic of Korea had sponsored fellowship training and had had 173 trainees from 49 States over the past six years. In 2006, it had concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICAO on a technical training programme for aviation personnel from developing countries. Under that MOU, the Republic of Korea’s technical co-operation with Member States would be further expanded over the years to come. It would continue to expand its active co-operation with ICAO and its Member States to contribute to the orderly development of international civil aviation. To do that, the Republic of Korea would seek re-election under Part 3 of the election of the Council during the upcoming 36th Session of the Assembly in 2007. The Representative of the Republic of Korea indicated that, while he would join the consensus reached by the Council regarding the distribution of the seats to be filled at the election, there was a need to address that issue from a long-term perspective. He suggested, in this context, that the maximum number of States to be elected in each part could be twelve. 9. In considering the draft Assembly working paper, the Council agreed to include, in paragraph 3.1 thereof, a recommendation with regard to the distribution of the thirty-six seats to be filled at the election of the Council that the maximum number of States to be elected in the three parts of the election should be eleven, twelve and thirteen, respectively, as proposed in paragraph 3 of C-WP/12751. 10. The Council approved the draft Assembly working paper attached to C-WP/12751 and authorized the Secretary General to transmit it to States as documentation for the 36th Session of the Assembly. Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Work Programme of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (EAO) for the year 2007

11. The above subject was documented for Council’s consideration in C-WP/12731 presented by the Secretary General. 12. The Representative of the United States enquired as to the establishment of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (EAO) and whether additional personnel were required to enable it to accomplish its substantial work programme for 2007, particularly in the area of evaluation. He underscored, in this regard, that as the Organization shifted its focus more to providing technical support and assistance to States, it was necessary to have the capacity to evaluate which approaches worked and which did not and how efficiently that objective was being achieved. The Representative of the United States queried whether EAO was the office which should undertake that task, perhaps on a regional or project basis, and, in the affirmative, whether it would need more staff members in order to perform that very important work. 13. The Chief of EAO (C/EAO) noted that, although EAO’s approved establishment was three Professional staff and three General Service staff, as indicated in paragraph 1.4 of the paper, there were only two Professional staff, himself and a P-4 level Professional, and two General Service staff. The third Professional level post had been advertised, however. Agreeing that EAO had an ambitious work programme, he indicated that sometimes it was not possible to complete all of the work due to unforeseen tasks which arose. C/EAO observed, in this context, that there was one carry-over from 2006, namely, the measurement, testing and implementation of key performance indicators. He underscored that evaluation was becoming an increasingly important part of EAO’s work. The Secretary General recalled that when the Council had presented the 35th Session of the Assembly with the Draft Programme Budget for 2005-

C-MIN 179/13

- 211 -

2007, the Assembly had requested that it be reduced by US $2.5 million and that the Aviation Security Programme be integrated into the Regular Programme Budget as soon as possible. In order to fulfill those requirements, it had been decided to either postpone the filling of certain vacant posts or to freeze them. Priorities had been determined, and any important posts relating to safety, security and the environment had been filled. Although EAO was an important office, its work was not directly related to those three areas. Nevertheless, a decision had been taken to fill the vacant P-4 level post. 14. The President of the Council noted that the Council would keep the Secretary General’s comments in mind when it reviewed the Draft Programme Budget for 2008-2010 so as to avoid jeopardizing the possibility of recruiting personnel required to perform the tasks set forth in the Organization’s Business Plan. 15. Observing, from the summary box of the paper, that EAO’s work would reinforce Supporting Implementation Strategy 3 — Identify risk management and risk mitigation strategies, the Representative of India enquired whether it would also help achieve the Organization’s Strategic Objectives. In emphasizing the need to strengthen EAO, he observed that that office might be assigned more external oversight functions in light of the consideration of the Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled “Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2006/3) by the Council and the Finance Committee (FIC), of which he was the Chairman. 16. Noting that EAO would be conducting an audit of technical co-operation projects in Brazil in 2007, C/EAO underscored that technical co-operation was an integral part of the Strategic Objectives relating to safety, security and efficiency. He further indicated that EAO would also be concentrating on certain areas which would improve overall support functions. Observing that his office did a substantial amount of work that was not related to either of those areas, such as follow-ups to the Reports of the External Auditor of ICAO, EAO’s own reports and JIU reports, none of which were related to EAO’s core functions, he emphasized that, at a time of limited resources, it was best to use existing resources as efficiently as possible and to determine if, by focussing on EAO’s core functions, there would be additional capacity for evaluation and audits. 17. Recalling that the External Auditor of ICAO, in her 2005 Report, had indicated that implementing the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and a new financial system simultaneously “could increase the risk that the expected results of both initiatives will not be achieved” (cf. C-WP/12655, Addendum No. 2, paragraph 2), the Representative of Mexico stressed that that should be kept in mind for at least 2007 and 2008. C/EAO noted, in this regard, that his office was in contact with the External Auditor of ICAO and the Finance Branch (FIN) in order to ensure a smooth transition. 18. The Council then noted EAO’s proposed Work Programme for the year 2007 as set forth in C-WP/12731, on the understanding that that a report on the activities undertaken by EAO in 2006 would be presented for Council’s consideration during the next (180th) Session. Subject No. 10: ICAO Relations with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other international organizations

The status of implementation of recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) 19. Tabled next for Council’s consideration was C-WP/12728 on this subject, presented by the Secretary General.

C-MIN 179/13 - 212 -

20. Responding to a query by the Representative of France regarding the Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled “United Nations System Revenue-producing Activities” (JIU/REP/2002/6), the Chief of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (C/EAO) clarified that some of the recommendations, such as the one relating to enhancing public access and visibility, were considered to be not applicable to ICAO as they were directed to the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination (CEB) rather than to specific organizations. He recalled that the said report had commended ICAO for being among the organizations at the forefront in revenue-producing activities. 21. Noting that the status report on implementation of the JIU recommendations was only presented once a year, the Representative of India suggested that it be issued twice a year, with another report, an information paper, being circulated to Representatives by President’s memorandum. He underscored that a second such report would ensure that the Secretariat continued to focus on implementing the JIU recommendations and that Representatives remained informed of the status of their implementation. The Representative of India, who also served as the Chairman of the Finance Committee (FIC), indicated that in considering the Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled “Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2006/3), the FIC might also consider whether the decisions relating to the non-applicability of JIU recommendations should be reviewed by an external oversight board. 22. Observing that his Office currently followed-up on the implementation of JIU recommendations twice a year, C/EAO indicated that he would have no difficulty in reporting thereon more frequently to the Council. He emphasized, however, that in some cases, where the JIU reports did not contain many recommendations applicable to ICAO, the change in status of their implementation might not be very significant in a six-month period. C/EAO underscored that every effort was made to clearly explain in the papers presenting the various JIU reports why recommendations were not considered to be applicable to ICAO. 23. Recalling that a report on the implementation of Council decisions was presented each session, the Representative of Australia underscored that the immediate efforts to implement the recommendations of a JIU report once the Council had considered it could be followed-up through that report. He averred that an annual report on the status of implementation of JIU recommendations was an adequate tool with which to assess progress. 24. The Council then noted the information provided in C-WP/12728 on the status of implementation of recommendations of the JIU, on the understanding that an updated report would be presented to the Council during the 182nd Session. Subject No. 12: Programme of ICAO meetings

Programme of Meetings for 2007 25. The Council considered this subject on the basis of reports by the Air Navigation Commission (C-WP/12778), the Air Transport Committee (C-WP/12786), the Joint Support Committee (C-WP/12769) and the Committee on Unlawful Interference (C-WP/12717) on the programmes of meetings in their respective fields, together with a report by the Secretary General (C-WP/12757 Revisions No. 1) on legal meetings and a report by the Council Working Group on Meetings [C-WP/12797 with Blue Rider (English only)]. It was noted that the reports of the ANC and the ATC should be amended to indicate that the Colloquium on Aviation Emissions would take place at Headquarters from 14 to 16 May 2007, as indicated in C-WP/12797.

C-MIN 179/13

- 213 -

26. It was agreed that, as suggested by the Representative of Australia, future papers relating to the convening of meetings should include an overview of how the meetings would help achieve the Organization’s Strategic Objectives. 27. Observing that the Council often had to wait for the various Committees to complete their work and that it consequently had a large number of reports to consider at the end of each session, the Representative of Australia urged the President of the Council to use his discretionary authority and to convene some Council meetings during the Committee phase of a session to allow a smoother flow of Committee reports to the Council. He suggested that this could initially be done on an experimental basis to assist the Council in preparing for the upcoming 36th Session of the Assembly. The President noted that efforts were already being made to change the distribution of Council meetings not only between the Committee and Council phases but also during the year. Such a change would not, however, be made in 2007 due to the convening of the said Assembly. 28. Recalling two instances when invitations to attend regional seminars had not been received by his Government, the Representative of Japan emphasized the need for good communication between the Regional Offices, ICAO Headquarters and civil aviation authorities or other relevant authorities in order to improve the effectiveness of regional meetings, as well as of other meetings. The President of the Council underscored the importance of such co-ordination. 29. Noting that his State would be hosting an aviation security conference in March 2007 to assist all States Members of the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC) to further promote aviation security development and capacity-building, the Representative of Saudi Arabia requested that the Secretariat take that into consideration when proposing dates for the aviation security seminar to be held in the first half of 2007 and for the First AVSEC Symposium/Conference to be held in the second half of that year to ensure that there was no overlapping. 30. Observing, from Appendix C to C-WP/12797, that very little money was allocated for aviation security meetings for 2007, with only US $6 000 being budgeted for the said aviation security seminar and the said First AVSEC Symposium/Conference being held on a cost-recovery basis, at no cost to ICAO, the Representative of India suggested that consideration be given to allocating more funds to such meetings. He noted, in this regard, that cost-savings realized in other areas could be allocated to aviation security meetings. Recalling that the possibility of convening a First AVSEC Symposium/Conference had only been raised in 2006, the Director of the Air Transport Bureau (D/ATB) indicated that no provision had thus been made for that meeting in the Programme Budget for 2005-2007 approved by the last Assembly. He was confident, however, that the exhibition which would be held concurrently with the Symposium/Conference would generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of the meeting. D/ATB further noted that the US $6 000 allocated for the aviation security seminar covered only direct costs and did not include the cost of providing interpretation services or other costs. To a further point raised by the Representative, the President of the Council confirmed that States’ delegates to the said Symposium/Conference would not be required to pay a fee to participate in that meeting. 31. Underscoring that the more time that was spent in Council meetings, the greater the cost of such meetings and the less money that was available for other meetings, the Representative of Canada requested that the Secretary General provide Representatives with information on the budget for Council meetings.

C-MIN 179/13 - 214 -

32. Congratulating the organizers of aviation security meetings on accomplishing so much which such a small budget, the Representative of Spain expressed the hope that future budgets would be of the same magnitude, if not smaller. 33. In then taking action on the basis of the recommendation made by the Council Working Group on Meetings in paragraph 10.1 of C-WP/12797, the Council: a) noted the report contained in that paper; and

b) approved the programme of meetings for 2007 appearing at Appendix A to

C-WP/12797 in light of the information provided in paragraphs 3 to 9 of that paper and taking into account that the dates for the convening of certain meetings would be decided subsequently.

Tentative programme of meetings for 2008-2009-2010

34. The Council then reviewed a report by the Council Working Group on Meetings (C-WP/12798) on the tentative programme of meetings for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. The report had been developed for planning and budgetary purposes on the basis of recommendations by the Air Navigation Commission (C-WP/12778), the Air Transport Committee (C-WP/12786), the Joint Support Committee (C-WP/12769) and the Committee on Unlawful Interference (C-WP/12717) on meetings in their respective fields, as well as by the Secretary General (C-WP/12757 Revision No. 1) on legal meetings. 35. It was understood, with regard to the two Regional Traffic Forecasting Groups meetings listed in Appendix A to C-WP/12798 under Air Transport Meetings, that one of the meetings would take place in the African region in 2008 if there were a need for it and that the issue would be discussed with the AFI Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APIRG) and the ICAO Regional Offices in Dakar and Nairobi. It was agreed to amend the listing for the said Regional Traffic Forecasting Groups to indicate that one meeting would take place in the African region and to add a footnote to indicate that such a meeting was dependent on their being an established need for it. 36. In taking the action recommended by the Council Working Group on Meetings in paragraph 6.1 of C-WP/12798, the Council approved, for planning and budgetary purposes, the programmes of meetings for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 set forth in Appendices A, B and C to that paper, as amended above, on the understanding that those schedules would be subject to continuing review. Subject No. 14: Subjects relating to air navigation Subject No. 45: Policy and programme of ICAO for provision of air navigation facilities and services

Report of ANC — Amendment of the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems (Doc 9750)

37. Tabled next for consideration was C-WP/12780, in which the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) presented a proposal to update the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems (Doc 9750) which took into account the 2003 Eleventh Air Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/11), the Sixth Meeting of the Air Navigation Commission Consultation with Industry in May 2004, the Strategic Objectives of the Organization and the new Business Plan.

C-MIN 179/13

- 215 -

38. Commending the amended Global Plan, the Representative of Spain urged the Council to approve it, subject to the inclusion of a list of acronyms and abbreviations. 39. In expressing appreciation for the enormous amount of work done in producing the amendment to the Global Plan, the Representative of Finland indicated that he had no difficulty in accepting it, as well as the new name proposed by the ANC, the Global Air Navigation Plan. Noting that European States continued to work fully in accordance with the Global Plan, he cited the Single European Sky initiative and underscored that the said States looked forward to positive co-operation with ICAO in this matter in the future. 40. The Representative of India likewise voiced support for the updated Global Plan and its suggested new title. 41. In congratulating the Secretariat and the ANC on their excellent work, the Representative of the United States emphasized that the amended Global Plan provided a vision for the future. He underscored that, while there were very advanced technologies available, it was essential that ICAO play a role in ensuring that they were interoperable. The Representative of the United States noted that the Global Plan would be cost efficient for many States and would provide a seamless global air transportation. He indicated, however, that while it provided a path forward, much work remained to be done. 42. Echoing the comments made by previous speakers, particularly the commendations of the ANC, the Representative of Australia stressed the need to also commend the successful use of a process to engage with industry. He emphasized that that consultation process was a significant way to ensure that all stakeholders were working in the same direction and had the ability to influence the contents of the Global Plan. 43. In taking the action proposed in paragraph 7.1 of C-WP/12780, as amended in light of the discussion, the Council:

a) accepted the second amendment of the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM

Systems (Doc 9750) appended to the paper, subject to the inclusion of a list of acronyms and abbreviations; and

b) agreed that the title of the document be changed to Global Air Navigation Plan. Other business 44. The Council agreed that the following papers, designated as Information papers, should be cleared by President’s memorandum, on the understanding that any substantive comments thereon would be circulated by way of an addendum to the papers in question and that any Council Representative could request that any one of papers be tabled for discussion: C-WP/12675 — Ways and means of celebrating International Women’s Day; C-WP/12771 — Review of the effectiveness of ICAO’s State letter system; and C-WP/12772 — Status of implementation of the UN Standards of Conduct for international civil servants in ICAO. There was a general consensus that in future the same procedure should be followed for clearing all information papers, as well as those papers which had been referred to the relevant Committee(s) and approved unanimously by the latter without comment. It was left to the President to decide which such papers should be cleared by memorandum.

C-MIN 179/13 - 216 -

- - - - - - - - - - 45. The Secretary General then brought to the Council’s attention the long-standing request of the ICAO Staff Association for tax exemption on UN pensions and sought its concurrence with his proceeding with negotiations with the Government of Canada to amend the 1990 Headquarters Agreement and with the Government of Quebec to amend the 1994 Understanding with the Organization. The Secretary General noted that he had already discussed the issue with the Representative of Canada. 46. The Council agreed that the Secretary General should proceed with the said negotiations, subject to his liaising with other organizations of the UN common system and to the President of the Council’s involvement in the negotiations with the Government of Canada in light of his signature, on behalf of the Organization, of the Headquarters Agreement. The Representative of Canada was requested to use his good offices in this matter. 47. The Council adjourned at 1650 hours.

C-MIN 179/14

- 217 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Mr. T. Burlage (Alt.) Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. J. López González (Alt.) — Argentina Mr. J.R. Cornelio (Alt.) — Argentina Mrs. M. Deshaies (Alt.) — Canada Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB *Mr. V. Zubkov — C/RAO *Mr. S. Espinola — PLO Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB *Ms. L. Boisvert — C/EPO *Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB Mr. P. Lamy — C/FLS *Mr. M. Fox — C/ATPS *Mr. V.P. Galotti — C/ATM *Mr. H. Gourdji — C/SOA *Mr. E. MacBurnie — EPO *Ms. J.M. Bacon — ADAN *Mr. D. Chagnon — PIO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/14 - 218 -

ALSO PRESENT (CONTINUED):

SECRETARIAT (CONTINUED):

Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. S.P. Creamer (Alt.) — United States

*Mr. H.P. Pretorius — RAO *Mr. C. Gauthier — JFO Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

C-MIN 179/14

- 219 -


Report of ANC – Progress report on implementation of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) Recommendations

1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12805, in which the Air Navigation Commission presented a progress report on action being taken on the recommendations of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06). 2. To a question raised by the Representative of the United States regarding the response which the Secretariat had received to the four State letters which had been issued, and in particular the request for guidance material for the Flight Safety Information Exchange (FSIX) website, C/FLS indicated that the Secretariat had not received as much information as it would have hoped, although the State letter was only one of the mechanisms that it was using to get information, and FSIX information was increasing almost on a weekly basis. 3. The Representative of Australia referred to Recommendation 3/1 a), and requested clarification on the follow-up action, which read “Action to be taken – no delay expected”. He noted, in connection with Recommendation 3/1 d), that a procedure was being developed for improving the process of developing and adopting Standards and Recommended Practices, and observed that the Council was quickly approaching the time when it would approve a series of Annex amendments. He hoped that the procedure was not just being developed but was close to being finalized so that it could be in place at that time. He noted from Recommendation 3/1 d) 3) that the ANC’s original plan had been to report to Council on the progress and development of an action plan during the 179th Session, and while recognizing that the Commission’s work had not progressed as quickly as hoped, reinforced the view that overall progress was quite good. 4. C/FLS indicated that the “no delay expected” indication reflected the fact that although initialization of the task had been delayed because of workload considerations, it was expected that a proposal would nevertheless be made to the ANC by June of 2007. As regards the development of a procedure for SARPs, a working group of the Commission was addressing the issue of Standard-making. Although it was not absolutely sure that this work would be integrated in the next round of Annex amendments, an interim solution was being implemented to ensure that complete justification was provided for the proposed amendments, including impact on States and industry. On the last point raised by the Representative of Australia regarding the development of an action plan, another working group of the ANC was addressing this very difficult issue which involved legal considerations. Although the Convention did not allow for much flexibility, the ANC was working diligently and was expected to make more progress during the recess. 5. The Representative of India observed that two major issues were still outstanding. One concerned the transparency and sharing of airworthiness information, in respect of which the follow-up action was ‘feasibility of integration to be considered’. It almost appeared that a feasibility study of the feasibility study was being proposed. The Representative of India did not think that this was a very difficult issue, and believed that a decision could be taken as to whether a study would be undertaken or not. He also requested clarification on the time-frame envisaged in connection with improving the process of SARPs development, for which the follow up action was indicated as ‘a procedure is being developed’. The Representative of India emphasized that the DGCA Recommendations which were being sought to be integrated with the Business Plan should be highlighted for special monitoring, and pointed out that implementation of the DGCA Recommendations was a two-way street, calling for some action on the part of the States and some on the part of ICAO. The ANC and Secretariat might consider whether the

C-MIN 179/14 - 220 -

progress of implementation of DGCA recommendations could be monitored, as was the case with the Standards.

6. DD/ANB indicated that the importance of transparency and sharing of information was recognized, and that great progress was being made in the use of the flight safety information exchange. The feasibility study was underway and should be completed before March of 2007. On the second point raised by the Representative of India, i.e. the assessment of the impact of Standards, it was hoped that the same time –frame would apply. The point was also well taken that there was merit in highlighting in the Business Plan the progress on DGCA Recommendations. Later in the day, there would be an informal briefing to the Air Navigation Commission on the Air Navigation Integrated Programme to establish the criteria for work to be undertaken and monitor progress. This would be a very efficient tool, in particular for the Air Navigation Commission to keep track of the Global Safety Initiatives and the Global Plan Initiatives. At the previous meeting (179/13), the Council had accepted an update to the Global Plan, out of which there were various initiatives which were part of the Business Plan with specific deliverables, specific outcomes, meeting the input and participation of the Regional Office staff to actually help implement the issues. The same was valid for the Global Safety Initiatives. On Monday, 4 December 2006 there would be a hand-over by the industry of the Safety Road Map, Part II. When it was adopted by ICAO, it would drive the safety part of the Business Plan with the Global Safety Initiatives and, as was the case for the efficiency and Global Plan Initiatives, would be reflected in the electronic environment of the Air Navigation Integrated Programme.

7. The Secretariat would look at the possibility of providing a user friendly guide for the on-line environment. As regards the monitoring as part of the audit process, it was widely recognized that the audit programme was fairly well-defined and rigidly centered around protocols that had been written to assess the capability of States to perform safety oversight. The audit process could be considered in general as a measuring stick for ICAO to assess its effectiveness in having its products implemented in the field. The products of ICAO were the Standards and the related provisions and guidance on the one hand, and on the other hand the infrastructure plans for facilities and air navigation services in the world that were reflected in the Air Navigation Plan and Global Plan.

8. DD/ANB suggested that it was perhaps not the right time to suggest that the audit programme be enlarged. The Organization had recently combined its security and safety audit programmes in a single Branch reporting directly to the Secretary General, functioning as a feedback loop to the CEO of the implementation status of the security and safety standards. To enlarge that process to specifically follow up might not fit in the current strategy. The cycle time of specific visits to States was already fairly long and for that reason the desk audit was continuing. DD/ANB did not believe it was possible to squeeze in an extra monitoring function.

9. The Representative of Nigeria indicated that he shared some of the concerns expressed by Australia and India. In many parts of the paper, it was indicated that the Council could monitor through the Business Planning process, raising some concern in his mind as to how the Council could do that. DD/ANB had further clarified that the Air Navigation Integrated Programme could be a useful tool, but who was the audience? Was it for Air Navigation Commission consideration alone, or was it something that would come to the Council? . As regards the issue of the review of the process of making Standards, the Representative of Nigeria recalled that early in the current triennium, the case had been made for the transition to performance-based Standards; that review was critical to achieving such transition.

10. The Representative of South Africa wished to reinforce what had been said by India, Nigeria and Australia, especially on the issue of transparency, and acknowledged that the Secretariat had put a March 2007 deadline, with which his Delegation was pleased.

C-MIN 179/14

- 221 -

11. In taking action on the subject on the basis of paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12805, as expanded to include sub-paragraph c) below, the Council: a) noted the information contained in the paper; b) agreed that monitoring and future reporting on the implementation of the

DGCA/06 recommendations would be done as part of the regular monitoring mechanism of the Organization; and

c) requested that a further report on the subject, including an overview and analysis

of the progress made, be presented to the Council during its 181st Session. Subject No. 14.4: Air navigation meetings

Report of ANC – Review of the report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the AFI Planning and

Implementation Regional Group (APIRG/15) – Need for a RAN meeting for the AFI Region

12. The above subject was documented in two papers presented by the Air Navigation Commission. In C-WP/12704, the ANC reported on its review of a specific conclusion (Need for a RAN meeting for the AFI Region) of the APIRG/15 Meeting that required action by the Council. C-WP/12816 contained information on civil aviation safety and efficiency in the AFI Region which should be taken into account when considering the upcoming schedule of meetings.

13. The Secretary General thanked the President of the ANC for an extremely important working paper, which he believed met the objectives of the millennium; to speak of economic development hand-in-hand with savings and economies, one had to mention air transport since it was so essential to the economic development of the regions, and safety was, in turn, absolutely essential to air transport. The ANC’s report was thus of paramount importance and it applied across the board to all regions where was not assured properly.

14. The Representative of Canada supported the proposal of the ANC and the statement made by the Secretary General. Not only was the meeting necessary; it would have political significance for the region and must take place. Ways would have to be found to fund the meeting using the most economic and practical means, in the light of the pressure which would be put when preparing the Budget and the existing financial resources within the Organization. One of the options proposed by the President of the ANC, i.e. to hold the meeting immediately prior to the Assembly, would provide savings, was logical, and Canada therefore supported it wholeheartedly.

15. The Representative of Nigeria indicated that most of his comments would pertain to the developments that had taken place within the past few months and particularly with respect to C-WP/12816. As the Council and the Assembly had issued directives to start shifting focus to the issue of implementation of Standards, C-WP/12816 was an example of the steps the Organization needed to take. It addressed the issue of eliminating safety deficiencies in the regions, and in this case in particular the AFI region. After the DGCA Conference, the very laudable recommendations of that Conference had been adopted immediately by a Council of Ministers in Africa; two months later those recommendations had been presented to the Summit of the Heads of State in Africa and they too had adopted them. It was important to underscore the political will that had been generated within the Continent to address safety issues. Up to now, there had been a multiplicity of very laudable initiatives in Africa: What was clearly missing was the issue of leadership. At a recent visit to ICAO by the African Commission responsible for

C-MIN 179/14 - 222 -

transport, which had made a presentation to the Council and an informal briefing about the efforts that had taken place, ICAO had been asked to collaborate with AFCAC in terms of providing leadership for these initiatives. During the informal briefing, the World Bank and a United Nations Working Group had also made very pertinent pronouncements calling on ICAO to provide leadership, confirming that they were ready to support initiatives for elimination of safety deficiencies in the region. C-WP/12816 was important because it focused on the issue of ICAO taking leadership and coordinating all initiatives; it focused on the issue of moving from development of Standards to implementation; it focused on the need to give responsibility to the Regional Offices, to integrate them functionally, and to their getting technical support and being the front line for the Organization with those States that they were accredited to. The Representative of Nigeria wished to propose to the Council that the pertinent recommendations and conclusions that were in C-WP/12816 be the subject of some concrete decision that would enable the work proposed by the Commission and the Secretariat to move forward. In that regard, he directed the Council’s attention to a flimsy that had been distributed before the meeting, and that contained some actions and decisions drawn from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the paper. The Representative of Nigeria also wished to inform the Council that the African Union was planning to host in May 2007 a meeting of the Council of Ministers responsible for civil aviation. If the Organization had such a plan, the framework of that plan could be outlined to the Ministers, and would demonstrate that ICAO had responded to the call for leadership in this regard.

16. The Representative of Saint Lucia wished to be associated with the remarks of the Representative of Nigeria. ICAO used a number of very impressive terms, such as a Global Air Navigation Plan, a Safety Roadmap, a robust civil aviation safety chain; but there were a lot of weak links in the chain and it was well known that a chain was only as strong as its weakest link. If ICAO was really serious about aviation safety around the world, it should try to eliminate all these weak links. The Representative of Saint Lucia had been part of the team that had gone to Africa earlier in the year and had also visited all of the ICAO regions and Regional Offices. In the case of the offices in Nairobi and Dakar, he had been appalled by some of the things he had seen and appalled by some of the presentations that had been made. For example, in a presentation by the IATA Regional Office in Johannesburg, the officer responsible for CNS/ATM had indicated that around two o’clock in the morning, traffic coming from east to west, north to south, was in some places not anyone’s responsibility for separation. Regional Offices should be charged with the follow up of the implementation of the regional plans with close support and guidance of Headquarters. This close link was what, in fact, had been lacking very much with the Regional Offices and the offices at Headquarters.

17. The Representative of Lebanon observed that this was a subject which was very close to his heart, since he was perhaps the only survivor of an accident in Africa. Everyone knew about Africa’s problem, but until today no really very serious attempt worldwide had been made to solve it. It was about time that ICAO took this leadership role to do something about the region. Many regions looked to ICAO for leadership, help and a solution, and it was difficult not to see ICAO in this role. ICAO could change history if it could handle this problem properly once and for all. The previous day, he had been sad to see one of the biggest funding institutions in the world start to doubt ICAO’s seriousness in solving this problem: they were ready to help, they were ready to fund, but they started to feel ICAO was not up to it any more and this reflection was very bad. The Representative of Lebanon urged everyone to seriously look at this problem and once and for all, for ICAO to succeed and show the world that it really was the aviation leader. The Representative of Lebanon completely agreed with what Canada, Nigeria and Saint Lucia had said and hoped that this year would see a roadmap. If this could be done before the Assembly ICAO would change history.

18. The Representative of the United States wished to endorse each and every word of the statement by the Representative of Nigeria. The United States recognized that the Secretariat was very

C-MIN 179/14

- 223 -

busy and that the resources were limited, but in this case believed it was essential that ICAO step up to this challenge. It would be a test of the new focus on implementation whether ICAO could exercise a leadership role in facilitating and coordinating technical assistance and support in a very important region of the world. Today new satellite-based technologies presented generation-skipping opportunities in aviation, as was the case with telecommunications, and these could be used to enhance safety and efficiency in the African region as well as others. Success of the programme, however, would depend on strong technical staffing in ICAO’s Regional Offices, the full support of the African States, and their willingness to work together and cooperate on a regional basis. It was important, however, to proceed vigorously with the proposal by the Representative of Nigeria and to have in place an action plan to present to the 36th Assembly for approval and implementation in the next triennium. It was important to involve and work closely with the World Bank, which shared ICAO’s commitment to this region of the world, and the United States urged approval of Nigeria’s statement and proposal.

19. The Representative of India fully supported the meeting and the proposals in C-WP/12704 and C-WP/12816, as well as the action points proposed by the Representative of Nigeria. Preparing a plan was one thing, ICAO was very good at producing beautiful plans. But the implementation of a plan was very closely linked with financing. Some part of the financing would come from within the Organization, and ICAO leadership needed to work more in this area in accordance with the desires expressed by various international financial institutions. The attraction of capital investment in the African Region would be the most important part for the implementation of the Regional Navigation Plan. Although a part of the Regional Air Navigation Plan would be funded by the State governments, those States in the African region had a resource crunch; therefore, a lot of capital investment needed to be attracted to the region and that was where ICAO could play a very effective leadership role. In this regard, the Representative of India wished to mention that ICAO had created one facility, i.e. the IFFAS, but very little had developed in that area. Therefore there was a need to create a platform where all donors, investors, and leading institutions should be brought. The Representative of India wished to make one more suggestion with regard to the strengthening of Regional Offices: A proposal was coming before the Council with regard to restructuring of the Secretariat, and that would be a good occasion to strengthen Regional Offices, both in the regions as well as in Headquarters.

20. The Representative of Ethiopia advocated the enhancement of ICAO’s leadership and coordination role in the African region through the integration and strengthening of Regional Offices with Headquarters Strategic Objectives. A comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan should be revised and developed for the African region as early as possible so that the Council could receive the report for onward presentation to the 36th Assembly. It might also be of paramount importance if ICAO also took the opportunity to participate in the Ministerial meeting scheduled in May 2007. The Council should consider this strategic issue with the relevant provisions of the DGCA Conference recommendations. Ethiopia associated itself with the presentation and proposal made by the Representative of Nigeria in his capacity as coordinator of the African Group.

21. The Representative of the United Kingdom wished to briefly echo the sentiments of others. This was a key test of whether ICAO could implement the Strategic Objectives and it must be ready to seize that opportunity. The elements that the Representative of the United Kingdom wished to add included a question to that group, and in particular to Nigeria, about the meeting date. Canada had suggested that it be tagged on to the Assembly, and this was one of the options in the paper; the Representative of the United Kingdom nevertheless believed that the Council should ask itself which would be the more effective meeting date rather than simply which was going to be the more efficient. It would seem that the May 2007 opportunity might be one which would draw more interest, and particularly draw more interest from those who were directly involved in implementing any plan that might be drawn up. The Representative of the United Kingdom also wanted to suggest that the Council

C-MIN 179/14 - 224 -

say specifically that there would be a RAN meeting held in 2008 and that it could serve as a forum to review the progress which had been made following the agreement on the implementation plan.

22. The Representative of Nigeria agreed with the United Kingdom on the need for the Commission to consider as part of the agenda for the RAN meeting in 2008 some follow up stocktaking of actions as regards the proposals for 2007. In respect to the meetings, there were many avenues to handle this issue, depending on how quickly the Organization could work. In consultation with the African Union, the forthcoming Council of Ministers meeting could no doubt do a lot of the work. The programme could be expanded, and there could be a technical experts’ meeting before the Ministers’ meeting. On the other hand, sufficient funds were needed in order to organize a special meeting. The option proposed by Canada for convening a meeting two days before the Assembly was another possibility. The only problem in this respect concerned the participants: it would be difficult to expect that the Ministers would be there, since they usually came to the Assembly just in time for the elections.

23. The Representative of Egypt wished to support what had been said by the Representatives of Canada, Nigeria and others. Egypt supported the proposals in the two papers under consideration, noting that they were in line with the current approach of the Organization which was to provide assistance to States. This was exactly what Africa needed for the time being, and there should be an integration for aviation safety in all parts of the world.

24. The Representative of France observed, on the basis of the consensus, that the Council should give very strong instructions to the Secretary General regarding the high priority to be given to the enhancement of safety in the African region, including the need to strengthen the African Regional Offices and also improve cooperation between Headquarters and the Regional Offices. He also suggested that ICAO should be represented at a high level, either by the President of the Council or the Secretary General, at the meeting of the African Ministers of Transport in May 2007.

25. The Representative of Ghana emphasized that ICAO needed to reach all of the political leaders in the region. Notwithstanding the harrowing picture painted by the Representative of Saint Lucia, he knew from personal experience, having flown over Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, the Caribbean, and the United States, that near misses happened in every single region. Vigilance and training were of utmost importance. There was nothing wrong per se with plans, but they were not being implemented the way they should. The Council would have to take into consideration conditions that must affect the exigencies of the times. Any accomplishment started with knowledge, not just knowledge of what one had to do but how one was going to implement it. The strategy to implement it in various regions must of necessity be different from every other region. It was the Council’s job to pay visits to States to ascertain what was going on. Perhaps the Council should delegate that responsibility to the ANC to do that every year on its behalf. Training was important, but training must also be tailored to the people, their understanding, their consciousness; otherwise there would be no results. The Council had to understand the principle that for every land there was a prescribed portion, for every occasion there was an allotted chair, for every pronouncement an appointed time, and for every situation an appropriate remark.

26. The Representative of Australia believed that the Council needed to recognize the enormity of the task at hand. There was a long history of identification of problems, a great level of appreciation of the problems and a desire to provide assistance, but no “long haul” approach. To fully address a problem, to have to understand it, there was a long haul commitment required. A commitment was required not only from ICAO but from the governments of the region. Although it was pointed out in C-WP/12816 that to exercise a leadership role, ICAO would require substantial investment of energy and capital, there needed to be the appropriate commitment from the Contracting States of the region. One of

C-MIN 179/14

- 225 -

the conclusions of the DGCA referred to the requirement for transparency to be linked to assistance, and that was an important aspect that needed to continue. The Representative of Australia supported the United Kingdom’s proposal to have some form of follow up and in this respect had a couple of additional ideas and options in relation to the working paper. One of the problems highlighted in the DGCA Conference had been the issue of political commitment and resourcing of civil aviation authorities. The Representative of Australia wondered whether the Council could in fact consider some form of standard brief that ICAO or the President would send to all Ministers of Transport worldwide, emphasizing the obligations of States under the Chicago Convention and highlighting the programmes and assistance that was available. That might be a very useful way to promote better implementation and better understanding of what connection to the international air transport system involved. Australia fully supported and endorsed most of the words that had been spoken at this meeting, and the proposal from Nigeria was, in his view, an excellent one. He nevertheless wished to highlight the need to be realistic, including in terms of financing.

27. The Representative of Mozambique wished to join his voice to his African colleagues and support all they had said. ICAO leadership in Africa had to take into account what was happening on the ground. When listening to his colleague from Saint Lucia talk about flying over a Central African country at two o’clock in the morning, he recognized that he was referring to a SADC country at a time when a process of elections was taking place to stabilize the country politically and bring democracy. Local initiatives had been taken within the community to try to understand and help all of the countries in the community in this respect. The problem of ICAO leadership needed to take into account what was happening on the ground in the sense that ICAO should not forget other partners. In terms of political will in Africa, it had been said by the Heads of State of the Governments that the African Union was open. ICAO should not forget the other partner which was the United Nations, and which was monitoring developments.. It was important to take all possible measures, not forgetting what was happening on the ground, to facilitate action.

28. The Representative of Japan referred to paragraph 2.2.1 a) of C-WP/12704 which mentioned a “top down” approach from the highest level. This “top down” approach also should come with the strong commitment of the States in the region. This was a very important point in the planning of meetings. It was also important to ensure the strong involvement of developing agencies such as the World Bank, which had the funds that were needed and which were ready to give assistance to civil aviation. What was lacking was perhaps good coordination and a real understanding of the situation. The Representative of Japan agreed with the emphasis which many people had placed on the leadership of ICAO, but believed there was also a need to think about who would be the audience of the leadership, or to whom and how ICAO could show its leadership. That aspect needed to be well considered so that meetings could result in the necessary implementation to address deficiencies, and deliver the message, through media exposure, among other things, to obtain a broader support on the part of the society. 29. The President of the Council observed that the Council had heard a very clear proposal from the Representative for Nigeria with the support of everyone who had spoken at this meeting, but had to recognize one fact, i.e. that this was a challenge to the Organization. The Organization so to speak was under fire and all of the actors, stakeholders, in ICAO were responsible for the decision adopted. Safety continued to be a high priority within ICAO and this was what was being targeted; mention had been made of the links in a chain and it was recognized that safety represented one of the most important links. Resources were limited, there was in fact a resource crunch, but the President was confident that the Secretary General – because he himself had said so – would assign the necessary importance to this item and would assign it the highest level of priority.

C-MIN 179/14 - 226 -

30. The action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12704 was expanded in accordance with a proposal circulated during the meeting by the Representative of Nigeria and additional suggestions put forward during the debate. The expanded Council action reads as follows: a) The Council noted the need for a RAN meeting in the AFI Region early in the

next (2008-2009-2010) triennium, which should be a checkpoint for assessing progress in implementation.

b) The Council agreed on the following: i) ICAO should exert increased leadership role in coordinating activities,

initiatives and implementation strategies for sustained improvement of flight safety in the AFI Region.

ii) A comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan, including resource

requirements, should be developed for the AFI Region within six months, integrating all appropriate activities. The report on the plan should be presented to the Council during its 181st Session.

iii) The Regional Offices should be charged with the follow up of the

implementation of the Regional Plan with close support and guidance of Headquarters.

iv) The near priorities listed in C-WP/12816 should be integrated into the

Air Navigation Integrated Programme. v) A meeting should be convened prior to the 36th Session of the Assembly

to discuss the Regional Implementation Plan, in particular safety-related issues in the region.

vi) A report on the follow-up on progress regarding these actions would be

presented to the Council during its 181st Session. vii) The Secretary General would look into the possibility of preparing a

draft Assembly Resolution on the subject for consideration by the Air Navigation Commission and by the Council during its 181st Session.


Progress report regarding Contracting States that have given their consent to the publication of relevant safety oversight audit information

31. The Council noted C-WP/12775, an information paper in which the Secretary General reported on progress to date regarding those States who had released audit information to the public, as recommended by the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety. It was noted that since distribution of the paper, two additional States, i.e. Argentina and Japan, had authorized ICAO to release such information, bringing to eighty-four the total number of States which had consented to authorize the release of their audit information.

C-MIN 179/14

- 227 -

Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization Subject No. 17: Joint financing of air navigation services

Delegation of the oversight of the Joint Support Agreements to the Joint Support Committee under Article 52 of the Chicago Convention

32. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in an information paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/12755). The paper addressed the question of whether, under Article 52 of the Chicago Convention, the Council may, in general, delegate authority to any committee of its members and, in particular, the oversight of the Joint Support Agreements to the Joint Support Committee.

33. The Representative of Australia thanked the Secretariat for a paper which made it clear that from a legal perspective it was possible to delegate authority and that it was matter of policy. The Joint Support Committee was a very significant Committee in the history of the Organization, and continued to support a very significant international air route across the North Atlantic. There was nevertheless a need recognize that what was once the most significant international air route was now just one of the important international air routes in the world. The Council’s discussion on the need for assistance to the AFI Region had highlighted the need to redeploy resources to areas that really required assistance. The Council could have a close look at whether it had the appropriate level of governance for an arrangement which was now very stable and completely uncontroversial when it was discussed in the Council, and perhaps look at ways in which it could reduce the number of documents coming to the Council, reduce the burden on translation, and rely on the systems that were in place and the very thorough consultation process which ensured that those decisions met the needs of industry and of States. The Representative of Australia therefore suggested that a proposal be referred to the Joint Support Committee for further study rather than having the Council take any action at this time. The proposal would be that the Council would delegate its power over the Joint Support Agreements under Article 52 on certain conditions, i.e. that any decision of the Joint Support Committee would only take effect thirty days after the date of that decision; that any interested Contracting State may request that a decision of the Joint Support Committee be brought before the Council provided that this request was made to the President of the Council before the expiry of that thirty day period; and that any proposal for an amendment of the Joint Support Agreements would have to come directly to the Council, with the understanding that the Council would review the operation of this decision after two years’ time.

34. The Representative of Singapore indicated that as Chairman of the Joint Support Committee, he had found that the Committee, supported by a very capable Secretariat, was working well and he was convinced that the current practice fully met the obligation of governance of the Agreements by Council in a cost effective manner. That should not, however, stop the Council from seeking further efficiencies. He therefore agreed that the paper be referred to the Joint Support Committee as an item for consideration in its work programme and, if necessary, to report to Council. The proposal of the Representative of Australia was further supported by the Representatives of France, Finland,

35. The Representative of India felt that the question of delegation to Committees was a comprehensive wide-ranging decision, and while having full confidence in all the Committees, cautioned against establishing a precedent for the delegation of such core decision-making functions to Committees. Other Committees would no doubt ask for similar delegations, and this would disintegrate the collective functioning of the Council. Whereas the Joint Support Committee was most welcome to come to Council with any proposal, the paper under consideration did not need to be referred to it. The Representative of South Africa endorsed the views expressed by the Representative of India.

C-MIN 179/14 - 228 -

36. The Representative of Japan supported the idea of referring the matter to the Joint Support Committee for discussion in a more detailed way, and perhaps for coming up with a more concrete proposal on the mechanism and safeguard measures. He agreed with the concern raised by India on the scope of the delegation, but at the same time believed that such delegation could be restricted to specific needs and areas. It would therefore be better to refer the subject to the Joint Support Committee. On the basis of the JSC’s report, the Council could return to the subject while taking full consideration of efficiency on one hand, and on the other hand the need to ensure that the authority of the Council as a governing body was not damaged. The Representative of France also understood the concerns of the Representative of India, and could take the action proposed by the Representative of Australia on the understanding that the Council would be taking a specific decision on a specific case with no other delegation of authority envisaged.

37. The Representative of Austria could support the proposal by Australia that this issue be referred to the Joint Support Committee, and would also welcome similar arrangements if other issues that could make the work of the Council more efficient could be transferred to other Committees. While understanding the concerns of the Representative of India, she believed that this was nevertheless a possibility for facilitating the work of Council. 38. The Council referred C-WP/12755, insofar as it concerned the delegation of the oversight of the Joint Support Agreements to the JSC, to the Joint Support Committee for its review and report back to Council at an appropriate time.

C-MIN 179/15

- 229 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. J. López González (Alt.) Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary —*Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. S. Espinola — PLO Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB *Mr. A.R. Diallo — C/HRB Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB *Miss D. Wall — A/C/REC/EST Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/15 - 230 -

Subject No. 7.2: Recruitment policy Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Composition and mandate of the Commission for Processing of Applications for Posts at Director Level (COPAD)

1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12811 presented by the former Chairman of the COPAD on the inclusion of female Council Member representation on the COPAD pursuant to the Council’s earlier decision (178/14) and the proposed expansion of the COPAD’s mandate to include Principal Officer (P-O) level posts, an issue which the Council had referred to the COPAD for its consideration (179/3). The Attachment to the paper set forth the text of the amendment proposed by the Secretary General to Annex IV-A to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) relating to female Council Member representation on the COPAD. That amendment had been accepted by the COPAD without change. 2. In providing clarifications, the Secretary General recalled that the COPAD had been established to address the political aspect of the recruitment of Directors, namely, that each continent should be represented by a Director. Averring that the inclusion of P-O level posts in the COPAD’s mandate would result in the recruitment of such Officers being based more on political considerations than on competency, he underscored that he had always believed in, and followed, the principle that competency was the primary criterion in the appointment of personnel. If two candidates were of equal competency, then equitable geographical representation and gender balance were taken into account. 3. The Secretary General noted that candidacies for P-O level posts and other lower level professional category posts were considered by the Appointment and Promotion Board, which was comprised of all Directors, as well as of a female Council Representative. The Board received three lists of candidates for a given post from the Human Resources Branch (HRB), one containing the names of those candidates who met all of the requirements of the post, one that contained the names of those who lacked some of the required qualifications and one which contained the names of those who did not have any of the required qualifications. After reviewing the lists, the Board made a recommendation to the Secretary General. If the Board were unanimous in its recommendation, then the Secretary General followed its recommendation in making the appointment. If, on the other hand, the Board were not unanimous, then the Secretary General, on his own initiative and as objectively as possible selected the person he considered to be the best candidate. The Secretary General noted that whereas the Board Members were considerably affected by the choice of a candidate since they would be working with the person for a long period of time, COPAD Members were only slightly affected. 4. Observing that C-WP/12811 called for candidacies for P-O level posts to be referred to the COPAD once the Board had completed its work, the Secretary General averred that the addition of this second level of review would lengthen the recruitment process. As an example, he cited the case of the recruitment of a P-O which was required by July but which could not be done until the COPAD met in November. He also emphasized that the procedure would not be efficient. 5. Underscoring that the issue to be addressed was how to make ICAO more effective, the Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that one way of doing so was by seeking and encouraging applications from the widest possible area throughout the international aviation community and beyond. Averring that ICAO should be advertising vacancies not only on its website but also in international magazines such as The Economist, he noted that many other UN organizations advertised in such magazines. The Representative of the United Kingdom observed that too often ICAO received candidacies from people within the UN common system rather than from outside that system.

C-MIN 179/15

- 231 -

Emphasizing that ICAO needed to have the best possible candidates, he indicated that there should be a filtering process which was based entirely on merit and not tainted by politics, i.e., the need to appoint a candidate from a particular region. The Representative of the United Kingdom maintained that there was a sufficient number of skilled professionals worldwide who were able to fill the vacancies advertised by ICAO. It was therefore unnecessary to recruit a candidate from a particular region to fill a particular post. It would not matter if sometimes there were two professionals from the same region filling high-level posts, as two professionals from a different region would subsequently be filling those posts. For that reason, the Representative of the United Kingdom was doubtful that having the COPAD review candidacies for P-O level posts would add value to the nomination process. In recognizing that it was difficult to achieve a balance between the responsibilities of the Council and those of the Secretary General, he noted that the view had often been expressed that the Council should stop micro-managing and that it should let the Secretary General fulfill his responsibilities while the Council concentrated on the bigger issue of international aviation policy. The Representative of the United Kingdom stressed that the world at large was looking to ICAO for leadership and not looking to the Council in particular for appointing candidates who would be able to carry out the wishes of that body. 6. The Representative of Tunisia underscored that he supported any proposals that would enhance the effectiveness of ICAO, whether within the Council or the Secretariat or the Organization as a whole. Noting, from paragraph 3.2 of C-WP/12811, that there had been unanimous agreement in the COPAD “about the responsibility that the Council has as the governing body of the Organization, recognizing that the Secretary General should be trusted to meet the responsibilities accorded to him”, he indicated that that trust was based on the premise that the Secretary General had been elected by the Council and that there were currently internal and external oversight measures to increase transparency and to guarantee the performance of the Secretariat. The Representative of Tunisia wondered whether the proposal to expand the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts and to have appointments to such posts subject to the Council’s approval was in conflict with the idea of trusting the Secretary General to meet his responsibilities. In also querying whether it would have a negative impact on the Council’s performance, he noted that the latter might no longer have sufficient time to examine in detail issues of importance to the international aviation community relating to, inter alia, safety, security, the environment and the Programme Budget which were often urgent in nature. The Representative of Tunisia then sought clarification regarding the procedure to be followed if the Council were to decide not to approve the appointment of a P-O. 7. Referring to the proposed amendment to Annex IV-A to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) set forth in the Attachment to the paper, the Representative of Finland indicated that it was self-evident that the COPAD should include female Council Member representation given the Council’s earlier decision (178/14). The amendment was only confirming that decision. In agreeing with the comments made by the Secretary General and the Representative of the United Kingdom that P-O level professionals should be appointed on the basis of merit, he contended that giving the COPAD a role in the nomination process would add a political element which would, on balance, be more negative than positive. The Representative of Finland also concurred with the Representative of Tunisia that there was an inconsistency between paragraph 3.2 of the paper and expanding the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts. While commending the fact that paragraph 4.1 4) called for the COPAD’s role in the nomination process to be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that it added value to the process, he queried why such an analysis had not been done beforehand. Noting, in this context, that the paper mainly recorded the views of the various COPAD Members, the Representative of Finland questioned why the COPAD’s mandate should be expanded when no analysis had been done which showed indisputably that it would add value. He recalled that a comparison done previously of the appointment practices of UN organizations and Specialized Agencies (cf. C-WP/12673; 179/3) had revealed that in the vast majority of cases the governing body did not participate in the recruitment and appointment process

C-MIN 179/15 - 232 -

for P-O level posts. The Representative of Finland was thus skeptical regarding the action proposed by the COPAD in the paper. Referring to paragraph 4.1 2), which indicated that the COPAD would have a maximum of two weeks to make recommendations, if any, to the Secretary General for P-O level posts, he underscored that it was not clearly specified what kind of recommendations the COPAD should make, unlike its recommendations regarding Director-level posts. The Representative of Finland thus did not find the proposed process to be very convincing. 8. In then drawing attention to paragraph 4.2, which indicated that the process of consultation between the Secretary General and the President of the Council should be analyzed and its discontinuation should be considered, the Representative of Finland emphasized that an open mind should be kept in conducting the analysis, with consideration being given not only to its discontinuation but also to its continuation, perhaps with some improvement to the current process. 9. Noting that he understood the view expressed by the Secretary General, the Representative of Saudi Arabia underscored that he was accountable to the Council for the work carried out by the Secretariat and that the work performed would not be satisfactory if the personnel were not suitably qualified. Affirming that the Council had a responsibility to assist the Secretary General in reforming the Organization, he indicated that it should do so by giving him the full authority to appoint professionals at the P-O level. Maintaining that the proposal put forward by the COPAD regarding such appointments was in conflict with the objective of reforming the Organization, the Representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that he did not support it and that the appointment of professionals at the P-O level should remain under the authority of the Secretary General and should be made solely on the basis of merit. 10. The Representative of Spain indicated that candidacies for Director-level posts should be reviewed by the COPAD given the importance of such posts and the fact that appointments thereto were of a different nature, being fixed-term and not permanent. Candidacies for P-O level posts, however, should be reviewed only by the Appointment and Promotion Board comprising the Directors, who were the P-Os superiors. It would then be for the Secretary General, in consultation with the President of the Council, to appoint the candidate best qualified to fill the post. The Representative of Spain thus shared the views expressed by the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Finland, inter alia. Referring to the comment made by the latter regarding the possible improvement of the consultation process between the Secretary General and the President of the Council, he emphasized the need to ensure that the appointment of a P-O level professional was a joint decision. The Representative of Spain indicated that, if major differences of opinion existed regarding a given appointment, then a mediator could be selected from among the Council Representatives, someone who was acceptable to both the Secretary General and the President of the Council. All three could then try to reach a reasonable solution that they could each accept. He noted that the Organization had functioned so well in the past because the Secretary General and the President of the Council had agreed on all of the relevant appointments. The Representative of Spain voiced support for the proposed amendment to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) relating to female Council Member representation on the COPAD. 11. The Representative of France observed that under Article 54 (Mandatory functions of Council), paragraph h), of the Chicago Convention, the Council had the responsibility to make provision for the appointment of personnel. It could therefore take whatever action it considered appropriate. Referring to the COPAD, he questioned whether it should also review candidacies for P-O level posts as that would place an additional burden on the Council Representatives who served on that body. The Representative of France subscribed to the inclusion of a female Council Representative on the COPAD. Recalling the comments made by the Representative of the United Kingdom, he indicated that, while it would be useful to post vacancies on other websites, it would be necessary for the vacancy notices to be

C-MIN 179/15

- 233 -

translated into the six official languages of the Organization and disseminated worldwide. Similarly, while it would also be useful to advertise vacancies in magazines, it would be necessary to ensure that they did not appear only in English-language publications but rather in publications issued in the Organization’s official languages. The Representative of France suggested that the Council review the recruitment policy again. 12. With reference to the appointment process for P-O level posts, the Representative of France agreed that the Directors were best placed to recommend who should be selected to work with them. He noted, in this context, that with the restructuring of the Organization, there was an increasing number of Branches, which came under the Directors’ authority. The Representative of France nonetheless was of the view that expanding the COPAD’s mandate to include the review of candidacies for P-O level posts was not a good idea as it would prolong the recruitment process and would be more costly. He also considered that it was unnecessary as there were certain safeguards, namely, consultation between the Secretary General and the President of the Council and the proposed approval by the Council of the appointment of P-O level professionals. 13. The Representative of Nigeria observed that he had often considered how to balance the Secretary General’s authority for the appointment of P-O level posts with the Council’s oversight responsibility. Noting that the involvement of the COPAD in the appointment of Directors was different from the practice of most other UN organizations and Specialized Agencies, he emphasized that ICAO should not take too extreme a position by having the COPAD review candidacies for P-O level posts as it might not be possible to harmonize that practice with those of the other said entities. While considering that the COPAD should only consider candidacies for Director-level posts, the Representative of Nigeria would nevertheless join the consensus of the Council. He underscored, in this regard, that the issues of equitable geographical representation, regional representation and gender representation would have to be given consideration together with competence. The Representative of Nigeria further emphasized that expanding the COPAD’s mandate would increase the Members’ workload, as they would be reviewing candidacies for seventeen to twenty posts instead of only five. In then referring to paragraph 4.2 of the paper, he agreed that the consultation process between the Secretary General and the President of the Council should be analyzed and improved, if need be. The Representative of Nigeria also supported the said amendment to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350). 14. The Representative of Colombia affirmed that the Secretary General had his full confidence and that of the Council. With regard to the appointment process for Directors, he noted that the review of candidacies by the COPAD had worked well in the past and that the latter had recommended the best candidates on the basis of their merits. The expansion of the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts should be considered in light of the true consultation which took place between the Secretary General and the President of the Council. In welcoming female Council representation on the COPAD, the Representative of Colombia maintained that it was very healthy to have such representation in such a high-level body. 15. The Representative of Canada endorsed these comments. He recalled that, when he was a Member and Chairman of the COPAD, the COPAD had requested that it be allowed to review candidacies for P-O level posts as there was a problem of perception. While appointments at the Director-level were made on the basis of equitable geographical representation, at the P-O level, there were certain political considerations. It was thus very important for the Council, the supreme body of ICAO, to be in a position to review the list of eligible candidates for P-O level posts which would be brought to the attention of the Secretary General for decision. Noting that he had sat on the COPAD only three times in the last six years and chaired it only once, the Representative of Canada maintained that the workload was

C-MIN 179/15 - 234 -

not that onerous. He therefore considered that the action proposed in the paper should be adopted in its entirety. 16. The Representative of Japan underscored that, although he could support the expansion of the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts, he could not support the approval by the Council of appointments to such posts. Averring that the Secretary General’s decision should be final, he emphasized that that would be a good balance between the latter’s authority and the Council’s oversight responsibility. Noting that, while many of the P-O level posts should be subject to the COPAD process, it might not be necessary for others, the Representative of Japan indicated that the extent of the COPAD’s involvement should be limited to certain posts after detailed consideration, taking into account the position (top level or deputy) and the expertise required, such a language or management skills. 17. The Representative of Hungary, who as Vice-Chairman of the COPAD had presided over the Commission’s meeting on 19 October 2006 when the issue of the expansion of its mandate and the inclusion of female Council Member representation had been discussed, recalled that the COPAD had worked on the basis of the discussions of the previous COPAD but had reached the same conclusion that its mandate should be expanded to include P-O level posts as that would fulfill its goals. Underscoring that the COPAD fully supported strengthening of the oversight mechanism, he noted that it would act as a filter in the appointment process of P-Os without, however, diminishing the Secretary General’s authority. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of Saudi Arabia that the expansion of the COPAD’s mandate was in conflict with the reform of the Organization, the Representative of Hungary observed that the same argument had been made when some Representatives had suggested that the Council interview candidates for the positions of Secretary General and President of the Council. The interviews had subsequently taken place. 18. The Representative of South Africa strongly supported the inclusion of female Council representation on the COPAD. With regard to paragraph 3.1 of the paper on the proposed expansion of the COPAD’s mandate, he stressed that the Council should be “hands on” and not “hands in”. The Representative of South Africa indicated that he would be guided by other Representatives with regard to the action proposed in paragraph 5 of the paper. 19. Concurring that the Council should be “hands on” and not “hands in”, the Representative of Australia emphasized that Representatives had a collective responsibility, under Articles 54 h) and 58 of the Chicago Convention and The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) for the appointment of personnel. While the Council had mandated that competency be the most important criterion in the selection of a candidate, the issues of equitable geographical representation and gender balance were also to be taken into account. Noting that the Council was focussing on ensuring that those high-level objectives would be met, he recalled that the Human Resources Working Group of the Finance Committee (FIC) was taking a close look at all human resources-related issues. The issue now under consideration by the Council was only a very small part of that broader analysis. 20. Averring that the processes which ICAO used to support its selection of candidates was somewhat out of tune with those used in many other organizations, the Representative of Australia observed that it relied fairly heavily on curriculum vitaes and State endorsement of candidacies, which did not always give the Organization the full information that any modern employer would wish to have to ensure that they were recruiting the best candidate for the position. Indicating that the COPAD had a quality assurance role, the Representative of Australia stressed the need to ensure that there was an appropriate quality assurance mechanism in place for the Council and that the documentation that was used in such a mechanism provided detailed information about the candidates. He recalled, in this regard, that the most information that was provided to Representatives was a one paragraph summary of

C-MIN 179/15

- 235 -

candidates’ curriculum vitaes and an indication of the name of the candidate whom the Secretary General intended to appoint. Suggesting that more justification should be provided for the Secretary General’s decision, he underscored that Directors were well-remunerated, particularly when the tax benefits and various other benefits were taken into account, and that the selected candidates for posts at that level should have a proven track record of achievements, efficiency and effectiveness. 21. With reference to the principle of equitable geographical representation, the Representative of Australia indicated that, although he recognized the need for ICAO personnel to be recruited internationally, and that many organizations worldwide had a similar policy, he considered that it was necessary to change that concept so that it was viewed over time rather than as a snapshot. In agreeing with the comment made by the Representative of the United Kingdom in that regard, the Representative of Australia noted that, although the distribution of staff at a given point in time might not be equitable, if the situation were looked at over a five- or ten-year period, then it would be clear that the Organization was drawing its staff from a worldwide pool of talent. He underscored that although the International Air Transport Association (IATA) did not have a policy of equitable geographical representation, it still recruited globally and had more nationalities represented on its staff than ICAO. 22. Noting that one of the key motivators behind the proposal to expand the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts was the issue of ICAO Regional Directors, the Representative of Australia suggested that one way to address it would be to ensure that the performance appraisal of ICAO Regional Directors included a component which reflected the views of the States to which they were accredited. In that way, candidates would be aware of the need to meet the requirements of the States in the region and would thus make sure that they had the requisite skills. 23. In concluding, the Representative of Australia indicated that, while he appreciated the fact that the proposal to expand the COPAD’s mandate was aimed at improving the oversight mechanism for appointments, he was not sure that it was the right one. He agreed with the Representative of Japan that the Council should give careful consideration to its formal involvement in the actual recruitment process as opposed for some form of consultation between the COPAD and the Secretary General. Indicating that at the present time he could see no need to change the current provisions governing the consultation process between the Secretary General and the President of the Council, the Representative of Australia concurred with the Representative of Finland that an analysis of that process should be carried out before any changes were made. He noted that there was at least one post for which the Council should be involved in the recruitment process, namely, that of Chief of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit and Management Review (C/EAO), as recommended by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). Underscoring that there were many issues which remained to be explored, the Representative of Australia indicated that he did not favour the Council taking any action at the present time on the proposal to expand the COPAD’s mandate set forth in C-WP/12811. 24. In supporting the action proposed in sub-paragraph 1) of paragraph 4.1 of the paper, the Representative of India averred that there was no harm in expanding the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts for one year. With regard to sub-paragraph 2), which specified that the COPAD would have a maximum of two weeks to make recommendations, if any, to the Secretary General regarding appointments to such posts, he averred that it was not appropriate to stipulate a timeframe. Emphasizing that the COPAD would never delay the recruitment of personnel, he underscored that the submission of its recommendations was dependent upon the timely presentation of documentation by the Secretariat. The Representative of India therefore suggested that sub-paragraph 2) be amended to indicate that the COPAD was to make its recommendations, if any, as soon as possible. He endorsed sub-paragraph 3), which called for the COPAD to report to the Council on its experience with the expanded mandate at the end of the one-year trial period.

C-MIN 179/15 - 236 -

25. With reference to sub-paragraph 4), the Representative of India disagreed with the comments made that the COPAD discharged a political role in the nomination process. He stressed that the COPAD was only responsible for providing its views to the Secretary General regarding qualifications to be included in Vacancy Notices for particular posts and the list of candidates presented by the Secretary General to the COPAD. Emphasizing that he was not in favour of the COPAD being involved in the assessment of candidates as there could be an element of prejudice, the Representative of India averred that the COPAD should instead act as a review board which approved qualification and evaluation criteria in matrix form for use by the Secretary General in making appointments. 26. In further disagreeing that if the COPAD’s mandate were expanded as proposed, then P-Os would be appointed on the basis of politics, the Representative of India recalled that both the results of the COPAD’s work regarding a given appointment and the Secretary General’s views were to be communicated to the Council for final decision. He affirmed that if the COPAD, the Secretary General and the Council were working toward the same objective of appointing competent candidates of integrity so as to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization, then there would be no conflict. The Representative of India suggested that the rules of procedure for the COPAD contained in Annex IV-A to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) should be amended to indicate that its role was to review qualification and evaluation criteria for appointments. He then sought additional background information regarding the COPAD’s proposal to expand its mandate, as well as information regarding the implementation of the consultation process between the Secretary General and the President of the Council since the entry into force, on 1 August 2006, of the revised Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559). 27. The Representative of the United States voiced support for expanding the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts for a trial period of one year. He suggested that the FIC’s Human Resources Working Group consider, in consultation with the Chairman of the COPAD, the role which the Commission should play in the appointment of candidates to such posts and the procedures which might be adopted if it were to play a role therein. The Representative of Nigeria proposed that the Working Group also examine how the COPAD currently undertook its work and how it should continue to do so. 28. Responding to certain points raised, the President of the Council stressed that it was the clear policy of the Council that the most important criterion in recruiting personnel was competency. It was only under conditions of equal competency of candidates that the issues of equitable geographical representation and gender balance were to be taken into account. He did not consider that the Council wished to change this policy, at least not at the present time. Referring to paragraph 3.2 of the paper, he affirmed that it was of paramount importance that the Council trust the Secretary General to meet the responsibilities accorded to him. 29. Acting on a proposal then made by the President of the Council in light of the discussion, the Council took the action indicated in paragraph 5.1 a) of C-WP/12811 and noted the amendment to Annex IV-A to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) on the inclusion of female Council Member representation on the COPAD attached to the paper. The Council also requested the Secretary General to review the procedure for the advertisement of vacancies with a view to establishing an improved procedure for giving them publicity. 30. With reference to paragraph 4.2 of the paper on the consultative process between the Secretary General and the President of the Council regarding the appointment, by the Secretary General, of candidates to positions in the Director and Principal Officer categories and of ICAO Regional Directors, set forth in recently-amended Staff Regulation 4.8 and Annex IV-A, paragraphs 7 and 15, of

C-MIN 179/15

- 237 -

The ICAO Service Code (cf. Amendment No. 3 to Doc 7350), the Council agreed to refer the issue to the Working Group established to review the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559) and the Rules of Procedure for Standing Committees of the Council (Doc 8146), which had originated the changes, for consideration. The Council requested that the Working Group clarify the meaning of the word “consultation” used in the said provisions of The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350). 31. With regard to the expansion of the COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts, the Council agreed to refer the issue to the FIC’s Human Resources Working Group for consideration, in consultation with the Chairman of the COPAD, of the role which the COPAD should play in the appointment of candidates to such posts and of the procedures which might be adopted if it were to play a role therein. The Council requested that the Human Resources Working Group also review the COPAD’s current procedures. Subject No. 6.3: Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Appointment of the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) 32. The Council considered C-WP/12725 Revised on the above subject, presented by the President of the Council. It was recalled that nominations to the presidency of the ANC had been presented to the Commission by two Commissioners, Mr. T. Burlage (Germany) and Mr. B. Ramfjord (Norway). Mr. Burlage had subsequently withdrawn his candidacy. When informed of the withdrawal of Mr. Burlage’s candidature (179/11), the Council had requested the Working Group established to review the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559) and the Rules of Procedure for Standing Committees of the Council (Doc 8146) to clarify the meaning of the phrase “after consulting the Commission” used in Rule 16 c) of Doc 7559 relating to the appointment of the President of the ANC. 33. Noting that the Commission had held a vote on the two candidates for President of the ANC, after which the defeated Commissioner had withdrawn his candidacy, the Representative of France averred that if that procedure were validated and followed in future, then the ANC would take over the Council’s authority to appoint the President of the ANC. He underscored that that would be in violation of Article 56 (Nomination and appointment of Commission) of the Chicago Convention and Appendix D to the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559). The Representative of France emphasized the need for the said Working Group to put forward a proposal for consultation with the Commission that the Council and ANC could follow. 34. Expressing surprise that C-WP/12725 Revised did not contain the names of any candidates for President of the ANC or any curriculum vitaes, the Representative of Saudi Arabia enquired as to the candidates for the presidency. 35. Sharing the views voiced by the Representative of France, the Representative of Colombia reiterated that it was the responsibility of the Council to appoint the President of the ANC. Noting that the Council was being requested to ratify the ANC’s choice for the presidency, he expressed concern on the effect that would have on the Council in the future. 36. The Representative of Spain observed that the Rules of Procedure which the Council had established for itself appeared to be unsatisfactory and would have to be rectified as soon as possible. In then suggesting that the Council appoint the one remaining candidate, he nominated Mr. Ramfjord for the presidency of the ANC. 37. In seconding this motion, the Representative of Finland affirmed that the ANC had not violated the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559). Its vote was to be taken as a

C-MIN 179/15 - 238 -

recommendation. The appointment of the President of the ANC by the Council was not in dispute. As the Council had already decided to refer Article 16 c) of the Rules of Procedure to the said Working Group for clarification, it should proceed with the appointment of the President of the ANC. 38. The Representative of Nigeria indicated that the current situation was a clear example of making changes without thinking them through. In the present case, the Council seemed to be seeking to delegate to the Commission its responsibility under the Chicago Convention to appoint the President of the ANC. He suggested that the Council note that it was acting under exceptional circumstances and appoint the only candidate for the presidency. 39. The Representative of France then nominated all of the ANC Commissioners as candidates for the presidency. In expressing doubt that all nineteen Members of the ANC would wish to be considered candidates, the President of the Council indicated that one Member had informed the Secretariat in writing that he did not wish to be a candidate. 40. The Representative of India stressed that any material deviation from, or violation of, the Rules of Procedure would vitiate the entire sanctity of the appointment process. He noted, however, that in the present case the deviation was due to a lack of understanding on the part of the ANC regarding the consultation process; it was not a mala fide. The Representative of India indicated that if the Rules of Procedure were given a strict interpretation, then the appointment process should be nullified. If, on the other hand, a lenient and practical point of view were taken, then there were two alternatives: the Council could proceed with the appointment of the President of the ANC, subject to the current process not being repeated the following year; or it could nullify the appointment process, invite new nominations and proceed with the appointment. 41. The President of the ANC underscored that the Commission was aware that the Council was the supreme body. Its intention in voting on the candidates for the presidency had been to advise the Council as to the number of Commissioners wishing to be considered as candidates and as to the level of support for each candidate within the ANC. On the basis of that information, it was for the Council to appoint the President of the ANC. In maintaining that Rule 16 c) was ambiguous, he expressed support for the Council’s decision to refer it to the said Working Group for clarification. 42. The Representative of Spain suggested that, as his nomination of Mr. Ramfjord had been seconded and the Representative of France’s nomination of all ANC Commissioners had not been, the Council should take action on his motion and proceed with the appointment of Mr. Ramfjord. He averred that, as there was only one candidate, it was not necessary to vote by secret ballot. The Representatives of the Republic of Korea, Peru and Cameroon agreed that the Council should act on the Representative of Spain’s motion. 43. By an informal vote by show of hands, conducted in accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559) further to a suggestion by the Representative of Japan, the Council decided to proceed with a vote by secret ballot, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Appendix D to the Rules of Procedure, on the nomination of Mr. Ramfjord for the presidency of the ANC during the present meeting rather than defer the matter for 24 hours to allow other interested candidates, if any, to present their nominations, as suggested by the Representative of India and supported by the Representatives of Colombia and South Africa. Further to a point raised by the Representative of Australia, the President of the Council enquired whether Representatives wished to have a private place in which to cast their ballots. It was decided that that was unnecessary.

C-MIN 179/15

- 239 -

44. The result of the secret ballot was as follows: Twenty-one votes in favour, seven against, and five abstentions, with two blank ballots and one uncast ballot. 45. The Representative of Australia indicated that he had chosen not to vote as he did not consider that the voting procedure complied with the definition of a secret ballot given in the Rules of Procedure, namely, “a ballot where the marking of the ballot paper by a Representative takes place in private and cannot be overseen by any person other than the Representative’s Alternate”. In sharing this view, the Representative of France averred that the entire appointment process had not be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. The Representative of Nigeria noted that as the Rules of Procedure were implemented other issues might arise which could have been examined in greater detail than had been done. Observing that one of his colleagues had been deprived of his right to cast a ballot, the Representative of India averred that the Rules of Procedure could not be changed without a motion to waive the process of the secret ballot. The Director of the Legal Bureau (D/LEB) affirmed that the Council had acted in compliance with Appendix D to the Rules of Procedure and that the President had received the agreement of the Council to proceed in the manner which had been chosen. It could be considered that the Council had implicitly decided to apply Rule 63 a) of the Rules of Procedure, which stated that “These Rules of Procedure or any portion thereof may be revoked, temporarily suspended or amended by Council decision taken by a majority of its Members, provided that no such action is in conflict with the Convention or with any direction given or decision taken by the Assembly”. The Representatives of France and Australia maintained that the correct procedure would have been to first apply Rule 63 and then proceed with the vote. The Representative of Australia further emphasized that in future the correct approach should be taken. This was noted. In endorsing his comments, the Representative of the United States underscored that in future the relevant Rules of Procedure should be applied as they were intended to be applied. 46. In accordance with Rule 16 c) of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559), Mr. B. Ramfjord was then appointed as President of the ANC for a period of one year, commencing 1 January 2007. Subject No. 14.5: Safety oversight

Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention

47. The Council gave initial consideration to this subject on the basis of two papers: C-WP/12691, in which the Secretary General set forth three options for a system for the provision of data concerning the registration, ownership and control of aircraft registered in a State, in accordance with Article 21 of the Chicago Convention, as well as resource implications, recommendations and draft rules governing the procedures and operation of such a system; and C-WP/12697, a report thereon by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). It was recalled that the Council had already approved in principle (177/9) the implementation of such a system and that the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) had recommended that States have access to reliable and timely information on registration, ownership and control of aircraft habitually used in international navigation [cf. Recommendation 2/1 c)]. 48. In underscoring the importance of establishing a system for the provision of data under Article 21 of the Chicago Convention, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that he had always considered that that Article should be implemented in light not only of the inherent safety advantages but also of the advantages regarding the use of aircraft and illegal registrations and operations. He affirmed that the Council should strongly support such a system. In then drawing attention to Rule 4 of the

C-MIN 179/15 - 240 -

proposed Rules governing the procedures and operation of the system, which stipulated that each State was to provide ICAO with pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in that State each month and notify the Organization each month if there were no changes to the data, the Representative of Nigeria enquired whether any consideration had been given to the associated cost to States. He noted that while providing such data was important for large States such as his which had a high number of aircraft on their register, there were many small States with only one or two aircraft on their register and consequently little movement of aircraft to report. Such States also had fewer personnel and less financial resources available for providing the required data to ICAO. In further querying whether there was any correlation between the system and the international registry for interests in mobile equipment established under the 2001 Cape Town Convention, the Representative of Nigeria underscored that the information contained in the international registry could be used for quality control purposes. 49. Noting that consideration had been given to the administrative overhead of monthly reporting for the many States that might not have any changes to their aircraft register to report, the Chief of the Aviation Training Policy and Standards Unit (C/ATPS) indicated that a software solution was being looked into whereby a simple e-mail message could be sent to ICAO by the authorized civil aviation authority personnel. He emphasized that it was deemed necessary to have regular reporting as otherwise the Organization would have no other means of knowing whether or not a State had had a change to its aircraft register. The Principal Legal Officer (PLO) recalled that the said international registry was for transactions involving aircraft or aircraft engines. Although it was not compulsory to register such transactions, parties did in practice in order to establish the priority of their interest in the object. The data which parties were required to register was based on a unique element of identification of the asset, namely, the manufacturer’s serial number. Elements such as the registration of the aircraft and its nationality were optional. The database could be searched to determine if there were any international interest in a registered aircraft. PLO emphasized that, although information contained in the database could be compared to information obtained elsewhere, as a sole source of information it was not reliable for the purpose of Article 21 of the Chicago Convention. The Representative of Nigeria underscored that the international registry thus did contain some information regarding aircraft serial numbers which could be correlated with the information to be provided thereon under Rule 2 a) iv) of the draft rules governing the procedures and operation of such a system. 50. The Representative of Japan voiced support for the two papers and the proposed direction. While agreeing in principle with the said draft rules, he sought clarification as to when they would become effective. The Representative of Japan also underscored that they might require some fine-tuning in light of the comments made. Noting that the ANC, in paragraph 2.5 of its report, had indicated that, as recommended by DGCA/06, an amplification of the definition of the term “State of the Operator” would be required specifying the necessary correspondence between the “principal place of business” and the location where “operational control” was exercised, he stated that such amplification should be incorporated into the final version of the said draft rules. The Representative of Japan stressed that without such amplification, problems could arise in distinguishing between the owner of the aircraft, the State of Registry and the State of the Operator. C/ATPS observed that it had not been possible to put forward a timetable for the implementation of the system and an effective date for the said rules as the Council had not yet decided which option they wished the Secretariat to proceed with. The timetable would vary depending on the option chosen. He noted that it had been assumed that the establishment of the system could be funded through the use of excess miscellaneous income that had been allocated for the development of an electronic system for the reporting of differences to ICAO Standards. The additional work would, however, cause a two-month delay in the development of the said electronic system. In further clarifying that the amplification of the term “State of the Operator” could be provided by June 2007, he indicated that any changes to the draft rules would be made in accordance with the decision taken by the Council regarding the proposed system. The Representative of Japan suggested, in

C-MIN 179/15

- 241 -

this regard, that a final decision regarding the draft rules be taken only when the Council had a complete picture of the system for providing data in accordance with Article 21. He emphasized, in this context, that the requirement of accreditation could be more clearly indicated in the said rules. 51. The Representative of Germany noted that, although her State had generally been very supportive of ICAO’s work in this area, it would be unable to provide specific information as called for in the draft rules in light of its national data protection legislation. As a way had not yet been found to deal with the rules’ requirements, she wished to place on record Germany’s reservation regarding any mandatory instrument that would require the provision of data concerning aircraft registered pursuant to Article 21. 52. In expressing support for the two papers, the Representative of Mexico affirmed that the proposed system marked the first step along the right path to enhancing aviation safety. He requested that the Secretariat provide the Council, in due course, with information regarding the cost of the system and how it could be defrayed. The Representative of Mexico also suggested that the Legal Bureau (LEB) be asked to consider the possible inclusion in the said rules of a clause on the misuse of information by third parties. He stressed that the rules should be amended in light of experience gained in implementing the system. 53. The Representative of Mozambique also supported the two papers, as well as the comments made by the Representative of Nigeria. Recalling the difficulties being encountered in the African region, he underscored that the system for the provision of data in accordance with Article 21 was a tool with which to improve aviation safety and that it should therefore be implemented as soon as possible. Referring to Rule 4, the Representative of Mozambique noted that the experience gained with the system’s implementation would reveal whether the reporting of pertinent data should be done each month as proposed or after a longer period of time. 54. Further consideration of this subject was deferred to the next (179/16) meeting. 55. The Council adjourned at 1820 hours.

C-MIN 179/16

- 243 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. P. Bittencourt de Almeida Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia —*Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán Hungary — Dr. A. Sipos India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)


ALSO PRESENT:

*Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt). — Australia Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) — Brazil Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) — France

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. S. Espinola — PLO *Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB *Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB *Mr. A. Costaguta — C/EAD *Mr. M. Fox — C/ATPS *Mr. J. Augustin — SLO *Mr. J. Nagle — C/CNS Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB *Mr. D. Monaco — TO/FLS

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/16 - 244 -

ALSO PRESENT (CONTINUED):

SECRETARIAT (CONTINUED):

Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

*Mr. J. Huang — LO *Mr. A. Jakob — LO/LEB *Ms. M. Weinstein — LEB Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

C-MIN 179/16

- 245 -


Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention

1. The Council resumed (179/15) and completed its consideration of the above subject, documented in a paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/12691) and a report by the Air Navigation Commission (C-WP/12697). 2. The Representative of Australia believed that the proposal for a system in accordance with Article 21 would be an important tool that would assist States to discharge their responsibilities in respect of foreign aircraft. As such, Australia fully supported the working paper as a timely implementation of the DGCA recommendations and perhaps a long overdue implementation of Article 21. Australia agreed that information on the AOC and State of operator should be explored as part of the development of this scheme, and also agreed with the comments which had been offered in relation to a further review of the regulations in the light of the comments from States, and a possible revision of the document closer to the operational time, as the Representatives of Japan and Mexico had highlighted earlier. 3. The Representative of Saint Lucia wished to be associated with the comments just offered by the Representative of Australia, as well as those of the Representative of Nigeria at the previous meeting. While supporting the paper, he requested that the Secretariat reconsider the recommendation in Rule 4 of the proposed rules that States update their data on the first day of every month. The Representative of Saint Lucia suggested that as an alternative, ICAO be included on the list of organizations to whom national authorities sent notification when changes were made to certifications of registration. In the absence of any such notification, organizations could assume that the information they had remained current. This was the arrangement at least for small States with few aircraft on register. 4. DD/ANB concurred that in the case of small registries it might not be necessary to give an update every month. The Secretariat’s proposal was inspired by its desire to have up to date information. The Secretariat would be pleased to consider an automatic update in cases where that could be provided. An arrangement whereby any change would be forwarded to ICAO without delay might be better than an update once a month. It should be possible to agree on a combination on the basis of which it would be possible to have assurances that changes could be forwarded to ICAO’s registry without delay; where that was not the case the Organization would appreciate a monthly wholesale update. 5. The Representative of the United Kingdom was pleased with the proposal; there was an important safety case to be made and the element of updating was a very important part of it. If continual updates were inconvenient for small countries, it would be all the more so for larger countries where there were constant changes. It would therefore be necessary to have a balance of what was sensible for all countries, perhaps along the lines of once a month for large countries and once every three months for smaller countries. It was nevertheless important to have a checkpoint to make sure that countries were aware of the need to review their registers and make sure that the information provided was accurate and up to date. 6. The Representative of Cameroon added his Delegation’s support to the “hybrid” approach, but suggested that the term “fractional ownership” used in paragraph 2.4 of the ANC’s report be replaced by “co-ownership”.

C-MIN 179/16 - 246 -

7. To a query raised by the Representative of Spain in connection with the indication, in Rule 2 a), that the data would be provided in English, C/ATPS indicated that there were several reasons why it was proposed that the information be entered in English only. The Council’s guidance was to keep the system at the lowest cost possible, both for ICAO and for the States which were already required to provide an English language version of the certificate of registration on board the airplane. 8. The action proposed at paragraph 6.1 of C-WP/12691 was amended in light of the discussion, and the Council: a) supported the development of an ICAO system for the provision of data, in

accordance with Article 21 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, concerning aircraft registered in a State;

b) approved a cooperative effort with an appropriate service provider and during the

first phase with the International Register of Civil Aircraft (IRCA) in line with the existing arrangements referred to in paragraph 2.3.1 of C-WP/12691;

c) approved, in principle, the proposed Rules at the Appendix to C-WP/12697 to

govern the procedures and operation of the system, with the understanding that the Secretary General would amend the Rules in light of the views which had been expressed during the Council’s review, and would circulate them to all Members of the Council under cover of a memorandum; and

d) instructed the Secretary General to prepare a draft Resolution for consideration

by the Council for the next ordinary session of the Assembly stressing the importance of Contracting States to provide their relevant aircraft registration data to ICAO.

Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Report of ANC – Annual review of the TWP – Progress report on the transition to the Business Plan approach

9. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12783, in which the Air Navigation Commission reported on the progress of the transition from the paper based Technical Work Programme (TWP) of the Organization in the Air Navigation Field to the electronically based Air Navigation Integrated Programme (ANIP) within the context of supporting the Business Plan of the Organization.

5. 10. The Council noted the information presented by the ANC in C-WP/12783, and retained the suggestion put forward by the President of the Commission, whereby an informal briefing of the Council would be arranged prior to the Council’s consideration, during the next (180th) Session, of the ANC’s final report on the transition to the Business Plan approach. Subject No. 38: External relations policy

Public relations and media policy of the Organization 11. The Council reviewed C-WP/12796, in which the Secretary General presented information on the Public Information Strategy recently developed by the Organization in support of the six Strategic Objectives, Strategic Positioning and other key elements of the ICAO Business Plan.

C-MIN 179/16

- 247 -

12. The Representative of Germany welcomed the activities described in C-WP/12796 which were being undertaken by the Secretariat to increase publicity efforts. Referring to the conclusion that the widest publicity for the Organization’s activities was as relevant today as it had been during the first Assembly, she argued that this was an understatement, since it was far more important today because aviation had been growing steadily since the first Assembly and this growth was partly due to the activities of ICAO. The Representative of Germany suggested that it would be good to go beyond the aviation world to increase the traveling public’s awareness of ICAO and its activities. 13. The Representative of Australia welcomed the paper in which the Secretary General had highlighted the policy that ICAO had had been in place for over sixty years. As the Representative of Germany had correctly highlighted, life had changed considerably since those days. The Representative of Australia believed it would be useful to know how ICAO decided what issues it was going to promote within its financial constraints, and also how it determined its editorial policies in relation to the publications that it administered. During recent topical events, perhaps the most recent being the issue of liquids on aircraft and security, the Organization was often not mentioned in media reports as having a role. ICAO should take a more active position on that, within the constraints of its decision-making processes. While welcoming the press releases that were put out by the President and the Secretary General, the Representative of Australia believed that more work was needed with news web sites, with the specialist aviation press and in-flight magazines of airlines. ICAO’s profile in Montreal and Canada needed to be looked at as a part of a broader strategy. As regards the reference to Resolution A1-15 (Public information policy in ICAO), the Representative of Australia wondered whether there might be a need to propose an updated version for adoption by the forthcoming Assembly, reflecting on what resources were actually available. 14. The Representative of Argentina congratulated the Secretariat on its initiative and the manner in which it had presented solutions to problems identified under the framework of public relations and media policy. The suggestions by Germany were excellent and most certainly should be included in the work programme of the Information Group. The Representative of Argentina nevertheless had difficulty with the reference, in paragraph 1.2 of the paper, to a related objective of revenue generation. 15. The Representative of Austria also considered C-WP/12796 to be a very useful paper, and agreed that it was of utmost importance that ICAO take care of her reputation and image. The aviation community itself was very well aware what ICAO was, thanks to the permanent interaction via State letters, documents, The ICAO Journal, etc. What rather was a source of concern, as had been pointed out by Australia and Germany, was that the general traveling public needed more information, and the best reasoning was to be found in paragraph 2.3. That presented the argument as to why ICAO should do more for the general public, and Austria would welcome any suggestion in that respect. To the list of communication vehicles should be added all of the conferences and events ICAO was organizing and taking part in. 16. The Representative of India observed that the paper under consideration provided good information regarding the media policies being pursued by the Organization. As was pointed out in the paper, States were contributing to ICAO through assessments, and the tax payers of those Contracting States needed to be informed. Information on ICAO’s activities was not disseminated in a very systematic manner. ICAO used an ad hoc approach, and the Representative of India suggested that after every Council session or important event, there should be some in-house stocktaking as to which important decisions would be of interest to people in general or to specific groups. The Representative of India observed that ICAO was guided by an Assembly Resolution which was sixty years old. There should be a focus on how to encourage States’ public relations organizations to act as a vehicle of ICAO

C-MIN 179/16 - 248 -

to disseminate information to the general public, to tax-payers, and to various groups and stakeholders. There was a large number of interest groups including academia and technical experts who should be taken into account. The Representative of India was pleased that there existed an information group working under the Secretary General, and suggested that the Secretary General set up a task force which should look at the current policy and see what additional components could be built in that policy, what could be the implementation strategies, and what could be done to rope in more public relations organizations to disseminate the message of ICAO and the decisions which affected tax payers and the public. 17. Referring to paragraph 4 (Audiences and messages) of the paper, the Representative of Mozambique felt from his own experience that the general public knew almost nothing about the Organization. People working in the civil aviation sector in his own country often had the impression that ICAO was associated with airlines as opposed to being a regulatory body. In terms of communication, ICAO should perhaps establish a partnership with other bodies, such as IATA, in an effort to reach the general public. 18. The Representative of the United Kingdom noted from the interventions made thus far that there seemed to be a drift towards trying to popularize ICAO, and he was not quite sure why. There was a need to be very careful in recognizing what ICAO was, i.e. an international regulatory body. ICAO’s target audience was not the general public, its target audience was the governments who sponsored the Organization. With some exceptions – for example the work that was being done on liquid explosives, where individuals did have a direct interest in knowing what ICAO did – the Organization did not really need to tell everybody what happened after each and every Council Session. It needed to make sure that it kept its sponsoring governments, i.e. all Contracting States, informed of what was going on. Those States were ICAO’s audience, while IATA and ACI had the direct interface with the public. It was up to those organizations to convey ICAO’s message; it was not for ICAO to be providing that message directly. That said, there could exist some circumstances such as the use of explosives where ICAO did have this direct role and in those cases ICAO should use those specific circumstances to send a message that the Organization exists. It should not, however, be spending its very precious resources in developing the sort of publicity machine that many large organizations had. The Representative of Spain wished to be associated with the views expressed by the Representative of the United Kingdom. 19. The Representative of Colombia added his endorsement to C-WP/12796 and was very much in agreement with what had been said by the Representative of Germany and others. ICAO was not in a closed circle, it was a very important organization in the global sense, in particular as it related to safety. On such issues as explosives, as had been referred to by the United Kingdom, ICAO had to have a presence in the public mind. 20. The Council noted the information presented by the Secretary General in C-WP/12796 on the Public Information Strategy recently developed by the Organization in support of the six Strategic Objectives, Strategic Positioning and other key elements of the ICAO Business Plan. The Secretary General was requested to give further consideration to a number of comments and suggestions put forward during the Council’s review of the paper, and to also consider the possibility of developing an Assembly resolution which would supersede A1-15 (Public information policy in ICAO).

C-MIN 179/16

- 249 -

Subject No. 12.5: Plans for legal meetings Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization Subject No. 16.3: International air law conventions

Progress report relating to the Secretariat Study Group on Aviation Security Conventions 21. The Council reviewed C-WP/12758, in which the Secretary General reported on the progress of the work of the Secretariat Study Group on Aviation Security Conventions. The Council noted the information provided in C-WP/12758, and noted the Secretary General would submit to the Council at its next (180th) Session the final report concerning the work of the Study Group.

Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization

International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment) 22. The Council considered C-WP/12754, in which the Secretary General reported on the outcome of the First Meeting of the Commission of Experts of the Supervisory Authority of the International Registry (CESAIR) and invited the Council to approve its recommendations. 23. Under general comments, the Representative of Canada expressed his Delegation’s satisfaction with the outcome of the meeting of the Commission of Experts. Canada supported the immediate translation and adoption of official versions of the Regulations and Procedures for the International Registry into all ICAO official languages. It was important for all Council Members to have the clearest understanding of the documents they were being invited to apply. It was also important to ensure a high level of service to users, a level consistent with the standards that were expected of an international organization such as ICAO. An expert and advisers from Canada had participated in the development of the Rules of Procedure for CESAIR, mentioned in paragraph 2.4 of C-WP/12754. Although these rules did not on all points meet the standards Canada would expect in respect of the conduct of meetings, Canada was prepared to accept the views of the majority of the Commission of Experts. It was to be hoped that the lack of gender neutrality in the language would be corrected as part of ICAO’s efforts to modernize itself in the field of gender equality and gender equity. 24. The expert from Canada had assumed a leadership role in drafting the changes to the Regulations and Procedures for the International Registry, and Canada supported those changes without reservation. In respect of the procedure for the notification of facilitatory changes mentioned in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10, Canada could support them subject to the following:. Firstly, the expression “facilitatory changes” was not satisfactorily circumscribed; such changes were to be exempted from the need for Council’s approval acting as Supervisory Authority. It was therefore important that they be carefully defined so as to prevent misunderstandings; at the very minimum, Canada would like to see inserted after the words “facilitatory changes” where they first appeared in paragraph 2.9, the words “other than changes affecting the Regulations or the Procedures”. Secondly, to avoid any ambiguity as to the consultation process mentioned in paragraph 2.10, Canada believed that it was highly desirable to make it clear that the experts on the Commission would have an opportunity to note and react to, as necessary, all proposals for changes, including changes of a facilitatory nature. This objective could be met by the addition, at the end of paragraph b), of the following wording – “the Secretariat shall forthwith notify any intended change to the members of the Commission of Experts”. Members of the Commission would then be in a position, if they so wished, to react to the intended change and provide the Secretariat with the benefit of their expertise. If these concerns were met, Canada would see no difficulty in indicating its full support for the procedure outlined in paragraph 2.9.

C-MIN 179/16 - 250 -

25. Overall, Canada wished it to be known that it fully supported the work of the Commission of Experts as a useful tool for building confidence in the new International Registry and thereby encouraging States to ratify or adhere to the Cape Town Instrument. 26. The Representative of the United States appreciated the comments offered by Canada and its support for C-WP/12754, which the United States fully endorsed and supported as well. Referring to the notice procedures described in paragraph 2.9 with respect to facilitatory changes, reflected again in the action proposed at paragraph 3 d), the Representative of the United States held the view that it was very important that the contractor, Aviareto, have the flexibility to make minor operational/technical consumer-responsive adjustments and changes that were needed, and that such changes fall within the scope of its contract without micro-management by the ICAO Council. The Council would not want to get involved in that type of technical detail. The facilitatory notification procedure provided a way to accomplish this, and it was important that it be interpreted in a way as to allow the contractor sufficient flexibility to make operational adjustments that met the needs of consumers. 27. The Representative of France supported the procedure proposed by Canada, which provided for an additional safeguard in order for the Secretariat to benefit from the best possible point of view, i.e. that of the Commission of Experts. 28. The Representative of Nigeria added his Delegation’s support to C-WP/12754 and its appendices, but requested clarification in connection with Rule 4 (Meetings and Consultations) of the Rules of Procedure at Appendix C. Sub-paragraph b) stated that Commission members attending a meeting may be accompanied by no more than two advisers, and in the case of the Commission advisors had a status which was like that of an observer in the sense that they did not form part of the quorum. The Representative of Nigeria wished to know if it would be possible, in a case where a Commission Member was unable to attend a given meeting, he could, on an exceptional basis, ask one of his advisors to sit in without participation but simply to observe the proceedings of the meeting. At the moment, the Rules of Procedure did not seem to meet such a situation. 29. In responding to some of the points raised thus far, the Principal Legal Officer indicated, in relation to the first suggestion of the Representative of Canada, that the expression “facilitatory changes” appeared first not in paragraph 2.9 but in paragraph 2.8, and was followed by an explanation of what that term meant. As regards the second question, paragraph 2.10 reflected what the Commission had proposed, which was to consult CESAIR as necessary in the notification procedure. This was, of course, only a recommendation from CESAIR, which was a consultative body of the Council, and the Council was sovereign to amend the recommendation and make it compulsory that CESAIR be consulted systematically. PLO believed that in practice CESAIR would in any event be consulted systematically because what was envisaged, to save time in procedures, was that every time the Registrar would notify the Organization of a proposed amendment, such notification would be copied to all Members of the Commission. 30. As regards the question raised by the Representative of the United States, which had been referred to at CESAIR’s first meeting as a “third layer” of changes which did not require approval or even notification, it would not be advisable to make it compulsory to notify in advance such changes which were introduced on a day-by-day basis to, for example, solve malfunctions. Although C-WP/12754 did not mentioned that category of changes, the detailed report of CESAIR’s First Meeting did make reference to it and that report would be made available to Representatives.

C-MIN 179/16

- 251 -

31. Referring finally to the point which had been raised by the Representative of Nigeria, PLO recalled that the expert from Nigeria had not been able to attend CESAIR’s First Meeting and had requested that an alternate attend on his behalf. That had brought up the question of having alternates to the experts. When preparing CESAIR’s Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat had taken inspiration from the different Rules of Procedure in use by similar bodies of the Organization which did not provide for alternates although the Secretariat had learned that there had been situations where alternates would have been advisable. Bearing this in mind, the Secretariat had raised the question with the Commission, which had decided that at this stage it would not recommend that alternates be appointed. 32. Responding to the comments which had been offered by the Representative of Canada in connection with the lack of gender neutrality in the language of the Rules of Procedure for CESAIR, D/LEB recalled that this point had been raised by the Canadian member on the Commission of Experts and that the Secretariat had informed the Commission that when the Council had reviewed its Rules of Procedure in June of 2006, a note had been added to Doc 7559 indicating that “throughout [the Council’s] Rules of Procedure, the use of the male gender should be understood to include male and female persons”. The same approach had been taken with regard to this issue and the Commission of Experts had been satisfied with the explanation provided by the Secretariat. The same note appeared in the draft Rules of Procedure of the Commission of Experts which the Commission was recommending that the Council adopt today. 33. Paragraph 2.10 of C-WP/12754 was amended to read: “2.10 CESAIR will be informed and consulted in the scope of this notification procedure.” 34. The action proposed at paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/12754 was amended in light of the discussion, and the Council noted the information provided in the paper and approved: a) the translation of the Regulations and Procedures for the International Registry

into other official languages of ICAO as soon as possible; b) the Rules of Procedure for CESAIR mentioned in paragraph 2.4 of the paper; c) the changes to the Regulations and Procedures for the International Registry

mentioned in paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7 of C-WP/12754; and d) the procedure mentioned in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 (as amended) for notification

of facilitatory changes, as defined in paragraph 2.8 of C-WP/12754. Subject No. 12.5: Plans for legal meetings Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization Subject No. 16.3: International air law conventions

Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 35. The Council noted the following oral report on the above subject. The Council would be informed at its next session of the progress made in the work of the Working Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952.

C-MIN 179/16 - 252 -

36. Since the subject had last been considered by the Council on 15 March 2006 during its 177th Session, the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 had held two additional meetings at Headquarters. The fourth meeting had been held from 19-23 June and the fifth from 30 October to 3 November. 37. The Group had developed the text of two instruments along the lines of what had been agreed before, to treat differently the so-called “general risk” or “safety risk” and the other so-called “terrorist risk”. The first of these two instruments was a Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties; this text would cover the damage resulting from ordinary, normal, or safety events. This text did not deviate very much from the Rome Convention approach. 38. The second of the two instruments was the Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties in Case of Unlawful Interference: here the liability of the operator was strict, but it was also capped based on the weight of the aircraft. The Draft envisaged the creation of a supplementary compensation mechanism which would pay compensation to the victim above the limits of liability of the operator. The maximum amount of compensation available from the compensation mechanism was tentatively set for discussion purposes at three billion special drawing rights for each event; beyond that amount other solutions, maybe in the national framework, would have to be found. The source of funds for the mechanism would come from the ultimate users of the air transport systems, namely the passengers and the shippers. 39. The Group had not yet been able to finalize its work, especially with regard to the financing of the system. Finalization and editorial changes were also necessary. More work was thus needed, and this work would be by correspondence and possibly informal meetings. It was the intention of the Group and of the Chairman to work in time to present a report to the next session of the Council. If the Group finalized its work as expected, the full text of the Conventions would be presented to the Council and the Council would be asked to formally convene a session of the Legal Committee to consider the two texts. 40. It was envisaged that the Legal Committee might consider not only these two texts but also some additional material which would be developed in the framework of a so-called “Task Force”, especially regarding financing and the functioning of the so-called “compensation mechanism”. It was recalled that earlier in the current (179th) Session, the Council had approved for planning and budgetary purposes the holding of a meeting of the Legal Committee from 26 June to 6 July 2007. Other business Subject No. 10.1:Reports on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented

Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented during the third quarter – 1 July to 30 September 2006

41. The President of the Council referred to his memorandum PRES RK/1315 dated 20 November 2006, by which he had circulated C-WP/12794 on the above subject. Since, as at 1 December 2006, he had not received a request for its discussion by the Council, he considered that the Council had noted the paper. 42. The meeting adjourned at 1800 hours.

C-MIN 179/17

- 253 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil —*Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru —*Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. M. Franco (Alt.) — Peru Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB *Mr. A.R. Diallo — C/HRB Mr. R. Barr — C/FIN *Mr. W. Amaro — A/D/TCB *Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB *Mr. J.A. Jakob — LO/LEB Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/17 - 254 -

Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization

General Work Programme of the Legal Committee 1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12759, in which the Secretary General presented updated information on the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee. 2. Referring to paragraph 3.3 of the paper on item 3) of the General Work Programme [Consideration, with regard to CNS/ATM systems including global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), of the establishment of a legal framework], the Representative of India noted that his State had completed the demonstration phase of its GPS & Geo Augmented Navigation (GAGAN) system and was now in the second phase, the initial experimental phase (IEP). It was expected that the system would become operational in 2008, following completion of the third phase. In underscoring that the development of that satellite navigation system involved massive investment, he enquired as to what assistance ICAO could provide for the development of a legal framework in terms of guidance material or any other form of legal or administrative assistance. The Representative of India observed, in this regard, that although Assembly Resolution A35-3, in its Resolving Clause 3, invited States to “consider using regional organizations to develop mechanisms necessary to address any legal or institutional issues that could inhibit the implementation of CNS/ATM in the region”, there was no such regional organization in Asia. 3. In elaborating on Assembly Resolution A35-3, the Director of the Legal Bureau (D/LEB) indicated that the Secretariat had not been informed of any new regional initiatives and that it had not received any requests to provide assistance. 4. The Representative of Australia noted that the paper correctly set forth the priorities of the Legal Committee and focussed on the areas of active work, particularly item 1) (Consideration of the modernization of the Convention on Damage Caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, signed at Rome on 7 October 1952) and item 2) (Acts or offences of concern to the international aviation community and not covered by existing air law instruments) of the General Work Programme. Further to a suggestion then made by the Representative, it was agreed that item 1) would be amended to read as follows in order to better reflect the work being done thereon: “Compensation for damage caused by aircraft to third parties arising from acts of unlawful interference or from general risks”. 5. The Representative of the United States endorsed the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee as presented in paragraph 2.1 of the paper. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of India, he recalled that the updated Global Plan for CNS/ATM systems (Doc 9750) which the Council had approved earlier in the session (179/13; C-WP/12780) contained, in Appendix C, certain legal principles that would guide the development of satellite navigation systems and ensure that they operated harmoniously at the global level. 6. The Representative of Cameroon also voiced support for the General Work Programme. Observing, from paragraph 3.5.4 of the paper, that a regional legal seminar had been held in Seoul in May 2006, he enquired whether the Secretariat intended to hold legal seminars in other regions. Noting that it was the practice to convene legal seminars in the regions on a rotational basis, D/LEB indicated that it was planned to hold one in 2007, for States to which the South American and North American, Central American and Caribbean Offices are accredited, to take place at the ICAO Regional Office in Lima. 7. Responding to a point raised by the Representative of Nigeria, D/LEB recalled that the Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention had concluded that the development of the

C-MIN 179/17

- 255 -

draft Convention on compensation for damage caused by aircraft to third parties arising from general risks was less important that the development of the draft Convention on compensation for damage arising from acts of unlawful interference. The Special Group was, however, continuing to work on both instruments. 8. In then taking action on the basis of paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12759, the Council confirmed the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee set forth in paragraph 2.1 as amended above, as follows (items listed in the order of priority):

1) Compensation for damage caused by aircraft to third parties arising from acts of

unlawful interference or from general risks; 2) Acts or offences of concern to the international aviation community and not covered

by existing air law instruments; 3) Consideration, with regard to CNS/ATM systems, including global navigation

satellite systems (GNSS), of the establishment of a legal framework;

4) International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment); 5) Review of the question of the ratification of international air law instruments; and

6) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Implications, if any, for the application of the Chicago Convention, its Annexes and other international air law instruments.

Subject No. 18.4: Contributions by Contracting States and methods of assessment

Methodology used in calculating scales of assessment 9. The Council considered C-WP/12738 presented by the Secretary General, which set forth the results of a review of the current methodology of the limitation principle used in calculating scales of assessment undertaken pursuant to a request by the Administrative Commission of the 35th Session of the Assembly, and Information Paper No. 1 relating thereto, which presented possible revisions to the said methodology by eliminating the impact of the limitation principle during the next triennium; and C-WP/12739, a report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC). It was recalled that the limitation principle, as defined in Assembly Resolution A21-33, Resolving Clause 1 e), provided that an increase in a State’s rate of assessment as compared with the previous year’s was limited to 10 per cent of the previous year’s rate of assessment or 0.07 per cent of the total scale of assessment, whichever was higher. 10. In expressing support for the Secretary General’s paper, the Representative of China advocated a gradual approach to the elimination of the limitation principle, whereby the latter would be eliminated effective 1 January 2010. He noted that since 2001 China’s assessed contribution had increased at an annual rate of more that 10 per cent and had even reached 24.9 per cent in 2005, while the assessed contributions of many Intermediate States had decreased year after year. The Representative of China emphasized that although his State had witnessed rapid economic growth in recent years and its total gross domestic product (GDP) had also grown to a fair size, it had a large population, a result of which was that it was ranked 100th in the world in terms of per capita income (US $1 703, well below the average of US $5 094). He noted, in this context, that by the end of 2005, there were 23.65 million people living in absolute poverty in China, which was almost the equivalent of the population of Canada.

C-MIN 179/17 - 256 -

According to the criteria established by the World Bank, China ranked second in terms of the number of people living in absolute poverty, i.e. on less than US $1 per day. China nonetheless would be the tenth highest contributor to ICAO’s Programme Budget in 2007. It therefore agreed to the gradual elimination of the limitation principle. China did not, however, support any change to the method for calculating assessed contributions. The Representative of China underscored the need for the Council to give careful consideration to that issue, taking into account the United Nations’ reform of the methodology for calculating the capacity-to-pay scale. He further stressed that the Council should first reach consensus regarding the methodology used in calculating scales of assessment before considering other such issues. 11. In noting that the application of the limitation principle over the triennium had resulted in Intermediate States paying approximately US $2.4 million in increased assessed contributions, the Representative of France emphasized that European States had paid half of that amount, 54 per cent if the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Member States were included, and that Japan had paid 24 per cent. Averring that that was inequitable, the Representative of France indicated that if the Organization did not accept the principle of a two-currency budget, for which there was much support, then States would adopt a more restrictive stance towards the budget. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of China, he maintained that, as China had the fourth largest economy in the world, it would be able to find the additional funds, some US $100 000, that it would be required to pay following the elimination of the limitation principle. The Representative of France stressed that those States which were negatively impacted by the application of that principle and which were advocating its elimination were not requesting reimbursement for the increased assessed contributions which they had paid. He considered that the simplest course of action would be to eliminate the limitation principle at the beginning of the 2008-2010 triennium. 12. In proposing that the limitation principle be completely eliminated from the beginning of 2007, the Representative of Japan averred that to wait four years, until 2010, to abolish it would be too long given the negative impact which its continued application would have on Intermediate States, as illustrated in Appendix A to Information Paper No. 1 related to C-WP/12738. He maintained that quick action should be taken to rectify this inequitable situation. 13. While favouring the elimination of the limitation principle, the Representative of Australia considered that its immediate abolition would be difficult for some States to deal with, given the need for them to adjust their budgets in order to make provision for the resultant increase in their assessed contributions. However, in light of the equity issues which had been highlighted, he supported an elimination date of either 2009 or 2008. 14. In voicing preference for a gradual abolition of the limitation principle, the Representative of Mexico suggested 2009 as a compromise elimination date. 15. The Representative of Germany favoured the complete abolition of the limitation principle. While preferring an elimination date of 2008, she recognized the spirit of compromise of those States which would be most affected by the principle’s abolition and could accept the compromise date of 2009. The Representatives of Finland, the United Kingdom , Colombia, Argentina, France and Italy also indicated that they could accept that elimination date. 16. In taking action on the basis of paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12739, the Council:

a) agreed to recommend to the 36th Session of the Assembly the elimination of the said

limitation principle;

C-MIN 179/17

- 257 -

b) agreed to recommend to the Assembly that 2008 be the last year in which the limitation principle should be applied and that the appropriate mathematical calculation to support that recommendation should be applied; and

c) requested the Secretary General to report further, during its next (180th) Session, on

the methodology used in calculating scales of assessment.

The principle in the determination of scales of assessment (Weighted ability to pay scale) 17. Tabled next for consideration was C-WP/12815 presented by Japan, which proposed that the formula of the weighted ability to pay scale in the determination of scales of assessment be reviewed to ensure fair participation in ICAO activities and financial contributions from States. It was recalled that, under Assembly Resolution A21-33, the weighted ability to pay scale was determined by adding together 75 per cent of the capacity to pay scale, derived from the United Nations Committee on Contributions, and 25 per cent of the scale of interest and importance in aviation, as measured by the capacity tonne-kilometres available on each State’s scheduled air services. 18. While supporting the proposed examination of how the Organization was funded, the Representative of the United Kingdom underscored that although it was an important issue, it was not an urgent one. He cautioned that the Council should not allow its review of the assessment methodology to distract it from the bigger issues that it needed to address, notably the Draft Programme Budget for 2008-2010. Drawing attention to paragraph 2.6 of the paper, the Representative of the United Kingdom enquired why, if the Council was to undertake a comprehensive review of the said methodology, it would not also re-examine the minimum and maximum scales of assessment. Referring to the action proposed in paragraph 4.1 b), he agreed that the Secretariat should study the assessment methodologies of other similar international organizations. The Representative of the United Kingdom indicated, in this regard, that it should also examine novel ways of financing the Organization and consider whether or not organizations such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and Airports Council International (ACI) might also make contributions to ICAO. 19. The Representative of Japan noted that his State did not consider that any change was necessary to the minimum and maximum scales of assessment as they resulted in a balanced apportionment of the Organization’s financial burden while ensuring a minimum participation by States. 20. The Representative of Australia indicated that while he supported an initial study of the formula for the weighted ability to pay scale, he would not be in a position to take a final decision until he had had the opportunity to consider the impact of any proposals. He agreed on the need to study the practice of other UN Specialized Agencies and of other large international organizations that were technical in nature. The Representative of Australia considered that it was also necessary to examine the weighting between the size of a State’s economy, i.e. its capacity to pay and its level of aviation activity. Referring to paragraph 3 of the paper on the assessment calculation for the International Maritime Organization (IMO), he observed that it was in almost complete contrast to ICAO’s current formula and clearly levied larger assessments on the major flag States. Underscoring that that led to some unusual results, the Representative of Australia noted that although his State had a very small shipping register, it had the largest shipping task in the world. He stressed that it was necessary to ensure that there was a balance between those States whose economies depended upon transport and those whose economies had a major interest in operating transport. With regard to the timing of the said initial study, the Representative of Australia indicated that if, after reviewing its results, there was broad agreement that there were some proposals which merited further consideration, then the Council should examine them. If, however, that would distract the Council from its other, more urgent work, as suggested by the

C-MIN 179/17 - 258 -

Representative of the United Kingdom, then the Council would need to take the appropriate time and adjust its work programme accordingly. 21. In also voicing support for the proposal by Japan, the Representative of the United States averred that, after some fifty years, it was appropriate to consider the formula of the weighted ability to pay scale in the determination of scales of assessment given the dramatic changes in aviation which had occurred. His Government, which had no position as to how the formula should be modified, considered that a study by the Secretariat would assist the Council in its review of the assessment methodology. The Representative of the United States concurred with the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia that it was necessary to give careful consideration to that issue and that other urgent matters might have to be addressed beforehand. With reference to paragraph 2.6 of the paper, he agreed that the minimum and maximum scales of assessment were separate issues. The Representative of the United States was nonetheless of the view that, in examining the various options, the Council should also consider those issues. That was not to say that the United States would be recommending any changes to the minimum and maximum scales of assessment; rather, it did not whish any particular options to be excluded from the review. 22. In commending the paper, the Representative of Saudi Arabia expressed general support for the action proposed in paragraph 4.1. Agreeing, however, with the comments made by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Australia on the need to address other, more urgent issues, such as the Draft Programme Budget for 2008-2010, he suggested that sub-paragraph c) be amended to indicate that a paper on the weighted ability to pay scale in the determination of scales of assessment would be presented after the 36th Session of the Assembly instead of during the 180th Session of the Council. 23. Concurring that, after half a century, it was time to review the formula of the weighted ability to pay scale, the Representative of France observed that it was always useful to have fresh ideas. Noting that that scale was currently based on 25 per cent of the scale of interest and importance in aviation, he underscored that consideration should also be given to the criteria used to measure the level of participation in aviation. The Representative of France emphasized that the envisaged paper should include an indication of the potential impact of the various options. Agreeing that there were more urgent issues to be considered by the Council, he indicated that it should be discussed only in the next triennium. In then referring to the comments made by the Representative of the United Kingdom, he averred that it was a bad idea to have ICAO, a regulatory agency, partly funded by IATA and other similar organizations which it regulated. 24. Observing that ICAO often referred to the policies and practices of other UN organizations in determining its own, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized that while harmonization was desirable, ICAO was considered to be one of the best Specialized Agencies. In concurring with the Representative of Australia that the IMO’s assessment calculation seemed to be the opposite of ICAO’s, he underscored that, although both organizations set standards, they were very different in terms of geographical application. The Representative of Nigeria noted, in this regard, that many States were land-locked and thus were not involved in maritime activities. Aviation was common to many more States. It might therefore not be correct to consider the IMO’s assessment methodology in terms of level of activity. Underscoring that ICAO’s assessment methodology closely followed that of the UN, although it made provision for aviation activity, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized that it highlighted the desire of the UN to ensure the equitable application of the methodology to all States. Recalling that two-thirds of ICAO Member States were developing countries, and that 130 Contracting States paid the minimum level of assessment, he stressed the need to echo the UN and ensure that the financial burden was equitably shared. Averring that the weight currently accorded to the scale of interest and importance

C-MIN 179/17

- 259 -

in aviation (25 per cent) in determining the weighted ability to pay was correct, the Representative of Nigeria expressed concern that any change to the formula would have a negative impact on the said States which paid the minimum level of assessment. 25. Referring to the suggestion by the Representative of the United Kingdom that funding from other sources such as IATA and ACI be considered, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that the issue of what activities were carried out by the Organization and which entities benefited therefrom could be the subject of many studies. In his view, ICAO should adhere strictly to the Preamble of the Chicago Convention and ensure that “international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically”. He affirmed that the more ICAO stayed closely to the assessment determined by the UN, the better it would be for the peoples of the world. 26. In agreeing that the whole model for determining the scales of assessment should be reviewed given the evolution of aviation over the last fifty years, the Representative of Mexico indicated that a number of points should be taken into account, one being the philosophy behind the Organization’s current methodology. He underscored, in this context, that the assessment calculation of the IMO was related to the type of industry which that organization regulated. Another point to be taken into consideration was that developing countries were currently under a substantial amount of pressure to fulfill their safety oversight responsibilities under the Chicago Convention. The Representative of Mexico emphasized the need to arrive at a balanced solution which was acceptable to all. 27. The Representative of Germany supported the paper, as well as the comments made regarding the timeframe for considering the weighted ability to pay scale in the determination of scales of assessment. Expressing concern at placing an additional burden on the Secretariat when they were preparing the Programme Budget for the next triennium, she enquired as to how much resources and how much time would be required to carry out the proposed work, suggesting that the results of the proposed detailed studies be presented during the 181st Session instead of the 180th Session. Recalling the comments made by the Representative of Nigeria regarding the differences between ICAO and the IMO, the Representative of Germany noted that registration had a different meaning in the maritime world as there were a number of States which were not involved in shipping themselves but which were interested in attracting ships to their register so as to increase revenue. She observed, in this regard, that there might be some legitimacy in having IMO Member States pay higher contributions to that Organization as shipping was a very lucrative business. Referring to the comments made regarding funding from private organizations, the Representative of Germany agreed with those Representatives who had indicated that ICAO was a regulatory agency and therefore should be funded by States. 28. The Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) confirmed that his Office did have the capacity to present the envisaged paper during the 180th Session. 29. In supporting the proposed careful review of the formula of the weighted ability to pay scale in the determination of scales of assessment taking into account examples from the UN common system, the Representative of India emphasized that the UN formula ensured political stability through equity. He expressed the hope that the Secretariat would also keep the equity factor into consideration when reviewing the formula of the weighted ability to pay to ensure economic stability among the whole spectrum of Contracting States. Underscoring that it was the economy that drove civil aviation and not vice-versa, the Representative of India noted that as the economy grew, the gross domestic product grew and the amount of disposable income, resulting in an increase in the propensity to travel by air. He cautioned that the results of the envisaged studies might not be easy to accept as it would not be possible to capture the capacity to pay in any new formula. The Representative of India noted, in this regard, that

C-MIN 179/17 - 260 -

the basic assessment for IMO Member States, which was the equivalent of the scale of capacity to pay in ICAO, only had a weight of 12.5 per cent, whereas ICAO’s current weighted ability to pay comprised 75 per cent of the capacity to pay scale based on a State’s GDP. 30. Expressing appreciation for the paper, the Representative of Cameroon underscored that the issue raised by Japan was an important and complex one. In endorsing the comments made by the Representatives of Australia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom, he emphasized that the Secretariat should not only study the assessment methodologies used by other similar international organizations but also conduct an in-depth analysis of the implications of the various options, particularly for developing countries. 31. Concurring that careful consideration should be given to the issue, the Representative of Italy stressed that the assessment methodology used by an organization such as the IMO might not be appropriate for ICAO. 32. The Representative of Ghana agreed with the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Nigeria that the issue of how the Organization was funded should also be considered. Noting that some Representatives were opposed to ICAO being partly financed by industry, he indicated that he did not see any contradiction in requesting industry to help fund the Organization when industry benefited from its activities and made substantial profits from some of the them. The Representative of Ghana affirmed that it would be in line with the current practice of asking industry to contribute funds for certain programmes and projects, especially those which were intended to assist States. 33. The Representative of Pakistan concurred with previous speakers that, after fifty years, a review of the weighted ability to pay scale was in order. Underscoring that the issue was a crucial and complicated one, he indicated that a comprehensive study should be done to determine the best formula for the Organization. As stated by the Representatives of Nigeria and Ghana, inter alia, funding sources should also be examined. In suggesting that the Secretariat carry out the envisaged studies slowly but in thorough manner, he emphasized that the Council should not insist that a report be presented for its consideration during the 180th Session. 34. The Representative of Argentina considered that the proposed report should encompass not only the formula of the weighted ability to pay scale but also the interest and importance in civil aviation scale and funding sources. While he was in favour of other organizations funding ICAO, he stressed the need to carefully consider the issue as such funding would give the contributors a certain authority over the Organization’s activities. He stressed the need for a flexible solution which would enable ICAO to work hand-in-hand with the aviation industry. 35. Emphasizing that the solution should be for the long term, the Representative of Spain underscored that any new formula for the weighted ability to pay scale should be equitable. 36. In welcoming a review of the current formula, the Representative of Canada observed that there was a will in the Council to look at novel approaches to financing the Organization and the activities which it was mandated to carry out and which were its mantra. He stressed that the Council should keep the same spirit of openness in its future discussions on the restructuring of the Secretariat, assessment quotas, the Programme Budget and possibly the Chicago Convention, issues which, when resolved, would enable the Organization to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Representative of Mozambique shared this view.

C-MIN 179/17

- 261 -

37. While concurring on the need for a comprehensive approach, the Representative of Japan averred that it might not be practical to try and address all of the issues at the same time. Referring to paragraph 4.1 c) of the paper, in which the Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper in order to assess the impact on States of introducing other formulas for calculating the regular assessment using different weights on the capacity to pay scale and the interest and importance in civil aviation scale, he emphasized that he was not expecting the Secretariat to come up with a particular proposal to change the weights but with several options. The Representative of Japan stressed the need to achieve a balance between the said two coefficients and to carefully examine the impact of any new formula on both developing and developed countries. While he hoped that a new formula would be developed as soon as possible, he understood that that would depend on the Council’s deliberations and decision. The Representative of Japan underscored the need to start the discussion by preparing a basic paper for the 180th session. After considering that report, the Council could decide what direction should be taken. He stressed that it was not his intention, in proposing such a paper, that the issue be completely resolved at the next session. 38. Drawing attention to the action proposed in paragraph 4.1 a) of the paper, which requested the Secretariat to study the justification of the formula of the weighted ability to pay scale, the Representative of Nigeria underscored that there were many considerations to be taken into account in order to determine whether or not it was justified and that a comprehensive analysis would be required. Such a long-term study could not be carried out by the 180th Session. In agreeing that it would not be possible to the Secretariat to report on the justification of the formula by the next session, C/FIN suggested that the word “justification” be deleted, as well as sub-paragraph b) on the study of examples of assessment methodologies of other similar international organizations. 39. In accepting this proposal, the Council agreed to request the Secretary General: a) to study the said formula of the weighted ability to pay scale; and

b) to present for its consideration, during the next (180th) Session, a paper on the weighted ability to pay scale in the determination of scales of assessment to enable the Council to evaluate the impact on each State of introducing other formulas for calculating the regular assessment using different weights for the capacity to pay and interest and importance in civil aviation factors.

Format and content of the financial statements of the Organization — Policies for

Technical Co-operation Programme revenue and expenditure recognition 40. The Council considered this subject on the basis of C-WP/12742, in which the Secretary General presented an overview of the possible impact that the adoption of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) would have on revenue and expense recognition for the Organization’s Technical Co-operation Programme (TCP); and an oral report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC). It was noted that, while it was anticipated that revenue from administrative fees in the Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) Fund would significantly decrease as a result of adopting IPSAS due to its method of revenue recognition, efforts would be made to ensure that IPSAS would have only a minimal impact on the TCP so as to avoid a deficit in the AOSC Fund in the first year of IPSAS implementation (2008). 41. To a point raised by the Representative of Nigeria, the Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) clarified that the adoption of IPSAS would have no financial impact on States which undertook technical co-operation projects with ICAO under the TCP as the AOSC Fund was generated on a “fee-for-service” basis. Although IPSAS implementation might change the timing of the recognition of the

C-MIN 179/17 - 262 -

expenditures which generated the fee, the total budget for a technical co-operation project would remain the same. 42. The Representative of Spain maintained that a step-by-step approach should be taken, with IPSAS first being implemented in the more complicated Regular Programme Budget and only subsequently in the AOSC Fund. He stressed the need to reduce bureaucracy. C/FIN emphasized that IPSAS was merely a set of accounting standards which would enable the Secretariat to be consistent in its financial reporting and that its adoption would have only a minimal operational impact on the TCP. 43. The Representative of Argentina averred that ICAO, which was very different from the other UN Specialized Agencies, was aligning itself with the administrative structure of the UN without having carried out a proper evaluation of how IPSAS would apply to ICAO and to what extent its implementation would improve the operation of the Organization. He recalled how the External Auditor of ICAO, in her 2005 Report, had indicated that implementing IPSAS and a new financial system simultaneously “could increase the risk that the expected results of both initiatives will not be achieved” (cf. C-WP/12655, Addendum No. 2, paragraph 2). The Secretariat nonetheless considered that ICAO could be an early-adopter and implement IPSAS by 1 January 2008 instead of 1 January 2010, the date approved by the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination (CEB). The Representative of Argentina emphasized that ICAO’s early implementation of IPSAS only added to the risk associated with its adoption. He then sought clarification regarding paragraph 6.3 of the paper, averring that ICAO did not have a clear, detailed policy for the apportionment of costs between the AOSC Fund and the Regular Programme Budget. The President of the Council noted, in this regard, that the Council had already taken a decision on that issue (177/2) and that debate thereon could not be re-opened. 44. The Representative of Nigeria underscored that the Organization should establish its technical co-operation policy before considering what accounting standards should be used in implementing that policy. The Representative of the Russian Federation shared this view, as well as the views expressed by the Representatives of Spain and Argentina. 45. To a suggestion by the Representative of Spain that FIC reports on important issues such as the one under discussion be issued in written form rather than given verbally, the President of the Council indicated that while the current practice was to have oral reports by the FIC and other Committees, exceptions could be made. 46. The Council then noted the information contained in C-WP/12742, as well as the oral report of the FIC, the text of which would be sent electronically to Council Representatives. Subject No. 18.1: Working capital fund Subject No. 18.2: Transfers from one Major Programme of the budget to another

Financial Year 2006 47. The above subject was documented for Council’s consideration in C-WP/12776, presented by the Secretary General; and C-WP/12785, a report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC). 48. Replying to a query by the Representative of Nigeria regarding the deferral of the renovation of the Dakar Regional Office premises, the Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) noted that although that project had been budgeted for 2006, the Regional Office did not consider that it was ready to proceed with it and that it could instead be undertaken in 2007. FIN was currently working with the

C-MIN 179/17

- 263 -

ICAO Regional Director to obtain the best proposal for the renovation. The project was thus being carried forward into the third year of the budget. 49. Observing that some of the resources had become available for transfer to the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project and the Review of the Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) project as certain expenditures had not been incurred, the Representative of France queried whether the opposite was also true, namely that certain tasks had not been performed so that funds would be freed up for re-allocation to those two projects. Referring to the Dakar Regional Office premises, he emphasized that the premises had been in need of renovations for many years. With regard to the problem of recruitment, the Representative of France recalled that the FIC had noted, in paragraph 4 of its report, that “funds should be spent more for the technical activities of the Organization rather than for administrative purposes”. He underscored that while there was an obvious need to modernize the Organization’s management tools, the way in which it was done was not always ideal. 50. Noting that it was proposed to carry-over an unobligated balance of appropriations of US $4 705 000, which was US $1 700 000 less than the total unobligated balance of appropriations of US $6 400 000, C/FIN underscored that that was a reflection of the fact that the Secretariat was accelerating the Organization’s expenditures in order to align them with the budget. He further indicated that the only two major transfers from savings effected by the Secretary General during 2006 were US $200 000 in support of the Review of the Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) project, of which only some US $40 000 had been spent, and US $1 600 000 for the ERP system. 51. In taking the action proposed in paragraph 12.1 of C-WP/12776, as recommended by the FIC in paragraph 7 of its report, the Council:

a) approved, pursuant to Financial Regulation 5.10, the transfer of US $1 088 000 to

Major Programme I – General Policy and Direction (US $143 000) and Major Programme VII – Finance, External Relations/Public Information, and Programmes Evaluation, Audit and Management Review (US $945 000) from Major Programmes II – Air Navigation, III – Air Transport, IV – Legal, V – Regional and Other Programmes and VI - Administrative Support;

b) approved, pursuant to Financial Regulation 5.6, the carry-over of unobligated

balances of appropriations amounting to US $218 000, US $250 000, US $1 693 000 and US $1 110 000 in respect of Major Programmes I – General Policy and Direction, IV – Legal, VII - Finance, External Relations/Public Information, and Programmes Evaluation, Audit and Management Review and VIII – Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme, respectively; and

c) authorized the Secretary General to make adjustment in the approved carry-over

amounts to 2007 that might be required by actual final expenditure at the end of the financial year 2006.

52. The Council adjourned at 1250 hours.

C-MIN 179/18

- 265 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover Tunisia — Mr. M. Chérif United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. A. Mena (Alt) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo — Colombia Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. M.F. Lynch (Alt.) — Peru Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States

SECRETARIAT: *Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB *Mr. V. Zuvkov — C/RAO *Mr. S. Espinola — PLO *Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB *Mr. R. Barr — C/FIN *Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB *Mr. H. Belai — A/C/S&F *Ms. M.K. McMunn — C/SGM *Mr. J.S. Thaker — TO/SGM *Mr. J. Huang — LO *Mr. J.A. Jakob — LO/LEB Mr. M. Siciliano — TO/SGM Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/18 - 266 -

Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel

Proposal of the Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) Team 1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/12813, presented by the Secretary General. The paper responded to a request by the Council for elaboration on informal briefings delivered by the Secretary General to the Council on 25 October 2006 and 20 November 2006 on proposals for restructuring and reorganizing the Secretariat. 2. The Representative of Canada observed that C-WP/12813 and its presentation by the Secretary General offered a clear understanding of the calendar of operations that was being proposed. The fact that the procedure was divided into two steps, the first to be implemented after the upcoming Assembly and the second which would be adjusted on the basis of the outcomes of the first step, was precisely what his Government considered to be the appropriate staggered approach. The Representative of Canada believed it was important that the Secretary General, in his introduction, had made an effort to dispel a number of apprehensions or difficulties that may exist among Council Members in connection with the Technical Cooperation Bureau. The Secretary General was simply changing the reporting lines, and the structures per se were not being affected. As regards the action proposed in C-WP/12813, the Representative of Canada would be prepared to support the restructuring planned for the short-term, as was indicated in sub-paragraph 5.1 a), but would also be willing to simply note it in the interest of achieving a consensus. 3. The Representative of the United Kingdom observed that the work which had been carried out by the Secretary General was a logical outcome of the comments which had been offered by the Council during previous discussions on the subject. While the Council worked, on the one hand, on the policy, the Secretariat, on the other hand, worked on delivery, and the Secretariat was free to organize itself in whichever way it wished. It therefore was very helpful to Council to be told how the Secretariat was going to organize itself, but the key element was that the Secretariat should be delivering the policy outcomes that the Council was calling for. From the United Kingdom’s perspective, it was more sensible to say that the Council noted the elements proposed by the Secretariat. Having said that, there was one element which could be made clearer; in paragraph 3.3, where there was a reference to the Planning and Global Coordination Office which was going to be responsible for the development of the Business Plan of the Organization, it should be mentioned that its functions would including monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Business Plan. The Representative of the United Kingdom was somewhat disappointed that the Secretariat had not been more assertive in its approach to developing the Standards and Infrastructure Bureau and the Implementation Support Bureau, but was encouraged by the work which was being done by the Secretariat. 4. The Representative of France thanked the Secretary General for a paper which was quite clear, and which distinguished between the short and long term, reflecting the discussions which the Council had already had. He had no problems with the proposals for the short term. If there was to be a restructuring of Bureaus the Council should approve such proposals because the appointment of the main officers was covered by the Convention. In the current short term organigramme, the Representative of France noted a movement towards a system of functional units reporting directly to the Secretary General rather than units which were tied into existing Bureaus. His personal preference would have been a hierarchic chart, but there had been clear reasons for having five Directors while respecting equitable geographic representation and for reflecting the functions of the Principal Officers other than Directors. Some of those Principal Officers would report directly to the Secretary General and would thus almost have the status of Directors while not being subject to EGR. The Representative of France also requested

C-MIN 179/18

- 267 -

clarification on the Secretary General’s intentions for more closely aligning the administration of tasks under the AOSC and Regular Programme Budgets. 5. Commenting on the short-term proposals, the Representative of Nigeria recalled that at the informal briefings he had raised the concern that the restructuring focus on enhancing implementation of Standards. This issue really concerned allocation of resources towards implementation of Standards, as opposed to the organizational structure or the organigramme of ICAO. In this connection, the Representative of Nigeria wished to offer some comments on the action proposed in C-WP/12813. He could accept the establishment of a Planning and Global Coordination Office to replace the existing Regional Affairs Office, since he believed a solid case has been made for that measure in the interest of the transition to the Business Planning environment. The Representative of Nigeria continued to have some difficulty with the arrangements proposed for the COSCAP and CASP; several States, including Nigeria, were involved in COSCAP and could not have two or three reference points in the Organization as was proposed in sub-paragraph 5.1 3). The issue of accountability as far as the States were concerned for COSCAP and CASP was TCB, while the Air Navigation Bureau and Air Transport Bureau gave support to the TCB in the technical aspects. 6. The Representative of Nigeria supported the functional alignment of the Regional Offices with appropriate technical officers at Headquarters, but pointed out that in terms of human resources, sub-paragraph 5.1 4) could not be implemented if the Regional Offices did not have the technical officers to relate with Headquarters. The Regional Office in Dakar, for example, had only six technical officers, down from approximately thirteen some five years earlier, and none of those officers dealt with safety, notwithstanding the safety deficiencies in the area. Technical officers would have to be associated not only with the Air Navigation or Air Transport Bureau, but with the audit functions of ICAO. The Representative of Nigeria concluded by voicing his concerns with the proposal, in sub-paragraph 5.1 a) 2), for consolidating the administrative functions related to finance, human resources, and procurement activities, an item which should be transferred to the long-term measures. 7. The Representative of the United States expressed his appreciation for the work by the Secretary General and the SOS Team. The briefing that they had given Council Members and their willingness to listen to the concerns of individual Representatives and to take them into account in developing this two-phased approach was commendable. This phased approach was the correct way to proceed. This was more a process than an event; indeed, taking into consideration some of the concerns that remained in the Council, as expressed by the Representative of Nigeria, this was a process that could be further refined from experience. It was important that the Council support it and support the efforts by the Secretary General to realign the Organization more efficiently with the Strategic Objectives and Business Plan. As this process went forward, undoubtedly it could be refined and improved through that experience. The Representative of the United States would differ from his colleague from the United Kingdom and support the paper and the action items as presented, recognizing that it was a process that could be improved over time. The wording proposed in sub-paragraph 5.1 a), i.e. to “support the restructuring planned for the short term”, and b), i.e. to “request the Secretary General (…)”, did not call for the Council’s approval, but recognized that the Council needed to do more than simply note, given the time, effort and discussion that had preceded today’s meeting. 8. With respect to those items for which some Council members still had concerns, the Representative of the United States suggested that under b), where it was proposed that the Council request the Secretary General to present his report during the 182nd session, that the Council ask him very specifically and candidly to analyze what were the quality of service improvements; what were the improvements in effectiveness that had been achieved through the implementation of this short-term reorganization; what were the efficiencies that had been or could be achieved; what were the cost savings

C-MIN 179/18 - 268 -

that could be achieved through the consolidation of administrative functions; and what were the efficiencies and quality of service improvements that could be or that had been achieved under the action proposed at sub-paragraph 5.1 a) 3) through closer work and cooperation between the Air Navigation Bureau, the Air Transport Bureau, and the Technical Cooperation Bureau. Clearly, the underlying purpose of this reorganization was to bring the various Bureaus of the Organization together, to work in an efficient way for a common purpose, and it was for this reason that the Representative of the United States supported fully sub-paragraphs 5.1 a) 2) and 3), even though he still had some concerns about whether ICAO would achieve the efficiencies and the service improvements that it desired. The Representative of the United States asked that the Secretary General report to the Council on those issues very candidly during the 182nd session, but it was important that the Council support these efforts and move forward and as it began to think more about phase 2. Perhaps when the Secretary General provided the Council with more definition, he could give some options and creative thinking on long-term restructuring. The Council might find that as ICAO moved towards a new focus on implementation, it would need to move more rapidly and quickly and be bolder in proposing a reorganization than the time-frame currently provided in C-WP/12813. Finally, with respect to the Regional Offices, the Representative of the United States fully believed that the effectiveness of the action proposed at paragraph 5.1 a) 4) would depend on the staff of the Regional Offices and finding the technical competence that was needed in those Regional Offices to carry forward with this plan. That would be a responsibility that the Organization would face as it worked on the Budget in the coming months. 9. The Representative of Austria did not wish to comment on the short-term proposals since she thought that the Secretariat should have the flexibility to reorganize to a certain extent without requesting the approval of the Council. She did, however, have one area of concern which went in the same direction as what had already been outlined by the Representative of Nigeria, regarding the coordination of assistance in the field of safety and security within the Organization. Her Delegation was not convinced that the spreading out of assistance programmes among different Bureaus would improve the coordination of projects. Having heard the presentation from the Secretariat for the long term, Austria expected that a more comprehensive approach would be followed in the future. Although the long-term concepts were not on the agenda today, the Representative of Austria wished to mention that she thought the proposals seen so far went in the right direction. The Representative of Austria requested the Secretariat to follow up on its proposals for the long term; if any developments could be progressed, her Delegation would be happy to see a progress report during the 181st session. 10. The Representative of Germany did not think that the Council needed to approve the measures envisaged in C-WP/12813 for the first phase; as far as the second phase was concerned, like other speakers, Germany believed there were certain elements where the Council needed to take a close look, and that would require the Council’s approval. That would apply in particular to the creation of a new post of Assistant Secretary General which her Delegation considered to be a political post. The Council would need to look at that proposal closely. Therefore, along the lines of what the Representative of Austria had just mentioned, the Representative of Germany would welcome a report during the 181st Session on what had been achieved and what was to be achieved during the second phase 11. Responding to some of the points raised thus far, DD/ATB wished to clarify, in connection with the observation that there were too many direct reports to the Secretary General, that many of those reports were more of a functional nature. In the longer term proposal, one of the objectives was to build a structure that operated under the direction of a single individual reporting to the Secretary General directly. That would ensure good, frequent, and consistent communication across the responsibilities that were now divided amongst the several Bureaus and would take some of the burden off the Secretary General in terms of functional reporting. One of the organizational strategies that had met with some success in the last couple of decades was the “flattening” of an organization; while

C-MIN 179/18

- 269 -

hierarchy still existed in most large complex organizations, and had to as a matter of practicality, flattening the hierarchy did have efficiencies and produce benefits in terms of performance, with more functional direct reports to the leader. The advantage was that the leader of the organization, in this case the Secretary General, was much closer to the day-to-day activities that were performed because there was more regular interaction. What was critical was to ensure that the functions that did report to the leader of the organization were functions that were appropriate to be considered on a frequent basis at the highest level of accountability in the organization. Functions such as auditing, finance, and external and public relations policies were traditionally activities that were of significant import and appropriate to be in the constant consideration of the leader of the organization. 12. Referring to the comments which had been made regarding the tying of the administrative functions of TCB to the Regular Programme Budget, DD/ATB indicated that the intention in the short term was to align them and identify a single accountability. Two of those functions, i.e. finance and human resources, were considered appropriate to be accountable within the Regular Programme Budget. The procurement activities that were performed by TCB were, however, very professionally managed and it was considered in that regard that the Technical Cooperation Bureau was best positioned to manage procurement efficiently for the entire Organization. 13. The Representative of Mexico indicated that his Delegation would not agree to support any process which would be unilateral in nature. It should be more a question of noting the efforts on the part of the Secretariat. He assumed that the Planning and Global Coordination Office would be able to guarantee the functional alignment of the Regional Offices as long as it had the necessary resources and support. In this respect, the action proposed at sub-paragraph 5.1 1) would have to be directly linked to sub-paragraph 5.1 4). Insofar as the consolidation of certain administrative functions was concerned, many words of clarification had been expressed regarding how technical cooperation human resources were to be managed and financed. The Delegation of Mexico was concerned with the fact that this was an area in which the way work was carried out would face a major change. The Representative of Mexico suggested that the action proposed include a request for certain performance indicators regarding human resources, finances, integration of the Regional Offices, and perhaps language services. 14. The Representative of Argentina saw a great spirit of openness in trying to arrive at consensus and progressing the work of the Organization. If the Council were merely to note the action proposed, it would have wasted a great deal of time because on 25 October 2006 it had been noted that even the long-term changes involve changes to the whole structure and would therefore effect an impact on the policies of the Organization. It was for this reason that the proposals would have to be subject to the approval of the Council. As had been pointed out by the Representative of Mexico, there was a lack of objective points in terms of performance indicators. Argentina could support the action in 5.1 a) 1) dealing with the proposal for a Planning and Global Coordination Office. His Delegation was not, however, convinced of the need to approve 5.1 2) since it felt that the current structure of the Technical Cooperation Bureau, with some of its functions such as recruitment and financial resources separate from the Regular Programme, was useful to the policy of managing one fund independently of another. Insofar as paragraph 5.1 a) 3) was concerned, and the issue of transfer of COSCAP and CASP, the Delegation of Argentina was not convinced that this would be an improvement. The action proposed at paragraph 5.1 a) 4) concerning the functional alignment of Regional Offices was absolutely essential and would be the focal point in strengthening the operational structure of the Organization. 15. The Representative of Spain shared the views expressed by the Representative of Argentina. The philosophy behind the proposal of the SOS Team was excellent. Whereas the Standards, the implementation aids, and the audits would fall under the Regular Programme Budget, technical cooperation had a budget separate from the Regular Programme Budget, and in a matrix-type structure,

C-MIN 179/18 - 270 -

elements could be taken from one programme and applied to the different Bureaus in order to achieve the best possible results. In a linear-type structure, the different links could easily hook up with each other and with the Secretary General. The Representative of Spain had difficulty, however, with the constant references to “change” as opposed to “improvements”, “efficiencies” and “savings”. To disband a system could be good, but to rebuild it was more difficult. 16. The Representative of South Africa concurred with the views expressed by the Representative of Nigeria in connection with the situation in the Regional Offices, and the need to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. In human resources functions, organizational change, organizational design and organizational behavior all addressed efficiency and effectiveness. As had been asserted by the Representatives of Mexico and Nigeria, there was a need to set certain requirements in terms of deliverables. There existed a crisis situation in certain regions and Headquarters needed to take cognizance of that situation. The Representative of South Africa would support those delegations which simply wanted to note the proposals, since the paper lacked the necessary detail in terms of how staff would be affected. 17. The Representative of Finland observed that the proposals in C-WP/12813 for the short term might be modest ones, but represented an appropriate starting point. Finland would not suggest any change to sub-paragraphs 5.1 a) 1), 2), 3) or 4), and would favour using the verb ‘support’ in the action taken by the Council. As regards the action proposed at sub-paragraph 5.1 b), the Representative of Finland noted in particular the idea offered by the Representative of the United States, where if possible, the Secretary General should try to present what the short term steps had led to in terms of savings and added efficiency. Since the short term plans would only be implemented in the coming year, it would be too soon to request such an analysis during the 181st session. 18. The Representative of Saudi Arabia supported the position of the United States. The Secretariat had examined restructuring at great length and would report back to the Council in five or six months’ time with the results. His Delegation would therefore support the action by the Council while taking into consideration the minor amendments put forward by the Representative of United States. 19. The Representative of the Republic of Korea joined other Representatives in thanking the Secretary General and the SOS Team for presenting the proposal, which well reflected the comments, suggestions and questions raised by the Council during previous sessions. He encouraged the Secretary General and SOS Team to proceed in their further work. 20. The Representative of Japan believed that the proposal as a whole was going in the right direction, and supported the short term restructuring for the same reason expressed by the Representative of Finland. The Council did not need to approve the proposed restructuring, since it should focus on policy making decisions. The Japanese Delegation could also support the action proposed at sub-paragraph 5.1 b), hoping that the information related to the long-term restructuring proposal would include the functional aspects. 21. The Representative of Australia agreed with the views expressed by the Representative of Finland regarding the verb, i.e. “support”, which the Council should use in taking action on sub-paragraph 5.1 a), 1) to 4), the wording of which did not, in his view, require any changes. The Secretary General could perhaps provide an oral update during the 181st session as part of the general report that the Council received at the beginning of each session on action taken to implement the previous session’s decisions.

C-MIN 179/18

- 271 -

22. The Representative of Colombia observed that it was a fact of life that efforts to carry out reforms always met with resistance. One would hope that all change would improve the situation; this was what motivated the Secretary General and each and every Representative on the Council. What was proposed in paragraph 5 of C-WP/12813 was not, he argued, for the short term. The establishment of a Planning and Global Coordination Office that had not existed before was not a humble endeavour; it would be a new element in ICAO’s organigramme and would, to his understanding, create a super functionary who would coordinate all of the Directors and other senior managers who would be involved with the Secretary General. The Representative of Colombia was concerned that this would alienate the Secretary General from the staff at Headquarters and the Regional Offices with whom he could currently have direct contact. So far as technical cooperation was concerned, the Representative of Colombia feared that the efficient services which were now being offered might be compromised. If certain functions were transferred, there would be a need to ensure that there was proper management of human and financial resources. The Council could not simply note the structural changes proposed, but would have to use a stronger verb in confirming its agreement and arriving at a consensus between the Secretary General and the Council. 23. The Representative of Pakistan appreciated the efforts of the Secretary General and the SOS Team who had worked very hard on this project, and recalled that some misconceptions had been cleared during the informal meetings which had been convened to address some apprehensions which remained in the minds of Representatives. The points which had been raised had no doubt been noted by the Secretary General and would be addressed during the implementation phase. The Representative of Pakistan would prefer to support the first phase initiative by noting it, with the understanding that the second phase, which was for the future, would benefit from the Council’s experience in deliberating upon and choosing a correct path for ICAO. 24. The Representative of India could support the proposals in paragraph 5.1 of C-WP/12813, with the exception of sub-paragraph 5.1 a) 2) in the form presented. The Council did not have any information about shortcomings in the Technical Cooperation Bureau or on the kind of constraints the Secretary General was experiencing in overseeing the problems of TCB. The paper did not, in fact, provide any detailed information with regard to the malfunctioning in any of the Organization’s activities The Representative of India had the understanding that the process of consolidation of the TCB and the Regular Programme was part of the overall approach of the setting up of an Implementation Support Bureau, and was not an independent approach. 25. The action proposed in paragraph 5.1 of C-WP/12813 was amended in light of the discussion, and the Council, in noting the proposals by the Secretary General regarding the re-organization and restructuring of the Secretariat: a) supported the restructuring planned for the short term, including: 1) the establishment of a Planning and Global Coordination Office to

replace the existing Regional Affairs Office; 2) increased coordination of administrative functions related to finance,

human resources, and procurement activities. The Secretary General was requested to present an oral report on this subject during the 181st Session;

3) the Air Navigation Bureau and the Air Transport Bureau be responsible

for the technical aspects of the Cooperative Development of Operational

C-MIN 179/18 - 272 -

Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programmes (COSCAP) and Civil Aviation Security Programmes (CASP), respectively, with the management of the projects remaining the responsibility of the Technical Co-operation Bureau;

4) functional alignment of Regional Offices with appropriate technical

offices at Headquarters, recognizing the need for adequate staffing of the Regional Offices; and

b) requested the Secretary General to present a report during the 181st or 182nd

Session of the Council on developments with the actions related to the short-term reorganization and restructuring of the Secretariat, as well as information related to the further definition of the long-term restructuring proposals.



26. The Council resumed (179/4 & 5) its consideration of the above subject, documented in

C-WP/12803 and Addendum No. 1. It was recalled that at its fourth and fifth meetings of the current session, the Council had considered C-WP/12803 in which the Secretary General presented the draft of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which was proposed as the instrument to be concluded by e-Passport issuing states and other entities wishing to commence participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD). The comments and suggestions made by the Council at that time had been taken into consideration in the revised draft MoU presented in the Appendix to Addendum No. 1 to C-WP/12803.

27. Some additional changes were agreed to during the Council’s review of the revised draft MoU. In the definitions, the words “or the officer(s) designated by that person to act on his/her behalf with regard to this MoU” were deleted from the definition of “Secretary General”. In paragraph 2.3 and the first sentence of section 3, the suggested replacement of the reference to “ICAO” with “the Secretary General” was not accepted, and the reference to “ICAO” was retained. Sub-paragraph b) of section 3, which read “appoint, through the ICAO Council, the PKD Board delegates nominated by Participants in accordance with the procedures established by the PKD Board” was deleted, and the subsequent sub-paragraphs were renumbered. The words “acting through the Secretary General” were inserted at the beginning of sub-paragraph d) [re-numbered as sub-paragraph c)], and the words “in consultation with the Secretary General” were deleted from that sub-paragraph. The second sentence of paragraph 6.4 was expanded to include the words shown in italics: “Participants will not be responsible or liable for other Participants’ or ICAO errors or omissions in relation to the ICAO PKD.” The Secretariat was requested to verify the French and Spanish language versions of paragraph 7.3. Paragraph 8.1 was expanded to include the words shown in italics: “Any amendments to this MoU, including the attachments, will require acceptance by two-thirds of the Participants that are current with their fee payments as established in Attachment B and approval by the Council.” The Secretariat was requested to verify the French language version of section 11. In Attachment B to the draft MoU, the word “consultation” was replaced by “agreement” in paragraph 1.1.1.2. The Secretariat was requested to verify the Russian language version of Attachment C, sub-paragraph 1.2 h). 28. Some suggestions for amending the revised draft MoU were not retained. These included a suggestion by the Representative of China for expanding paragraph 2.3 to include the text shown in italics: “2.3 … in consultation with ICAO and in consideration of the policy of the concerned Contracting

C-MIN 179/18

- 273 -

States.” The Representative of Argentina proposed that the insurance described in paragraph 6.2 which ICAO would obtain not be restricted to the task described in Section 3 (Role of ICAO), sub-paragraph g), but that it cover all of the tasks listed in Section 3. Another suggestion by the Representative of Argentina would have replaced “Secretary General” by “Council” in the last sentence of paragraph 6.2. A suggestion by the Representative of Japan in connection with Attachment B would expand paragraph 1.1.1.2 to read “The PKD Board … will establish and update the Annual Fees within the ceilings indicated below, which will be published and disseminated by the Secretary General. The table of Annual Fees appearing in strike-out (i.e. proposed for deletion) under paragraph 1.1.1.2 would have been retained if the Representative of Japan’s suggestion had been accepted. Although the above-mentioned replacement of the word “consultation” by “agreement” was made to cover the concern of the Representative of Japan, he observed that as a result of the discussion there was no ceiling for the Annual Fees. The Representative of Japan wished to point out that some States, including his own, could participate in the system only after the annual fee had been established. 29. The Council took action on the basis of paragraph 4.1 of C-WP/12803, and a) noted the explanatory information in C-WP/12803 concerning issues of liabilities

and fees; and b) endorsed the final draft of the MoU in the Appendix to Addendum No. 1 to

C-WP/12803 as the instrument to be signed by ePassport issuing States and other entities wishing to commence participation in the PKD.

30. The Council requested that the Secretary General refer the revised draft MoU, as amended during the discussion, to the appropriate members of the Secretariat to ensure that the changes did not affect the legal issues. The Secretary General was also requested to circulate the document, after its review by the Secretariat, to the Members of the Council for their final agreement. 31. The Representative of Singapore commended the Secretariat for the good work done and their perseverance in progressing the implementation of the PKD to authenticate d-passports on a global basis. This was an area in which ICAO could clearly demonstrate its leadership in progressing aviation development and enhancing safety and security. Several States, including Singapore, were issuing e-passports but these remained ineffective until the official PKD system was in place. Singapore strongly supported the ICAO PKD initiative and looked forward to getting a final MoU agreement quickly. 32. The Representative of Australia expressed his State’s appreciation to the Council. Australia would be processing e-passports early in 2007, had everything in place, and had been awaiting the PKD infrastructure. Today the Council had taken an important step in terms of performance that had a very high profile with the Australian Government, which looked forward to the deployment and the benefits from this new technology. Other business Subject No. 6.3:Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Membership of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection 33. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Council, the Council approved nominations for replacement members on the CAEP presented by France, which had nominated Mr. Philippe Langumier in replacement of Mr. Philippe Ayoun, and Germany, which had nominated

C-MIN 179/18 - 274 -

Mrs. Frauke Pleines-Schmidt in replacement of Dr. Jan Böttcher. The Council also approved a nomination from the Government of Norway for Mr. Trond Kråkenes as an observer for Norway to CAEP in replacement of Mr. Stein Batalden. Statement by the Representative of South Africa 34. The following statement was pronounced by the Representative of South Africa: “The purpose of my intervention is to inform Council of some of the developments that have taken place during this session. The Secretary General issued a Staff Notice 5091 with regards to conduct of staff members, this following anonymous letters which were going around with ICAO letterhead. In his Staff Notice the Secretary General wrote: “Staff members should promote good relations and contribute to inspiring trust and confidence in the Secretariat in their relations with Governments and members of the representative bodies, (i.e. Assembly, Council, Commissions, Committees Panels, etc.) They must also refrain from any action or any kind of statement, public criticism of, or interference with the policies or affairs of the representative bodies which would impair good relations.” “This Staff Notice was also copied to Representatives on the Council. On 16 October he again issued another Staff Notice 5126 entitled ‘United Nations Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service’; it cited “The guiding principles of the revised UN Standards of Conduct continue to be integrity, loyalty, independence, impartiality, tolerance and understanding, freedom from discrimination, gender equality, and dignity.” The Secretary General in endorsing the United Nations Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service wrote in his Staff Notice, I quote: “Following consultation with the Legal Bureau and the Staff Advisory Committee, I have decided to adopt the revised UN Standards of Conduct with immediate effect in ICAO”. This was indeed a noble thing by the Secretary General and I commend him for that. “On 25 September 2006 the Secretary General wrote a letter to a President of a Contracting State to complain about a Council Member. He wrote to my President to complain about me. The letter was copied to my Minister of Transport and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The contents of the letter were very shocking, one cannot believe a Secretary General of this great Organization can write such a letter; it is a very damning letter, the letter was literally calling for my recall by my Government. The main issue here is that the Staff Notices which were circulating were about their conduct, and this conduct – is it applicable to him? He is a staff member of this Organization and surely they are applicable to him. Why then does he violate what he has written in the Staff Notices and why does he violate the ICAO Service Code? The letter to my President was dated 25 September and he wrote a Staff Notice regarding conduct on 16 October, this means that he violated his own words twenty days later. This questions his honesty; this questions his reliability; can he be trusted on his words? Is he above the Staff Rules? “Upon receipt of this letter I was indeed very angry, I was mortified, I was shocked and I was fuming. I returned to Montreal and looked at several options before me with regard to what to do next. I could have come straight to Council but I opted to consult the President first. I wish to say we have a good President. He used his good office to address this very critical matter. He later called me in, together with the Secretary General and the Coordinator of the African Group on the Council. After a lengthy discussion he was able to normalize this abnormal situation. I wish to say to the President “thank you Mr. President”. “Colleagues, you might wonder why I am bringing this matter to Council. I wish to say that I am not re-opening this case, I repeat, I am not re-opening this case, I am informing Council on it for

C-MIN 179/18

- 275 -

noting that Council must take a decision to say that this should never happen again. I repeat, this should never happen again. If not, tomorrow the President of Argentina could receive a similar note, the Prime Minister of Australia can receive a similar note, the President of Chile can receive a similar note, Brazil, Cameroon, and all of us sitting around here. Even President Bush might end up receiving a similar note. International Civil Servants must remain civil servants; must adhere to the United Nations Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants without exception.” 35. The meeting adjourned at 1800 hours.

C-MIN 179/19

- 277 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINETEENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, THURSDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING


PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. L. Lövkvist France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. S. Monti


ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. A.G. Sayce (President, ANC) Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) — Finland Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) — Italy Mr. T. Nakada (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB Mr. J. Maguire — C/EAO Mr. M.C.F. Heijl — A/D/ANB Mr. A.R. Diallo — C/HRB Mr. W. Amaro — A/D/TCB Mr. S.N. Ahmad — C/SER Mr. D. Savic — C/WLA Mr. O.F. Fabrici — C/RDS Mrs. L.M. Comeau-Stuart — CO/REC/EST Miss S. Black — Précis-writer

*Part-time

(

C-MIN 179/19 - 278 -

Statement by the President of the Council — International Civil Aviation Day 1. The President of the Council made the following statement on the occasion of International Civil Aviation Day: “Today, 7 December, is International Civil Aviation Day, an event we celebrate annually since 1954 to mark the creation of ICAO in 1944. The purpose of this special Day is to establish and reinforce worldwide awareness of the importance of international civil aviation in the social and economic development of States. It is also an opportunity to highlight the role of ICAO in promoting the safety, efficiency and regularity of international air transport. “Every year, States are encouraged to develop programmes of activities such as flag raisings, award presentations, air shows, exhibitions, tours and symposia, all based on the theme selected. The theme for this year, approved by Council, is Safety and security — first and always the top priority. “A few days ago, the Secretary General and I sent out a joint statement along with a press release in which we emphasized the importance of safety and security to a healthy and growing global air transport system that benefits, directly or indirectly, practically everyone on the planet. “We also paid tribute in our message to the men and women of aviation who protect the lives and well-being of billions of passengers every year, and we recognized the understanding and co-operation of those same air travellers concerning the measures that must be put in place to ensure their safety and security at all times. “ICAO can be proud of its many achievements, in co-operation with all members of the civil aviation community, to provide the citizens of the world with an aviation system that is safe and secure.” Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies

Review of the Strategic Objectives 2. The Chairman of the Council Working Group on Strategic Objectives then gave an oral report on the status of the Group’s work. Recalling that the Council had referred Appendix A of C-WP/12513 on the review of the Strategic Objectives to the Working Group for review and report back to the Council in due course (176/11), he noted that the Working Group was also considering the possible creation of a new Strategic Objective entitled “Operational Excellence”(cf. C-DEC 178/14). In addition, at the request of the Council the Secretary General was conducting a survey of Contracting States on the Strategic Objectives through State letter M2/5–06/50 dated 23 May 2006. To date, 76 replies had been received, 23 of which were from States represented on the Council. It had been necessary for the Working Group to await the results of the survey before commencing its work. 3. The Chairman noted that the Working Group had met in October and November 2007 for several informal meetings. Its work was still in progress, however, as there had been insufficient opportunity for its members to finish it. During its meetings, the Working Group examined a number of high-level indicators and considered possible matrices that could assist the civil aviation community at a high level. Indicating that one of the key considerations in setting any objective was whether or not it could be measured, the Chairman noted that the Working Group had observed that it was not a straightforward matter to determine a matrix for several of the Organization’s Strategic Objectives. The Working Group agreed that the Strategic Objectives needed to be kept current in light of changing circumstances, such as the outcome of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global

C-MIN 179/19

- 279 -

Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) (Montreal, 20-22 March 2006). The Working Group was also considering whether certain simplifications and fine-tuning of the Strategic Objectives might be desirable. In addition, it was examining how the Organization’s economic activities fit into the current Strategic Objectives. As the Working Group had a number of ideas under consideration, its conclusions had yet to be finalized. The Working Group was aware that the first draft of the Programme Budget for the next triennium was scheduled to be submitted to the Council in early 2007 and that its development was already underway. It had therefore agreed that any proposed changes to the Strategic Objectives should be clearly mapped against the current version in order to assist the Secretariat in preparing the results-based budget, which drew on the Strategic Objectives. The Working Group would be finalizing its work in the next month. 4. The Council noted the above oral report, on the understanding that a written report would be ready in time for Council’s consideration during the Committee phase of the next (180th) Session. Subject No. 11.1: Publications regulations Subject No. 11.5: Documentation policy and practices Subject No. 28: Liaison with Contracting States, including public information activities, document distribution, access to the ICAO data bank, etc.

Review of the effectiveness of ICAO’s State letter system 5. The Council considered C-WP/12771, in which the Secretary General provided information on ICAO’s current procedures and practices for communication with Contracting States through State letters, the present scope of distribution of State letters in paper and electronic format and areas for further improvement of the State letter system. The paper was being tabled for discussion pursuant to a request made by the Representative of Australia in response to the President’s memorandum PRES RK/1318 dated 1 December 2006. 6. In welcoming the paper, the Representative of Australia observed that it contained some excellent ideas on how to enhance the State letter system. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.2, which indicated that approximately 50 per cent of State letters require action by Contracting States, he underscored that some 50 per cent did not. Observing that the level of responses to State letters was not good unless it was for those relating to registration for meetings, the Representative of Australia affirmed that the measures set forth in the paper should be pursued. Averring that the Council should not merely note the information provided in the paper, as proposed, he suggested that the Council request the Secretary General, from the start of 2007, to clearly distinguish between State letters which required action and those State letters which merely supplied information. Noting, from paragraph 5.1 a), that those State letters which provided information “to note” would be migrating to an “Electronic Bulletin”, the Representative of Australia indicated that the Council should strongly support that effort by the Secretary General and request that the “Electronic Bulletin” be put in place as soon as possible. Similarly, it should request the Secretary General to forthwith improve the structure and language (wording) of State letters through the use of concise, plain language, as referred to in paragraph 5.1 d). Noting that, while there were many other good ideas contained in the paper, the ones which he had cited were the priority issues, the Representative of Australia invited the Council to take his proposed action. 7. Concurring that the paper contained some interesting suggestions, the Representative of France expressed the hope that the measures would improve the current State letter system. In highlighting the low level of replies (29 per cent in 2005) to State letters setting forth Annex amendment proposals, he noted that he had been interested ever since he had joined the Council in how the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) developed such proposals. Averring that the consultation process with

C-MIN 179/19 - 280 -

States did not take place in conditions that provided for the best results, the Representative of France noted that the evaluation of States’ replies was based on a low number of responses. Furthermore, those States which did reply were motivated by a desire to either change the proposed amendment or to retain the status quo. The interpretation of the responses thus might not always be an accurate reflection of the views of all States. Underscoring that it was a difficult issue to resolve, he noted that it was not possible to stipulate that replies were required from at least half of ICAO Contracting States in order to adopt an Annex amendment as that would take too much time. The Representative of France requested that the Secretariat, particularly the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB), together with the ANC, examine this issue. 8. Drawing attention to the low level of replies to State letters on the notification of differences (28 per cent in 2005), the Representative of France emphasized that if States did not notify ICAO of their differences within a specified period of time, then it was assumed that they did not have any differences. He indicated that this was another issue that should be addressed by the Secretariat and the ANC. 9. While he considered that all of the measures set forth in the paper were appropriate, the Representative of France suggested that a review be undertaken in a year’s time to determine if the situation had improved, especially with regard to the two points which he had raised. 10. The Representative of the United States endorsed the comments made by the two previous speakers. In noting his disappointment with the trends shown in the chart contained in paragraph 3.2 of the paper, he observed that they unfortunately did not demonstrate progress in improving the response rate to State letters. Affirming that the chart was nonetheless very helpful, the Representative of the United States suggested that it could be used as a basis for a performance indicator, as an incentive to increase the level of responses for each of the categories of State letters and to mark progress made. In strongly supporting the measures set forth in paragraph 5.1, he affirmed that they were positive steps which could result in progress. The Representative of the United States suggested that, in addition to those measures, the Secretary General consider involving the Regional Offices in following up with those States which did not reply to State letters, as well as Council Representatives and Observers. He asked that the Secretary General inform Council Representatives and Observers if he was encountering difficulties in obtaining replies from their States so that they could try to determine what could be done within their national administrations to improve the procedure for replying to State letters. Noting that his State sometimes did not reply in a timely manner to ICAO’s State letters, the Representative of the United States indicated that it needed to improve its responsiveness and requested that he be informed if it were considered to be unsatisfactory. 11. The Representative of Mexico proposed, as an additional measure, that a co-ordination mechanism be established with regional organizations such as the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC) in order to improve the level of response of their Member States to ICAO’s State letters, particularly those relating to the notification of differences and Annex amendment proposals. 12. In sharing the concern expressed regarding the unsatisfactory response rate to State letters, especially those on the notification of differences and Annex amendment proposals, the Representative of India underscored that the level of replies was an indicator of the involvement of States in the consultation process. Emphasizing that the Organization needed to pursue a very aggressive policy to ensure that States responded to its State letters, he noted that by maintaining his own follow-up system he had been able to increase India’s reply rate from 30 per cent to 60 per cent. Recalling his earlier suggestion that a web-based monitoring system be established, the Representative of India enquired as to the progress being made in developing such a system. In proposing that a monthly bulletin be issued to

C-MIN 179/19

- 281 -

States, as well as to Representatives on the Council and Representatives to ICAO, who numbered some 75, he stressed that the response rate would increase dramatically. Observing that most State letters requested replies by July, October and November, the Representative of India indicated that focus should be placed on those time periods. In strongly endorsing the suggestion that the Regional Offices be actively involved in ensuring that States to which they were accredited reply to State letters, he suggested that one of the performance indicators of the ICAO Regional Directors should be how many replies to State letters had been received as a result of their contacts with States. In voicing support for the measures outlined in the paper, the Representative of India expressed the hope that the response rate to State letters would increase as a result of their implementation. 13. Observing that a list of States replying to a particular State letter would be available through the ICAO-NET starting in 2007, the Chief of the Web, Library and Archives Section (C/WLA) noted that it would mention only the State letter reference and the names of States replying and would not include States’ responses. To the suggestion that an additional monthly bulletin be issued, C/WLA indicated that while issuing it every month might be too frequent, consideration could be given to issuing such a bulletin quarterly. Referring to paragraph 5.1 b) of the paper, he observed that the implementation of an e-mail based follow-up system to remind States to reply to State letters was just one of the simple measures that could be implemented without any additional cost. 14. The Representative of Nigeria agreed with the said measures, as well as with the suggestions put forward by the Representatives of Australia, France, the United States and India. Observing that it was mostly those States which were represented on the Council which replied to State letters and which were Panel Members, he underscored that ICAO was receiving the views of only a segment of its membership. Averring that that was not sufficient for the consultation process, the Representative of Nigeria stressed the importance of increasing the participation by all Contracting States in order to enrich the Organization’s decisions. In concurring that Regional Offices had a greater role to play in ensuring that the States to which they were accredited responded to State letters, he indicated that they might also have a greater role to play in the development of SARPs and programmes, as well as in the decision-making process. While recognizing that Panels were limited in size, the Representative of Nigeria suggested that a conscious effort be made to increase regional representation thereon. He emphasized that, by participating in Panels, civil aviation officials would gain familiarity with ICAO’s work and would be better able to provide the comments requested in the Organization’s State letters. In concluding, the Representative of Nigeria stressed the need to broaden Contracting States’ participation in all ICAO matters. 15. Observing that the paper was very useful, the Representative of Germany indicated that there was certainly reason to be concerned about the low level of responses to State letters. In noting, however, that the low reply rate to certain categories of State letters gave rise to more concern than the reply rate to other categories of State letters, she questioned if it was very serious if a State did not reply to State letters on registration for meetings, fellowships or familiarization courses given that not all States would be interested in participating. The Representative of Germany noted that, although her State tried to reply regularly to every State letter, it recently had decided that it was not necessary to reply to a certain State letter on the notification of differences as it did not have any differences to the Annex in question. She emphasized that it would be helpful if, pursuant to paragraph 5.1 d) of the paper, it were indicated in State letters on the notification of differences, in bold letters, that States should reply even if they had no differences to report. 16. Affirming that urgent action was required to ensure that all States replied to State letters on Annex amendment proposals, the Representative of Germany suggested that a mechanism could be established whereby the absence of a reply would be considered as consent to the proposal. She was not

C-MIN 179/19 - 282 -

sure whether such a mechanism could be put in place by decision of the Council or whether it would require a decision by the Assembly. While considering that the measures to improve the State letter system set forth in the paper were very positive, the Representative of Germany indicated that consideration should also be given to some of the suggestions made during the discussion. 17. Voicing appreciation for the paper, the Representative of Pakistan underscored that there was a genuine concern about the low response rate to ICAO State letters, especially for notification of differences and Annex amendment proposals, which were of prime importance. In affirming, however, that the measures set forth in paragraph 5.1 would yield results once implemented, he indicated that the suggestions put forward by the Representatives of the United States and India would help improve the level of response to State letters. The Representative of Pakistan noted that, although he followed up on his State’s replies to State letters, he did so on a case-by-case basis, which did not result in a large increase in the response rate. He emphasized that if a bulletin were issued monthly or quarterly, then Representatives would be better able to follow-up with their national administrations and the matter would be resolved. Noting that it was also necessary to increase the level of response from other States not represented on the Council, the Representative of Pakistan suggested that ICAO approach States through their Embassies, categorizing the State letters in a manner similar to the categorization used in the chart in paragraph 3.2 and highlighting, through a bulletin, that the Organization was awaiting a response from their Ministries or civil aviation authorities. 18. Affirming that that was an excellent proposal, the Representative of the Russian Federation indicated that it should be given consideration. Noting that State letters were often only received after the target date for replies, he stressed that the Secretariat should also look into the tardy delivery of State letters. The Representative of the Russian Federation further emphasized that it was essential that information contained in late replies be taken into account so that the Secretariat would be aware of developments in all corners of the world. 19. The Representative of Ghana supported the comments made by the previous speakers. He averred, however, that the paper was too narrowly focussed and set forth measures to address a problem which had not been defined. Underscoring that the States which did not reply to ICAO’s State letters were the same ones that were unable to implement its SARPs, he indicated that a more indepth study should be done to determine why they were not responding to State letters. The Representative of Ghana emphasized, in this regard, that it was not merely a question of enhancing the structure and language of the State letters. 20. The Representative of Argentina concurred that the Secretariat should first determine why States were not replying to State letters before implementing measures that would affect States. 21. While commending the paper, the Representative of Colombia agreed that it was important to determine why States were not responding to State letters, whether it was due to the fact that they did not consider them to be of importance or that they were not to the point or whether it was due to a lack of understanding or to negligence or to some other factor. 22. The Representative of Cameroon stressed the need for the Secretariat to take into consideration the time required for State letters to reach States through the mail when setting the target date for replies. 23. Responding to comments made on the notification of differences, the Director of the Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) noted that, as indicated in paragraph 5.1 b) of the paper, ANB was creating an electronic system for filing differences. It had engaged a consultant to work on the

C-MIN 179/19

- 283 -

system, which was to become part of a larger system called “Annex Manager”. It was envisaged that the latter would become available in January 2007, at which time there would be a trial run. The notification of differences component was planned to become available in June 2007. 24. In summarizing the discussion, the President of the Council noted that Representatives had expressed serious concern regarding the low level of replies to States letters on notification of differences and Annex amendment proposals. As mentioned, the paper contained some excellent measures. The additional measures suggested by Representatives to enhance the State letter system had been noted by the Secretariat, which would make every effort to improve communications with States and thus achieve the desired increase in the response rate to State letters. The President emphasized, in this context, that Representatives on the Council and Representatives to ICAO should also take action to improve their State’s response rate. 25. At the suggestion of the President of the Council, the Council took action on the basis of the above proposal by the Representative of Australia and requested the Secretary General:

a) from the start of 2007, to clearly distinguish between State letters which required action and those State letters which merely supplied information; and

b) to take steps, as soon as possible, to

i) put in place the “Electronic Bulletin” referred to in paragraph 5.1 a) of the paper to

supply official communications to States comprising material for informational purposes; and

ii) to improve the structure and language (wording) of State letters through the use

of concise, plain language as referred to in paragraph 5.1 d) of the paper.

26. It was understood that the above decision applied to correspondence issued from Regional Offices as well as from ICAO Headquarters. Subject No. 7.2: Recruitment policy Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Status of implementation of the UN Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants in ICAO

27. Tabled next for discussion, pursuant to a request made by the Representative of Australia in response to the President’s memorandum PRES RK/1318 dated 1 December 2006, was C-WP/12772 on the status of implementation of the UN Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants in ICAO, presented by the Secretary General. 28. The Representative of Australia recalled that, at the last meeting of the previous session (178/14), he had requested a paper on this subject. Noting that the motive behind his request had been an update on the processes and procedures which ICAO had in place to enforce the UN Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants in ICAO, he indicated that he was surprised that it had resulted in some action to adopt the said standards rather than a progress report on their implementation. He was likewise surprised at the five-year delay in applying the standards, which had been revised and adopted by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) in 2001 and welcomed by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution A/RES/56/244.

C-MIN 179/19 - 284 -

29. The Representative of Australia noted that the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System (JIU/REP/2006/2), which had been circulated after he had made his request, indicated that the majority of UN organizations, including ICAO, lacked the capacity to conduct investigations into complaints raised in relation to the UN Standards of Conduct. Observing that sometimes allegations of misconduct were made with malice, he underscored that that was why an objective investigation process was necessary. The Representative of Australia fully appreciated the efforts to implement the said standards through Staff Notice 5126 dated 16 October 2006. He recalled, in this regard, that the Council was responsible for personnel matters under Articles 54 h) and 58 of the Chicago Convention and that when the UNGA had adopted the standards, it had done so within a framework of human resources management. The UNGA action had been a follow-up to a previous report, which had highlighted that the UN Standards of Conduct were linked to all elements of a framework for human resources and that while organizations’ internal cultures might vary, they all faced similar ethical challenges. Standards for ethical conduct promoted common values and defined the behaviour and performance expected of international civil servants. 30. Referring to his letter dated 5 December 2006 proposing action by the Council on the paper under discussion, which had been circulated to Representatives, the Representative of Australia indicated that the action reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the principles set out in the UN Standards of Conduct and recognized that, as the governing body of ICAO, the Council should endorse the latest version of those standards. It called for the Secretary General to develop a mechanism for the independent, impartial and fair investigation of any allegation of a breach of the said standards so that anyone who had an allegation made against them would have a full opportunity to respond thereto before any action were taken. 31. In offering clarification regarding the present method of investigation in ICAO, the Director of the Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) noted that, if any disciplinary measure was to be taken under Article X (Disciplinary measures) of The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350), then the Secretary General would first ascertain the seriousness of the allegation by constituting a small investigation committee. The committee’s report would be examined by the Human Resources Branch (HRB) in consultation with the Legal Bureau (LEB). If a charge of serious misconduct were established beyond a doubt, then the Secretary General would take action as required under The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350). 32. Referring to the proposal that a mechanism for an independent investigation be established, D/ADB stressed the need to bear in mind that ICAO was a small organization and the creation of another investigation mechanism would result in additional expenditures. He indicated that the proposal could be considered by the Senior Management Group and some alternative, inexpensive solution found. D/ADB suggested, in this context, that the Chief of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (C/EAO) could be tasked with conducting the independent investigations. To a query by the Representative of India, he clarified that Article X of The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) applied to all personnel. 33. The Representative of India noted that impartial investigations, besides being based on the principle of natural justice, followed the fundamental principle that only the appointing authority of the person concerned could order an inquiry. He contended that Article X was deficient and required a review as it did not take into account that the appointing authority was different for different levels of personnel. The Representative of India observed, in this context, that in some cases it could be the Council which could order an investigation. Recalling that the said JIU report, which also contained a recommendation on holding investigations in a UN-wide system of high-level officials, had been referred

C-MIN 179/19

- 285 -

to the Finance Committee (FIC) for consideration, he indicated that the FIC (of which he was the Chairman) would be reporting in due course to the Council on external oversight, on a system for holding inquiries into the misconduct of high-level officials and on the need to set up an independent investigation mechanism. The Representative of India noted, in this regard, that in his opinion C/EAO was not independent. 34. The Representative of the United States supported the action proposed by the Representative of Australia, subject to paragraph 5 being amended in light of the comments made by D/ADB to request the Secretary General to consider alternative mechanisms that would allow the independent, impartial and fair investigation of any allegation of breach of the said Standards of Conduct and to report back to the Council, through the FIC, with a proposal in either the 180th or 181st Session. He noted that both the FIC and its Human Resources Working Group would thus have the opportunity to consider the matter. 35. The Representative of Pakistan enquired as to the number of cases which had been referred for investigation over the last three years. In also querying whether the procedure outlined by D/ADB existed in written form, he requested that, in the affirmative, it be circulated to Representatives so that they could compare it to the procedures followed by other UN organizations and with those followed by their national administrations. In underscoring that an investigation mechanism was an important and integral part of the Organization, the Representative of Pakistan voiced broad support for the action proposed by the Representative of Australia. 36. The Representative of Canada endorsed the Representative of Australia’s proposal in its entirety. 37. In emphasizing the importance of the paper and the proposals put forward by the Representative of Australia and others, the Representative of Colombia noted that he had frequently mentioned the need to have a culture of ethics within ICAO so that the actions of its international civil servants would be in accordance with the Organization’s underlying values and principles. That culture of ethics should also govern the relations between the Secretary General land the Council. The Representative of Colombia underscored that, if a dispute were to arise, then an effort should be made to resolve it through dialogue. 38. At the suggestion of the President of the Council, the Council took action on the basis of the text circulated before the meeting by the Representative of Australia and amended during the discussion and:

a) recognized that standards for ethical conduct promoted common values and defined

the behaviour and performance expected of the Secretary General and staff of ICAO; b) reaffirmed the Organization’s commitment to the guiding principles of the

international civil service; c) endorsed the UN Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants 2001 which

explained the said guiding principles; d) emphasized the importance of adherence to the UN Standards of Conduct for

International Civil Servants 2001; and

C-MIN 179/19 - 286 -

e) requested the Secretary General to consider alternative mechanisms that would allow the independent, impartial and fair investigation of any allegation of breach of the said Standards of Conduct and to report back to the Council, through the Finance Committee (FIC), with a proposal in either the 180th or 181st Session.


Work Programme for the 180th Session 39. The Council approved the Work Programme for its 180th Session presented in C-WP/12752, as well as the work programme of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) for its 174th Session presented in C-WP/12784 and the work programme of the Air Transport Committee (ATC) for its 180th Session presented in C-WP/12789. 40. Consideration of the work programmes of the Joint Support, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees for the 180th Session (C-WPs/12770, 12718 and 12795) was deferred to the next meeting. 41. The Representative of France suggested that in future the Council’s work programme be organized on the basis of the Organization’s Strategic Objectives and that all papers relating to a given subject be grouped together in the Orders of Business for its meetings in order to facilitate its deliberations. Endorsing this proposal, the Representative of the United Kingdom suggested that whenever a Committee or Committees suggested changes to a paper by the Secretary General, the changes be highlighted in a single document so that the Council could reach agreement thereon without having to look at two or three papers simultaneously. In supporting the organization of Orders of Business by subject, the Representative of India affirmed that it would serve to focus the Council’s attention. The Representative of Australia suggested that information papers be accorded a lower priority by the Council and circulated for approval under cover of a President’s memorandum and tabled for discussion only upon request. The Representative of Nigeria proposed that, in order to reduce the number of papers to be considered by the Council, papers relating to the same subject be combined into one paper. He cited, as examples, papers relating to the environment, the salaries and allowances of the President of the Council and the Secretary General and aviation security. These suggestions were noted for consideration. 42. Recalling that the ATC had met during the Council phase, the Representative of France emphasized that an effort should be made to avoid any overlap between the Committee and Council phases in the interest of efficiency. The President of the Council assured him that for the next (180th) session all of the ATC’s meetings would be held during the Committee phase. Other business Tribute to Mr. A.G. Sayce, the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) 43. The Council paid tribute to Mr. A.G. Sayce, who was attending a meeting of the Council for the last time in his capacity as President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC). - - - - - - - - - -

C-MIN 179/19

- 287 -

Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel

Ways and means of celebrating International Women’s Day 44. As no request had been received by 6 December 2006 to have C-WP/12675 on the above subject tabled for discussion by the Council in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1318 dated 1 December 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted that paper. Subject No. 18.10: Working Capital Fund

Level of the Working Capital Fund 45. As no request had been received by 6 December 2006 to have C-WP/12736 on the above subject tabled for discussion by the Council in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1317 dated 30 November 2006, the President indicated that he considered that the Council had noted that paper. Procedure for dealing with translations of previously-adopted Annexes or Amendments thereto 46. Drawing attention to his memorandum PRES RK/1292 dated 18 October 2006, the President of the Council noted that only one Council Representative had submitted comments on the proposed procedure for dealing with translations of previously-adopted Annexes or Amendments thereto, whereby separate language versions of Annexes or Amendments thereto that had been translated and verified by the Language and Publications Branch (LPB) of ICAO would be deemed to be authentic and would not require the Council’s formal adoption to accord them authenticity. The issues raised by the said Council Representative had been resolved after discussion. Consequently, the said procedure was effective henceforth, and future language versions of previously-adopted Annexes or Amendments thereto would not be tabled before the Council for adoption. Their availability would simply be indicated in the Catalogue of ICAO Publications and in the Annual Report of the Secretary General on Publications. - - - - - - - - - - Council Resolution bestowing upon Dr. A. Kotaite, the previous President of the Council, the lifetime honorary title of President Emeritus of the Council of ICAO 47. The Representative of Spain then put before the Council a draft Resolution of Gratitude to Dr. A. Kotaite, the previous President of the Council, which bestowed upon him the lifetime honorary title of President Emeritus of the Council of ICAO. 48. The Representatives of Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Honduras, Peru, the United States, Chile, Nigeria, Saint Lucia (on behalf of all of the Caribbean States which he represented), Egypt, China, Lebanon, Cameroon, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore, Mozambique, Finland, the Republic of Korea and Italy expressed support for the Resolution, with several Representatives emphasizing that it was quite appropriate to adopt the Resolution on the day when International Civil Aviation Day was being celebrated. 49. While affirming that Dr. Kotaite deserved the Council’s praise, the Representative of France suggested that the Council defer its consideration of the Resolution until it had the opportunity to look at it in more detail.

C-MIN 179/19 - 288 -

50. The Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that while he would like to recognize the work and influence of Dr. Kotaite, he was not entirely convinced that a Council Resolution was the best way to do so. Observing that the comment made by the Representative of France were extremely relevant, he agreed that the Council should give the Resolution further consideration. The Representative of the United Kingdom noted that there were other, very important elements that should be taken into account, such as the fact that Dr. Kotaite was a strong contender for the Edward Warner Award. The Council might also wish to consider if it was the appropriate body for adopting the Resolution. Recalling that the 36th Session of the Assembly would be taking place in September 2007, he queried whether it would not be more appropriate for the issue to be addressed by that body. 51. While fully acknowledging and supporting the sentiment behind the proposed Resolution, the Representative of Australia indicated that, for the reasons cited by the Representatives of France and the United Kingdom, the Council required more time before it reached a decision. 52. To a suggestion by the Representative of Cameroon that the honorary title of President Emeritus of the Council of ICAO be combined with the Edward Warner Award, the President of the Council clarified that there was an established procedure for the granting of the Edward Warner Award which the Committee would have to follow. 53. The Representative of Japan indicated that he had no doubt that the Resolution was of no legal, institutional, financial or other circumstantive effect, being a pure expression of deep appreciation to Dr. Kotaite, a feeling which he shared with others. 54. The Representative of Lebanon suggested that the Assembly could also adopt a Resolution expressing appreciation for Dr. Kotaite’s work. 55. The Council then adopted the attached Resolution of Gratitude to Dr. A. Kotaite, the previous President of the Council, bestowing upon him the lifetime honorary title of President Emeritus of the Council of ICAO. 56. The Council adjourned at 1630 hours.

- - - - - - - - - -

C-MIN 179/19

- 289 -

ATTACHMENT

RESOLUTION OF GRATITUDE TO DR. ASSAD KOTAITE Whereas Dr. Assad Kotaite retired from the post of President of the Council of ICAO on 1 August 2006; Whereas this Session of the ICAO Council is the first to have been held since Dr. Kotaite’s retirement; Whereas on 7 December, the anniversary of the signing of the Chicago Convention, we celebrate International Civil Aviation Day; Whereas the founding fathers of the Chicago Convention had a grand vision for aviation and Dr. Assad Kotaite, over the past 53 years, the last 30 of which were as President of the Council, has made that vision a reality; The Council: Recognizing Dr. Assad Kotaite’s outstanding contribution to international civil aviation; 1. Resolves to express its deep appreciation for his distinguished and outstanding career, and for the leadership which he demonstrated in the international civil aviation sector and in guiding this Organization; and 2. Resolves that, upon his retirement as President of the Council of ICAO, Dr. Assad Kotaite be awarded the lifetime honorary title of President Emeritus of the Council of ICAO. Montreal, 7 December 2006

C-MIN 179/20

- 291 -


SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWENTIETH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2006, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING



PRESENT: Argentina — Mr. D.O. Valente Australia — Mr. S. Clegg Austria — Ms. S. Gehrer Brazil — Mr. R. da Silva Pinto (Alt.) Cameroon — Mr. T. Tekou Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Chile — Mr. G. Miranda China — Mr. Tao Ma Colombia — Mr. J. Ortiz Cuenca Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Ethiopia — Mr. T. Mekonnen Finland — Mr. E. Gissurarson (Alt.) France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Germany — Dr. K. Kammann-Klippstein Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Honduras — Mr. A. Suazo Morazán India — Dr. N. Zaidi Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.)

Japan — Mr. H. Kono Lebanon — Dr. H. Chaouk Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez (Alt.) Mozambique — Dr. D. Deus Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu Pakistan — Mr. M. Rauhullah Peru — Mr. J. Muñoz-Deacon Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S. Russian — Mr. I.M. Lysenko Federation Saint Lucia — Mr. H.A. Wilson Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong South Africa — Mr. T. Peege Spain — Mr. L. Adrover United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell United States — Mr. D.T. Bliss

ALSO PRESENT:

Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) — Canada Mr. A. Mena (Alt.) — Chile Mr. K. Wu (Alt.) — China Ms. L. Fong (Adv.) — China Mr. E. Falcón Gotopo (Alt.) — Colombia Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) — France Mr. S. Watanabe (Alt.) — Japan Mr. Kim, K.-J. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Min, J-H. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Mr. Yu, K.-S. (Alt.) — Republic of Korea Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States

SECRETARIAT: Mr. M. Elamiri — D/ATB Mr. A.P. Singh — D/ADB *Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB Mr. J.J. Begin — DD/ATB *Mr. B. Verhaegen — LO/LEB Ms. A. Andrade — ADTC Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO

*Part-time

C-MIN 179/20 - 292 -


Work Programme for the 180th Session 1. The Council approved the work programme for the 180th Session of the Joint Support Committee (C-WP/12770), the Committee on Unlawful Interference (C-WP/12718) and the Technical Cooperation Committee (C-WP/12795) in the form presented. Other business Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment 2. The Representative of the United Kingdom wished to inform the Council that the United Kingdom Finance Ministry had, two days earlier, published its annual “pre-budget report” and that in the environmental chapter, the Finance Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, set out his views on aviation and on aviation emissions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer noted that the Government continued to support emissions trading and, in particular, early entry of international aviation emissions into the European emissions trading scheme. He also supported, for some unspecified time in the future, a measure that would allow for taxation of aviation fuel. However, he recognized that there were delays in implementing these measures and therefore, as an environmental measure, he would increase air passenger duty for all flights leaving United Kingdom airports. The current rate for domestic and intra-EU flights for economy passengers was �5, and that was to be doubled to �10. There was a range with the highest level currently charged being �40 for non-economy intercontinental flights, that was also to be doubled so the air passenger duty would increase to �80 per passenger. The Treasury had calculated that this measure would save point three million tons of carbon dioxide (.3 million) which was an equivalent to about .75 global warming equivalent of carbon dioxide. This measure would come into effect on 1 February 2007. 3. The Representative of India noted the information provided by the Representative of the United Kingdom. While he had no comments on the national government proposals, he recalled that he had, on previous occasions in the Council, raised the issue that international civil aviation was facing a number of economic issues. He had recently asserted that taxation was one of the most important issues, and therefore urged that there should be a harmonized approach to taxation on international civil aviation. This issue would therefore need to be considered in the Air Transport Committee. 4. The Representative of the United States was very disappointed to hear that the United Kingdom appeared to be moving forward unilaterally in an area where ICAO had the responsibility to find a harmonized solution. The Assembly undoubtedly would be addressing this issue at its next Session. The Delegation of the United States would urge the United Kingdom not to move forward unilaterally and was very disappointed to hear this news. The Representative of Argentina also noted the statement and thanked the Representative of the United Kingdom for the information he had provided, but shared the same concerns as those expressed by India and the United States on the subject. The Representative of Saudi Arabia wished to be associated with the views expressed by the Representatives of India, the United States and Argentina, and pleaded with the United Kingdom to take its decisions within the framework of ICAO.

C-MIN 179/20

- 293 -

Farewell to Mr. H. Kono, Representative of Japan 5. The Council bade farewell to Mr. H. Kono, the Representative of Japan on the Council. 6. The meeting ended and the session adjourned at 1100 hours.

- 295 -

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE 179TH SESSION

Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE)

Review of AH-DE /16 Report (118) AFI Planning and Implementation Regional Group (APIRG)

Review of APIRG/15 Report – Need for a RAN meeting for the AFI Region (221)

Air Navigation

Amendment of the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems (Doc 9750) (214)

Annual review of the Technical Work Programme (TWP) — Progress report on the transition to the Business Plan approach (56, 246)

Air Navigation Commission (ANC)

Appointment of President (176, 191, 237) Air Transport Committee (ATC)

Appointment of Members (92) Election of Chairman (32)

Annex 9 – Facilitation

Adoption of Amendment 20 (123) Assembly, 36th Session

Invitations to observers (153) Revised Draft Provisional Agenda (143) Site and date (148)

Assembly, 36th Session: supporting documentation

Election of Contracting States to be represented on the Council (209)

Aviation Security

Action taken by Israel against the Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport (21, 30)

Alleged terrorist plot against civil aircraft over the North Atlantic (2, 56)

Definition of In-flight Security Officer (130) Implementation of activities under the Aviation

Security Plan of Action (125) Review of differences to Annex 17 notified by

States (131) Review of AVSECP/18 Report (158) Review of IETC/6 and AH-DE/16 Reports (118)

Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP)

Review of AVSECP/18 Report (158)

Belayneh, M. (Ethiopia) Election as First Vice-President (31) Tribute to (78)

Binaghi, W. (former President of the Council) Condolences (28)

Bliss, D.T. (United States)

Election as Chairman of UIC (32) Bong, K.P. (Singapore)

Election as Chairman of JSC (32) Brazil

Condolences following a mid-air collision(29) Budget

Proposals for dealing with foreign exchange fluctuations (60)

Business Plan

Progress made by the Organization towards its Strategic Objectives and the objectives of the Business Plan (140)

Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)

Inclusion in the list of organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings (155)

Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)

Appointment of an observer (274) Appointment of Members (273) Results of the CAEP Steering Group Meeting on

market-based measures to reduce emissions (32, 46)

Results of the Third CAEP Steering Group Meeting (166)

Conditions of service

Composition and mandate of COPAD (230) Expansion of COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level

posts (68) Negotiations with the Government of Canada

regarding tax exemption for UN pensions (216) Proposal of the Structure and Organization of the

Secretariat (SOS) Team (266) Reduction in the advertisement period of Vacancy

Notices for Director-level posts (57) Status of implementation of the UN Standards of

Conduct for International Civil Servants in ICAO (283)

Task Force on Gender Equality and Gender Equity: Terms of reference, status and implementation actions (190)

- 296 -

Contributions Contributions in arrears (126) Methodology used in calculating scales of assessment

(255) Principle in the determination of scales of assessment

(Weighted ability to pay scale) (257) Proposal for settlement of arrears by Georgia (83) Proposals for settlement of arrears of contributions by

Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Roberts Flight Information Region (FIR) (209)

Council

Action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 178th Session (84)

Election of Vice-Presidents of the Council (31, 83) Resolution of gratitude to Dr. A. Kotaite, a former

President of the Council (287) Welcome to new Representatives (2, 29, 78)

Cristiani, F. (Italy)

Farewell to (29) de Deus, D. (Mozambique)

Election as a Member on EWA (84) Denton, N. (United Kingdom)

Farewell to (29) Documentation policy and practices

Clearing of information papers and other papers referred to Committees (215)

Procedure for dealing with translations of previously-adopted Annexes or amendments thereto (287)

Review of the effectiveness of ICAO’s State letter system (279)

Structure and presentation of working papers and other documents to Council (126)

Edward Warner Award Committee (EWA)

Election of a Member (84) Elazab, S.A.S. (Egypt)

Welcome to (29) Environment

Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading (169, 180)

Review of the implementation of Assembly Resolution A35-5 (181)

European Commission

Request to attend Council’s discussion on emissions trading (127)

Facilitation

MOU regarding participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD) (101, 108, 272)

Finance Financial situation of the Organization (81) Financial Year 2006 (262) Format and content of the financial statements of the

Organization — Policies for Technical Co-operation Programme revenue and expenditure recognition (261)

Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems (67)

Finance Committee (FIC)

Election of Chairman (32) Election of Members and Alternates (32)

Gehrer, S. (Austria) Election as Chairman of ATC (32)

International Civil Aviation Day (2007) Celebration of (57)

International Explosives Technical Commission (IETC)

Review of IETC/6 Report (118) International Women’s Day

Ways and means of celebrating (287) Joint Financing Agreements

Approval of audited actual costs for 2005 — Danish Agreement (86)

Approval of audited actual costs for 2005 — Icelandic Agreement (86)

ICAO administrative fee to be added to the combined Danish and Icelandic user charge per single aircraft crossing — 2007 (89)

Information on crossings for 2005 (86) Review of the Danish estimates for 2007 (87) Review of the Icelandic estimates for 2007 (87) Settlement of obligations for 2005 and

assessments, user charge and advances for 2007 — Danish Agreement (88)

Settlement of obligations for 2005 and assessments, user charge and advances for 2007 — Icelandic Agreement (88)

Joint Inspection Unit (JIU)

Report: “A Common Payroll for United Nations System Organizations” (JIU/REP/2005/4) (155)

Report: “Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2006/2) (122)

Report:— “Policies of United Nations System Organizations towards the Use of Open Source Software (OSS) in the Secretariats” (JIU/REP/2005/3 and Corr. 1) and Report of the JIU for 2005 and Programme of Work for 2006 (92)

Status of implementation of recommendations (211)

- 297 -

Joint Support Committee (JSC) Delegation of the oversight of the Joint Support

Agreements to the JSC under Article 52 of the Chicago Convention (227)


Kamel, N.E. (Egypt)

Farewell to (29) Kammann-Klippstein, K. (Germany)

Welcome to (29) Kono, H. (Japan)

Farewell to (293) Kråkenes, T. (Norway)

Appointment as an observer to CAEP (273) Langumier, P. (France)

Appointment as A Member on CAEP (273) Legal Committee

General Work Programme (254) Legal matters

Delegation of the oversight of the Joint Support Agreements to the JSC under Article 52 of the Chicago Convention (227)

International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment) (249)

Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 (155, 251)

Progress report relating to the Secretariat Study Group on Aviation Security Conventions (249)

Lysenko, I.M. (Russian Federation)

Election as First Vice-President (83) Ma, Tao (China)

Welcome to (29) Meetings

AH-DE/16 (118) APIRG/15 (221) AVSECP/18 (158) IETC/6 (118) Programme for 2007 (212) Tentative programme for 2008-2009-2010 (214)

Meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented

Report for the second quarter of 2006 (156) Report for the third quarter of 2006 (252)

Mekonnen, T. (Ethiopia)

Appointment as a Member on ATC and TCC (92) Welcome to (78)

Monti, S. (Italy) Welcome to (29)

Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (EAO)

Work Programme — 2007 (210) Ortiz Cuenca, J. (Colombia)

Election as Third Vice-President (31) Pleines-Schmidt, F. (Germany)

Appointment as a Member on CAEP (273) President of the Council

Approval for signing a MOUwith Singapore to extend and expand the Developing Country Training Programme(177)

Delegation of authority to (136) Report on activities during the recess (79) Statement: Action taken by Israel against the

Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport (30) Statement: International Civil Aviation Day

(2007) (278) Statement: Missile firings crossing international

routes over the high seas (29) Public relations

Public relations and media policy of the Organization (246)

Ramfjord, B. (Norway)

Appointment as President of the ANC (237) Rauhullah, M. (Pakistan)

Welcome to (29) Rhee, Soo-taek (Republic of Korea)

Farewell to (29) Rossell, M. (United Kingdom)

Appointment as Alternate on JSC, FIC, UIC and TCC (32)

Welcome to (29) Safety oversight

Progress report on implementation of the DGCA/06 Recommendations (219)

Progress report on the Unified Strategy Programme (USP) (89, 95)

Progress report regarding Contracting States that have given their consent to the publication of relevant safety oversight audit information (226)

Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention (239, 245)

Review of the MOU relating to the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach (196)

- 298 -

Sayce, A.G. (President of ANC) Tribute to (286)

Secretary General

High-level goals for (185) Shin, Gil-sou (Republic of Korea)

Welcome to (29) Sipos, A. (Hungary)

Election as Second Vice-President (31) Statements

Statement by the Representative of Argentina (75)

Statement by the Representative of Lebanon (21, 146)

Statement by the Representative of South Africa (274)

Statement by the Representative of the United Kingdom (292)

Strategic Objectives

Progress made by the Organization towards its Strategic Objectives and the objectives of the Business Plan (140)

Review of (278) Technical Co-operation

2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) budget estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure (204, 208)

ICAO’s policy on technical co-operation (50) Information on large-scale technical co-operation

projects (56) Report on Technical Co-operation Programme

development and update of the AOSC income and expenditures for the year 2006 (47)

Report on user satisfaction with ICAO procurement services (48)

Transmission of information on recruitment, fellowships and procurement — 2005 (194)

Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC)

Appointment of Members (92) Election of Chairman (32) Election of Members and Alternates (32)

Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP)

Progress report on (131) Unlawful Interference Committee (UIC)


Valente, D.O. (Argentina)

Election as Chairman of TCC (32)

Work Programmes Addition of items to the work programme for the

179th Session (78, 176) Deferment of an item to the 180th Session (155) Schedule for consideration of items during the

179th Session (78) Work Programme for the 180th Session (286,

292)

Working Capital Fund (WCF) Level of (287)

Zaidi, N. (India)

Election as Chairman of FIC (32)

- 299 -

LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED DURING THE 179TH SESSION C-WP/12649 and Blue Rider (English only)

Report on Technical Co-operation Programme development and update of Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) income and expenditures for the year 2006 (2nd)

C-WP/12650 Report on user satisfaction with ICAO procurement services (2nd)

C-WP/12653 Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and possible

means of financing the modernization of financial systems (3rd) C-WP/12654

596th Report of FIC — Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems (3rd)

C-WP/12663 Proposals for dealing with foreign exchange fluctuations in the ICAO Budget (3rd)

C-WP/12664 602nd Report of FIC — Proposals for dealing with foreign exchange fluctuations in the ICAO

Budget (3rd) C-WP/12673 and Blue Rider (French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese only) and Corrigendum

Expansion of COPAD’s mandate to include P-O level posts (3rd) C-WP/12675

Ways and means of celebrating International Women’s Day (13th, 19th) C-WP/12678 Revised

Celebration of International Civil Aviation Day (2nd) C-WP/12691

Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention (15th, 16th)

C-WP/12692 2571st Report of ANC — Progress report on the Unified Strategy Programme (USP) (4th)

C-WP/12695 2574th Report of ANC — Annual review of the Technical Work Programme (TWP) — Progress

report on the transition to the Business Plan approach (2nd) C-WP/12697

2576th Report of ANC — Proposal for the implementation of a system for the provision of pertinent data concerning aircraft registered in a State pursuant to Article 21 of the Chicago Convention — Review of the Secretary General’s report (16th)

C-WP/12702 ICAO’s policy on technical co-operation (2nd)

C-WP/12704 2578th Report of ANC — Review of the Report of the APIRG/15 Meeting — Need for a RAN

meeting for the AFI Region (14th) C-WP/12706

ICAO’s policy on technical co-operation (2nd) C-WP/12707 Restricted

270th Report of UIC — Review of differences to Annex 17 notified by States (7th)

- 300 -

C-WP/12708 Implementation of activities under the Aviation Security Plan of Action (7th)

C-WP/12709 271st Report of UIC — Implementation of activities under the Aviation Security Plan of Action

(7th) C-WP/12710 Restricted and Information Paper No. 1

272nd Report of UIC — Review of the Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP/18) (9th)

C-WP/12711 Restricted Review of the Report of the Sixth Session of the International Explosives Technical Commission

(IETC/6) and the Sixteenth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE/16) (6th)

C-WP/12712 Restricted 273rd Report of UIC — Review of the Report of the Sixth Session of the International Explosives

Technical Commission (IETC/16) and the Sixteenth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Group of Specialists on the Detection of Explosives (AH-DE/16) (6th)

C-WP/12713 Restricted Definition of In-Flight Security Officer (7th)

C-WP/12714 Restricted 274th Report of UIC — Definition of In-Flight Security Officer (7th)

C-WP/12715 Restricted and Corrigendum No. 1 (Chinese only) Progress report on the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) (7th)

C-WP/12716 Restricted 275th Report of UIC — Progress report on the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP)

(7th) C-WP/12717

276th Report of UIC — Programme of aviation security meetings in 2007 and for 2008 to 2010 (13th))

C-WP/12718 277th Report of UIC — Work programme of the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) for

the 180th Session (20th) C-WP/12719

Request of the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) for inclusion in the list of organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings (9th)

C-WP/12720 Information on crossings of the North Atlantic during the calendar year 2005 (4th)

C-WP/12721 Report of the President of the Council on activities during the recess (4th)

C-WP/12722 Election of Vice-Presidents of the Council (1st)

C-WP/12723 Election of the Chairmen of the Air Transport, Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and

Technical Co-operation Committees (1st) C-WP/12724

Election of Members and Alternates on the Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees (1st)

C-WP/12725 Revised Appointment of the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) (15th)

- 301 -

C-WP/12726 Invitations to observers to attend the 36th Session of the Assembly (9th)

C-WP/12727 Site and date of the 36th Session of the Assembly (9th)

C-WP/12728 The status of implementation of the recommendations of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) (13th)

C-WP/12729 Report of JIU — “Policies of United Nations System Organizations towards the Use of Open

Source Software (OSS) in the Secretariats” (JIU/REP/2005/3 and Corr. 1) (4th) C-WP/12730

Report of JIU — “A Common Payroll for United Nations System Organizations” (JIU/REP/2005/4) (9th)

C-WP/12731 Work Programme of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review

(EAO) for the year 2007 (13th) C-WP/12732 and Corrigendum

Information on large-scale technical co-operation projects (2nd) C-WP/12733

Transmission of information on technical co-operation activities — recruitment, fellowships and procurement (12th)

C-WP/12734 and Blue Rider 2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) budget

estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure (12th, 13th) C-WP/12735

Financial situation of the Organization (4th) C-WP/12736

Level of the Working Capital Fund (19th) C-WP/12737

603rd Report of FIC - Level of the Working Capital Fund (WCF) (19th) C-WP/12738 and Information Paper No. 1

Methodology used in calculating scales of assessment (17th) C-WP/12739

604th Report of FIC — Methodology used in calculating scales of assessment (17th) C-WP/12742

Format and content of the financial statements of the Organization — Policies for Technical Co-operation Programme revenue and expenditure recognition (17th)

C-WP/12743 606th Report of FIC - Format and content of the financial statements (4th)

C-WP/12744 607th Report of FIC — Items X1, X11, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12

and A13 of the Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (8th) C-WP/12745

Report of JIU — “Oversight Lacunae in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2006/2) (7th) C-WP/12746 Restricted

Planned terrorist plot against civil aircraft over the North Atlantic (Special Session) C-WP/12747 Restricted

Future action for handling security issues — Paper presented by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) (Special Session)

- 302 -

C-WP/12748 Restricted Special ICAO Council on the planned terrorist plot against civil aircraft on the North Atlantic —

Paper presented by Airports Council International (ACI) (Special Session) C-WP/12749

High-level goals for the Secretary General (11th) C-WP/12750

Revised Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (8th) C-WP/12751

Draft Assembly working paper — Election of Contracting States to be represented on the Council (13th)

C-WP/12752 Work Programme for the 180th Session (19th)

C-WP/12753 Report on action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 178th Session

(4th) C-WP/12754

International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment) (16th) C-WP/12755

Delegation of the oversight of the Joint Support Agreements to the Joint Support Committee (JSC) under Article 52 of the Chicago Convention (14th)

C-WP/12757 and Revision No. 1 Legal meetings in 2007 and for 2008-2010 (13th)

C-WP/12758 Progress report relating to the Secretariat Study Group on Aviation Security Conventions (16th)

C-WP/12759 General Work Programme of the Legal Committee (17th)

C-WP/12760 and Corrigendum No. 1 Results of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Steering Group Meeting

(10th) C-WP/12761

Review of the implementation of Assembly Resolution A35-5 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection) (11th)

C-WP/12762 1049th Report of JSC — Approval of audited actual costs under the Danish Joint Financing

Agreement for the year 2005 (4th) C-WP/12763

1050th Report of JSC — Approval of audited actual costs under the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement for the year 2005 (4th)

C-WP/12764 1051st Report of JSC — Review of the Danish estimates for 2007 (4th)

C-WP/12765 1052nd Report of JSC — Review of the Icelandic estimates for 2007

C-WP/12766 1053rd Report of JSC — Settlement of obligations up to 31 December 2005 and assessments,

user charge and advances for the year 2007 under the Danish Joint Financing Agreement (4th)

C-WP/12767 1054th Report of JSC — Settlement of obligations up to 31 December 2005 and assessments,

user charge and advances for the year 2007 under the Icelandic Joint Financing Agreement (4th)

- 303 -

C-WP/12768 1055th Report of JSC — ICAO administrative fee to be added to the combined Danish and

Icelandic user charge per single aircraft crossing for the year 2007 (4th) C-WP/12769

1056th Report of JSC — Meetings in the joint support field for the year 2007 and during the period 2008 to 2010 (13th)

C-WP/12770 1057th Report of JSC — Work programme of the Joint Support Committee (JSC) for the

180th Session (20th) C-WP/12771

Review of the effectiveness of ICAO’s State letter system (19th) C-WP/12772

Status of implementation of the UN Standards of Conduct for International Civil Servants in ICAO (19th)

C-WP/12773 Proposal for settlement of arrears of contributions by Georgia (4th)

C-WP/12774 and Blue Rider Review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the conduct of safety oversight

audits under the comprehensive systems approach (12th) C-WP/12775

Progress report regarding Contracting States that have given their consent to the publication of relevant safety oversight audit information (14th)

C-WP/12776 Financial Year 2006 (17th)

C-WP/12777 2580th Report of ANC — Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (8th)

C-WP/12778 2581st Report of ANC — Programme of air navigation meetings for 2007 and for

2008, 2009 and 2010 (13th) C-WP/12779

2582nd Report of ANC — Review of the Secretary General’s Report on the Review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) relating to the conduct of safety oversight audits under the comprehensive systems approach (12th)

C-WP/12780 2583rd Report of ANC — Amendment of the Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems

(Doc 9750) (13th) C-WP/12781

2584th Report of ANC — Progress report regarding Contracting States that have given their consent to the publication of relevant safety oversight audit information — Review of the Secretary General’s report (14th)

C-WP/12783 2586th Report of ANC — Annual review of the TWP — Progress report on the transition to the

Business Plan approach (16th) C-WP/12784

2587th Report of ANC — ANC work programme for the 174th session (19th) C-WP/12785

608th Report of FIC — Financial Year 2006 (17th) C-WP/12786

776th Report of ATC — Meetings in the air transport field for 2007 and during the period 2008 to 2010 (13th)

- 304 -

C-WP/12787 777th Report of ATC — Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly

(Economic Commission) (8th) C-WP/12788 and Revised Blue Rider (French only)

778th Report of ATC — Adoption of Amendment 20 to Annex 9 — Facilitation (7th) C-WP/12789

779th Report of ATC — Work Programme of the Air Transport Committee (ATC) for the 180th Session (19th)

C-WP/12790 Report of JIU for 2005 and Programme of Work for 2006 (4th)

C-WP/12791 101st Report of TCC —2007 Technical Co-operation Administrative and Operational Services

Cost (AOSC) budget estimates and update of the 2006 AOSC income and expenditure (12th, 13th)

C-WP/12792 102nd Report of TCC — Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (8th)

C-WP/12793 Report for the second quarter — 1 April to 30 June 2006 (9th)

C-WP/12794 Report for the third quarter — 1 July to 30 September 2006 (16th)

C-WP/12795 103rd Report of TCC — Work Programme of the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC) for

the 180th Session (20th) C-WP/12796 and Blue Rider (Chinese only)

Public relations and media policy of the Organization (16th) C-WP/12797

Report of the Council Working Group on Meetings — Programme of meetings for 2007 (13th) C-WP/12798

Report of the Council Working Group on Meetings — Tentative programme of meetings for 2008-2009-2010 (13th)

C-WP/12799 236th Report of UIC — Draft Provisional Agenda for the 36th Session of the Assembly (8th)

C-WP/12800 and Revision No. 1 Report on progress made by the Organization towards its Strategic Objectives and the objectives

of the Business Plan (8th) C-WP/12801

104th Report of TCC — ICAO's policy on technical co-operation (4th) C-WP/12803 and Blue Rider (French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese only) and Addendum No. 1

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD) (5th, 6th)

C-WP/12804 2588th Report of ANC — Review of the Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Aviation

Security Panel (AVSECP/18) (9th) C-WP/12805

2589th Report of ANC — Progress report on implementation of the Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) Recommendations (14th)

- 305 -

C-WP/12806 Task force on Gender Equality and Gender Equity: Terms of reference, status, and

implementation actions (11th) C-WP/12807 and Blue Rider (French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese only)

Information provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat on emissions trading (10th, 11th)

C-WP/12808 105th Report of TCC — Transition of information on technical co-operation activities —

recruitment, fellowships and procurement (12th) C-WP/12809

Election of First Vice-President of the Council (4th) C-WP/12810

Election of a Member of the Edward Warner Award Committee (4th) C-WP/12811

Composition and mandate of the COPAD (15th) C-WP/12812

Proposals for settlement of arrears of contributions by Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Roberts Flight Information Region (FIR) (13th)

C-WP/12813 Proposal of the Structure and Organization of the Secretariat (SOS) Team (18th)

C-WP/12814 Review of the Strategic Objectives (19th)

C-WP/12815 The principle in the determination of scales of assessment (Weighted ability to pay scale) (17th)

C-WP/12816 2590th Report of ANC — Civil aviation safety and efficiency in the AFI Region (11th, 14th)

— END —

NOT FOR SALE

2/08, E/P1/490

Printed in ICAO

icao - icscc.org.cnicscc.org.cn/upload/file/20190102/doc.9903-en... · icao international civil...

Documents