International Civil Aviation Organization

Doc 10093-C/1187 C-Min. 210/1-10

ICAO

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

Montréal, 20 February — 8 March 2017

SUMMARY MINUTES WITH SUBJECT INDEX

2017

Montréal Canada

Doc 10093-C/1187 • C-Min. 210/1-10 • COUNCIL – 210TH SESSION • Montréal, 20 February – 8 March 2017• Summary Minutes with Subject Index TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING ...... 1 Welcome to new Representatives on the Council ...... 3 Order of Business ...... 3 Schedule for consideration of items during the 210th Session ...... 3 Report on the Preliminary Performance of the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) ...... 3 Proposal on Best Practices for the Preparation of the Triennial Budget ...... 6 ICAO Corporate Key Performance Indicators ...... 7 ICAO Business Plan for 2017- 2019...... 8 Structure of the ICAO Secretariat ...... 10 Any other business ...... 17 Condolences ...... 17

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING ...... 19 Review of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties ...... 21 Any other business ...... 35 Attendance of industry observer organizations at closed sessions of the Council ...... 35 Appointment of Members and Alternates on the ATC, JSC, FIC, UIC, HRC and RHCC ...... 36 Appointment of Members on the Committee on Cooperation with Third Parties(CC3P) ...... 36 Appointment of new Observer on the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) ...... 36 Public Key Directory (PKD) Board Membership ...... 36 Convening of the ICAO Regional Seminar on States’ Action Plans and on Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) in five regions ...... 37 Review of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) – Consultation with the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) ...... 37 Issuance by Mexico of a commemorative stamp in honour of the Lifetime Goodwill Ambassador of ICAO and former Council President Mr. Roberto Kobeh González ...... 37 Middle East and North Africa Regional Safety Oversight Organization (MENA RSOO) – Hosting and support of operations by Saudi Arabias ...... 37

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING (CLOSED) ...... 39 Aviation security risk overview – 2016 ...... 41

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING (OPEN) ...... 43 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Security and facilitation ...... 45 Report on the Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Security and Facilitation in Africa (AFI SECFAL Plan) ...... 49 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2309 (2016) on countering terrorist threats to civil aviation ...... 50 Farewell to the former Deputy Director, Aviation Security and Facilitation (DD/ASF) ...... 50 Secretary General’s Mid-term Report to the Council ...... 52 Review of the structure and content of the Secretary General’s sessional progress reports ...... 60 (i)

Page

Report on Technical Cooperation Programme Development ...... 62 ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy ...... 66 Any other business ...... 72 Work Programmes of the Council for the 210th and 211th Sessions Schedule for consideration of items during the 210th Session ...... 72 Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities during 2016 and Operating Plans for 2017 ...... 72 Informal briefing during the 211th Session ...... 72

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING ...... 75 Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities during 2016 and operating plans for 2017 ...... 77 Safety Week Presentation ...... 81 Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 174 to Annex 1 ...... 82 Adoption of Amendment 42 to Annex 6, Part I ...... 84 Recommendations to enhance participation by Member States in the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) and Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs) ...... 85

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING (CLOSED) ...... 89 Report on the ICAO Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR) ...... 91

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING (OPEN) ...... 105 Progress report on the implementation of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USOAP CMA) ...... 107

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING ...... 117 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Safety and Air navigation capacity and efficiency ...... 119 ANC Work Programme for the 205th Session ...... 129 Review of procedures related to the nomination process and selection criteria of the membership of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) ...... 129 Recommendations of the Joint Support Committee related to items under the Danish and Icelandic Joint Financing Agreements reviewed during the 210th Session ...... 130 Mechanism for high-level meetings to inform Assembly sessions and consequential amendments to applicable Directives and Rules of Procedure ...... 131 Operating Plan for the Technical Cooperation Bureau for the period 2017 2019 ...... 137 Report on a feasibility study on the establishment of a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund and the potential use of the accumulated surplus ...... 138 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Policy and administrative subjects ...... 140 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Economic development of air transport ...... 143 Voluntary Air Transport Fund (TRAF) ...... 144 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Environmental protection ...... 145

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING ...... 151 Adoption of Amendment 12 to Annex 16, Volume I ...... 153 Adoption of Amendment 9 to Annex 16, Volume II ...... 154 Adoption of the First Edition of Annex 16, Volume III ...... 154 Environmental Protection Recent Developments ...... 156 Update on Work on a Global Market-based Measure (GMBM) Scheme ...... 157

(ii)

Page

Any other business ...... 162 Appointment of new Observer on the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) ...... 162 Request from the European Union (EU) to participate as Observer in ...... 162 Requests from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) to participate as Observers in closed meetings of the Council on aviation security ...... 162 C-WP/14582 — Financial situation of the Organization and Level of the Working Capital Fund (WCF) ...... 162 C-WP/14584 — Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled “Comprehensive review of United Nations system support for Small Island Developing States: Initial findings” (JIU/REP/2016/3) ...... 162 C-WP/14585 — Report of the JIU entitled “Public information and communications policies and practices in the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/2015/4) ...... 162 C-WP/14586 — Report of the JIU entitled “Review of activities and resources devoted to address climate change in the United Nations system organizations” (JIU/REP/2015/5) ...... 163 C-WP/14587 — Report of the JIU entitled “Evaluation of mainstreaming of full and productive employment and decent work by the United Nations system organizations – Summary Report” (JIU/REP/2015/1 ...... 163 C-WP/14588 — Report of the JIU entitled “Succession planning in the United Nations system organizations” (JIU/REP/2016/2) ...... 163 Council President Certificates ...... 163 Report on the COSM recommendations ...... 163

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING ...... 165 Review of issues relating to the ICAO Aviation Training Policy ...... 167 Request of the International Satellite System for Search and Rescue (International Cospas Sarsat Programme) for inclusion in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO Meetings ...... 169 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – legal subjects ...... 170 Report on Access to top-selling publications ...... 172 Amendment to the ICAO Publications Regulations (Doc 7231) ...... 173 Establishment of the Resource Mobilization Fund ...... 174 Annual Report of the Ethics Officer ...... 177 2016 Report on the Activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) ...... 182 International Women’s Day – round-the-world flight ...... 184

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING ...... 185 Report on the evaluation of selected programme activities of the South American Regional Office: ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay ...... 187 Review of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO)...... 190 Report of the JIU entitled “Analysis of the evaluation function in the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/2014/6)...... 195 Report of the JIU entitled “Review of the organizational Ombudsman service across the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/2015/6) ...... 196 Review of the Terms of Reference of the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) ..... 199 Appointment of Members of the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) ...... 203 Options to enhance succession planning in ICAO ...... 206

(iii)

Page

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING ...... 209 International Women’s Day ...... 211 Alignment of the ICAO Policy on Secondment and the ICAO Service Code ...... 212 ICAO Policy on Secondment – Cooling-off period ...... 213 Progress achieved by the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (RHCC) ...... 213 Work Programme of the Council and its Committees for the 211th Session ...... 216 Any other business ...... 217 Implementation of Council off-site strategy meeting (COSM) recommendations ...... 217 Review of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties ...... 218 Structure of the ICAO Secretariat ...... 219 ICAO Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR) ...... 221 Recent IT security incident ...... 222 Security incident at Kuala Lumpur International Airport ...... 226 Ballistic missile launches ...... 227 ICAO Council visit to Ecuador ...... 228 Activities during recess ...... 229

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE 210TH SESSION ...... 231

LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED ...... 235

(iv)

-1- C-MIN 210/1

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2017, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

PRESENT: Algeria — Mr. A.D. Mesroua Kenya — Ms. M.B. Awori Argentina — Mr. G.E. Ainchil Malaysia — Mr. Y.-H. Lim Australia — Mr. S. Lucas Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Brazil — Mrs. M.G. Valente da Costa Nigeria — Mr. M.S. Nuhu Cabo Verde — Mr. C. Monteiro Panama — Mr. G.S. Oller Canada — Ms. W. Drukier Republic of Korea — Mr. J. Hur China — Mr. Shengjun Yang Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov Colombia — Mr. A. Muñoz Gómez Saudi Arabia — Mr. S.A.R. Hashem Congo — Mr. R.M. Ondzotto Singapore — Mr. T.C. Ng Cuba — Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri South Africa — Mr. M.D.T. Peege Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado Egypt — Mr. A. Khedr Sweden — Ms. H. Jansson Saxe France — Mr. P. Bertoux Turkey — Mr. A.R. Çolak Germany — Mr. U. Schwierczinski United Arab Emirates — Miss A. Alhameli India — Mr. A. Shekhar United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rodmell Ireland — Mrs. A. Smith Floch United Republic of Tanzania — Mr. R.W. Bokango Italy — Mr. M.R. Rusconi United States — Mr. S. Kotis (Alt.) Japan — Mr. S. Matsui Uruguay — Mr. M. Vidal

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) ― Canada Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mr. V. Smith ― D/ADB Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. R. Bhalla ― C/FIN Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. M. Belayneh ― C/GAT Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. J. Wan ― DD/IAS Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. H. Gourdji ― DD/MO Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. C. Radu ― DD/SAF Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mr. M. Fox ― C/PRC Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. A. Bilaver ― OSG Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Ms. S. Brand ― C/RPM Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. A. Opolot ― LEB Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay Mr. M. Leitgab ― ADADB Mr. A. Larcos ― ACC Mrs. C. Schultheiss ― Précis-writer

C-MIN 210/1 -2-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cyprus Equatorial Guinea Greece Honduras Indonesia Lebanon Libya Mozambique Paraguay

Airports Council International (ACI) Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO) European Union (EU) International Air Transport Association (IATA)

-3- C-MIN 210/1

Welcome to new Representatives on the Council

1. A warm welcome was extended to Mr. Shengjun Yang and Ms. Wendy Drukier, the newly-appointed Representatives of China and Canada respectively.

Order of Business

2. The Council noted that due to the unavailability of some oral reports from Committees before the commencement of the current session, the sequence in which items would be considered by the Council during the first week of the session had been reordered. This had necessitated the issuance of a revised Order of Business on Friday, 17 February 2017.

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

Schedule for consideration of items during the 210th Session

3. The Council noted the meeting schedule for the 210th Session presented in the President’s memorandum PRES OBA/2599 (Revised), dated 14 December 2016, on the understanding that an additional meeting of the Human Resources Committee would be held on 22 February 2017 at 1430 hours and that an additional informal briefing on cybersecurity issues had been scheduled to take place on 23 February. The Council also noted the schedule for consideration of items during the 210th Session as set forth in the President’s memorandum PRES OBA/2616, dated 16 February 2017.

4. Further to the request from a number of Representatives, it was decided that C-WP/14583 “Report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled Review of the Organizational Ombudsman Services across the United Nations system” and C-WP/14589 “Report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled Analysis of the Evaluation Function in the United Nations system”, would both be tabled for discussion in conjunction with C-WP/14526 “Review of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office”, which was currently scheduled for consideration by the Council during the week of 6 March 2017.

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

Report on the Preliminary Performance of the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF)

5. The Council considered this item on the basis of an oral report presented by the Secretary General in which it was recalled that the Council at its 209th Session had requested an oral report on the preliminary performance of the ARGF be provided at the current 210th Session. The Council also had for consideration an oral report thereon that was presented by the Finance Committee (FIC).

6. In summarizing the main points of the report, the Chairperson of the Finance Committee (Representative of the United Kingdom) recalled that for the period January to November 2016, a surplus of over CAD 2 million had been recorded. The largest surpluses were achieved in “Publications, Distribution and Printing”, “Licensing” and “Delegation and Conference Services and Rental”. The surplus could be attributed largely to the favourable exchange rate and operating expenses that were lower than budgeted. It was also noted that the negotiations with IATA on the dangerous goods licensing agreement had been completed. Depending on the size of the carry over and as had been done in the previous year, the payroll costs of employees working for the regular budget would be absorbed, which would further increase the surplus of the ARGF.

7. Of particular concern to the FIC was the impact of the exchange rate on the budget and surplus of the ARGF and the risks associated with fluctuations in the exchange rate over the triennium.

C-MIN 210/1 -4-

An explanation on this issue had been provided to the Committee by the Secretariat. The size and utilization of the ARGF surplus was also discussed and it was recalled that an operational reserve was set at 25 per cent of annual sales according to the Policy on Revenue Generating Activities.

8. The Committee recommended that future ARGF reporting include an exchange rate forecast similar to what was done for the Regular Budget. In addition, ARGF reporting should also include an assessment of risk as well as greater detail on revenues and costs related to specific ARGF activities. Lastly, the FIC welcomed the progress made and commended the Secretariat on the results achieved on the dangerous goods licensing.

9. Referring to the issue of future reports on this item, the Representative of Spain indicated that the request on future reports of the ARGF should also take into consideration the recent internal audit and the consequent recommendations with regard to ARGF reporting. He recalled that for purposes of governance and information, the audit recommended that the reports on the ARGF be linked to the business and operational plan.

10. Supporting the previous intervention, the Representative of Mexico stated that the report on the ARGF that should be provided to the Council should follow the same lines as that of the AOSC Fund and should include, among other information, the expected outcomes and results achieved as well as information on staffing, including salaries funded by the ARGF. As such, the Council would then have the necessary information to take informed decisions with regard to any surpluses and would also be able to monitor performance and mitigate any risks associated with the use of the fund.

11. The Representative of France supported the report of the FIC but suggested that the EAO audit report on the ARGF be taken into consideration before making any decision. He had understood that this formed part of the document “Report on the activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office” (C-WP/14577), which was due to be considered at a subsequent meeting of the current session.

12. The President of the Council confirmed that the “Report on the activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office” (C-WP/14577), did indeed contain information pertaining to the ARGF and in this connection, if the Council deemed it pertinent, this certainly could be taken into consideration in order to guide Council deliberations on the item.

13. The Representative of South Africa requested clarification on the budgetary figures provided in relation to the ARGF, specifically the significant increase between the operating surplus reported in August and that reported in November. He also requested further information on the number of posts funded by the ARGF.

14. In response, the Chief, Finance Branch (C/FIN) explained that the increase was a result of the transfer of CAD 2.29 million to cover the payroll costs of the staff members embedded in the Regular Programme. This explained the change from CAD 2 million at the end of August to CAD 4 million at the end of the fiscal year.

15. With regard to the posts funded by the ARGF, the Director, Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) confirmed that the consultant posts were funded through the ARGF. He also indicated that as a result of the audit mentioned earlier, an operating plan would be put in place to address all the issues that had come up in the audit carried out by EAO. He assured the Council that in terms of the operational aspects of the fund, the ARGF was being monitored and managed accordingly.

-5- C-MIN 210/1

16. The Representative of South Africa expressed his concern with the high number of posts that were being funded from the ARGF, especially in the context of an unpredictable global economy and with the aviation industry facing serious challenges. Looking forward, he enquired what would happen in the event the ARGF generated insufficient funds to fund all these posts. 17. Noting that several risks had been previously identified in the consideration of this item, the President of the Council indicated that it was his understanding that the intention was for these issues to be addressed in the ARGF’s enhanced operating plan, which would be considered by the Council in due course.

18. The Secretary General recalled that the ARGF had been established in line with a Council decision in order to supplement the regular budget although several activities funded by the ARGF were in fact considered to be part of the Regular Programme and as such, considered core activities of the Organization. She cited a range of areas including in conference services, security, and publications that were being funded through ARGF activities. The Secretary General emphasized that in undertaking these activities, the Secretariat exercised the utmost caution in order to eliminate risk. The implementation of a risk register and the correlation between it and the operational plans, the key performance indicators and the business plan would all help to monitor progress and mitigate risk. She also reaffirmed that these measures, as well as the online monitoring tool that was being developed (Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool), would certainly enable Council to monitor the progress of the ARGF activities along with other activities of the Organization on an ongoing basis.

19. As several issues being discussed related to the EAO audit report on the ARGF, the Representative of Malaysia enquired whether it might not be appropriate for the Council at this juncture to bring forward its consideration of the EAO report. In response, the Secretary General observed that unfortunately the Chief, Evaluation and Audit Office (C/EAO) was currently not present in the Council Chamber at this given moment. She noted however that a number of the issues raised by Representatives could nevertheless be revisited when the document “Report on the activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office” (C-WP/14577) was considered by the Council at a subsequent meeting during the current session.

20. Observing that “Report on the activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office 2016” (C-WP/14577) had already been published and was available on the Council website, the Representative of Malaysia agreed with the proposal of the Secretary General. Specifically, the issue of risk management of the ARGF, as it related to the present report under consideration, was an aspect of this activity that the Representative was keen to explore further when the EAO audit report was considered by the Council.

21. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council welcomed the fact that the report on the preliminary performance of the ARGF was showing a significant financial surplus for the reporting period, with the net surplus being recorded at CAD 2 million. The Council noted that the Regular Budget absorbed the payroll cost of those employees who were working for the regular programme and that this would further increase the surplus of the ARGF. It was also noted that a final and complete summary of the major achievements and audited financial results for 2016 would be provided to the Council for consideration at the 211th Session.

22. Comments made by Representatives in the course of the consideration of this item concerning, inter alia, the governance arrangements of the ARGF, the sustainability of the staffing and consultancy requirements, greater detail on revenues and costs, and the monitoring of ARGF performance, would be addressed by the Secretariat in more detail in future reporting to the Council. In particular, the Council requested the Secretariat to ensure that future reporting on the ARGF should include an assessment of risk as well as an enhanced structure to present results and expected outcomes related to specific ARGF activities.

C-MIN 210/1 -6-

23. The Council also noted that the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) had recently undertaken an audit of the ARGF and that some of the issues identified in the preceding paragraph were referred to in C-WP/14577 “Report on the activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office”, which would be considered by the Council at a subsequent meeting in the current session. In this connection, the Council agreed to resume its discussion of these aspects of the ARGF when C-WP/14577 was presented for consideration.

Subject No. 18.1: Annual Budget

Proposal on Best Practices for the Preparation of the Triennial Budget

24. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14592, presented by Mexico and Spain and which outlined a proposal on best practices for the ICAO budget preparation process, so as to facilitate and simplify its consideration by the Finance Committee and the Council. An oral report thereon from the Finance Committee was also presented for consideration.

25. It was noted that the proposal, which is based on the Secretariat making four separate presentations to the Council, in sequential order, in the lead up to the final draft budget estimates being submitted to the Assembly for approval, was reviewed by the Finance Committee (FIC) at its meeting on 24 January 2017, and that subsequently, a revised version of C-WP/14592 was circulated to reflect the amendments that the FIC had agreed to.

26. The Chairperson of the Finance Committee (Representative of the United Kingdom) presented the Oral Report. The proposal presented best practices for the ICAO budget preparation process in order to facilitate and simplify its consideration by the Finance Committee and Council, for greater understanding and transparency. The Council’s final draft budget estimates for submission to the Assembly for approval would be derived via a process of four sequential presentations with the corresponding working papers presented by the Secretariat to the Finance Committee and the Council that were listed in C-WP/14592.

27. Although the Committee was satisfied with the scope of the draft of the working paper, based on the input received certain amendments were recommended and incorporated in the revised version of the working paper. These included: switching the order of the presentations in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 so the Business Plan would be first; underscoring that the first two presentations would take place during the same Council session and in sequential order; aligning terminology for consistency; adding “Other new sources of funding” to the list of funding sources; and using the term “efficiency gains” instead of “efficiencies”.

28. Responding to a question from the President of the Council concerning the use of the phrase “business plan” and “operating plan” within the documentation in an apparent inconsistent manner, the Chairperson of the FIC suggested that for the sake of simplicity and since the terms used by the Secretariat appeared to be interchangeable at times, the terms should remain as they currently appeared in the documentation for the time being.

29. On the same point, the Representative of Spain, as co-author of the working paper, proposed that for the purposes of ongoing consideration of these issues, using the term “business plan” would be preferable since it encompassed the whole Organization whereas the term “operating plan” generally referred to specific units or sections.

-7- C-MIN 210/1

30. Recalling past discussions when different methodologies for the preparation of the budget had been considered, the Representative of Malaysia suggested incorporating a performance statement that would gauge with more accuracy the funds required by the Secretariat rather than having to rely on the ARGF for additional funding. He also referred to past discussions in which he had understood C/FIN to indicate that a performance indicator statement would be produced as the result of previous audit recommendations.

31. Referring to the report from the Finance Committee, the Representative of Japan requested clarification on the nature of the approval that was being sought from Council and whether the purpose of the methodology proposed would serve only as guidance in the preparation of the budget.

32. In response, the Chairperson of the Finance Committee confirmed that indeed, rather than establishing a strict procedure, the intention of the Committee had been to provide a general guideline. Given the changing conditions often faced during the preparation of the budget, the Committee had wanted to avoid placing any unnecessary constraints for the Secretary General.

33. Following consideration, the Council approved the methodology presented as guidance for the preparation of the Organization’s triennial budget.

Subject No. 54.1: ICAO Corporate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

ICAO Corporate Key Performance Indicators

34. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14536, which presented the proposed Corporate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), along with corresponding targets, which were developed by the Sub-Group on Performance Management (SGPM) under the direction of the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE) in collaboration with the Secretariat.

35. It was noted that a total of 27 Corporate KPIs were outlined, along with their respective targets and that these would be included in the Business Plan, which would be integrated and presented via the proposed Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool (CPMFT). In this connection, it was noted that the KPIs represented a dynamic document that would be updated and presented to the Council for consideration on an annual basis at a future session.

36. The Chairperson of the WGGE (Representative of India) presented the working paper, the culmination of the work and deliberations of the Sub-group on Performance Management (SGPM), the WGGE and the Secretariat. The SGPM was established in 2015 with a mandate to identify and propose corporate KPIs that would best represent the work of ICAO and allow Council to assess the performance of the Organization. A total of 27 corporate KPIs had been identified. After consultations and a review process with the Secretariat in order to establish a baseline, examine current level data, as well as harmonize some targets, the proposed 27 corporate KPIs were being submitted to Council for approval, noting that the appropriate quantified targets for Security and Facilitation would be developed once the Global Aviation Security Plan (GASeP) had been established and once quantifiable figures could be identified.

37. Commending the WGGE for viewing the KPIs as something to be incorporated in a living document, the Representative of the United States suggested some changes to the Appendix. In reference to the Human Resources section on page A-8, he suggested changing the phrase in KPI-2 to “Wider geographical representation by selecting qualified candidates from un-represented or under- represented States for Professional posts subject to EGR” (additional wording in italics) and also enquired

C-MIN 210/1 -8-

whether it had been intentional in the KPI to refer only to unrepresented States as this would represent an inconsistency.

38. In also expressing her support for the working paper, the Representative of Cuba agreed that this should be a living document that could be improved over time. Referring to page A-9 of the working paper under the section “Stakeholders Management” the Representative suggested indicating a precise target for the improvement sought to State letter responses. She also proposed revisiting the KPIs identified for air navigation and capacity, underscoring the need to emphasize ASBU implementation as an important component of the GANP and the need to measure all the modules rather than restricting the KPIs to only two. With regard to improved digital AIM, she noted that 33 States had notified that they had not yet completed phase 1. For the States having already moved onto Phase 2, she suggested investigating the possibility of establishing a KPI that would measure the efficiency and timely updating of all the documentation involved in this process.

39. In thanking the Representative of Cuba for her suggestions, the President of the Council observed that in his understanding discussions had already commenced with respect to the KPIs linked to air navigation capacity and efficiency and the implementation efforts as part of the GANP. He suggested that this might be an issue that could be addressed at the next off-site strategy meeting. In any case, he emphasized that special attention would need to be given to how best to enhance all the global plans, particularly the GANP.

40. Responding to the earlier intervention of the Representative of the United States, the Representative of South Africa stated that in his view, the Human Resources KPI 2 on page A-8 appeared to be in line with the No Country Left Behind initiative. With reference to the KPI proposed by the WGGE for the Economic Development of Air Transport in which the number of bilateral and multilateral agreements would be the quantifiable element, the Representative suggested that it would be opportune to also refer to the “open skies” concept. He also proposed dividing the Consumer Protection KPI into two separate components, which specifically ought to encompass implementing consumer protection initiatives and then monitoring those efforts.

41. The Representative of Columbia expressed his support for the working paper and thanked the Representatives of the Council who had contributed to its preparation. He did however observe that the Council should not lose sight of the fact that ICAO’s main role was to develop SARPs to be implemented by its Member States, followed-up by audits. The impact that SARPs have on the aviation industry could potentially carry important financial consequences. Since the development of SARPs is an intrinsic part of ICAO’s mission, he suggested there should be a performance indicator related to the number of SARPs developed as part of the KPIs on Security.

42. Following consideration, the Council approved the Corporate KPIs for 2017 as contained in the Appendix to C-WP/14536. Comments made by Representatives during the course of the consideration of this item, especially in relation to the necessity to provide additional clarification vis-à- vis the alignment of respective KPIs and targets pertaining to the thematic areas of air navigation capacity and efficiency, economic development of air transport, human resources, and stakeholders management (pages A-2, A-3, A-8 and A-9 respectively), were noted by the Secretariat and would be addressed in future iterations of the document.

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

ICAO Business Plan for 2017- 2019

-9- C-MIN 210/1

43. The Council considered this item on the basis of information paper C-WP/14551, which provided information on the changes to the ICAO Business Plan 2017-2019 that were published as Revision No.1. In doing so, it was recalled that the Business Plan is a living document that would be regularly adjusted to meet the changing needs of Member States and the global aviation community. The Council also had the benefit of a presentation by the Secretariat on the proposed Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool (CPMFT). In this connection, it was noted that the CPMFT is a web-based system to be used by the Secretariat to manage their operating plans with a view to reporting on their progress and expected results.

44. In introducing the working paper, the Secretary General underscored that the Business Plan was a living document that must be regularly adjusted to meet the changing needs of States and the global aviation community. Since it was first published, a number of changes had taken place pursuant to the direction and approaches endorsed by the Council and taking into account the evolving work of ICAO. Therefore, the Business Plan was updated and changes were incorporated as follows: KPIs presented by the WGGE and approved by the Council; inclusion of Corporate Risk approved during the 209th Session of the Council including a new corporate risk related to cyber-threats and cyber-attacks to the ICT infrastructure; the Technical Cooperation Bureau’s Operating Plan; the Global Aviation Training (GAT) office operating plan; the addition of Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships (SPCP) and the inclusion of a descriptive paragraph on the Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool (CPMFT).

45. The Secretary General indicated that the CPMFT is a web-based system being developed by the Secretariat to manage the operating plans and report on their progress and expected results and will contain all information pertaining to organization-wide performance, reporting and risk, which would include in its first iteration, the following components: Corporate KPIs, key outcomes and their respective key KPIs (attributable to Strategic Objectives and Supporting Strategies); deliverables, KPIs and Targets (attributable to project/key activity level); corporate risks; and the status of Council Decisions and Assembly Resolutions. An informal briefing on the CPMFT would be provided to Council during the 211th Session of the Council followed by training at a later date.

46. The Secretary General emphasized that Revision No. 1 of the ICAO Business Plan 2017- 2019 marked the first step in an evolutionary process which reiterated the Organization’s commitment to a results-based management approach that integrates strategy, resources, processes and measurements to improve areas such as decision-making, transparency, coordination and accountability, while allowing for the flexibility to adjust to meet the changing needs of States and the global aviation community.

47. A brief presentation of the CPMFT was then provided by the Deputy Director, Monitoring and Oversight (DD/MO). Based on the operating plans that are contained in the Business Plan for the 2017-2019 triennial, the CPMFT would also be linked to the Strategic Objectives, C-DECs, corporate risks, corporate KPIs as well as the sessional reports provided by the Secretary General. Users would be able to navigate through the Business Plan or specific operating plans by a Bureau, Branch or Region in order to obtain a status or evaluate progress made in specific areas. This tool would be further developed in consultation with a sub-group of the WGGE. It was also noted that the Secretariat would be responsible for updating the Operating Plan which would be linked to the Business Plan.

48. Referring to paragraph 3.2 of the working paper, the Representative of Colombia suggested adding decisions of the Assembly to the proposed monitoring tool in addition to the Assembly Resolutions. He indicated that often during an Assembly session, working papers were presented by Member States that did not necessarily result in the adoption of a specific resolution but which nonetheless led to decisions taken by the Assembly. He suggested that it would be helpful if there was a

C-MIN 210/1 -10-

process by which these could be monitored and suggested adding an option to the CPMFT that would enable the users to do precisely this and select the relevant information according to geographical region.

49. In thanking the Secretary General and her team for preparing this iteration of the ICAO Business Plan, the Representative of Spain welcomed the fact that the changes were being presented in a logical and traceable manner. Referring to earlier discussions on the ARGF, he emphasized it would be necessary to include the ARGF operating plan, as part of this process and in the context of the revenue generating activities. He also suggested that it would be helpful to include the operating plans of the Regional Offices.

50. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council welcomed the fact that the proposed CPMFT would contain all relevant information pertaining to organization-wide performance at the level of the Business Plan and would include in its first iteration, information on Corporate KPIs, key deliverables and targets, corporate risks, and status of implementation on C-DECs and eventually a means to track the implementation of Assembly Resolutions as well. Furthermore, the Council requested that the proposed range of information to be provided via the CPMFT be expanded to also include the status of recommendations emanating from the Council off-site meetings (COSM) as well as specifically, the ARGF operating plan.

Subject No. 7.1: Organization of the Secretariat

Structure of the ICAO Secretariat

51. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14550, in which it was recalled that during the seventh meeting of the 209th Session, the Council had approved the establishment of the Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP) under the Office of the Secretary General (C-DEC 209/7 refers). The information contained in C-WP/14550 provided additional clarification on the proposed staffing arrangements and funding sources for the SPCP, which it was noted had come into effect on 1 January 2017.

52. The working paper was presented by the Secretary General who recalled that during the 209th Session, the Council had approved the establishment of the Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP) under the Office of the Secretary General (C-DEC 209/7). The Council had also asked for a holistic review of the proposed staffing arrangements for this office and in particular the funding sources being considered. As a result, she explained that C-WP/14550 reflected all the requested additional information, including an organizational chart, which was helpfully displayed in Council to facilitate consideration of the proposed structure.

53. The Secretary General highlighted that the Secretariat had performed a comprehensive review of its structure and in particular senior level posts, taking into consideration the ICAO Business Plan, the operating plans prepared by each bureau and offices together with the results-based budget approved by the 39th Session of the Assembly, while also factoring in the additional tasks and outcomes generated from the Assembly and ensuring that all budgeted tasks were highlighted in the operating plans and assigned to the individual staff member for completion. The review resulted in the identification of the need to resource SPCP with a senior staff member at the D-1 level and relocate staff and resources as appropriate so as to achieve increased efficiencies, synergies and coordination. In explaining that this senior staff member would report directly to her, the Secretary General also indicated that it would be necessary for this individual to have substantive knowledge and experience that would cut across all ICAO strategic objectives. In this way the post would be equivalent to similar D-1 positions elsewhere within the United Nations system in which the duties encompassed outreach activities, liaison and

-11- C-MIN 210/1

dialogue with high-level representatives of Member States, and interaction with other international organizations as well as the senior management of the Secretariat and Council Representatives.

54. In addition, the Secretary General emphasized that the principal functions and responsibilities of the post would respond to the Council’s request to strengthen the Secretariat’s existing capacity in the area of regional affairs coordination, implement a corporate performance management system to enhance efficiency as well as to implement the recommendations stemming from the Council’s off-site strategy meetings (COSMs), those aimed to foster global partnerships for aviation development to help achieve the No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative as well as related Assembly Resolutions A39- 23 No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative and A39-26 Resource mobilization. The functions would also include oversight of tasks related to the crisis response policy and disaster risk reduction strategy.

55. The Secretary General then proceeded to outline the proposed staffing arrangements while emphasizing that these would be cost neutral for the Regular Budget. This would involve the conversion of the current vacant D-1 DD/HR post in ADB to the D-1 Head of the SPCP and the relocation of an existing P-5 post with the current staff member to the post of P-5 Strategic Planning and Regional Affairs Coordinator (PRC). As a result, there would be no increase in the number of senior-level positions or impact on the regular budget. The posts of P-5, Chief, Partnerships and Resource Mobilization (PRM) and a post at the P-3 level would be funded 100 per cent from voluntary funds. Separately, the Secretary General explained that the duties of M/GAT would be assigned to DD/TCB with direct reporting to her, facilitating inter-bureau/office coordination and ensuring effective oversight by the OSG for all training and assistance activities undertaken throughout the Organization. Altogether, it was envisaged that the changes would result in a saving to the AOSC Fund of approximately CAD 412,000.

56. Although expressing his support for the working paper under consideration, the Representative of Australia recalled that he had voiced his concerns in a previous Council meeting on the complexity of the finances involved for the restructuring. He acknowledged however, that having now tasked the Organization with implementing activities around resource mobilization and improving corporate reporting, it would be somewhat counterproductive to now prevent the Secretariat from moving forward in this direction. He certainly agreed that the post in SPCP required a senior and experienced staff member who could represent the Organization externally and while he was aware of certain concerns that had been expressed as to whether the new post should be at the D-1 level, he nonetheless supported the views presented by the Secretary General in the working paper. The Representative also indicated that he hoped that a thorough analysis had been undertaken of the impacts that would arise once the tasks of the previous post of D-1 DD/HR were divided among other staff members.

57. The Representative of China indicated that with regard to the working paper under consideration, he recalled that it was further to an earlier Council decision that the SPCP office had recently been established, subject to a review by the Secretary General of the staffing arrangements and funding sources. It was his understanding that the SPCP had already assumed some of its responsibilities and it would therefore stand to reason that the adjustment and reassignment of duties would be undertaken in order to enhance communication among all the parties, within and between the Secretariat, Regional Offices, Council and ICAO’s partners in an effort to increase the overall efficiency of the Secretariat. The Representative stressed that in his view the SPCP should be headed by an individual at the D-1 level, especially since the post and the two P-5s had no budgetary implications. This seemed to be a reasonable approach. He voiced his support for all four action points in the working paper.

58. The Representative of France expressed his support for the working paper, which he recalled had been prepared in response to a request by the Council at a previous session. He especially welcomed the fact that the proposals contained therein would be budget neutral. The Representative also

C-MIN 210/1 -12-

observed that in order for the Secretary General to meet the objectives assigned to her in the Charter Letter, it would be necessary to ensure that she was given the necessary means and flexibility to do so.

59. The Representative of Nigeria expressed his support for the creation of the SPCP and affirmed this office would be instrumental in helping the Organization achieve its objectives. However, he underscored his delegation’s concern with regard to an existing D-1 post being moved from human resources to SPCP. He considered human resources to be a core function of the Organization and would have liked to have had more information on the impact of the duties of the existing post being transferred to other staff members. In particular, he was concerned at the long-term effects of this decision and cautioned against fixing one problem by creating another. The Representative wondered whether a gradual approach might not be better and in this context suggested that the new Head of the SPCP should be at a P-5 level instead, subject to re-assessment at a later date.

60. Thanking the Secretary General for her proposal, the Representative of the United Kingdom concurred with previous interventions and especially with the comments made by the Representative of France on the necessity to give the Secretary General the resources required to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Charter Letter. Observing that while the proposal on hand might not be perfect, it would be a good starting point. Since this was a new initiative for the Organization, there would necessarily be a learning curve that could also be accompanied by a subsequent review process and he would certainly support that. The Representative indicated that it was important for the Council to note that if successful, the proposals being considered represented an important part of a resource mobilization programme, and as such the initiative would generate valuable resources for the Organization.

61. In also expressing the thanks and support of his delegation to the Secretary General for the working paper, the Representative of Saudi Arabia averred that the Secretary General, by virtue of her post as head of the Organization, should be accorded the freedom necessary to achieve the objectives she had been tasked with and for which she would be accountable to the Council. The Representative observed that in order to meet the goals of the office, the D-1 post required a high-calibre candidate; one suitable to represent the Organization at high-level meetings and to deal with government representatives. On this basis, the Representative was pleased to support the actions proposed in the working paper.

62. The Representatives of India, Singapore and the United States all indicated that they supported the working paper and the action points therein.

63. Referring to the organizational chart prepared by the Secretariat, the Representative of Germany wondered whether the Secretary General’s span of control was not becoming too far-reaching as opposed to what was indicated in paragraph 2.2 of the working paper where one of the functions of the SPCP would be to facilitate coordination between the Headquarters and Regional Offices.

64. Responding to the comments made in previous interventions, the Secretary General expressed her appreciation for the support received. Her role as Chief Executive Officer of the Organization demanded that she not only implement the programme activities and decisions taken by Council but that she act in the best interests of the Organization. Given the current context, she considered that the proposed solution was the best possible option. The Secretary General underlined that the new post would be cost-neutral for the regular budget during the 2017-2019 triennium while the extra- budgetary posts would be funded through resource mobilization efforts and global partnerships. With regard to the concerns expressed on the transfer of the DD/HR post, the Secretary General acknowledged these but noted that the tasks of the new D-1 Head of SPCP were also intended to include corporate performance management, which represented an important element of the staff performance management process.

-13- C-MIN 210/1

65. Congratulating the Secretary General for having accomplished so much with so little, the Representative of Brazil voiced her support for the proposals that had been presented and urged the Council to do the same. Although the delegation shared some concerns with regard to the transfer of an existing human resources post, the Representative believed that the proposal was nonetheless viable in the long-term.

66. The Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania recalled that during the previous session, the Council had requested a holistic review of the staffing and funding arrangements for the new SPCP office. Referring to the organizational chart prepared by the Secretariat, he noted the importance of ensuring regional coordination, partnership and resource mobilization but questioned the nature of the staffing component. He also shared the concerns expressed in previous interventions with regard to the elimination of the existing D-1 DD/HR post in ADB and enquired whether this would not subsequently create new problems. Although accepting the explanations provided by the Secretary General, he asked whether an appropriate analysis had been carried out of the effect of the redistribution of the tasks of that post. In the circumstances, the Representative suggested that rather than using an existing post to create the new D1 post in SPCP, whether other options could not have been considered instead.

67. The Representative of Mexico stressed that the Council had an obligation to report on the activities of the Organization to the Assembly and whether in this context, it might not be advisable to take a more modest approach. While the funding was clear for the present triennium, he questioned how the decision would result in long-term financial consequences. He also underscored the importance of the existing D1 DD/HR function in the Organization and in the UN system in general, as supported by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). With regard to the duties of the M/GAT post being reassigned to the DD/TCB, the Representative observed that this could lead to an overlap, especially in the area of technical assistance, which in turn might result in conflicting priorities. He suggested that using the vacant P-5 post in GAT might present a longer lasting solution.

68. In voicing his support for the working paper under consideration, the Representative of Egypt reasoned that based on the instructions she had received from the Council and the limited resources available, the Secretary General had presented a viable solution for the staffing of the SPCP. Given the importance of the post, the grade would have to be commensurate with the level of responsibility and competencies required. Although he also shared the concerns expressed on the elimination of the D-1 DD/HR post, he suggested that should the SPCP office produce the expected results once fully operational, funding would potentially be available for re-establishing the D-1 DD/HR post on a subsequent occasion.

69. Thanking the Secretary General for the proposal under consideration, the Representative of Kenya associated herself with the views expressed in previous interventions with regard to the elimination of the D-1 DD/HR post, which she perceived to be a core function within the Organization. In the circumstances, she suggested that another D-1 post within the Organization should have been reassigned instead of the DD/HR post. While in agreement with the general lines of the proposal, she nonetheless voiced her reservations about using the existing D-1 HR post. The Representative questioned whether the existing post of Deputy Director, information Management and General Administrative Services (DD/IAS) genuinely warranted a D1 grading and in this regard, suggested that this should have been the post to have been eliminated rather than the DD/HR post.

70. Voicing his opinion with regard to the level of competence required for the SACP post, the Representative of Spain expressed his reservations with the solution being proposed based on eliminating the existing D-1 DD/HR post. He recalled that the DD/HR post had been created following a recommendation of the External Auditors who had considered that creating the post was essential for

C-MIN 210/1 -14-

ICAO. Referring to the Secretary General’s mid-term progress report to the Council (C-WP/14549), paragraph 2.9, “Improving Corporate Performance and Organizational Culture”, he noted that the four items therein related to human resources and while agreeing with the Secretary General’s assessment, he also shared the views of other Representatives on the importance of human resources. He also asked what the long-term funding implications would be in creating the new D-1 post in SPCP that ostensibly could be held by an individual for a potential eight-year term. Finally, the Representative reiterated concerns raised in previous interventions on the dual role of the DD/TCB and M/GAT and considered that this could lead to conflicting priorities and difficulties in the reporting lines.

71. The Representative of the Russian Federation expressed his support for the Secretary General’s proposal and expressed his confidence in the direction she had proposed with regard to the D-1 post for the SPCP, especially since this option would not create any additional budgetary burden.

72. The Representative of Sweden expressed her support for the working paper and underscored the importance of creating the new post in SPCP at a D-1 level. She concurred with the Representative of the United Kingdom, that while the proposed solution might not be the best one, it remained within budget and would initiate the process, which was what was necessary at this juncture.

73. The Representative of Italy also expressed his appreciation to the Secretariat for the working paper. The proposals contained therein represented the logical implementation of the mandate given to the Secretary General. As two of the main functions in SPCP involved coordination and partnership it would take a person with the necessary capabilities and competencies to undertake these tasks and it would be appropriate for this to be at a D-1 level in heading this function. While in agreement with the staffing levels proposed for the Partnerships and Resource Mobilization (PRM) and Strategic Planning and Regional Affairs Coordination (PRC), he noted the ambitious funding for the PRM which was intended to become self-sustaining. The Representative considered the restructuring plan as a positive look towards the future and expressed his support, while further suggesting that periodic monitoring could be undertaken especially with regard to allocation of resources.

74. Expressing his full support for the Secretary General’s proposal, the Representative of the Republic of Korea reiterated comments he had made on a previous occasion in stating that the Council’s role was to guide and oversee the work of the Secretariat but it was the Secretary General who should be given the necessary freedom and flexibility to carry out her mandate.

75. In also voicing his support for the working paper proposals, the Representative of Turkey agreed that the Secretary General should be given the necessary flexibility to carry out her duties. While he agreed that a D-1 level post was appropriate for the head the SPCP, he also suggested exploring options to retain the D-1 DD/HR post.

76. Highlighting the great expectations placed on the SPCP office, the Representative of Uruguay noted that it would stand to reason that only an outstanding individual would be able to head this office. Among the many priorities of the new office, of particular concern to his delegation was the objective to find the necessary resources to carry out the technical assistance for the countries needing assistance to implement SARPs under the NCLB initiative. Expressing support for the proposal, he also heeded the comments made in previous interventions with regard to the long-term sustainability of the new structure and its impact on the human resources of the Organization.

77. Recalling that the Secretary General’s proposal was in response to a previous decision of the Council, the Representative of Ecuador noted that the proposed restructuring prioritized the objectives set by Council in keeping with the NCLB initiative. Subject to any possible future review, the proposal

-15- C-MIN 210/1

appeared to appropriately respond to the Council’s request and would certainly facilitate the work of the SPCP. While voicing his support for the proposal and agreeing that a D-1 should head the office, he nonetheless suggested re-examining the options with a view to retaining the DD/HR post.

78. The Representative of Argentina expressed his support for the proposals contained in the working paper. Given the important role of the SPCP office, it should be adequately staffed subject to a possible re-evaluation after one year. Only a person with the appropriate qualifications and experience would be able to undertake this important role, especially in dealings with external parties. He observed that given the budgetary constraints, the Secretary General had presented a reasonable, workable proposal.

79. In also speaking in favour of the proposed restructuring with a D-1 at the head of the SPCP and confident that the necessary impact analysis had been carried out with regard to the shift of responsibility within ADB, the Representative of Canada noted that with D/ADB overseeing human resources, the function was not in reality being downgraded or lost.

80. The Representative of South Africa stated that while not against the proposal under consideration, he would have preferred a solution that did not involve reassigning the D-1 DD/HR post. In his view, the human resources function was critical in the Organization and he sought assurances from the Secretary General that this move would not compromise the Organization in any way. He also expressed concern that according to the organization chart there appeared to be far too many direct reports to the Secretary General and wondered whether this was genuinely sustainable in the long-term. In addition, the Representative noted that all the current D1 posts in the Secretariat, were currently held by men, with one exception. This represented a significant gender imbalance that he hoped would be addressed with upcoming appointments.

81. In also voicing his support for the proposal presented by the Secretary General, especially as it was cost-neutral, the Representative of Malaysia recalled that this was a priority underscored by the Council on previous occasions. As a trade-off and in order to reduce funding implications, he wondered however whether it might not have been preferable to consider establishing P-4 level posts to head the PRM and PRC instead of P-5 level posts.

82. The Representative of Colombia highlighted that the main role of the SPCP would be to mobilize the necessary resources to assist States in the implementation of SARPs, especially in the context of budgetary restrictions. In order for the Secretariat to implement Council decisions he hoped that sufficient resources would be generated by the SPCP. In this connection, the Representative wondered whether a Committee should be created to advise the Council on the allocation of budgetary resources that would be raised as a result of these activities.

83. Generally agreeing with the proposal that a D-1 should head the SPCP office as well as with the intention to split the DD/TCB post along the lines of a 50-50 division with GAT duties, the Representative of Cuba noted the latter was not an ideal solution. She also remarked that the loss of the DD/HR post could potentially result in problems down the line. In relation to the proposed activities of the Partnerships and Resource Mobilization (PRM) unit, she suggested that this warranted monitoring with a full review at the end of one year. Finally, in view of the preparation of the budget for the next triennium, the Representative requested that the Council be provided with a detailed organizational chart that would present a holistic view of the whole Organization and which reflected details of the structure beyond merely the Director level.

84. In sharing the concerns expressed in previous interventions on the sustainability of the new D-1 post, the Representative of the United Arab Emirates also highlighted the importance of monitoring the deliverables once the SPCP office was established. Following the CORSIA meeting that

C-MIN 210/1 -16-

had been held earlier that same morning, she was conscious that there would be other pressing priorities that would require additional resources.

85. In voicing support for the actions proposed, the Representative of Japan also noted the concerns raised with regard to the conversion of the DD/HR post and suggested investigating other possibilities in order to maintain the D-1 post for human resources.

86. The Secretary General expressed her appreciation for the confidence which the Council had placed in her. Responding to the comments made with regard to the DD/HR post, she elaborated that there were currently three P-5 level posts in the Human Resources Section, heading their respective sections and reporting directly to D/ADB, thus ensuring that the department was being well managed. In response to the proposal that the DD/IAS post should have been eliminated instead, she underscored that this post had important responsibilities including oversight of ICT as well as ARGF. With regard to the sustainability of the posts to be funded through extra-budgetary funding, she assured the Council that the posts would continue to be funded this way, thus minimizing any potential impact on the regular budget. Finally, she affirmed that the SPCP office, once fully established, would represent an important stepping stone to continuous enhanced global partnerships, not only for ICAO but also for Member States and would be instrumental in implementing the NCLB initiative.

87. Following consideration, the Council:

a) approved the proposed D-1 level staffing arrangements for the Head of SPCP;

b) noted and approved the remaining staffing arrangements and funding sources to complement the SPCP, including the post of P-5 Chief, Strategic, Planning and Regional Affairs Coordination (PRC) Section as well as the post of P-5 Chief, Partnerships and Resource Mobilization (PRM) Section and separate P-3 post also in PRM;

c) welcomed the assurance from the Secretariat that these new staffing arrangements for the SPCP would be cost-neutral in terms of the impact on the Regular Budget in the current triennium and requested that recourse to the use of the TCB AOSC Fund be avoided;

d) noted that the funding currently allocated for the vacant post of D-1 Deputy Director, Human Resources (DD/HR) was being used in order to create the new post of D-1 Head of SPCP, which would result in the elimination of the post of DD/HR and further noted that this decision was being made notwithstanding the previous recommendations of the External Auditor that emphasized the need for such a role and which had led to the original creation of this position in 2012 (C-DEC 196/6 refers), such that the decision of C-DEC 196/6 was now superseded and in this connection, acknowledged that this decision did not preclude the possibility that the post of DD/HR could again be re-established by the Council at some point in the future;

e) approved that the duties of Chief, Global Aviation Training Office (C/GAT) be assigned to D-1 Deputy Director, Technical Cooperation Bureau (DD/TCB) with direct reporting to the Secretary General while noting that the effectiveness of these dual reporting lines for this position might need to be re-assessed in the future; and

-17- C-MIN 210/1

f) requested the Secretary General to provide a comprehensive report on all these arrangements as outlined in the preceding sub-paragraphs above at the 213th Session (February/March 2018).

Any other business

Condolences

88. The Council expressed its condolences at the sudden passing away on 20 February 2017 of His Excellency, Mr. Vitaly Churkin, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations in New York.

-19- C-MIN 210/2

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2017, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. R. Bhalla ― C/FIN Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. M. Belayneh ― DD/TCB Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. R. Macfarlane ― DD/AN Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. M. Fox ― C/PRC Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. A. Djojonegoro ― ASP Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Miss S. Black ― Précis-writer Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay

*Part-time

C-MIN 210/2 -20-

Representatives to ICAO

Afghanistan Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Chile Greece Indonesia Lebanon Libya Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Airports Council International (ACI) Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO) European Union (EU)

-21- C-MIN 210/2

Subject No. 16: Legal work of the Organization Subject No. 24.3: Action on Assembly resolutions and decisions

Review of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties

1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/14552 presented by the Chairperson of the Committee on Cooperation with Third Parties (CC3P), the Representative of Mexico, Mr. D. Méndez Mayora, to which was appended a proposed revised text of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties containing the original changes proposed by the CC3P in C-WP/14523, as well as those proposed by the Ad Hoc Group established to review the said Policy and the modus operandi of the CC3P, which had been discussed by the Council during the last session (209/5 and 209/7). The Council had decided at that time not to include any of those proposed changes in the Policy. Instead, it had decided, as an interim solution, that the President of the Council appoint, under delegated authority, two or three additional Representatives as Members of the CC3P, and to return to this subject during the 210th Session. Accordingly, the Representatives of Japan, the Russian Federation and the United Republic of Tanzania had been appointed as Committee Members, as notified to the Council in the President’s e-mail dated 18 January 2017.

2. The Ad Hoc Group had continued its review in the interim in consultation with Representatives. Its additional proposed changes were reflected in C-WP/14552 (by underlined and crossed-out text) and included the following, inter alia:

• replacing the term “third parties” with “external parties” throughout the document, and renaming the CC3P the Committee on Cooperation with External Parties (CCEP); • revision of new sub-paragraph e) in paragraph 4.1 of the Policy, which would now read “e) Authority of the Council: The Authority of the Council to approve arrangements with external parties may be exercised by the President of the Council under authority delegated by the Council pursuant to this Policy.”; • further amendments to paragraph 4.2 a) and b); • further expansion of the list of categories of third-party arrangements exempted from review by the CC3P (cf. Appendix A), whereby proposed amendments to, or renewals of, signed arrangements may be exempted from the CC3P review process, provided that the original documents to be amended or renewed have been previously endorsed by the CC3P and their terms and conditions are not materially different from those contained in the original document, as determined by the Legal Affairs and External Relations Bureau (LEB); and • incorporation of a new Appendix C containing a flowchart depicting the four phases of the administrative process for proposed third-party arrangements [early assessment by the Secretariat; due diligence and risk assessment by the Committee and the President; signature by the appropriate authority as decided by the President upon receipt of the Committee’s report; and notification to the Council through posting of the signed arrangements in the central repository on its website].

3. Recalling that initially the Policy had some exempted categories of third-party arrangements, the President of the Council thanked the Chairperson of the CC3P and the above- mentioned Committee Members for having subsequently recommended other exemptions based on the experience gained in implementing the Policy. In likewise expressing appreciation to the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group, the Representative of Spain, Mr. V.M. Aguado, and the other Group Members (the Representatives of Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates) for their proposals for additional exemptions, he emphasized that Appendix A was a living document and as such could be further amended in the future.

C-MIN 210/2 -22-

4. In elaborating on the Ad Hoc Group’s work, its Chairperson underscored that it had been conducted in strict compliance with the relevant Assembly Resolutions, notably A1-10 (Relations with public international organizations) and A1-11 (Relations with private international organizations), and provisions of the Chicago Convention relating to the role of the Council and its President. Its objective had been to enhance the overall administrative process for ICAO-third-party arrangements through the facilitation of the Secretariat’s related work and the avoidance of bottlenecks in the processing of such arrangements, including those with Member States. In emphasizing that the Ad Hoc Group had taken into account the many comments received on the Policy and the CC3P review process, he recalled that some Member States and international organizations had highlighted that in their experience, it took longer than necessary to conclude arrangements with ICAO. The Ad Hoc Group had accordingly focused its efforts on facilitating the said administrative process. The Chairperson noted that LEB had participated in all of the Ad Hoc Group’s meetings.

5. In then turning to the scope of the Ad Hoc Group’s work, the Chairperson stressed that it had not called into question the existence of the CC3P; rather, it had endeavoured to ensure that the Committee could function more smoothly. It had not reviewed the Guidelines on a Principle-based Approach to the Cooperation between the United Nations and the Business Sector annexed to the Policy. The Chairperson recalled the four basic points on which the Ad Hoc Group had previously reached agreement and which had led to the changes it had proposed during the last session of the Council (cf. C-DEC 209/7, paragraph 25), then highlighted its additional proposed changes as described in paragraph 2 above.

6. Drawing attention to the flowchart depicting the four phases of the said administrative process (cf. new Appendix C), the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group indicated that under the first phase, the Secretariat conducted a preliminary or early assessment of a proposed arrangement with ICAO submitted by a Member State or other third party, such as an international organization, to determine if it was administrative in nature and fell under any of the categories of arrangements exempted from review by the CC3P as listed in Appendix A. He reiterated that the Ad Hoc Group, drawing on the experience of the Chairperson of the CC3P, was proposing to further expand that list in order to facilitate the Secretariat’s work (cf. fourth bullet of paragraph 2 above). In the case where the Secretariat determined that a proposed administrative arrangement fell under one of the exempted categories and was in compliance with the corresponding CC3P-approved template, it transmitted the arrangement directly to the Secretary General for approval and signature. The President of the Council and the CC3P were informed thereof by means of an electronic notification, and the Council was duly notified through the posting of the signed arrangement in the central repository on its website. In that manner, the process was completely transparent.

7. In the case where the Secretariat determined that a proposed arrangement did not fall under any of the exempted categories, it submitted the arrangement directly to the Secretary General for transmittal to the CC3P for review. After performing due diligence and risk assessment, the Committee determined whether it was administrative in nature or whether it had policy or other types of implications and presented its recommendation to the President of the Council for approval. In most instances, the President, acting under delegated authority from the Council, would approve the proposed arrangement. However, the President could consult the Council in the event that he deemed it necessary to obtain its approval. The President would thereafter decide on the signature authority. Those arrangements which were non-administrative in nature were signed by the President, and those that were administrative in nature were signed by the Secretary General. In both cases, the Council was notified through the posting of the signed arrangement in the said central repository, to ensure full transparency.

8. The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group then put forward an idea that he had not discussed previously with the latter or with the Secretariat but which he considered to be important: establishing

-23- C-MIN 210/2 timeline references for the first two phases of the administrative process for proposed third-party arrangements (Appendix C). He noted, in this regard, that various Council Members had informed him of proposed arrangements with ICAO that had taken several months to formally conclude. The Chairperson could think of no plausible explanation for holding up any type of proposed arrangement for that length of time in order for a recommendation to be given as to its approval. He recognized, however, that following completion of the first two phases of the administrative process (early assessment by the Secretariat, and due diligence and risk assessment by the CC3P and the President of the Council), it could take several months for the arrangement to be signed due to scheduling difficulties or other reasons on the part of the signatory authority. Although he had not consulted the Secretariat, the Chairperson considered that a reasonable timeline for the first phase would be three to four weeks, and the second phase, one week. He emphasized that those timeline references would ensure that any proposed third-party arrangement could be decided upon within four to five weeks.

9. The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group noted that Council Members had often asked him about the mechanism that had previously been in place for the review of proposed third-party arrangements with ICAO and why it was necessary for the CC3P to review proposed arrangements with Member States. The answer to the first question was very simple: in the past, the President, under delegated authority from the Council, had examined all proposed arrangements. In general, non- administrative arrangements had been signed by the President, and administrative arrangements, by the Secretary General.

10. With regard to the second question, the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group indicated that while the Secretary General might wish to clarify the Committee’s raison d’être, he considered that its mission was not to review the technical merits of a proposed arrangement but rather to perform due diligence and risk assessment and to make a recommendation to the President of the Council for approval. That issue had not yet been discussed in the Ad Hoc Group, however.

11. In concluding, the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group noted that the issues of timeline references for the first two phases of the administrative process, and the CC3P’s mission, required further clarification. He underscored that at the end of the day it was necessary to have a transparent process that culminated in notification to the Council electronically. The Chairperson reiterated that the list of categories of arrangements exempted from review of the CC3P (Appendix A) was a living document which could be amended to reflect future decisions of the Council to exempt additional categories based on experience gained in the Policy’s implementation. He noted, however, that such changes would not affect the underlying administrative process. Recalling that he had received, the previous evening, certain proposals from the Secretariat, the Chairperson indicated that some could be accommodated without changing the said process.

12. The President of the Council first gave the floor to Members of the Ad Hoc Group, as follows:

13. Affirming that the Group’s additional proposed changes to the Policy were a step forward, the Representative of the Russian Federation recommended that the Council approve them, as well as the amendments proposed previously, as reflected in the revised text appended to C-WP/14552. Underscoring that the whole Policy was a living document and thus open to further enhancements, he spoke in favour of establishing reasonable timelines for at least the first two phases of the administrative process for proposed third-party arrangements.

14. Endorsing the interventions by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group and the Representative of the Russian Federation, the Representative of the United Arab Emirates suggested that the Chairperson of the CC3P advise the Council regarding the amount of time required to complete each

C-MIN 210/2 -24-

phase in order to facilitate its establishment of minimal timelines.

15. In expressing support for the Ad Hoc Group’s additional proposed changes, the Representative of Malaysia concurred that it would assist in the interpretation of the said administrative process if timelines were established for each phase thereof. With regard to Appendix A, he suggested that the CC3P be requested to consider the issue of fees charged for training courses offered under partnership arrangements between ICAO and third parties and make recommendations to the Council as to whether or not such arrangements should in future be reviewed by the Committee.

16. The Representative of South Africa also voiced agreement with the Ad Hoc Group’s proposed changes to the Policy.

17. The President of the Council then gave the floor to Members of the CC3P, as follows:

18. The Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania emphasized that many good improvements were being proposed, among which was the incorporation of new Appendix C, which would ensure the efficiency of the administrative process for third-party arrangements, including the performance of due diligence and risk assessment by the Committee and the President of the Council. He nevertheless hoped that there would be the opportunity to propose further improvements in future.

19. The Representative of Japan noted that, as a new Member of the CC3P, he found reviewing all of the proposed third-party arrangements referred to the Committee to be a daunting task. That led him to suggest, in light of the practice followed by other organizations, that the Council consider in future delegating authority to the Secretary General to directly review those proposed arrangements relating to voluntary contributions to ICAO, whether in cash or in kind, prior to signing them on behalf of the Organization. A clear framework and criteria for handling such arrangements could be established by the Council, as had been done by the said organizations. The Representative of Japan averred that such delegation of authority to the Secretary General would save time and resources and further enhance the efficiency of the CC3P. He stressed the importance of transparency in the overall administrative process for third-party arrangements and the Committee’s contribution to that transparency.

20. Recalling that it was Colombia that had originally proposed, at the 38th Session of the Assembly, that the Council be requested to provide guidelines and adopt policies for the interactions of ICAO with third parties in the form of endorsements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) (cf. A38- WP/338), the President asked its Representative on the Council whether the proposed revised ICAO Policy appended to C-WP/14552 was still consistent with its original intent.

21. The Representative of Colombia prefaced his reply by voicing appreciation to the Chairpersons and Members of the CC3P and the Ad Hoc Group and to the Secretariat for their excellent work. He noted that the intent behind Colombia’s original proposal was to ensure that ICAO did not passively approve arrangements proposed by third parties and that there were guidelines and policies in place to prevent conflicts of interest and to guarantee transparency, fairness and objectivity in the selection of arrangements with other international organizations, industry and academia. Underscoring that the current mechanism for reviewing and approving proposed arrangements was more efficient than the one that had been in place previously, the Representative of Colombia spoke in favour of the Council approving the proposed revised ICAO Policy as presented in the paper and taking more time to discuss other related issues in the future as it set the direction for ICAO. He cited, in this context, the possible development of policies for various classifications of arrangements, such as those concluded between ICAO and universities.

-25- C-MIN 210/2

22. The Secretary General highlighted that within the United Nations (UN), the Guidelines on a Principle-based Approach to the Cooperation between the United Nations and the Business Sector, which was a reference for the ICAO Policy, was applied strictly to the UN’s interactions with the business sector and not to its relationship with Member States. She also highlighted that on some occasions her Senior Management Team, comprising the Bureau Directors and Regional Directors, had raised serious concerns regarding the CC3P review process, in particular, its impact on the efficient operation of the Organization. However, those concerns had not been consolidated and brought to the Ad Hoc Group’s attention during its deliberations.

23. In advocating a return to the previous mechanism under which proposed arrangements with Member States had been entrusted to the President of the Council and the Secretary General, the Representative of Saudi Arabia underscored that it had been transparent and efficient, and had enhanced productivity by facilitating the Organization’s work. He also emphasized that it reflected the Council’s confidence in its President and his skills, as well as its trust in the Secretary General and the Secretariat. The Representative of Saudi Arabia averred that the proposed additional exemptions from CC3P review would place an additional burden on the Secretariat and distract it from providing assistance to Member States, without leading to any improvement in the administrative process for third-party arrangements. Recalling the emphasis which the Chicago Convention placed on State sovereignty, he stressed that it was unacceptable that an arrangement with ICAO proposed by Saudi Arabia could be rejected by another Member State serving as a member on the CC3P.

24. The President of the Council rejected any notion that Representatives took actions solely for the benefit of their respective Member States and/or against the interests of other Member States, which would call into question the integrity of the Council as a whole. He stressed that the fundamental premise underlying the Council’s election was that it worked on behalf of the 191 ICAO Member States which had elected it. Thus each Representative served the interests of all Member States, not only on the Council but also on every committee and working group.

25. Reiterating the comments which he had made during the Council’s previous discussion of this subject (209/7) as they were not reflected in the proposed revised text of the Policy, the Representative of France emphasized the need for the Council to determine what it was trying to solve with the approach outlined therein. In his view, the main problem to address was the risk of damaging ICAO’s reputation through partiality, which arose mainly from its relations with the private sector, and to a much lesser extent from its relations with Member States. While the Representative of France thus considered that the Policy’s new provisions should address that problem as a priority, that did not seem to be the case. In then seeking clarification regarding the term “external parties” used in the revised text, which was not defined therein, he noted that the term commonly used in the United States was “third parties”, which had been used in the Policy’s original text.

26. In also enquiring how Member States could be considered to be “external parties”, the Representative of France averred that they could not be placed on the same level as others, such as the private sector. While agreeing with the President that the Council served the collective interest of all Member States, he underscored the need to examine the issue raised by the Representative of Saudi Arabia of a Member State represented on the Council and on the CC3P trying to exert control over another Member State through its opinion on the latter’s proposed arrangement with ICAO, which could lead to the imposition of conditions by the Committee. The Representative of France stressed that it was also necessary to have a specific mechanism for addressing the relations between ICAO and Member States. Emphasizing that one was likewise needed for addressing the very important technical collaboration between ICAO and the other international organizations comprising the United Nations (UN) family, he averred that the CC3P review process was too cumbersome and complicated for relations that should be natural and easy and based on trust within the UN family. Underscoring the consequent need

C-MIN 210/2 -26-

for a very broad exemption for proposed arrangements with all UN organizations, the Representative of France indicated that the Policy’s scope should be reviewed and amended accordingly.

27. In reiterating the importance of streamlining the review of proposed ICAO-third-party arrangements in order to reduce the overall amount of time taken to conclude them, the Representative of France expressed concern that in its desire to exert greater control over such arrangements through the envisaged changes to the Policy, the Council risked adversely affecting the Organization’s efficiency and effectiveness. He repeated his earlier suggestion (209/7) that proposed arrangements be subject to an initial sorting by the Secretariat to determine if they related to administrative matters, policy matters or other matters not falling under either category, before they were referred to the CC3P to avoid overburdening the Committee. A precise framework for such filtering could be included in Appendix A to the revised Policy. The Representative of France cautioned that without such filtering the review process would very quickly become bogged down and ICAO would consequently loose opportunities for cooperation and collaboration with third parties as the latter would be unwilling to wait a long period of time to conclude arrangements with the Organization. It was thus necessary for the Council to: review and revise the scope of the Policy so that it would focus on relations with the private sector; and establish a precise filter for proposed arrangements for inclusion in Appendix A.

28. While noting that there were other important issues to address, such as balanced representation of Council Members and the Secretariat on the CC3P, the Representative of France underscored that the main task was to further consider the Policy’s underlying principles, especially in view of the new ideas raised during the present meeting, notably the establishment of timelines for the various phases of the administrative process. He stressed that the Council should first define its objective and the role it wished to confer upon the CC3P, and thereafter determine the procedure to be followed and the composition of the Committee.

29. Endorsing these comments, the Representative of Singapore reiterated that the main issue raised during the Council’s previous discussion (209/7), namely, the exemption of proposed arrangements with Member States from the CC3P review process, had not been subsequently considered by the Ad Hoc Group and was not reflected in the proposed revised Policy. In therefore requesting that the Council at least discuss that issue, he recalled that Colombia’s original proposal (A38-WP/338) only covered interactions with international organizations, industry and academia and made no reference to interactions with Member States or Member State entities. The Representative of Singapore therefore considered that the CC3P should focus on reviewing only proposed arrangements with the business sector, international organizations, non-governmental organizations and institutes of higher learning (academia).

30. Recalling the comments made regarding Assembly Resolutions A1-10 (Relations with public international organizations) and A1-11 (Relations with private international organizations), the Representative of Singapore averred that they related to arrangements between ICAO and international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental and thus, in his view, did not cover arrangements with Member States and Member State entities. In supporting the intervention by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, he recalled that in the past the President of the Council and the Secretary General had been entrusted with reviewing all of the proposed third-party arrangements to ensure the integrity, impartiality and independence of ICAO. Noting that there had been no Committee comparable to the CC3P in existence at that time, including when the 1990 Headquarters Agreement was concluded with Canada, the Representative of Singapore remained unconvinced that having the CC3P scrutinize proposed arrangements with Member States would significantly enhance ICAO’s integrity, impartiality and independence.

31. Emphasizing that his remarks should not be misconstrued as being critical or disrespectful of the CC3P and the Ad Hoc Group, the Representative of Singapore applauded their work,

-27- C-MIN 210/2 citing the many good elements of the administrative process for proposed arrangements (cf. flowchart in Appendix C). Highlighting, in this context, that it was for the President of the Council to decide, upon receipt of the CC3P’s report, on the appropriate authority to sign the proposed arrangements, he underscored that such filtering by the President added clarity and transparency to the administrative process. The Representative of Singapore voiced support for the proposed establishment of timelines for the latter’s various phases, as well as for reflecting the Senior Management Team’s concerns in the revised Policy.

32. The Representative of Nigeria also spoke in favour of the revised Policy as presented in the Appendix to the paper, subject to any changes which the President of the Council might later suggest in light of the comments made and concerns expressed during the discussion.

33. Noting that his concerns were similar to those voiced by the Representatives of Singapore and France, the Alternate Representative of the United States reiterated the need to consider the core objectives that the Council was trying to achieve through the Policy, which may have been lost from view during its many discussions: facilitating the conclusion of arrangements with Member States for the provision of assistance and expertise to ICAO; reducing the Secretariat’s workload; and making the administrative process more efficient through use of the CC3P. Averring that those objectives were not being met, he underscored that, in the United States’ experience, it was taking longer to conclude arrangements with ICAO since the CC3P review process had been instituted. Observing that all governments had internal deadlines for concluding such arrangements, the Alternate Representative of the United States emphasized that adding increased complexity to the ICAO approval process did not facilitate matters. He recalled, in this regard, anecdotes from members of the Secretariat who had to divert a significant portion of their time away from their regular work to the verification and processing of the proposed arrangements. The Alternate Representative of the United States underscored that whereas the CC3P took only a short period of time to complete its review of each proposed arrangement, there was much behind-the-scenes work by the Secretariat during the preceding first stage of the administrative process.

34. In that context, the Alternate Representative of the United States failed to see the value, or the appropriateness, of having proposed arrangements with Member States being subject to the CC3P review process. He sought statistics regarding the number and types of proposed arrangements reviewed by the Committee, in particular, the number of proposed arrangements with Member States. Agreeing that arrangements with the private sector might give rise to serious ethical issues that would need to be examined, he emphasized that the CC3P should focus its attention thereon, taking into account the Guidelines on a Principle-based Approach to the Cooperation between the United Nations and the Business Sector annexed to the Policy. The Alternate Representative of the United States recalled, in this regard, that the Representative of Japan found it to be a daunting task, as a CC3P Member, to review all of the proposed arrangements submitted to the Committee.

35. The Alternate Representative of the United States indicated that although the above were only anecdotal pieces of information, they did not lead to the conclusion that the CC3P review process was facilitating work relating to, and culminating in, the conclusion of third-party arrangements with ICAO, whether from the point of view of Representatives and members of the Secretariat serving on the Committee or national administrations. He therefore supported the proposal that arrangements with Member States be exempted from the CC3P review process.

36. Recalling the remarks he had made during the Council’s previous consideration of the Policy (209/7), the Representative of the United Kingdom reiterated that he needed to consider the proposed changes to the Policy from two perspectives: that of a Council Member, in terms of the functioning of the Organization; and that of a Representative of a Member State which from time to time

C-MIN 210/2 -28-

entered into arrangements with ICAO, in terms of how cumbersome the proposed changes to the review process would be. In giving an example of how the review process was in danger of breaking down, he cited how in 2016 he had been faced with the choice of either signing, on behalf of the United Kingdom, a secondment arrangement with ICAO which he considered to be faulty or having the matter referred to the CC3P with such a long timeline that the actual window for that secondment would have passed, rendering the arrangement of no use. After a long consultation with lawyers in London, the Representative of the United Kingdom had decided to sign the said secondment arrangement as he had considered the latter to be in ICAO’s interests, regardless of its perceived faults. He averred, however, that neither he nor the Organization should ever have to enter into faulty arrangements.

37. Referring to the suggested establishment of timelines for the various phases of the administrative process, the Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that although he could possibly believe that they might be achievable during the Committee and Council phases of each session, when Representatives were present at ICAO Headquarters in Montréal, he considered that there would be problems meeting a timeline of four to five weeks for the review of proposed arrangements relating to secondments, the hosting of meetings, etc. during the recesses, in particular during the summer recess, even though such arrangements would not require that amount of time to be reviewed. He underscored that a long and cumbersome review process would not encourage Member States to provide assistance to ICAO through the conclusion of arrangements with the latter, and that the proposed amendments to the Policy would not solve the underlying problems.

38. On the question of the interests of the Organization, the Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that at its previous meeting (210/1) the Council had agreed to staffing arrangements and funding sources for the newly-created Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP), which was aimed at ensuring, inter alia, that ICAO would be better able to enter into partnerships with international governmental organizations, other international organizations within the UN common system, etc. ICAO would consequently need to be much more nimble in future in terms of its ability to conclude arrangements, and would require a mechanism that was considerably more lightweight and flexible than the one currently in place.

39. Noting that the issues raised were greatly problematic, the Representative of the United Kingdom cited the issue of principle highlighted by the Representatives of France, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and others relating to the exemption of proposed arrangements with Member States from the CC3P review process. He emphasized the need to also consider the issue of practicality as well and to further expand the categories of exemptions to include proposed arrangements with international governmental organizations. While agreeing with previous speakers that the Council should take a step back and consider the longer term future of the Organization, he emphasized that it was not possible to simply stop the clock: it was necessary to go forward. The Representative of the United Kingdom thus suggested, as an interim solution that would assist in unblocking the situation and enable a step forward to be taken, that the Council delegate authority: to the Secretary General to review, approve and sign proposed administrative arrangements with Member States, international governmental organizations and international organizations within the UN common system rather than having such arrangements be subject to the CC3P review process; and to the President for those cases where there was some doubt that the arrangements were purely administrative in nature and it was considered that they may have wider implications. In stressing the need for the Council to also consider the issue of relations with other organizations more broadly, the Representative of the United Kingdom stressed that it was necessary to examine the more fundamental question of what would be achieved through the review process. He emphasized that his suggested short-term solution, whereby proposed administrative arrangements with Member States, international governmental organizations, and UN organizations would be exempted from the CC3P review process, would enable a smooth process and would constitute a reasonable compromise.

-29- C-MIN 210/2

40. In acknowledging the President’s continuous efforts to guide the 36 Council Representatives in their work and decision-making, the Representative of Uruguay reiterated the importance of the Council representing the interests of all ICAO Member States at all times, in particular in taking action with regard to the subject now under discussion, the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties. While considering that the proposed revised Policy established a good common denominator for moving forward, he agreed that further work thereon was required in order to address the various concerns raised, which he shared, and to achieve the necessary consensus.

41. Underscoring that the Organization’s 191 Member States constituted a big family called “One ICAO”, the Representative of China maintained that no member of that family should be considered as a “third party” or “external party”. In thus sharing the views expressed by the Representatives of France, Singapore and the United States (Alternate), he emphasized that: the Policy’s scope of application should be confined to what had originally been proposed by Colombia in A38-WP/338, namely, to international organizations, industry and academia; and that the term “external party” should be explicitly defined in Section 1 of the revised Policy.

42. In endorsing the comments made by the Representatives of Saudi Arabia, France, Singapore, the United States (Alternate), the United Kingdom, Uruguay and China, the Representative of India left it to the President of the Council to address the issue raised regarding proposed arrangements with Member States. He emphasized the importance of ensuring that the latter did not feel as if they were external to the Organization.

43. The Representative of Egypt indicated that he was very worried that the serious concerns raised by the Senior Management Team regarding the CC3P review process had not been brought to the Ad Hoc Group’s attention and reflected in the proposed revised Policy as the Bureau Directors and Regional Directors were the ones who worked with the Member States in the field and who were thus aware of their concerns. He emphasized that in order to ensure the Policy’s successful implementation, it was necessary for the Council to take into account the Secretariat’s views prior to taking a decision, especially as it was dealing with a legal issue that could impact the Organization’s reputation. The Representative of Egypt thus supported the interventions by all previous speakers, including the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group.

44. Referring to the intervention by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the Representative of Egypt reiterated that the CC3P’s review of proposed arrangements with Members States could negatively affect State sovereignty, particularly if the Council were to decide that such arrangements would not be exempted from the Committee’s review in the future. He noted that while Egypt could become a member of the CC3P at some point, it would not wish the Committee to delve into matters that could impact its relations with ICAO. For that reason, the Representative of Egypt agreed with the Representative of Saudi Arabia that the Council should continue to place its confidence in the President of the Council and the Secretary General and return to the said previous mechanism under which they were entrusted with arrangements with Member States. He emphasized that whereas that simpler mechanism would enable decisions to be made more promptly, the complicated administrative process that was proposed could perhaps hamper the Secretariat’s work and thus slow down decision-making.

45. Referring to the issue of establishing timelines for the various phases of the administrative process, the Director, LEB (D/LEB) indicated that in his experience with the CC3P up to seven working days might be required for a proposed arrangement to be processed by the Committee. He noted that a number of factors could affect the overall timeline for the review, approval and signature of a proposed arrangement, the main one being the latter’s level of maturity. For those arrangements that were tightly drafted, the whole process was completed quickly and easily. On the other hand, arrangements

C-MIN 210/2 -30-

which dealt with a new subject and whose text could be immature would require much negotiation between ICAO and the submitting party, resulting in a much longer overall process. D/LEB cautioned that by establishing a timeline for the completion of the entire process might put the Secretariat in a position where it was forced to accept terms that might not be in the Organization’s best interests.

46. To the question raised of whether arrangements with Member States should be subject to the CC3P review process, D/LEB underscored that while Colombia’s initial proposal (A38-WP/338) made no mention of such arrangements, the draft Policy for interactions between ICAO and third parties subsequently submitted to the Council by Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Colombia, India, Malaysia and the Russian Federation indicated that stakeholders included government authorities (Member States and Member States’ agencies) (cf. C-WP/14225, Annex 2; 203/5 and 203/8). Similarly, the draft Policy for interactions by ICAO with third parties which the Secretary General had presented for the Council’s consideration in conjunction with C-WP/14225 applied to Member States and Member State entities, inter alia (C-WP/14195, Appendix, paragraph 1.3 and 3.1).

47. D/LEB noted that it was clear from the International Law Commission’s studies and reports to the UN General Assembly that Member States had their own legal personality separate to that of the Organization. In underscoring that the exemption of arrangements with Member States from the CC3P review process was a separate policy issue to be decided by the Council, he indicated that whatever decision was reached he would need clear guidance regarding the approval and signatory authority of such arrangements so that he could provide appropriate advice to the relevant operational offices. D/LEB reiterated that Assembly Resolutions A1-10 and A1-11 granted the Council the authority to enter into arrangements with public (governmental) international organizations and private (non-governmental) international organizations, respectively. He noted that although the Chicago Convention made references to agreements, there had never been, at the policy-making level, clear guidance on how ICAO should treat arrangements with Member States and Member State entities as regards approval and signature authority.

48. Observing that Representatives now had a clear perspective of that issue, the President of the Council emphasized that while the Chicago Convention was an instrument that was binding on all 191 Member States, it was also ICAO’s constituent instrument, establishing the Organization’s legal personality. Although the Chicago Convention contained several Articles relating to the Council’s responsibility to conclude suitable arrangements with, inter alia, individual Member States or groups of Member States, and such responsibility was reflected in various Assembly Resolutions, the Council had a fair degree of latitude in terms of delegating authority to the President and the Secretary General to approve and sign such arrangements. Noting that under Article 51 b) of the Chicago Convention one of the duties of the President was to serve as representative of the Council, he indicated that he consequently took many actions on behalf of the Council, notably when it was not in session.

49. The President of the Council noted D/LEB’s clarification regarding potential causes for any perceived inefficiency in the administrative process. Highlighting that the CC3P made recommendations, and not decisions, regarding the approval of proposed third-party arrangements, he indicated that the Committee’s reports assisted him in deciding on the signature authority. The President emphasized that in reviewing those reports, he verified that they were not injurious to the interests of a particular Member State, which addressed the concern raised by the Representative of Saudi Arabia and shared by others. He underscored that he would perform such verification even if a proposed arrangement were not reviewed beforehand by the CC3P.

50. The Representative of Cuba prefaced her comments by emphasizing that the CC3P’s and the Ad Hoc Group’s proposed amendments to the Policy, which she supported, should not be taken as criticism of the existing review process but rather as suggestions to enhance its efficiency. She noted that they were aimed at improving the work of the CC3P, which had been established by the Council to

-31- C-MIN 210/2 facilitate the performance of its functions as delegated by the Assembly pursuant to Article 54 b) of the Chicago Convention, one of which was the conclusion of suitable arrangements with third parties. Her point of view was thus different from that of other Representatives, who considered that the Committee’s purpose was to reduce the Secretariat’s workload. The Representative of Cuba emphasized that the Policy facilitated the Council’s work by clearly defining which categories of arrangements could be transmitted directly to the Secretary General for appropriate action. She underscored that whereas the Secretary General had the means to process the numerous proposed arrangements in the form of the Secretariat, the President did not, as the 36 Council Members were not in a position to devote the required amount of time to processing the many arrangements due to other pressing priorities. The Council had thus established the CC3P to assist the President in that regard.

51. Referring to the comments made regarding proposed arrangements with Member States, the Representative of Cuba recalled that the CC3P did not review the following categories of arrangements (cf. Appendix A):

a) MoUs between ICAO and Member States relating to the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USOAP CMA), and the Universal Security Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USAP- CMA);

b) arrangements concluded with Member States and organizations within the UN common system, which pertained to staff secondments, transfers, loans and as now proposed, provision of short-term experts;

c) cooperation agreements between ICAO and third parties relating to the ICAO Programme of Aviation Volunteers (IPAV); and

d) as now proposed, Training Services Agreements (TSA) between ICAO and civil aviation authorities that were based on and were not materially different from the current TCB Management Service Agreement (MSA) mentioned in paragraph 2.3 of the Policy.

52. Furthermore, it was proposed that, in the interest of efficiency, proposed amendments to, or renewals of, signed arrangements may be exempted from the CC3P review process, provided that the original documents to be amended or renewed have been previously endorsed by the CC3P and their terms and conditions are not materially different from those contained in the original document, as determined by LEB. The Representative of Cuba underscored that any Member State that considered that its concerns had not been reflected in the proposed amendments to Appendix A could present its proposal to expand the list of exempted categories.

53. The Representative of Cuba highlighted that it was also proposed to include, under General Principles, a new sub-paragraph e) in paragraph 4.1 of the Policy to reflect that the authority of the Council to approve arrangements with external parties may be exercised by the President of the Council under authority delegated by the Council pursuant to the Policy. Emphasizing that that addressed her previously-expressed (209/5) concerns about governance, she recalled that under Article 54 b) of the Chicago Convention, the Council shall “carry out the directions of the Assembly and discharge the duties and obligations which are laid on it by this Convention;”.

54. Affirming that the flowchart for the administrative process (Appendix C) was simple, clear and appropriate, the Representative of Cuba noted that all that now needed to be done in that regard was to define the timelines for the various phases.

C-MIN 210/2 -32-

55. Recalling that each time the Council discussed an administrative issue it was indicated that ICAO should adopt the same practice as other international organizations within the UN common system, the Representative of Cuba emphasized the need to recognize that ICAO, as the technical organization responsible for international civil aviation, did not necessarily follow the same practices as they did as it had its own constituent instrument, the Chicago Convention, which governed the way in which it worked and which should be respected. She underscored that Representatives should continue to place all of their trust and confidence in the President and the Secretary General to ensure that the Council functioned as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. The Representative of Cuba concluded by reiterating her support for the proposed amendments set forth in C-WP/14552 and expressing the hope that a consensus could be reached regarding the inclusion of arrangements with Member States in the list of exempted categories contained in Appendix A thereto as suggested by some Representatives.

56. The Representative of Panama strongly endorsed these comments. Recalling that he had previously worked for a few years on his Member State’s technical cooperation projects with ICAO, he highlighted that 2019 would mark 50 years of such technical cooperation with the Organization. In voicing support for the work done by the CC3P and the Ad Hoc Group to enhance the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties, he affirmed that the proposed revised text constituted a big step forward.

57. In noting that he shared most of the views expressed by the previous speakers, the Representative of Turkey endorsed those expressed by the Representatives of China and France given the importance of defining the term “external party”. It was clear from D/LEB’s explanation, however, that the exemption of arrangements with Member States was a separate policy issue to be decided by the Council. In view of ICAO’s nature, the Representative of Turkey considered that Member States should be regarded as partners rather than as external parties since most of their arrangements with ICAO were Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on technical matters which were not even subject to review by the CC3P. He agreed with the Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States (Alternate) on the need for a quick, flexible system which strengthened the role of the President of the Council and the Secretary General in the review of proposed arrangements with Member States through the use of an efficient filter which would distinguish between arrangements based on the external parties’ proximity to ICAO. The Representative of Turkey noted that Member States and UN organizations were considered to be in very close proximity to ICAO, while the business sector and non-governmental organizations were less so. The Secretary General, the President of the Council and LEB should decide on the paperwork required and the approval procedure. The Representative of Turkey emphasized that from his perspective it was not all that important whether or not the CC3P reviewed proposed arrangements with Members States since it was a technical body that facilitated the work of the Secretary General and the President of the Council. He could therefore accept the majority decision in that regard. In reiterating that from the policy point of view ICAO Member States should not be considered as external parties as it was mostly technical work that they undertook in collaboration with the Organization, he underscored that if a complicated arrangement were submitted by a Member State, then it could be dealt with separately.

58. The Representative of Kenya noted that her concerns regarding the timelines for the various phases of the administrative process and the role of the CC3P had already been clarified. Observing, however, that the Council was giving the Secretariat different signals each time it discussed the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties, she stressed the need for the Council to self-reflect and to set one objective, agree on its role in achieving that objective, and give one directive to the Secretariat in order to enable the Organization to make progress in this area.

59. In emphasizing that he would find a way to weave a Council decision that addressed the legal, policy and politically-sensitive issues raised, the President thanked Representatives for their trust and confidence in his ability to do so, both now and in the past.

-33- C-MIN 210/2

60. While sharing some of the concerns expressed by several Representatives on the need to ensure State sovereignty in the context of their proposed arrangements with ICAO, the Representative of Brazil acknowledged the excellent work done by the CC3P and the Ad Hoc Group to enhance the Policy. She considered that their proposed revised text would be a good basis for going forward if: the Policy were amended to reflect that the CC3P review process did not apply to proposed arrangements with Member States, and any definition of third parties did not encompass Member States; and the Council’s decision, to be proposed by the President, also made that clear. The Representative of Brazil suggested that the Council give the CC3P and the Ad Hoc Group a vote of confidence by putting into practice the proposed administrative process (Appendix C) for one year, following which it would review its implementation.

61. The Representative of Argentina likewise commended the work done, in particular by the Chairperson of the CC3P. Observing that politically-sensitive questions of principle had been raised that could not be resolved during the present meeting, he suggested that an alternative procedure be followed that would enable all stakeholders to participate in the further review of the Policy and the Council to return to this subject before the end of the current session. The Representative of Argentina indicated, in this regard, that while he considered the proposed administrative process to be appropriate, it was necessary to define its scope of applicability.

62. The Representative of Italy highlighted two essential points: the need to strike a balance between advancing ICAO’s Strategic Objectives through third-party arrangements and safeguarding the Organization’s reputation; and the need for a more efficient and expeditious administrative process that would include a filtering of proposed arrangements to ensure that only good ones were selected and approved. Noting that national Delegations often assisted their respective Member State entities in drawing up and presenting arrangements to ICAO, he emphasized that the existing administrative process, while much improved, did not guarantee their timely review, approval and signature. Underscoring that it also did not guarantee the rejection of bad arrangements as its scope of applicability was too broad, the Representative of Italy stressed the need for the administrative process to focus on those third-party arrangements that were not with Member States.

63. The Representative of Australia acknowledged the work that the CC3P had diligently undertaken in pursuing its functions over time, and the work by the Ad Hoc Group in reviewing the administrative process and carefully building on the existing foundation. He nevertheless considered that the very well thought-out and well-engineered process was becoming a little too over- engineered for the purposes that the Council needed it to address. The Representative of Australia underscored that whereas the Council certainly needed to oversee the work of the Organization, it did not need to do it all and could not do it all. He averred that the Council would impose a significant degree of inefficiency on the Organization’s work if it did not take into account that the latter had been reviewed by many experts before being presented for its consideration.

64. Noting that his views had already been expressed by previous speakers, the Representative of Australia underscored that although the administrative process had a sound basis on which to go forward, it needed to focus on the review of complex arrangements that had potentially problematic process elements, instead of getting bogged down in a merits review of simple arrangements. He emphasized that it would be very useful to amend Appendix A to the proposed revised Policy to enable as many categories of arrangements as possible to be exempted from the CC3P review process, as that would maximize the number of arrangements that could be concluded with ICAO without implementing policy decisions of the Assembly or the Council. In noting that that would simplify the administration of the exempted arrangements, the Representative of Australia underscored that the

C-MIN 210/2 -34-

Council would still be able to monitor them as they would be included in the central repository of signed ICAO-third-party arrangements that was available on its website.

65. The Representative of Congo underscored that although many organizations and institutions derived substantial benefits from the arrangements they concluded with ICAO on the basis of the said Policy, the Organization itself did not reap sufficient benefits therefrom. He therefore suggested that the Policy be amended so that it would no longer apply to arrangements with Member States and would thus be focused on relations with the private sector. The Representative of Congo supported the comments made by the Representatives of France and Saudi Arabia in that regard. In also endorsing the comments made by the Representatives of Japan, Malaysia and Colombia, he underscored the need to consider in future how to treat proposed third-party arrangements of a financial nature.

66. It was noted that while some Representatives supported the proposals contained in C- WP/14552, other Representatives supported the exclusion of proposed arrangements with Member States from those to be reviewed by the CC3P and preferred a return to the previous mechanism when this was entrusted to the President of the Council and the Secretary General.

67. In offering a summary of the discussion, the President of the Council observed that a number of important issues had been raised, most of which were either covered by the list of exempted categories of third-party arrangements (Appendix A) or had been addressed through the explanations provided by him, the Secretary General and D/LEB. He underscored that it was the fundamental responsibility of the Council, as reflected in several Articles of the Chicago Convention and various Assembly Resolutions, to conclude suitable arrangements with, inter alia, individual Member States or groups of Member States, the UN and international organizations within the UN common system, public and private international organizations, and regional organizations and regional civil aviation bodies, while the Council delegated that responsibility in a number of cases.

68. Referring to the outstanding issue of establishing timeline references for the various phases of the administrative process for proposed third-party arrangements, which was supported by several Representatives in view of the initial suggestion made by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Group in the context of the first two phases, the President indicated that the Council should not be involved therein. He recalled that, under the first phase, all such arrangements were subject to review by the relevant operational offices as well as by LEB to determine whether the arrangements may be exempted from the CC3P review process consistent with Appendix A to the Policy and to ensure ICAO participation in the arrangements is in accordance with the Organization’s regulations, rules and procedures [cf. paragraph 4.2 a)]. In underscoring the importance of a thorough legal assessment, the President emphasized that while the Council could encourage the Secretariat to complete that first phase within four weeks, it should leave that process to the Secretariat. With regard to the second phase, the President noted that in his experience the CC3P completed its examination of proposed third-party arrangements within a week, which was reasonable. Nevertheless, it would be even better if the Committee could do so in less time by, for example, conducting its work more by correspondence. The President underscored that he took prompt action upon receipt of the CC3P’s reports and that proposed arrangements were approved and signed by the appropriate authority in a timely manner.

69. Noting that proposed arrangements that were not aligned with the approved corresponding templates posed a challenge to the Secretariat in carrying out the said legal assessment as they necessitated negotiations with the submitting third party, the President indicated that the Secretariat should use the templates only as broad guidance and not insist upon the exact language used therein so as to avoid prolonging the first phase of the administrative process.

-35- C-MIN 210/2

70. The President recalled that a number of Representatives had advocated exempting proposed arrangements with Member States from the CC3P review process as they considered that Member States were not third parties. It had, however, been clarified by D/LEB that Member States had their own legal personality separate to that of the Organization and furthermore that the said exemption of arrangements with Member States was a separate policy issue to be decided by the Council. The President emphasized that policy-wise, it was necessary to treat proposed arrangements with Member States and Member State entities differently from proposed arrangements with Member State entities whose activities were commercial in nature, such as State aviation academies involved in commercial training activities and privatized air navigation service providers (ANSPs).

71. Referring to another point raised, by the Representative of Malaysia, regarding the issue of fees charged for training courses offered under partnership arrangements between ICAO and third parties, the President indicated that the CC3P should thus not be tasked with considering the matter, particularly as it would enlarge the scope of its mandate, which was currently limited to performing due diligence and risk assessment.

72. The President then proposed that the Council approve the suggested amendments to the retitled ICAO Policy on Interactions with External Parties as presented in the Appendix to C-WP/14552 (cf. pages A-1 to A-12) and adopt, as an Annex to the revised Policy, the new Guidelines on a Principle- based Approach to the Cooperation between the United Nations and the Business Sector (2015) (cf. pages A-13 to A-26), on the understanding that in one year’s time, at the 213th Session, the newly-renamed Committee on Cooperation with External Parties (CCEP) would present a progress report on the revised Policy’s implementation. He further proposed that, in the interim, Representatives provide him with their suggestions for categories of arrangements with Member States and Member State entities that they wish to be exempted from the CCEP review process and that he will review them and following consultation with the Committee and the Ad Hoc Group under delegated authority from the Council he would decide on a solution and inform Representatives accordingly later in the current session.

73. This proposal having received the support of the majority of Representatives, it was so agreed.

Any other business

Subject No. 10: ICAO relations with the United Nations, the Specialized Agencies and other international organizations Subject No. 41: Rules of procedure of the various representative bodies in ICAO

Attendance of industry observer organizations at closed sessions of the Council

74. It was noted that following requests by some industry observer organizations to participate in closed sessions of the Council, the President had received general comments from Representatives cautioning against such participation and asking that the issue of attendance of observers at closed sessions of the Council be given careful consideration. Consequently, the President had informed the industry observer organizations concerned that, in accordance with Rule 32 a) of the Rules of Procedures for the Council (Doc 7559), they may only be invited to participate as observers in closed sessions of the Council involving the discussion of aviation security-related items on a case-by-case basis, provided that there is sufficient reason why they should be permitted or invited to attend.

75. It was agreed that: in such a case where attendance by an industry observer organization at such a closed session of the Council was deemed necessary by the President, he would inform the Council and, subject to its approval, would extend an invitation to that organization; and that, in the

C-MIN 210/2 -36-

interim, the Council would consider how to further define which issues should be discussed in closed session, taking into account the Guidelines set forth in Appendix F to the said Rules of Procedure (Doc 7559) and the fact that Council meetings should normally be open to the public pursuant to Rule 37.

Subject No. 6.3: Election of Chairmen and Members of subsidiary bodies of the Council

Appointment of Members and Alternates on the ATC, JSC, FIC, UIC, HRC and RHCC

76. In the absence of comments by 23 January 2017 to his e-mail dated 22 January 2017, the President of the Council, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Special Provisions applicable to the ATC and paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions applicable to the JSC, FIC, HRC, UIC and TCC of the Rules of Procedure for Standing Committees of the Council (Doc 8146), has appointed: Mr. Claude Hurley, Head of Mission, Chargé d’Affaires, Canada, to serve as Member on the ATC, and as Alternate on the JSC, FIC, HRC and UIC; and Mr. Paul Langlais, Canada, to serve as Alternate on the ATC, and as Member on the JSC, FIC, HRC and UIC. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 11 of C-DEC 199/3, the President of the Council has appointed Mr. Hurley and Mr. Langlais as Member and Alternate on the RHCC, respectively.

77. Furthermore, in the absence of comments by 23 January 2017 to the President of the Council’s e-mail of the same date, the Council, in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Special Provisions applicable to the JSC, FIC, HRC, UIC and TCC of the said Rules of Procedure (Doc 8146), has appointed Mr. Shengjun Yang, the Representative of China on the Council, to succeed his predecessor, Mr. Tao Ma, as Member on the FIC, HRC and UIC for the remainder of the period 2016-2017, with effect as from the 210th Session. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Special Provisions applicable to the ATC of the Rules of Procedure (Doc 8146), the President of the Council have appointed Mr. Yang to succeed Mr. Ma as Alternate on the ATC, with immediate effect.

Appointment of Members on the Committee on Cooperation with Third Parties (CC3P)

78. In accordance with paragraph 27 of C-DEC 209/7, the President of the Council has appointed Messrs. Shinji Matsui, Alexey Novgorodov and Raphael Bokango, the Representatives of Japan, the Russian Federation and United Republic of Tanzania, respectively, as Members on the CC3P.

Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Appointment of new Observer on the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)

79. In the absence of comments by 24 January 2017 to his e-mail dated 5 January 2017, the President, on behalf of the Council, has approved the nomination of Mr. Jorge David Taramona Perea as the new CAEP observer from Peru to replace Mr. Luis Mojovich, with effect from 25 January 2017.

Subject No. 15.4: Facilitation

Public Key Directory (PKD) Board Membership

80. In the absence of comments by 3 February 2017 to the President of the Council’s e-mail dated 25 January 2017, the Council, in accordance with Section 2 of Attachment C to the PKD Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), has approved the appointment of Mr. Stephen Gee, Australia, to replace Ms. Anne Moores until November 2019.

-37- C-MIN 210/2

Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Convening of the ICAO Regional Seminar on States’ Action Plans and on Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) in five regions

81. In the absence of comments by 1 February 2017 to his e-mail dated 27 January 2017, the President of the Council has approved the invitation of the organizations listed therein to attend the ICAO Regional Seminar on States’ Action Plans and on Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) to be convened in five regions from 27 March to 27 April 2017. Further information on the said Seminar will be made available on the event website in due course.

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

Review of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) – Consultation with the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC)

82. In the absence of comments by 1 February 2017 to his e-mail dated 31 January 2017, the President of the Council has referred to the EAAC, for consultation, the amendments to EAO’s Charter and the EAAC’s Terms of Reference proposed by the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE), through its Sub-Group on Supporting the EAO Mission (SEM) (cf. C-DEC 208/4, paragraph 27).

------

Issuance by Mexico of a commemorative stamp in honour of the Lifetime Goodwill Ambassador of ICAO and former Council President Mr. Roberto Kobeh González

83. The Council noted, with pleasure, that in November 2016 Mexico had issued a stamp to commemorate 50 years (1966-2016) of dedication to aviation by Lifetime Goodwill Ambassador of ICAO and former Council President Mr. Roberto Kobeh González.

84. The President requested that the Representative of Mexico convey the Council’s congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Kobeh on that recognition and that the Secretariat make arrangements to showcase the commemorative stamp in the ICAO Museum.

Subject No. 14.5: Safety oversight

Middle East and North Africa Regional Safety Oversight Organization (MENA RSOO) – Hosting and support of operations by Saudi Arabia

85. The Council also noted, with pleasure, that as instructed by The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud the Government of Saudi Arabia would host the Middle East and North Africa Regional Safety Oversight Organization (MENA RSOO) and support its operations for the first two years by defraying the associated costs (USD 1.5 million).

86. The President requested that the Representative of Saudi Arabia extend the Council’s best regards to The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and H.E. Sulaiman bin Abdullah Al-Hamdan, the Minister of Transport of Saudi Arabia, for the generous support being given to the establishment of the MENA RSOO, which was very important for the advancement of safety oversight and, in particular, the ICAO No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative,

C-MIN 210/2 -38- in the said region.

87. The meeting adjourned at 1300 hours.

-39- C-MIN 210/3 (Closed)

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2017, AT 1000 HOURS)

CLOSED MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. J. Marriott ― Senior Advisor for Aviation Mr. L. Sacchi Guadagnin (Alt.) ― Brazil Security Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. R. Macfarlane ― DD/AN Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mrs. N. Abdennebi ― C/FAL Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. S. Berti ― C/ASP Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. J. Lamosa ― C/ASA Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. J. Thaker ― FAL Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. W. Parks ― ISD-SEC Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. A. Djojonegoro ― ASP Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Miss S. Black ― Précis-writer Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) ― United Arab Emirates Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ―United Kingdom Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay

*Part-time

C-MIN 210/3 (Closed) -40-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Greece Indonesia Lebanon Peru Sudan Uganda Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

European Union (EU)

-41- C-MIN 210/3 (Closed)

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

Aviation security risk overview – 2016

1. The Secretary General presented the following oral report, in which she outlined the acts of unlawful interference with international civil aviation which had been recorded in 2016, and summarized the broader aviation security situation worldwide:

“I am pleased to provide the Council with this annual overview of the current aviation security risks facing international civil aviation. In 2016, the Secretariat recorded nine acts of unlawful interference. These included two sabotages, two unlawful seizures and five facility attacks.

“As the weapon of choice in attempts to attack civil aviation and airport infrastructure, improvised explosive devices (or IEDs) and person-borne IEDs continue to pose a significant threat. On 3 March 2016, six persons, including two police officers, were injured after a laptop computer rigged with explosives detonated during a security control outside Beledweyne Airport in Somalia. During the check, two other IEDs, including one concealed inside a computer printer, were successfully defused. Earlier in the year, on 2 February 2016, a passenger detonated an IED concealed inside a modified laptop computer on board Daallo Airlines Flight 159 from Somalia to Djibouti, causing a person-size hole in the fuselage.

“Those two incidents are a reminder that screening regimes play a critical role in the aviation security system as a primary defence against the carriage of explosives inside airports and on board commercial aircraft. Unfortunately, in the case of Daallo Airlines Flight 159, surveillance footage showed that this attack was also facilitated by airport workers. Such a modus operandi not only undermines the security checkpoint and screening processes, but also highlights the insider threat as an important dimension of aviation security risk.

“The threat posed by insiders and airport staff remains a real concern, and compliance with applicable Annex 17 – Security provisions is paramount. The increasing activity and influence of terrorist organizations like Daesh, and their wide global reach, may well increase the general risk of recruitment and use of insiders in attacks against aviation. It should be noted that a number of States and industry bodies are now reviewing their current security measures against, and vulnerabilities to, insider threats in particular. In this regard, the Aviation Security Panel Working Group on Threat and Risk (AVSECP WGTR) advises that the potential for insiders with privileged access and knowledge to perpetrate or assist in attacks on aviation should be factored into risk assessments for all potential threat scenarios.

“Over the last few years, attacks on soft targets – such as the landside areas of airports – have highlighted a growing vulnerability in locations where members of the public and passengers circulate with minimal restrictions and congregate at predictable times. Such areas are open to the conveyance of weapons and selection of targets, as evidenced by the attacks in Belgium on 22 March 2016, Turkey on 28 June 2016, and more recently in the United States on 6 January 2017, where a passenger opened fire in the baggage claim area of Fort Lauderdale International Airport.

“The ICAO Aviation Security Global Risk Context Statement (RCS) assesses landside threats as medium-high, the second-highest risk level and one of the highest threats to civil aviation assessed by this document. Amendment 15 to Annex 17 – Security, which was approved by the Council at its 209th Session (cf. C-WP/14513 Restricted & Corrigendum No. 1; 209/3), strengthens the international aviation security framework in an effort to mitigate the risks associated with landside attacks. By elevating existing Recommended Practices on landside security to Standards, ICAO and its Member

C-MIN 210/3 (Closed) -42-

States have expressed the urgency and importance to address this threat globally. I take this opportunity to remind the Council that Amendment 15 will be applicable on 3 August 2017.

“For further information on the incidents recorded in 2016, I invite Council Members to log into the Acts of Unlawful Interference (AUI) database on the ICAO secure portal, where you will also find copies of the revised AUI reporting form. This form aims to simplify and expedite its submission by focusing on gathering key data and critical information concerning incidents. While any reporting form, medium or channel is acceptable, Member States are encouraged to use the revised form when reporting AUIs to ICAO. Reports of AUIs can be emailed to [email protected]. The Secretariat remains at your disposal should you need assistance in gaining access to the site.

“You may wish to note that the latest update to the RCS can be found on the ICAO-NET, under Publications. It contains an analysis of the evolution of the global threat, information on recent developments in terrorist tactics, and detailed technical analyses for different forms of aviation security threats as assessed by the WGTR. The annual update to the RCS will be available following the AVSECP’s consideration of this item.

“With respect to security vulnerabilities, ICAO’s Universal Security Audit Programme continues to observe low levels of implementation of Annex 17 Standards in many States, and make recommendations to address these. Furthermore, the audit programme is monitoring progress being made toward the resolution of 11 Significant Security Concerns (SSeCs) in five States.

“Reinforced by UN Security Council Resolution 2309 (2016) – Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts: Aviation security, the ICAO Secretariat remains committed to the continuous review of security measures and guidance material, and to the provision of assistance in order to support States’ efforts to mitigate the risk of unlawful interference with civil aviation, noting ICAO’s No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative and the emerging Global Aviation Security Plan (GASeP) – which is addressed in C-WP/14542 and C-WP14543 and will serve as the future global framework for progressive aviation security enhancement.

“This concludes my 2016 Risk Overview oral report.”.

2. In the absence of comments, the Council noted the above oral report by the Secretary General.

3. The Secretary General expressed gratitude to States for providing incident information to support the preparation of risk assessments and for their close cooperation with the Secretariat in producing updates to the ICAO RCS.

4. The Council reconvened in open session at 1015 hours to consider the remaining items on the order of business.

-43- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 24 FEBRUARY 2017, AT 1015 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mr. L. Sacchi Guadagnin (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. R. Bhalla ― C/FIN Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mr. J. Marriott ― Senior Adviser for Aviation Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Security Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. M. Belayneh ― DD/TCB Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. R. Macfarlane ― DD/AN Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mrs. N. Abdennebi ― C/FAL Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. S. Berti ― C/ASP Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mr. P. Molinari ― C/PRO Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. A. Jakob ― SLO Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mr. J. Lamosa ― C/ASA Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) ― United Arab Emirates Mr. J. Thaker ― FAL Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. W. Parks ― ISD-SEC Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay Mr. A. Djojonegoro ― ASP Mr. D. Wilkinson ― ASA Miss S. Black ― Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -44-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Greece Indonesia Lebanon Peru Sudan Uganda Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

European Union (EU)

-45- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

Subject No. 24.3: Action on Assembly resolutions and decisions

Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Security and facilitation

1. The Council considered this subject on the basis of: C-WP/14542, in which the Secretary General proposed actions to implement Assembly Resolutions A39-18 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies related to aviation security), A39-19 (Addressing Cybersecurity in Civil Aviation), A39-20 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies related to facilitation) and A39- 38 (Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Security and Facilitation in Africa), as well as relevant Assembly decisions in the fields of security and facilitation; and a joint oral report thereon by the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) and the Air Transport Committee (ATC).

Joint UIC/ATC oral report

2. During the joint UIC/ATC meeting held on 25 January 2017, general support had been expressed for the security-related actions proposed in the Appendix to C-WP/14542. Notable observations made by various Members, and the Secretariat’s responses, were as follows:

a) proposed actions regarding landside security should be closely aligned with Assembly Resolution A39-18, Appendix C, Operative Clause 7(j) and with the report of the Executive Committee in A39-WP/493 Revision No. 1 (particularly the last sentence of paragraph 16.39); the Secretariat had assured Members that work relating to landside security would be guided by Assembly Resolution A39-18;

b) questions had been posed regarding the role of the Industry High-Level Group (IHLG) in cybersecurity matters, and particularly within ICAO governance and policy-making processes. The Committees had been advised that the IHLG facilitated open and constructive dialogue among interested parties, and did not conflict with, nor displace, ICAO deliberative and technical bodies. It had been further clarified that work in developing high-level principles for a cybersecurity management system will involve ICAO technical bodies, including the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP), in consultation with ICAO Member States, and that cybersecurity would be addressed in the Global Aviation Security Plan (GASeP);

c) with regard to issues common to both aviation safety and aviation security, the Air Transport Bureau (ATB) already collaborated with the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB) on the convergence and inter-dependency of safety and security issues. Nevertheless, greater effort and continued coordination had been requested in that regard. The Secretariat had informed Members that there already was horizontal coordination within the Secretariat at all levels to address areas where safety and security overlapped, recalling the substantial support provided by ATB in developing and issuing risk assessment guidance on overflight of conflict zones. The Secretariat had reassured the Committees that its work on conflict zones was ongoing, notably including the two recent informal briefings on Common Safety and Security Issues and Task Force on Risks to Civil Aviation arising from Conflict Zones; and

d) best efforts should be made to ensure that all activities for aviation security were sufficiently funded under the Regular Programme Budget. The Secretariat had agreed that ideally that should be the case; however, there was a limited Regular Programme Budget, which required the Organization to prioritize areas taking into consideration the threat and risk levels.

3. With regard to aviation security training, the Committees had noted that ATB continued to develop and maintain courses within the framework of the ICAO Civil Aviation Training Policy and that support continued to be provided to the Aviation Security Training Centre (ASTC) network in

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -46-

collaboration with the Global Aviation Training (GAT) Office. The Committees had agreed to withhold training-related questions, which would be raised later in the current session during the Council’s deliberations on the ICAO Civil Aviation Training Policy.

4. Support had also been expressed by the Committees for the facilitation-related actions proposed in the Appendix to the paper. With regard to observations made during the discussion:

a) given the increase in participation in the Public Key Directory (PKD), the Secretariat had agreed to the suggestion to analyze its governance, and had assured Members that, in addition to the fee reduction, focus on other approaches would be provided to encourage Member States to join the PKD;

b) following coordination with ANB, the Committees had recommended that the description and time-frame/target date for implementation of proposed action 4 for Assembly Resolution A39-20 regarding the Work Programme related to Annex 9 – Facilitation (cf. Appendix) be amended to read as follows (new text appears in grey shading):

“Consider the development of SARPs to support victims of civil aviation accidents and their family members following an evaluation of the extent of the level of implementation of family assistance plans obtained through the Annex 9 and Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) Compliance Checklists.

Time-frame: Q3 – 2018 for Annex 9; Q4 – 2020 for USOAP”

c) the Committees had also recommended that the description of proposed action 7 be amended to read as follows (new text appears in grey shading):

“Provide a report on the viability of a ‘Global Aviation Facilitation Plan’ (GAFP), with the assistance of the FALP’s WG on GAFP.”; and

d) in response to a query raised regarding the issue of quality of service at airports, the Secretariat had informed the Committees that the matter would be addressed through the provision of a working paper at the Tenth Meeting of the Facilitation Panel (FALP/10), tentatively scheduled to be held in Q3 2018.

5. The Committees had recommended that the Council endorse the proposed actions contained in the Appendix to C-WP/14542, and that the actions be amended accordingly to reflect their comments and observations.

Discussion

6. The Council agreed to the Committees’ recommended amendments to proposed actions 4 and 7.

7. In noting that his State had some comments on the proposed actions relating to the FAL Work Programme (p. A-7) which had unfortunately not been received prior to the UIC/ATC joint meeting, the Alternate Representative of the United States indicated that it was concerned that the Secretariat had overstepped the Assembly’s directions in putting those actions forward. Drawing attention to amended proposed action 4 [cf. paragraph 4 b) above], he recalled that Assembly Resolution A39-20, Appendix C, Operative Clause 8, urged States to implement the provisions of Annex 9 to facilitate assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families, by means of their national legislation, regulations and policies. Underscoring that it would be useful to issue a State letter urging States to comply therewith and seeking information as to the extent of their compliance, the Alternate Representative of the United States noted that proposed action 4 prejudged the outcome of such a State letter, which needed to be actioned first.

-47- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

8. Referring to proposed action 5 [“Consider upgrading Recommended Practice (RP) 8.46 of Annex 9 to a Standard, as well as to develop an RP regarding proper implementation of family assistance plans by aircraft and airport operators, following a review of the results of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) audits”], the Alternate Representative of the United States averred that it prejudged the outcome of the ongoing exercise to measure the level of Annex 9 compliance (cf. State letter EC 6/3 –15/90 dated 21 December 2015). He stressed the need to complete that exercise before deciding on any further action, in particular, that set forth in proposed action 5.

9. With regard to proposed action 6 [“Develop guidance material on unaccompanied minors, with the assistance of the FALP’s Working Group on Guidance Material (WGGM)”], the Alternate Representative of the United States highlighted that the proposed new SARPs relating to the transport of minors by air developed by the FALP had been included in draft Amendment 26 to Annex 9, which had been circulated to States and relevant international organizations for comments under cover of State letter EC 6/3 –16/93 dated 10 November 2016. While noting that the proposed development of guidance material might be beneficial, he cautioned that it would also take up resources.

10. With respect to amended proposed action 7 [cf. paragraph 4 c) above], the Alternate Representative of the United States stressed that the report on the viability of the GAFP was only that, and was not the development of such a Global Plan. Noting that one possible conclusion might be that there was no need for a GAFP, he underscored that the report’s outcomes should not be prejudged.

11. Drawing attention to proposed action 8 [“Study the quality of service at airports, with the assistance of the FAL Panel”], the Alternate Representative of the United States highlighted that the subject matter was the “bread and butter” of Airports Council International (ACI). Consequently, at a minimum, the proposed action should reflect paragraph 19.13 of the Executive Committee’s report (A39-WP/499), which read: “Request the Council to encourage study of the quality of service at airports in the technical forums of ICAO, taking into consideration the work already accomplished in this area by ACI and IATA”. He suggested that that language be added to proposed action 8 to make it clear that ICAO should not perform work that was already being done by ACI and IATA, or at least to take that into account to ensure that there were no redundancies and that the work was done as efficiently as possible.

12. The President of the Council observed that the comment made regarding proposed action 7 was already reflected in its amended text, which referred to a report on the viability of a GAFP.

13. While noting the intervention by the Alternate Representative of the United States, D/ATB underscored that his concerns relating to proposed actions 4 and 5 were already captured inasmuch as their time-frame/target date for implementation was Q4 – 2020, which afforded the Secretariat sufficient time in which to take the necessary steps which the Alternate Representative had indicated. He noted that the Secretariat would be able to take into account the comments made on proposed actions 6 and 7. Referring to the Alternate Representative’s comments on proposed action 8, D/ATB clarified that ACI and IATA were not the only other organizations addressing the issue of the quality of service at airports, especially with regard to air cargo, and that other organizations, such as the World Bank Group (WBG), were also doing so. He recalled, in this context, that at the recent ICAO- World Customs Organization (WCO) Joint Conference on Enhancing Air Cargo Security and Facilitation – The Path to Effective Implementation (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26-28 July 2016), the WBG Observer had given a PowerPoint presentation on the Group’s Trade Facilitation Programme, which was focused on trade-related infrastructure, logistics and trade processes/regulatory policy (customs and border management). Highlighting that air cargo represented one third of the value of trade by air, and that the WBG Observer was from the Group’s Trade Department and not its Air Transport Department, D/ATB noted that the Group was interested in assessing how trade flowed, especially from logistics centres, including air cargo as being multimodal/intermodal. The Secretariat had started to discuss with the WBG the possibility of developing a metrics which was even stronger than quality of service indicators (QSIs), such as a cargo security index.

14. Referring to the Alternate Representative’s comment on proposed action 6, the President

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -48-

highlighted that, in accordance with the Council’s previous decision, the ongoing practice was to have the ICAO technical guidance material available by the applicability date of each new SARP so as to facilitate States’ effective implementation thereof. Underscoring that it took a substantial amount of time to prepare such guidance material, he cautioned against stopping work to develop guidance material on unaccompanied minors until the Council’s envisaged adoption of Amendment 26 to Annex 9 as there might be insufficient time to prepare it in the interval between the SARPs’ adoption and their applicability date. The President emphasized that guidance material was valuable in assisting States in effectively implementing not only Standards but also Recommended Practices and policies.

15. The Representative of Canada indicated that while her State supported C-WP/14542 in principle, it had some additional comments and required actions to suggest. Although Canada appreciated ICAO’s initiation of the comprehensive review of the Universal Security Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USAP-CMA), it considered that more work was necessary, especially as the reliability of the information stemming from USAP-CMA audits would be critical for the anticipated ICAO GASeP. With regard to the proposed action for A39-WP/493 Revision No. 1 (p. A-2) [“…The Panel’s advice will also be sought with regard to … refine the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) methodology …”], Canada considered that the Council should recognize that the said review needed: to be comprehensive as intended by the Assembly, rather than refined or more limited as seemed to be suggested in the current text; and to include training of members of the ICAO Aviation Security Audit Section (ASA). Canada supported the proposed action D for Assembly Resolution A39-18, Appendix C (p. A-3), relating to the updating of existing Annex 17 – Security guidance material and the development of new sets of best practices for applying Annex 17 provisions.

16. With respect to the proposed actions for Assembly Resolution A39-18, Appendix E (p. A-3), and in line with the above comments regarding A39-WP/493 Revision No. 1, Canada considered that the Council should again recognize that the comprehensive review of the USAP-CMA must include training ASA members. In addition, the proposed actions should include ensuring: that the mechanism for interpretation of Annex 17 and security-related Annex 9 SARPs was inclusive and transparent; that a resolution mechanism would be established for the case where Member States disagreed with recommendations of the USAP Validation Committee; and that the composition of the Validation Committee include representation by non-ICAO staff.

17. In emphasizing that the Secretariat Study Group undertaking the comprehensive review of the scope and methodology of the USAP-CMA was committed to following the Assembly’s instructions, C/ASA noted that it had met in January 2017 and had finalized its report, which would be reviewed by the AVSECP. The Panel’s report on the results of the Secretariat Study Group’s work would thereafter be presented to the Council for consideration.

18. Replying to a question by the Representative of Spain on proposed action 4 for the FAL Work Programme (p. A-7), the Chief, Facilitation Section (C/FAL) confirmed that: following a review of the responses received to State letter EC 6/3 –15/90 dated 21 December 2015, the Secretariat was planning to report to the Council on the status of the Compliance Checklist for Annex 9 during its Fall Session (212th) in October/November 2017; and on the basis of the report’s findings, the Council could decide on any further action that needed to be taken.

19. The Representative of Mexico observed that the language used in the Spanish text of proposed actions 4 and 5 was too conditional.

20. Referring to proposed action 8 (p. A-7), the Representative of Spain reiterated the need: to clarify what specific actions ICAO and the relevant panel(s) would be undertaking with regard to the quality of service at airports issue; and to avoid duplication of ACI’s and IATA’s related work.

21. The Representative of South Africa questioned how there could be any such duplication of work when ICAO had its own responsibilities to address the quality of service at airports issue under

-49- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

Annex 9 – Facilitation and Annex 14 – Aerodromes.

22. Emphasizing the importance of revising that proposed action to reflect that the relevant international organizations would be consulted, the Representative of Mexico underscored that such consultation would help guarantee a good assessment of the quality of service at airports. In concluding, he voiced support for the Committees’ joint oral report, which accurately reflected their deliberations.

23. Recalling that the study of the quality of service at airports had been requested by ACI and IATA, C/FAL noted that they would be invited to submit a paper on that issue to FALP/10, which was tentatively scheduled to take place in Q3 2018. She underscored that FALP/10 would be the appropriate time to discuss how the work would be conducted by ICAO and the said two organizations.

24. The Representative of Malaysia indicated that he had no objections to the various proposed actions outlined in the Appendix to the paper. In enquiring how Assembly Resolution A39-8 on conflicts of interest in civil aviation would be incorporated into future action items, he maintained that it would be helpful if the AVSECP were to consider that issue in future with a view to ensuring that proper risk assessments were done, particularly in conflict zones.

25. The President of the Council noted that the issue of conflicts of interest in civil aviation, which was currently under consideration within the Legal Affairs and External Relations Bureau (LEB) and the Legal Committee, was cross-cutting in nature and impacted other Bureaus. Highlighting the risk of that issue not being adequately reflected in the Work Programmes and Action Plans of the various bodies, he requested the Secretariat to take due note thereof, to consider the possible implications of the issue of conflicts of interest in civil aviation for work in the security and facilitation fields, as well as in other fields, and, where appropriate, to include an action item in the relevant Work Programmes and Action Plans. In underscoring that that should be the modus operandi for all cross-cutting issues, the President stressed the need for Organization-wide coordination in taking actions to address such issues.

26. Comments made regarding the review of the scope and methodology of the USAP-CMA were noted for consideration when the Council discussed, at a future session, the AVSECP’s report on the results of the Secretariat Study Group’s related work. Similarly, comments made regarding the proposed actions relating to the FAL Work Programme were noted for consideration in carrying out future work.

27. As recommended by the UIC and the ATC, the Council then endorsed the proposed actions outlined in the Appendix to C-WP/14542, as amended in paragraphs 4 b) and c) above, which it confirmed would effectively respond to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of the 39th Session of the Assembly in the fields of security and facilitation.

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

Report on the Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Security and Facilitation in Africa (AFI SECFAL Plan)

28. The Council next considered: information paper C-WP/14544, in which the Secretary General reported on the significant progress made in the ongoing implementation of the AFI SECFAL Plan following its launch on 18 May 2015 in Maputo, Mozambique, highlighted the various achievements, and elaborated on challenges and the Plan’s future focus; and a joint UIC/ATC oral report thereon.

Joint UIC/ATC oral report

29. During their review of the paper at a joint meeting on 25 January 2017, the Committees had been advised by the Secretariat of challenges facing the AFI SECFAL Plan. While gratitude had been expressed for the provision of voluntary financial and in-kind contributions to support the AFI SECFAL

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -50-

Plan, it had been noted that resources were insufficient to cover the financial requirements for the entirety of the Plan’s duration. The Committees had highlighted the difficulties in attracting support for assistance projects under the AFI SECFAL Plan because of Council-approved limitations on the sharing of restricted and detailed ICAO USAP-CMA data. The Secretariat had noted the broad range of State views on that challenging issue, that Member States may voluntarily disclose their own USAP-CMA audit results to third parties, and that the Secretariat Study Group on the USAP-CMA may offer recommendations on modifying the level of disclosure of USAP-CMA audit results.

30. The Committees had noted the information presented in the paper.

Discussion

31. Responding to a question raised by the President of the Council, the Senior Adviser for Aviation Security clarified that USAP-CMA audit results, in a generalized form, were available to States and to the Secretariat for information purposes, and that the USAP-CMA audit reports were available to the ICAO Regional Offices in addition to the audited States. He indicated that while in the past the Regional Offices may not have received some USAP-CMA audit results, that had not been due to any deliberate action on the part of ICAO Headquarters to withhold information from them.

32. The President of the Council emphasized that as the Regional Offices had been tasked with the responsibility of providing support to States under the ICAO No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative in the area of security and facilitation, it was important that they have information on the States’ identified deficiencies so that they could take appropriate action. In underscoring that Headquarters and the Regional Offices were all part of one ICAO, he stressed that the confidentiality of USAP-CMA audit results related to disclosing those results to other States and not to sharing them with those staff members at Headquarters and the Regional Offices who were actively involved in both the audit and the implementation of assistance programmes.

33. In the absence of further comments, the Council noted: information paper C-WP/14544; and the joint UIC/ATC oral report thereon, in particular, the concern expressed by the Committees regarding the difficulties being encountered in attracting support for assistance projects under the AFI SECFAL Plan due to Council-approved limitations on the sharing of restricted and detailed ICAO USAP-CMA data.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2309 (2016) on countering terrorist threats to civil aviation

34. This subject was considered on the basis of: C-WP/14543, in which the Secretary General set forth relevant ICAO actions taken and those proposed in response to the Operative Clauses of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2309 (2016) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts: Aviation security; and a joint UIC/ATC oral report thereon.

Joint UIC/ATC oral report

35. During the Committees’ joint meeting on 25 January 2107, it had been recalled that, as previously indicated (209/3), the exceptional circumstances that had arisen had prevented the Council from having the opportunity to review the draft text of the said UNSC Resolution and to propose any improvements prior to the UNSC ministerial meeting in New York on 22 September 2016. There had been broad consensus within the Committees that UNSC Resolution 2309 highlighted the important leadership role of ICAO in matters relating to aviation security. The Committees had commended the Secretary General for the briefing she had delivered to the UNSC on 22 September 2016, and for her

-51- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

efforts in raising the profile of ICAO in that forum. The Committees had also emphasized the importance of consultations with them and the Council on any revisions made to UNSC Resolution 2309 and on any new resolution dealing with aviation security.

36. It had been noted that the UNSC Resolution’s Operative Clauses were closely aligned with ICAO’s regulatory, policy and guidance framework relating to aviation security, and that the Organization was already undertaking many of the actions related to their implementation outlined in the Appendix to C-WP/14543. The Committees had further recognized that implementation of UNSC Resolution 2309 by the ICAO Secretariat would involve continuing many of the actions currently underway in ensuring the progressive enhancement of global aviation security while further strengthening the Organization’s support to its Member States. In this regard, the Secretariat had informed the Committees of the timeline for development and approval of the ICAO GASeP.

37. Several Members had indicated that the proposed ICAO response to Operative Clauses 1 and 2 of the said Resolution (cf. Appendix) should be better aligned with the actual text thereof, to read as follows:

“1. Action proposed: Affirm in the GASeP as a foundational principle, that all States have the responsibility to protect the security of citizens and nationals of all nations against terrorist attacks on air services operating within their territory.

“2. Action proposed: Affirm in the GASeP as a foundational principle, that all States have an interest to protect the safety of their own citizens and nationals against terrorist attacks conducted against international civil aviation, wherever these may occur.”.

38. With regard to Operative Clauses 10 and 11, the Committees had stressed that ICAO’s enhanced cooperation with the UN Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) should be based on a two-way sharing of information between the two entities. The Secretariat had assured Members that ICAO’s relationship with the CTED was one of mutual assistance and information-sharing, and that the Council would be kept apprised of all UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) matters relating to ICAO.

39. The Committees had recommended that the Council endorse the proposed actions related to the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 2309 (2016) contained in the Appendix to C-WP/14543, taking into account the above proposed change to the text and the Committees’ general comments.

Discussion

40. The Council agreed to the Committees’ recommendation that the proposed ICAO response to Operative Clauses 1 and 2 of the Resolution be amended to read as indicated in paragraph 37 above.

41. It was also agreed that, as suggested by the Representative of Canada, the ICAO response to Operative Clause 4 be revised, as follows: that the action proposed in the first bullet be amended to acknowledge that the Work Programme approved by the 39th Session of the Assembly also included consideration of risk-based and outcome-based approaches in the updating of the scope and methodology of the USAP-CMA; and that the action proposed in the second bullet be amended to reflect that the Secretariat Study Group on the USAP-CMA had held an initial meeting to begin the review process and that input from the AVSECP would inform the direction of the ongoing review.

42. With regard to the ICAO response to Operative Clauses 10 and 11, note was taken of: the great value of the first UNSC Resolution dedicated to civil aviation security; the importance of good

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -52-

coordination and joint efforts with the UN CTC and the UN CTED; and the need to consult the Council regarding additional commitments that might arise from ICAO’s cooperation with the CTC, in particular from the envisaged joint Special Meeting on the issue of terrorist threats to civil aviation as highlighted by the Representative of Mexico. It was understood that the Secretariat would keep the Council apprised of CTC cooperation matters relating to ICAO. A suggestion by the Representative of France that CTED officials be invited to give a briefing to the Council was also noted.

43. The Council then endorsed the ICAO actions taken and those proposed in response to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2309 (2016) set forth in the Appendix to C-WP/14543, subject to the amendments recorded in paragraphs 40 and 41 above. It was noted that updates on progress made in their implementation would be provided to the Council in due course, together with information on key issues, should any arise, and associated strategies.

Farewell to the former Deputy Director, Aviation Security and Facilitation (DD/ASF)

44. On behalf of the Council, and on his own personal behalf, the President voiced appreciation to Mr. J. Marriott, who was leaving the Organization after having served first as DD/ASF and subsequently as the Senior Adviser for Aviation Security, for his diligence, professionalism, integrity and dedication to the Organization, and by extension to the international aviation community, in raising the level of aviation security globally during his time at ICAO. The Secretary General fully endorsed this expression of appreciation and extended her personal thanks to Mr. Marriott for his support and contribution to the aviation security activities of the Organization.

Subject No. 20: Periodic reports by the Secretary General

Secretary General’s Mid-term Report to the Council

45. The Council reviewed information paper C-WP/14549, whereby the Secretary General, pursuant to her Charter Letter dated 2 April 2015 from the President of the Council, on behalf of the Council (cf. PRES OBA/2399), presented a comprehensive mid-term report which set forth the results of the leadership initiatives she had undertaken during her first 18 months in office, highlighting the Secretariat’s major achievements in each of ICAO’s five Strategic Objectives, which were of global importance. The report also identified the main challenges facing the Organization for the remainder of the Secretary General’s mandate and her plans to address them.

46. In introducing her mid-term report, the Secretary General underscored that since assuming office she had taken a new leadership approach to direct ICAO’s Work Programmes to respond in a more timely manner to the changing needs of States and the international aviation community, and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency with which the priorities, Strategic Objectives and goals of the Organization were managed. She then highlighted the following major accomplishments relating to the Organization’s Strategic Objectives that were attained during her first 18 months as Secretary General:

47. With respect to safety, significant steps had been taken to rapidly respond to and mitigate active risks to international civil aviation. The safety risks associated with pandemics such as the Ebola and Zika viruses, lithium batteries and conflict zones had been effectively addressed by ICAO in a timely fashion.

48. Given the dynamic nature of international civil aviation and the consequential needs of ICAO Member States, the Secretary General had responded by re-prioritizing the Secretariat’s work and resources to address emerging aviation issues such as global tracking and the development of provisions related to Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).

-53- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

49. With regard to air navigation capacity and efficiency, under the Secretary General’s direction ICAO had made significant steps to assist States in implementing technologies such as performance-based navigation (PBN), integrating RPAS into the global airspace system, while also assisting States to minimize the disruption of air traffic due to contingencies such as airspace closures, mitigating the risks due to conflict zones, and addressing emerging aviation issues such as Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference (e.g. jamming).

50. During the Secretary General’s tenure, ICAO had strengthened efforts to enhance risk awareness, promote risk assessment tools, and implement a risk-driven security culture while facilitating the movement of people and goods by air with a minimum of operational delays. The Organization’s work in the fields of security and facilitation had been further showcased in the United Nations Security Council on 22 September 2016, in the form of Resolution 2309 (2016) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts: Aviation security, the UNSC’s first resolution to broadly address international civil aviation security. 51. With reference to the economic development of air transport, the Organization had continued to facilitate liberalization and modernize the regulatory framework for international air transport, in line with the long-term vision for international air transport liberalization adopted by the Council in June 2015 (205/5).

52. Finally, with respect to environmental protection, the international aviation community had witnessed the culmination of over six years’ worth of ICAO efforts to facilitate an agreement on a global market-based measure scheme (GMBM) with the adoption, by the 39th Session of the Assembly, of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

53. Emphasizing that those were just a few of the major accomplishments achieved to date, the Secretary General indicated that it was important to note that ICAO continued to face challenges going forward. She then briefly outlined some of the challenges she foresaw in the upcoming 18 months, as follows:

• the implementation of CORSIA would pose a challenge to the Organization and require additional resources; • the ongoing and ever-evolving threat of cybersecurity and the need for cybersafety would also require a concerted effort from ICAO; • the ability to respond to crises that affect international civil aviation would continue to place a burden on the Organization; • the development of a GASeP and the updating of the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) and the Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP) were all major undertakings by the Secretariat.

54. Since this was her mid-term report, and in view of the actions still to be achieved and the challenges ahead, the Secretary General would continue to regularly provide the Council with information on the state of implementation of the Secretariat’s actions through the Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool (CPMFT) and her sessional progress reports.

55. The Secretary General thanked the Council and the President for their directions, understanding and unwavering support during her first 18 months in office, and expressed appreciation to the Secretariat, especially to her Senior Management Team, for their commitment, dedication and faithful service to ICAO. She emphasized that everything that they had accomplished to-date, they had accomplished together, in a spirit of mutual respect, hard work and cooperation, for which she expressed

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -54-

her deep gratitude. That being said, the Secretary General was buoyed by the prospect of the next 18 months. She was optimistic, confident and excited that their best was yet to come. The Secretary General was convinced that with their support, her remaining tenure would yield even more fruitful results for ICAO and even greater benefits for the international aviation community.

56. Further to a request made by the Representative of the Russian Federation and supported by the Representatives of France and Saudi Arabia, it was agreed that, on an exceptional basis, information paper C-WP/14549 would be translated into all ICAO working languages, for posting on the ICAO-NET and the Council’s secure website.

57. Observing that the comprehensive mid-term report clearly indicated the achievements attained thus far and, more importantly, what remained to be accomplished in the future, the Representative of France expressed appreciation therefor to the Secretary General and through her, to the entire Secretariat. In highlighting that multilingualism was a fundamental principle for achieving the Organization’s Strategic Objectives and for ensuring the vitality of the discussions in the Assembly, the Council and subordinate bodies, he suggested that information on the implementation of that principle in ICAO be provided in the Secretary General’s future reporting.

58. Recalling that it had unfortunately not been possible to proceed with the 2016/2017 ICAO internal language courses at ICAO Headquarters due to the insufficient number of registrations (cf. Staff Notices Nos. 5604 and 5620), the Representative of France suggested that the matter be looked into to determine whether the low number of applicants had been due to the course fees that were charged or to a lack of publicity and consequently of awareness of the courses on offer. Noting that language courses were offered throughout the UN common system, he emphasized that ICAO’s internal language courses were an extremely useful tool for promoting multilingualism among: the Organization’s staff members, which could, in turn, enhance their performance and advance their careers; and National Representatives and their personnel. The Representative of France thus affirmed the high importance of internal language courses for the future of ICAO and its vitality.

59. The Secretary General clarified that while it had initially been planned to provide internal language courses from October 2016 to May 2017, it had not been possible to do so due to the insufficient number of applicants. However, the registration process had been re-opened for the January-May 2017 session (cf. Staff Notice No. 5620). Underscoring that further efforts should be made to highlight to members of the ICAO Secretariat and national Delegations the importance of multilingualism in ICAO as a UN Specialized Agency, she indicated that the internal language courses would continue to be provided.

60. While commending the mid-term report, the Representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that it would have been useful to have presented in tabular form some of the information contained in the lengthy 18-page document. He wished the Secretary General and the Secretariat every success in addressing all of the future challenges identified therein.

61. The President of the Council noted that the issue of the report’s format would be considered under the next item on the Council’s order of business, an oral report by the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE) on the outcome of its review of the structure and content of the Secretary General’s sessional progress reports. He indicated that it would also be addressed through the envisaged reporting on the state of implementation of the Secretariat’s actions through the CPMFT, inter alia.

62. The Representative of Uruguay indicated that he was pleased to note, from the mid-term report, the Secretary General’s vision of a global aviation system (cf. paragraph 2.1.2), her affirmation of ICAO’s leadership role in addressing issues relating to international civil aviation, as well as the actions

-55- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

taken to provide technical assistance and technical cooperation in support of the ICAO NCLB initiative. He emphasized that the report served as a very good basis for the work to be performed during the next 18 months in the context of renewed and strengthened cooperation between the Council and the Secretariat.

63. Commenting on paragraph 2.1.5 of the mid-term report, in particular on safety risks to international civil aviation associated with pandemics such as the Ebola and Zika viruses, the Representative of South Africa highlighted that the airline industry was reporting a growing number of in- flight medical emergencies which caused flight diversions, each costing between USD 50 000 and USD 700 00, including landing and handling fees. He cited, as an example, the case where an in-flight emergency might occur over the high seas, limiting the Captain’s choices to proceeding or returning to base. The decision was rendered even more difficult if the nearest airport was unable to provide a Category 9 level of protection for large aircraft as defined in ICAO Doc 9137 – Airport Services Manual, Part 1 – Rescue and Firefighting. The Representative of South Africa stressed the need for ICAO, in coordination mainly with IATA, to determine the causes of in-flight medical emergencies, which could result in fatalities, and to address those medical challenges.

64. The Representative of South Africa welcomed the actions being taken with regard to the economic development of air transport (cf. paragraph 2.1.8), which he considered to be one of the cornerstones of the Chicago Convention. In emphasizing the need to expand and fast-track the work being undertaken with regard to the liberalization of air carrier ownership and control, as well as the liberalization of market access (open skies), he suggested that those issues be raised during the ICAO Air Services Negotiation Events (ICANs) in order to at least identify the associated challenges.

65. Recalling the Council’s budgetary discussions, the Representative of Malaysia underscored that the allocation of the limited resources available to the Organization to meet the many emerging issues was very challenging. He noted that as some emerging aviation issues, such as cybersecurity, conflict zones and global tracking systems, had been unforeseen, it had been necessary to re-prioritize the Secretariat’s activities and resources in order to accommodate new initiatives to address them. The Representative of Malaysia expressed appreciation to the Secretary General for her results- based budget planning and management which had nevertheless enabled impressive accomplishments.

66. In also recalling the previous day’s informal briefing on cybersecurity in aviation, the Representative of Malaysia underscored that GNSS interference (e.g. jamming) was not an emerging issue as indicated in paragraph 2.1.6 of the mid-term report, but rather a recurring one that had been in existence for many years. He emphasized that while there was consequently a need to determine how best to address that long-outstanding issue, particularly in the context of a legal framework, the ICAO Business Plan for 2017-2018-2019 (cf. paragraph 2.8.2) did not seem to accord the consideration of a legal framework priority. The Representative of Malaysia therefore suggested that it be given a higher level of priority in the said Business Plan and the results-based budget planning and management which was based thereon.

67. The Representative of Colombia endorsed these comments regarding a legal framework for GNSS.

68. While noting that the Representative of Malaysia had raised the issue of the establishment of a legal framework for GNSS on many occasions, notably during the Council’s consideration of the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee, which contained an item relating thereto, the Secretary General underscored that there was also an operational side to GNSS interference which needed to be considered. She therefore requested D/ANB and D/LEB to coordinate in addressing the cross-cutting issue of GNSS interference.

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -56-

69. Affirming the validity of the concern expressed by the Representative of Malaysia regarding GNSS interference, D/ANB emphasized that, as discussed during the said informal briefing, all of the information management and/or information-enabling technologies would require more and more protection as the aviation industry became increasingly reliant on them. In the case of GNSS, while there were aircraft and ground systems which had integrated the signals into their outcomes and processes, they had done so as a sensor into a process that normally had multiple inputs. However, as the aviation industry became more reliant solely on GNSS, it would become more problematic for safety approval due the lack of a suitable backup. In noting the Representative’s concern, D/ANB underscored that he would work closely with D/LEB to ensure that all relevant aspects of GNSS interference were duly incorporated into the work plan.

70. Observing that with the support of the Council, the Secretary General had assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for the past 18 months and had instructed the Secretariat to undertake various tasks, the Representative of China indicated that the results thus far achieved were generally satisfactory. He noted that in her mid-term report the Secretary General had highlighted current challenges, including implementation, strategic planning, budget funding, emergency responses, risks and performance management, as well as corresponding actions to address them. The Representative of China expressed the hope and belief that the Secretary General would continue her close communication with the Council, and that, with the latter’s support, she would give full play to her leadership, improve the performance and efficiency of the Secretariat, achieve more with less, and strengthen interactions with Member States, as well as serve them better.

71. The Representative of Spain expressed appreciation to the Secretary General and, through her, to the Secretariat, for all of the work done over the last 18 months in response to the said Charter Letter, as described in her comprehensive mid-term report. He welcomed, and supported, the Secretary General’s various leadership initiatives, such as the mobilization of extra-budgetary resources and the strengthening of existing partnerships and the development of new ones with UN organizations, and eagerly awaited their outcomes.

72. In agreeing with the Secretary General on the main challenges being faced as identified in the mid-term report, the Representative of Spain emphasized that they were not to be addressed solely by the Secretariat but rather by the Organization as a whole, including the Council. He noted, however, that it was still unclear how ICAO would meet the commitment made to the 39th Session of the Assembly regarding CORSIA as a number of the scheme’s elements remained to be defined. Furthermore, while it was necessary to address the challenges of cybersecurity and cybersafety, as reiterated during the previous day’s informal briefing, it was not clear how that would be done. Recalling that crisis management had also been identified as a main challenge, the Representative of Spain underscored that RPAS should be regarded as another one. He observed, however, that while that issue, and a number of others, were on the table it was still not known exactly how they would be addressed by the Organization.

73. Noting, with satisfaction, the emphasis which the Secretary General’s mid-term report placed on the important area of human resources, the Representative of Spain indicated that the five paragraphs in Section 2.9 dedicated thereto served to highlight the importance of recruiting the best aviation professionals to fulfil the Organization’s technical mandate.

74. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.11.2, the Representative of Spain reiterated that he supported the ICAO Programme for Aviation Volunteers (IPAV) insofar as it would drastically reduce the cost of providing assistance to States since the skilled and experienced aviation professionals serving as IPAV volunteers would only charge a nominal fee (USD 1), if any, for their services. He thus considered that it was not essential to focus attention solely on mobilizing financial resources for the IPAV.

-57- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

75. Referring to paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, the Representative of Spain highlighted the importance of helping States develop business cases which could be used to obtain financing to meet their respective needs. Agreeing that there should be a smooth transition from the ICAO Global Plans to the regional and national plans, he underscored the need for further indepth work thereon in order to have a clearer picture of the chain of transmission. In also endorsing the concept of the link between the Global Plans, the ICAO Business Plan, the Operating Plans of each Bureau/Office, the job-cards and the various Work Programmes, such as that of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC), the Representative of Spain emphasized that additional indepth work thereon was likewise required.

76. In supporting the idea of a secure global System Wide Information Management (SWIM) capability for future air traffic management (ATM) platforms (cf. paragraph 3.5.2), the Representative of Spain expressed confidence that the upcoming ICAO Cyber Summit and Exhibition: Making Sense of Cyber (Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 4-6 April 2017) would assist in identifying the next steps to be taken in that regard.

77. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.10.1, the Representative of Spain highlighted the importance of States ratifying the following two instruments adopted by the Assembly on 6 October 2016 during its 39th Session: the Protocol of Amendment to the Chicago Convention relating to Article 50 (a), whereby the membership of the Council would be increased from 36 to 40; and the Protocol of Amendment to the Chicago Convention relating to Article 56, whereby the membership of the ANC would be increased from 19 to 21. He enquired as to what new actions were planned to expedite such ratification. In addition, the Representative of Spain sought further information on any new initiatives to reward staff members for good performance (cf. paragraph 2.9.3).

78. Referring to paragraph 3.13.9, the Representative of Spain agreed that the full harmonization and alignment of the Business Plan and Operating Plans with the current work plans and programmes of the Bureaus and Regional Offices posed a specific challenge and emphasized that it was essential to address it in order to facilitate the Council’s understanding thereof.

79. In concluding, the Representative of Spain assured the Secretary General and the Secretariat of his continued support and that of his Delegation in accomplishing ongoing and future initiatives as outlined in the mid-term report.

80. Responding to the point raised by the Representative of Spain regarding paragraph 3.10.1, the Secretary General underscored that while most of the aviation security-related international air law instruments adopted under ICAO’s auspices had attained near universal acceptance, that had taken many years to achieve. Some of the other international air law instruments had still not attained a high level of ratification. With reference to the Protocols of Amendment to the Chicago Convention relating to Articles 50 (a) and 56, the Secretary General recalled that by State letter LE 3/1.20, LE 3/1.21 – 17/2 dated 20 January 2017 she had informed States of their adoption by the Assembly and had transmitted certified true copies of their authentic texts. She had also brought to their attention Resolutions A39-5 and A39-7, in which the Assembly recommended to all States that the Protocols of Amendment be ratified most urgently, and had included in the State letter administrative packages to assist them in the ratification process.

81. The Secretary General underscored that the said State letter was being used by the Regional Offices to promote the ratification of the two Protocols of Amendment, as part of their overall work to encourage States to ratify international air law instruments. In addition, State support was being sought for the organization and hosting of regional legal seminars to expedite ratification of certain international air law instruments, including the said Protocols of Amendment. Recalling that the UNSC,

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -58-

in Preambular Clause 13 of Resolution 2309 (2016) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts: Aviation security, reaffirmed “its call upon all States to become party to the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and protocols as soon as possible …”, she indicated that the Resolution could thus be used as one of the platforms for garnering support for the ratification of the aviation security-related international air law instruments at the level of Ministers of Transport and Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary General noted that whenever she and the President of the Council went on State missions they always raised, at the highest political level possible, the issue of the ratification of the relevant international air law instruments to which the State was not yet a party and encouraged the Ministers concerned to prioritize ratification thereof by their Government. The Secretary General welcomed any advice or proposals that Representatives might have to enhance the ratification of international air law instruments.

82. To complement the above-mentioned action being taken with regard to the Protocols of Amendment, the President of the Council suggested that those States which had proposed and promoted the said increases in the size of the Council and the ANC take all necessary action to coordinate State ratification at the national and regional levels.

83. Responding to the query raised by the Representative of Spain regarding paragraph 2.9.3, the Secretary General noted that as part of the transformational corporate performance management system that was being introduced, it was necessary to promote and reward outstanding performance by staff members and to address shortcomings in performance or underperformance. She noted that under Staff Regulation 3.7 of The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) she had the authority to grant, in cases of special merit, additional increments, non-pensionable bonuses and other staff awards and incentives. Exemplary performance was currently rewarded on the basis of the Performance and Competency Enhancement (PACE) Reports through the use of monetary awards, such as individual or team cash awards or individual merit increments, and non-monetary awards, such as individual or team merit certificates. Those awards were in addition to the Service Awards for length of service (5, 12, 25, 30 and 35 years). The Secretary General indicated that it was planned to review and revise the existing Guidelines for Staff Awards so as to provide for other forms of recognition of successful, outstanding performance with which to incentivize staff members and to further enhance the performance-based culture in ICAO. She cited, as examples, a letter of commendation to recognize outstanding achievements or contributions of staff, or offering high performing staff opportunities to attend specialized workshops or conferences related to their area of work to enhance development of their skills and competencies.

84. The Secretary General emphasized that it would also be necessary to address shortcomings in performance or underperformance through the mechanism established in the PACE Report, i.e. the development and implementation of a performance improvement plan to enable the staff member concerned to deliver the expected outcomes.

85. Referring to the Representative’s comment on the highly-important issue of the full harmonization and alignment of the Business Plan and Operating Plans with the current work plans and programmes of the Bureaus and Regional Offices (paragraph 3.13.9), the Secretary General indicated that the recent establishment of the Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP) would enhance coordination at the horizontal level. Underscoring that it was also necessary to do so at the vertical level, i.e. at the level of managers and individual staff members, she indicated that the key tasks and expected outcomes and results contained in their respective PACE performance plans were now required to be linked the related organization-wide Strategic Objective(s) and project/deliverable(s) set forth in the Business Plan. The Secretary General underscored that while the said harmonization and alignment process could not be completed overnight, the Senior Management Team, as well as the staff members, were committed thereto.

-59- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

86. Affirming that the mid-term report provided an excellent snapshot of the major achievements in the past 18 months, as well as of the challenges that lay ahead, the Representative of Argentina thanked the Secretary General and the Secretariat for their substantive work and expressed confidence that their joint cooperative efforts with the Council would enable the Organization to meet those challenges and fulfil its mandate.

87. Expressing hearty congratulations to the Secretary General and the Secretariat for their impressive work, the Representative of Colombia affirmed that the outcomes lived up to ICAO’s tradition and were a source of pride. While recognizing the excellent results achieved under the various Strategic Objectives, he averred that the Chicago Convention conferred a mandate to do more work in the air transport field and consequently requested that more funds be allocated therefor. Although he acknowledged the growing importance of environment- and aviation security- related issues and new challenges such as cybersecurity, the Representative of Colombia maintained that air transport-related issues such as air connectivity were equally important. In underscoring the need to provide air transport services throughout the world, he emphasized that the ICAO statistics required to take fact-based decisions to meet the many associated challenges were not available. Noting that that void had been filled by other organizations, the Representative of Colombia stressed the need for ICAO to regain its leadership role in that area. He reiterated the need for ICAO to carry out more work with regard to passengers and cargo, which constituted the very reason for air transport.

88. Endorsing the comments made by the Representative of Malaysia regarding the need for a legal framework for GNSS to be developed by the Legal Committee, the Representative of Colombia underscored that legal frameworks for RPAS, commercial space flights and cybersecurity were also necessary. Noting that all of those issues posed considerable challenges for ICAO, he highlighted how difficult it was for ICAO to develop new SARPs and to ensure their harmonized implementation by States. In commending ICAO for the way in which it always promoted such harmonization, the Representative of Colombia emphasized that it enabled aircraft to fly from one point to another anywhere in the world. He stressed that the said global legal frameworks were required to enable them to continue to be able to do so. The Representative of Colombia further underscored the need for the Organization to provide SARPs in a timely manner, as needed by the aviation sector, i.e. in a proactive, and not reactive, manner. Highlighting that the air transport sector was worth billions of dollar and there would be no globalization of civil aviation without ICAO, he reiterated the need for ICAO to do more work in the air transport field, in particular with regard to passengers and cargo, and to allocate more funds therefor. In noting that the issues he had raised were for consideration by the Secretary General during the next 18 months of her tenure, the Representative of Colombia reiterated that the work carried out thus far was excellent.

89. The President of the Council noted that the envisaged mobilization of extra-budgetary resources would enable focus to be placed on the issues raised by the Representative of Colombia.

90. In expressing appreciation to the Secretary General for her leadership over the last 18 months, despite the limited resources, the Representative of Nigeria agreed with the Representative of Colombia on the need to allocate more resources to air transport-related issues. He underscored that as there was a low level of air connectivity in some parts of the world, especially in Africa, it was necessary to improve air transport, particularly in view of the proposed development of a Global Air Transport Plan.

91. Full agreeing on the importance of air transport and air connectivity, the Secretary General underscored that ICAO’s main priority was the enhancement of the level of effective implementation of SARPs with the goal of providing a stronger foundation for aviation safety and security, which would in turn promote the further development of air transport. At the same time, the Organization was raising States’ awareness of the importance of aviation for sustainable socio-economic development and garnering their political will to make aviation one of the strategic sectors in their

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -60-

national economies. It was also assisting States in harmonizing their national civil aviation plans with their national development plans and strategic priorities. Thus ICAO was already assisting States in further enhancing air transport.

92. It was hoped that in future ICAO would be able to provide training to States on the development of business plans so that their civil aviation authorities (CAAs) would be in a position to demonstrate aviation’s contribution to national economic development and social progress. She highlighted, in this regard, that the Secretariat had already started to develop State profiles which included the respective safety and security information, as well as the economic impact thereof, with a view to increasing States’ understanding of the importance of effective SARPs implementation to enhancing safety and security and thus to promoting the development of their aviation sector in support of their gross domestic product (GDP) and job creation. The Secretary General noted that ATB, in cooperation with States, had already planned several regional seminars and conferences to promote air transport.

93. Underscoring that the above-mentioned measures were already incorporated in the relevant Operating Plans, the Secretary General indicated that she would provide the Council with updated information on their progress of implementation as the Organization continued to move in that direction.

94. Note was taken of: the appreciation and recognition expressed to the Secretary General for the impressive accomplishments realized during the first 18 months of her tenure with limited resources; the suggestion made by the Representative of France and supported by the Representative of the Russian Federation to provide information on the implementation of the principle of multilingualism in ICAO in the Secretary General’s future reporting; and the other suggestions and comments made, and the clarifications provided.

95. Having completed its consideration of C-WP/14549, the Council noted the information provided therein, as well as the supplementary information provided orally by the Secretary General, on the understanding that in the spirit of transparency the Secretary General would continue to regularly provide it with information on, inter alia, the status of implementation of the Organization’s programmes and projects and her various leadership initiatives through the envisaged CPMFT and her sessional progress reports.

96. On behalf of the Council, the President congratulated the Secretary General, her Senior Management Team and all other Secretariat staff on their achievements over the past 18 months and looked forward to their continuing efforts to address the challenges outlined in the Secretary General’s mid-term report. He assured the Secretary General of the Council’s continuing cooperation, as well as of his own.

Review of the structure and content of the Secretary General’s sessional progress reports

97. This subject was considered on the basis of the following oral report by the Chairperson of the WGGE, the Representative of India, Mr. A. Shekhar:

98. The Council, at its Second Meeting of the 209th Session, had requested the WGGE to review the current format of the Secretary General’s sessional progress reports and to make recommendations to the Council as to the structure and content of future reports, taking into consideration that there had not been, at the time, an ICAO Business Plan, Operating Plans, key performance indicators (KPIs), a Corporate Risk Register or a CPMFT, all of them having being under development [cf. C- DEC 209/2, paragraph 16 a)]. Following the WGGE’s First Meeting of the 210th Session on 19 January 2017, a Sub-group on Sessional Progress Reports of the Secretary General (SSR), comprising the

-61- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

Representatives of Mexico, the Russian Federation and Spain (Chairperson), had been established to work on that matter.

99. In considering the SSR’s report, the WGGE had recognized that the Secretary General’s Charter Letter dated 2 April 2015 from the President of the Council, on behalf of the Council (cf. PRES OBA/2399), called for reporting on a number of different issues and thematic subjects, some of which were now reported regularly to the Council through: Council working papers; annual reports to the Council; the ICAO Business Plan; the Council website; and the soon-to-be unveiled CPMFT, which was expected to be operational before the presentation of the Secretary General’s sessional report for the next (211th) session. The WGGE had agreed with the proposal that the SSR specifically be consulted by the Secretariat in the development of the CPMFT’s user interface and that once the development was completed, Council Representatives be offered training on how to use and navigate the CPMFT.

100. Taking into account the above-mentioned additional reporting arrangements to the Council, and subject to the operational practicability and utility of the CPMFT, the WGGE, as proposed by the SSR, had recommended that in future the Secretary General’s sessional progress reports focus on items requested in the said Charter Letter that were not normally reported to the Council on a systematic basis. The WGGE accordingly had recommended the following guidelines identified by the SSR which the Secretariat should use as a basis for the information provided in such reports:

a) that the Secretary General’s sessional progress reports cover, in narrative form, the following topics, among others:

• new leadership initiatives undertaken; • new public outreach activities undertaken; • changes in the corporate risks or emerging risks, with mitigating measures; and • new partnerships and agreements during the reporting period; and

b) each sessional progress report should be tailored to address those topics in the above list that were relevant during the reporting period and should be completed with updates on the results of existing leadership initiatives, public outreach activities and partnerships/agreements when relevant and accomplished.

101. It was recalled that during the Council’s consideration of the Secretary General’s mid- term report, the Representative of Saudi Arabia had indicated that it would have been useful to have some of the information contained in that lengthy 18-page document presented in tabular form (cf. paragraph 60 above).

102. In the absence of comments, the Council noted the WGGE’s oral report and endorsed the aforesaid guidelines. It was understood that the Secretariat would consult the SSR in developing the user interface of the CPMFT and that Representatives would be offered training on how to use and navigate the CPMFT following the latter’s completion. It was recalled, in this context, that during the presentation of the proposed CPMFT to the Council earlier in the session (210/1), the Council had requested that it be expanded to include the status of recommendations emanating from the Council Off-site Strategy Meetings (COSMs) and the Operating Plan of the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF).

Subject No. 42: Technical Cooperation

Report on Technical Cooperation Programme Development

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -62-

103. The Council discussed the above subject on the basis of an oral report by the Secretary General on the preliminary financial and operational performance results of the Technical Cooperation Programme for the period 1 January to 31 December 2016, as well as the preliminary financial results of the Administrative and Operational Services Cost Fund (AOSC) for 2016, and a joint oral report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC) and the Technical Cooperation Committee (TCC), as follows:

Secretary General’s oral report

104. The Council, at its 192nd Session, decided to change the Technical Cooperation Bureau's (TCB’s) reporting requirements set forth in C-DEC 188/12 and requested that an oral report on the preliminary financial and operational performance results of the Technical Cooperation Programme for the previous year be presented to the Council in the Winter session, pending a full written report, with audited figures, which should be provided in the Spring session.

Programme Financial Performance

105. The total Technical Cooperation Programme implementation for the year 2016 amounted to approximately USD 107.2 million. These results fell short of the expected implementation of USD 123.1 million reported to the Council in November 2016 mainly due to a decrease in overall personnel implementation and a handful of procurement projects delayed until 2017.

106. A breakdown of the Technical Cooperation Programme’s geographical distribution in 2016 showed that, in terms of economic resources, the Americas region accounted for 64.5 per cent of the Programme financial delivery, the Africa region 24.8 per cent, the Middle East 5.5 per cent, the Asia Pacific region 4.4 per cent and Europe 0.8 per cent. The personnel and training components of the projects accounted for 36.1 per cent of the total Programme for the year, while procurement activities represented 63.9 per cent.

AOSC Income and Expenditure

107. Although the total volume of implementation had decreased in comparison to the forecast, the AOSC Fund was expected to arrive at a surplus greater than the original projection of CAD 0.7 million noted by the Council in the Fall session of approximately CAD 1.4 million in 2016. That was the result of a combination of lower expenditure than originally forecasted, the continued strength of the US Dollar in which income was earned, and a slight increase in the average overhead rate levied against technical cooperation projects. Total estimated AOSC income amounted to approximately CAD 10.3 million and expenditures to CAD 8.9 million as compared to the forecast of CAD 10.0 million and CAD 9.2 million, respectively. The AOSC Fund’s accumulated surplus stood at approximately CAD 5.3 million as at 31 December 2016. It was to be noted that the figures presented in the report were based on estimates and were subject to change upon completion of transactions from the field and other final adjustments.

108. A full written report with audited figures for 2016, together with an update of the programme forecast and AOSC budgetary estimates for 2016, would be presented to the Council through the FIC and the TCC at the Spring Session.

Programme Operational Performance

109. During 2016, there had been 89 national and 27 regional operationally active technical cooperation and technical assistance projects contributing to further improving aviation safety, security, air

-63- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

navigation capacity and efficiency, environmental protection and economic development of air transport in 138 countries. Of those countries, 44 had been in Africa, 39 in Asia Pacific, 34 in the Americas, 14 in Europe and 7 in the Middle East.

110. Out of the 116 projects, TCB had implemented five technical assistance projects in the areas of aviation safety and air navigation, capacity and efficiency of which three had received contributions from the ICAO Safety Fund in 2016, i.e. Cambodia (USD 60 000), Nepal (USD 90 000) and a regional project in the African region (France USD 75 000), and two of which had been initiated in 2014 and 2015, respectively, with funds from France and Comoros (i.e. Madagascar and Comoros), but had received no further contributions in 2016.

Experts

111. 298 international field experts had been deployed in 2016 as compared to 253 in 2015, and 713 national experts had been recruited for civil aviation administrations, compared to 871 in 2015. Those experts were responsible for the transfer of knowledge in various fields to national counterparts, the implementation of ICAO SARPs, the development of adequate civil aviation organizational structures, institutional development and capacity building, as well as for the rectification of safety- and security- related deficiencies.

Training

112. In terms of capacity building through technical cooperation projects, 5 915 nationals had received in-country training, as compared to 4 447 in 2015. That had been in addition to the training provided to 576 staff under procurement contracts, compared with 351 in the previous year. Furthermore, 898 fellowships had been awarded under the ICAO Fellowship Programme, Spain’s AENA-AECID Fellowship Programme and the Developing Countries Training Programme, the latter offered by India, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Turkey, as compared to 768 fellowships in 2015. Those fellowships had been awarded mainly in the fields of safety, aviation security and air navigation. The training of management, technical personnel and operational personnel was particularly important in terms of improving State oversight capabilities.

Procurement

113. Civil aviation equipment and services had been procured for a total of USD 68.5 million, compared to USD 82 million in 2015. Assistance provided to States to upgrade their civil aviation infrastructure had ranged from the development of technical specifications in compliance with ICAO SARPs and regional air navigation plans, tendering and administering of complex multiphase turnkey contracts to the commissioning of equipment, and had had a direct and positive impact on the safety and security of airports, communications and air navigation infrastructure, enabling more efficient and economic aviation operations in the countries and regions concerned.

114. A summary of the major achievements for each technical project would be provided in the Annual Report of the Council – 2016. An outline of the main activities implemented by region would be part of the written report to the 211th Session of the Council. Results of KPIs and statistical data would be uploaded to the Council secure portal once audited figures were available.

Joint FIC/TCC oral report

115. During their joint meeting on 23 January 2017, the Committees had been informed that TCB had implemented a Programme of approximately USD 107.2 million in 2016 which fell short of the

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -64-

forecasted implementation of USD 123.1 million presented to the Council in November 2016. It had been noted that that was mainly due to delays in raising a few large purchase orders which were expected to be implemented in early 2017.

116. The Americas, in terms of economic resources, had continued to account for the majority of Member States benefitting from TCB’s services, followed by Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific, and Europe. In that regard, particular attention had been brought to the moniker of the Americas region and to whether more transparent and precise data could be gained by separating North America and South America. The Committees had been advised that systematic changes in reporting would require considerable effort but, more importantly, that there would be no added value in doing so as there were no technical cooperation projects implemented in Canada and the United States, effectively rendering the Americas region solely as Latin America.

117. Members had noted that, despite the decrease in the total volume of implementation, the AOSC Fund was expected to arrive at an estimated surplus of CAD 1.4 million, which could be attributed to a combination of a stronger US dollar, as well as slightly higher average overhead rate levied against projects implemented by TCB in 2016. The estimated surplus brought the accumulated AOSC Fund balance to approximately CAD 5.3 million as at year-end.

118. The Committees had acknowledged the increase in number of technical assistance projects funded by the ICAO Safety Fund, specifically for Cambodia, Nepal and a regional project for Africa.

119. In conclusion, the Committees had acknowledged, with satisfaction, the Technical Cooperation Programme’s positive performance and important contributions in 2016 and had recognized that future reports would include a note to clearly reflect the geographical distribution of technical cooperation projects in the Americas region, if and where applicable, rather than a re-categorization of the Americas region as North and South America as initially suggested during the FIC/TCC meeting.

Discussion

120. The Chairperson of the TCC, the Representative of Cuba, Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri underscored that the Council should likewise acknowledge the significant results achieved by the Technical Cooperation Programme under TCB’s management, as outlined in the Committees’ excellent joint oral report presented by the Chairperson of the FIC, the Representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. M. Rodmell.

121. In then speaking as the Representative of Cuba, she noted that there had been much discussion recently on the proper use of the AOSC Fund’s accumulated surplus, including in the FIC/TCC joint meeting (cf. paragraph 4 of the Committees’ joint oral report as reflected in paragraph 117 above). Recalling, however, that some of the proposed uses were not related to TCB project operations, she emphasized that they were therefore inconsistent with Assembly Resolution A39-16 (Consolidated statement of ICAO policies on technical cooperation and technical assistance), Appendix A, Operative Clause 8, which specified that “costs recovered by the Organization for support services provided to the Technical Cooperation Bureau must be directly and exclusively related to project operations in order to keep administrative support costs to a minimum;”.

122. Observing that there had not, however, been much discussion thus far about the possibility of gradually reducing the administrative overhead costs charged to States’ technical cooperation and assistance projects in accordance with Assembly Resolution A39-16, Appendix A, Preambular Clause 11, the Representative of Cuba underscored the importance of considering that issue

-65- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

in the future. She nonetheless recognized that all favoured the continued growth of the accumulated surplus of the AOSC Fund. The Representative of Cuba averred that, in a year or so, the recent establishment of the Partnerships and Resource Mobilization (PRM) Section of the SPCP would result in an improvement in States’ ability to access financing for their civil aviation infrastructure projects and consequently in an increase in the number of technical cooperation projects, which could prompt the Council to consider options for gradually reducing the said administrative overhead charges as requested by the Assembly. In concluding, she congratulated TCB on the Technical Cooperation Programme’s significant achievements.

123. Highlighting that TCB had completed 65 years of operation last week, D/TCB underscored that staff members were very proud that their Bureau had worked so long, so hard and so successfully for the benefit of ICAO Member States.

124. In then responding to the concerns expressed by the Representative of Cuba, D/TCB clarified that there had been no increase in the administrative overhead charged by TCB; on the contrary, it had been reduced for regional technical cooperation projects, as well as for projects that TCB was implementing with certain States that were providing capacity training through their aviation training centres. Other charges had remained the same. D/TCB highlighted that the method for calculating the administrative overhead charges for procurement projects utilized a progressively decreasing scale of charges, according to the value of the purchase involved i.e. the applicable administrative overhead percentage decreased as the magnitude of the purchase increased. For procurement projects above USD 5 million, the administrative overhead percentage was negotiable with the recipient State. In noting that the charges were recovered at each stage of the procurement process. D/TCB cited, as an example, that at the time of preparation and approval of the technical specifications, 20 percent of the rate established for the total project was charged; at the time of the call for tenders, another 30 percent of the established rate was charged; and at the time of signature of the contract, 40 percent of the established rate was charged. The balance was charged upon completion of the procurement project. He noted that it was due to the said inverse relationship for large-scale procurement items that the annual average rate charged by TCB varied, sometimes being slightly higher than the previous year’s average rate, and other times, slightly lower.

125. D/TCB indicated that he would consider, in future, reviewing possible options to gradually reduce the administrative overhead costs charged to States’ technical cooperation and assistance projects in accordance with Assembly Resolution A39-16, Appendix A, Preambular Clause 11. He underscored that it would be necessary to take into account the increased provision of technical assistance through other programmes, such as IPAV for which a nominal fee (or no fee) was charged. D/TCB noted that such programmes supplemented TCB’s ongoing efforts, to the benefit of those States most in need.

126. These clarifications were duly noted.

127. The Representative of Saudi Arabia reiterated the request he had made at the joint FIC/TCC meeting that a ceiling be established for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund with a view to using the excess surplus to assist developing States participating in the Technical Cooperation Programme and requested that the Secretariat present, for the Council’s consideration, a duly justified proposal for such a ceiling.

128. The President of the Council noted that, as a consequence of his consultation with many Representatives regarding the Technical Cooperation Programme, as well as with Government officials during his missions to States, he had brought to the attention of the Secretary General and D/TCB the need to respond more quickly to States’ concerns regarding the management of their technical cooperation projects. He recognized that in the past there had been a justifiable reason for delays in

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -66-

responding thereto: the staffing level of TCB, which had been kept low in order to address AOSC Fund deficits. However, the financial management of the AOSC Fund had since improved and a high level of efficiency had been achieved. Given the current level of the AOSC Fund’s accumulated surplus, the President of the Council suggested that TCB increase its staff strength to help assuage States’ concerns regarding the said response time. He underscored that such action would also help generate more technical cooperation projects.

129. The above comments regarding the establishment of a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund and the potential uses of the accumulated surplus were noted for consideration when the Council reviewed related C-WP/14555 later in the current session.

130. Having concluded its consideration of this subject, the Council noted the above oral report by the Secretary General and the joint oral report by the FIC and TCC.

131. It was understood that: a summary of the major achievements for each technical cooperation and assistance project would be provided in the Annual Report of the Council – 2016; an outline of the main activities implemented by region would be part of the full written report to be presented during the next (211th) session, which would also contain the audited figures for 2016, as well as an update of the Technical Cooperation Programme forecast and AOSC budgetary estimates for 2017; and that the results of KPIs and statistical data would be uploaded to the Council secure website once the said audited figures were available.

ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy

132. The Council then considered: C-WP/14553, in which the Secretary General presented a draft ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy, as recommended by the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) in its review entitled Procurement Reforms in the United Nations System (cf. JIU/NOTE/2011/1, Recommendation 12); and an oral report thereon by the TCC, which had reviewed the paper during its Second Meeting of the current session on 23 January 2017.

133. The proposed Policy was based on the Model Policy Framework (MPF) for Vendor eligibility developed by the United Nations High-Level Committee on Management Procurement Network (HLCM-PN), of which ICAO was a Member. It was noted that it was administrative and not judicial in nature, providing the framework within which ICAO would process allegations of proscribed practices and take decisions regarding the ineligibility of Vendors as a result of their engagement in practices such as fraud, corruption, collusion, coercion, unethical conduct or behavior, or obstruction as defined in the Policy. Upon receipt of a Notice of Administrative Action issued by the ICAO Vendor Sanctions Committee, a Vendor would be provided the opportunity to submit a written response, present relevant counter-arguments and provide supporting documentation in response to the allegations. The Vendor would have no right to a hearing, however. The decision of the Secretary General on any appropriate sanction(s) or other corrective rehabilitative measure(s) recommended by the Sanctions Committee would be final and non-appealable. It would take effect immediately, and without prejudice to any action taken against the Vendor by any national authority in accordance with applicable laws.

TCC oral report

134. The TCC had generally agreed with the content of the Policy, which provided a framework within which ICAO shall process allegations of proscribed practices and subsequently take decisions regarding the ineligibility of Vendors.

-67- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

135. It had been acknowledged that Administrative Instructions, including information on the composition of the ICAO Sanctions Committee and the selection of its Members for the implementation of the Policy, would be developed and issued by the Secretariat and published on the Council’s secure website. The Policy, once approved by the Council, would be published on the Procurement page of ICAO’s public website.

136. The Committee had recommended slight amendments to the Policy. For example, the ICAO Sanctions Committee referenced throughout the document should be renamed the “ICAO Vendor Sanctions Board” so as to avoid any potential confusion with the various Council Committees, and paragraph 5.2 of the Policy should be amended to reflect the involvement of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) in conducting investigations, with due consideration being given to the adequacy of resources.

137. Concerns had been expressed by TCC Members regarding the final and non-appealable decision by the Secretary General, which excluded any right to a hearing. It had been clarified that the Policy was administrative in nature and not judicial, and that ICAO should not defend itself in national courts for a measure that was purely administrative. The Committee had been further advised that upon receipt of a Notice of Administrative Action issued by the ICAO Sanctions Committee, a Vendor would be provided with the opportunity to submit a written response, present relevant counter-arguments and provide supporting documentation in response to the allegations presented. In this connection, the Policy was intended to facilitate the reasonable exercise of discretion by the Organization and did not in itself confer any rights or privileges upon any party involved.

138. The Committee had been informed that the Secretariat intends to provide annually to the Council statistics on Vendor sanctions, which would be duly reflected in the list of periodic reports to the Council posted on the Council’s secure website.

139. In conclusion, the TCC had recommended that the Council approve the ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy presented in the Appendix to C-WP/14553, subject to the “ICAO Sanctions Committee” being renamed the “ICAO Vendor Sanctions Board”, and the inclusion of EAO under paragraph 5.2 regarding the conduct of investigations with due consideration to the adequacy of resources.

Discussion

140. Commending the development of the new ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy, the Representative of Mexico endorsed the TCC’s above-mentioned recommendation. He nevertheless suggested that paragraph 12.2 of the Policy, which indicated that “The Policy may be amended from time to time under the authority of the Council” be revised to read along the following lines: “The Policy may be amended by the Council as necessary.”, so as to not place any limits on the Council’s authority to make any amendments thereto. The Representative of Mexico also suggested that paragraph 6 of the TCC’s oral report (cf. paragraph 138 above) on the annual provision to the Council of statistics on Vendor sanctions be duly reflected in the Council’s decision.

141. While also agreeing to the TCC’s recommended action, the Representative of the Russian Federation emphasized the need to be careful in referring to the Policy as being administrative and not judicial in nature as in paragraph 5 of the Committee’s oral report (cf. paragraph 137 above). In then raising some issues that had not been highlighted by the TCC, he enquired as to the source of the “timely, credible and verifiable information” on allegations of proscribed practices referred to in paragraph 5.1 of the Policy, stressing the need for caution. Drawing attention to paragraph 6.1, in which it

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -68-

was indicated that information on the identity of the ineligible Vendor and the sanctions imposed by ICAO would be included in the confidential UN Vendor Ineligibility List, the Representative of the Russian Federation enquired whether it would be possible to share that list internally in ICAO given its usefulness.

142. Referring to paragraph 10.1, the Representative of the Russian Federation expressed concern that “ICAO reserves the right to further alter, amend, supplement or otherwise revise this Policy with or without notice to Vendors”, averring that that approach would undermine Vendors’ confidence in the Organization. While recognizing that the Policy could be amended in future by the Council, he emphasized the need for existing Vendors which were in the process of executing contracts with ICAO to be informed in advance of any such changes so that they would have the opportunity to react to protect their commercial interests. The Representative of the Russian Federation suggested that paragraph 10.1 be revised accordingly.

143. In conclusion, the Representative of the Russian Federation proposed that the Council: approve the Policy as amended by the TCC, taking into consideration the concerns raised by Representatives and their suggested amendments; and review the Policy’s implementation in one year’s time, during the 213th Session, so that any necessary changes could be made thereto in accordance with paragraph 12.2.

144. Agreeing on the need to have a caveat regarding the sources of the “timely, credible and verifiable information” on allegations of proscribed practices (cf. paragraph 5.1), the Chief, Procurement Section (C/PRO) underscored that the Organization would not wish to deal with anonymous letters and false accusations levied against Vendors. He indicated that the Administrative Instructions for the Policy’s implementation to be developed by the Secretary General pursuant to paragraph 12.3 would expand upon the acceptable sources of information. Responding to the point raised regarding paragraph 6.1, C/PRO further indicated that although the UN Vendor Ineligibility List was confidential in nature and was only shared among UN organizations, the Secretariat would discuss with their counterparts at the UN the possibility of sharing the Ineligibility List internally in ICAO and would inform the Council of the outcome in due course. This was noted.

145. To the concern raised by the Representative of the Russian Federation regarding paragraph 10.1, D/LEB clarified that ICAO would not enter into negotiations with Vendors worldwide with respect to any amendments to the Policy. In the spirit of transparency, the revised Policy would be published on the Procurement page of ICAO’s public website so as to be available to all Vendors, in accordance with paragraph 2.1. It would also be posted on the Council’s secure website. In the case of existing Vendors which were in the process of executing contracts with ICAO when the Policy was amended by the Council, D/LEB confirmed that the Vendors would remain subject to the policy in force at the time their contracts were concluded with the Organization. He emphasized that once ICAO entered into a contract with a Vendor, it would not impose any conditions which would negatively affect the latter on the basis of any subsequent amendments to the Policy, in accordance with the fundamental principle of legislation not to operate retroactively to the detriment of any party.

146. While reiterating that he was in favour of the Council approving the Policy, the Representative of the Russian Federation suggested that paragraph 10.1 be redrafted in line with his previous comments so as to no longer refer to the Policy being revised without notice to Vendors.

147. In endorsing the TCC’s recommendation, the Representative of Spain voiced support for the Council’s approval of the Policy with the amendments proposed by the Committee and the Representative of Mexico, with one caveat: the need for caution in imposing the Secretary General’s decisions on Vendors without any right to an appeal, since the inclusion of information on the ineligible

-69- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

Vendors’ identity and ICAO’s sanctions in the UN Vendor Ineligibility List, which was shared throughout the UN common system, could have a significant impact on the Vendors’ fortunes, which ultimately could have legal implications for ICAO (cf. paragraph 5 of the TCC’s oral report reflected in paragraph 137 above). While the Representative of Spain had been reassured by the clarification he had received from D/TCB during the Committee’s meeting that there had not been any instances in the past where it had been necessary for ICAO to sanction a Vendor, and that D/TCB expected that that would continue to be the case in the future, he considered that ICAO still needed to be very careful about non- appealable decisions by the Secretary General even if they, like the Policy, were only administrative in nature and not judicial.

148. D/TCB clarified that the Secretary General’s decisions regarding Vendor sanctions were non-appealable under paragraph 5.7 of the Policy as: the investigation conducted beforehand would have provided sufficient evidence to confirm the allegations of proscribed practices; and the Vendors would each have had the opportunity, during the sanctions proceedings, to present a written response to the allegations made in the Notice of Administrative Action in which they could present arguments and provide supporting documentation in whatever way they deemed most appropriate. He reiterated that it was not foreseen that any Vendor would be sanctioned by ICAO in the near future as such as situation had not arisen in the past.

149. The Representative of Congo fully endorsed the oral report of the TCC, of which he was a Member. He nonetheless suggested that the definitions of the terms “Sanction” and “Vendor” contained in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the Policy be reviewed to determine whether some of the information provided therein could instead be set forth in footnotes and that the text be amended accordingly. Referring to paragraph 5.2, the Representative of Congo emphasized that the Secretary General should use EAO or UN investigators for the conduct of investigations, with consultants only being used as a last resort in order to reduce costs. With respect to the last sentence of paragraph 5.4, which indicated that “The Vendor shall have no right to a hearing.”, he suggested that it be redrafted in a more positive manner to indicate that if the investigation so required, the Vendor may have the right to a hearing. While sharing the concerns expressed by the Representative of the Russian Federation regarding paragraph 10.1, the Representative of Congo expressed satisfaction with the explanation provided by D/LEB. Recalling his previous experience in concluding procurement contracts, he stressed the need for the envisaged Administrative Instructions to provide clear guidance on how to resolve problems with Vendors.

150. In underscoring that the last sentence of paragraph 5.4 was in line with UN best practice, D/TCB suggested that as the UN had more experience than ICAO in dealing with Vendor sanctions, the Council adopt that best practice and accept the current wording of that sentence for the time being, pending its review of the Policy’s implementation in a year’s time, when it would have the opportunity to make any necessary changes.

151. Speaking on the basis of his legal experience in the judiciary, the Observer from Lebanon commended the Secretariat’s efforts in drafting the highly-important ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy. In advocating its approval, he emphasized that it was part and parcel of the measures that ICAO needed to implement to ensure greater honesty among Vendors and to help combat corruption in procurement activities, which was a scourge in many States. The Observer from Lebanon nevertheless wished to offer some comments on the Policy with a view to enhancing its clarity. His first comment related to paragraph 5.7. The Observer from Lebanon considered that it was appropriate that the Secretary General’s decision be final and non-appealable internally as it would be rendered after the Vendor had had the opportunity to present his written response to the Notice of Administrative Action before the Board made its recommendation to the Secretary General. Thus in a manner of speaking, the Vendor did have the right to make an appeal, but only before the fact. The Observer from Lebanon averred that an appeal after the fact would be lengthy and cumbersome.

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -70-

152. The Observer from Lebanon indicated that if an external appeal of the Secretary General’s decision were not possible, then he would share the concern expressed by the Representative of Spain and others. He averred that that might violate the right to recourse which was enshrined in laws throughout the world. In seeking LEB’s views, the Observer from Lebanon noted the justification provided previously by the Secretariat, as reflected in the TCC’s oral report, that as the Policy was administrative in nature and not judicial, there could be no kind of legal appeal. Maintaining that that explanation was insufficient, he underscored that it was possible to contest an administrative decision by various legal instruments, such as by bringing the case before an external administrative tribunal. The Observer from Lebanon emphasized that even if the Secretary General’s decision was an administrative action, it might nonetheless impact the Vendor and could be interpreted as a violation of its right to recourse if it viewed the decision as being unfair. Highlighting that an external appeal of the Secretary General’s decision might result in ICAO paying compensation to the sanctioned Vendor for any damages, he enquired whether ICAO’s immunity as a UN Specialized Agency would protect it from such external appeals.

153. In then commenting on paragraph 9.3, the Observer from Lebanon highlighted that although it was indicated that a request for Vendor rehabilitation must be submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Board, together with supporting documentation demonstrating that the corrective measures had been put in place to the Board’s satisfaction, there was no mention of the steps that would subsequently be taken, namely: that the request would be reviewed by the Sanctions Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 5; the Sanctions Board would make a recommendation to the Secretary General, who would then take a final decision as to whether or not the Vendor could be rehabilitated; and, in the case of a favourable decision, the removal of the Vendor from the UN Ineligibility List referred to in paragraph 6.

154. Responding to the point raised regarding paragraph 5.7, D/LEB clarified that the Secretary General’s decision could not be further appealed internally under the Policy. As far as an external appeal was concerned, D/LEB highlighted a two-fold solution to that situation: require bidders for an ICAO procurement contract to agree to the terms of the ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy, which would make them bound by the condition that the Secretary General’s decision was not appealable internally; and choose to assert the Organization’s immunity, which was recognized in many jurisdictions.

155. C/PRO confirmed that that issue was already being addressed in the Administrative Instructions for the Policy’s implementation.

156. The Representative of Colombia recalled that at the last Assembly the Dominican Republic had presented A39-WP/383 (Improvement of the contracting and purchasing processes carried out with assistance from the Technical Cooperation Bureau), in which it had recommended, inter alia: that Vendors which did not fulfil their contractual obligations and/or were involved in legal action detrimental to States be removed from the ICAO Supplier List and be excluded from active participation in activities sponsored by ICAO; and that their identity be made public. The Executive Committee had acknowledged during its consideration thereof (EX/6) that ICAO was already in the process of developing a Vendor Sanction Policy and had recommended that the legal issues arising from the Dominican Republic’s proposals in A39-WP/383 be referred to LEB for review. The Plenary had so agreed (P/7) and due action had been taken.

157. In endorsing the comments made by the Observer from Lebanon, as well as by the Representatives of Mexico and Congo, the Representative of Colombia underscored that it might be necessary to rely on international law in addressing the issue of non-appealability of the Secretary General’s decisions regarding Vendor sanctions as there were very few precedents in ICAO. Averring

-71- C-MIN 210/3 (Open)

that if ICAO did not grant Vendors the right to appeal it might be sued and be required to pay substantial sums of money in compensation for any damages incurred, the Representative of Colombia emphasized the need to strike a balance between the Organization’s immunity and the Vendor’s interests and to establish an appeal mechanism.

158. The Representative of the United Kingdom underscored that it was normal for public authorities to set conditions for the conclusion of contracts and to have discretion to apply those conditions, as long as they were legal. In maintaining that it was unnecessary to establish an appeals mechanism under the Policy, he indicated that he found it acceptable to specify in the Policy that the Secretary General’s final decision was non-appealable, on the understanding that there was the possibility of external appeal processes depending on the law in those circumstances. Expressing satisfaction with D/LEB’s clarification to that effect, the Representative of the United Kingdom emphasized that the Council should approve paragraph 5.7 of the Policy in the form presented.

159. The Representative of Ecuador shared the views expressed by the Representatives of the Russian Federation and Colombia and the Observer from Lebanon. He noted that while it was extremely important to follow the UN best practices, there remained a number of questions to answer relating to, inter alia: the transmission to the Vendor of the Secretary General’s decision, which was to have immediate effect (cf. paragraph 5.7); the Vendor’s right to make its case during the sanctions proceedings; the Vendor’s rehabilitation; and the completeness of the list of proscribed practices. Thus while it was necessary for the Council to approve the Policy, it was also necessary to issue, in parallel, the said Administrative Instructions for its implementation, which should include the various clarifications provided by the Secretariat to avoid a multiplicity of interpretations. The Representative of Ecuador noted, in this context, that he was in full agreement with D/LEB’s clarification regarding paragraph 5.7. He also highlighted the need to ensure that the Policy provided transparency and accountability in sanctions proceedings that were balanced, appropriate and effective.

160. In then noting the TCC’s oral report, the Council agreed to the Committee’s recommendations that: the said Sanctions Committee be renamed the “ICAO Vendor Sanctions Board” and that references made thereto in the Policy be amended accordingly; and that paragraph 5.2 be amended to include EAO in the list of appropriate investigators of allegations of proscribed practices, with due consideration to the adequacy of resources.

161. Further to the suggestions made during the Council’s discussion, the Secretariat was requested: to revise paragraph 12.2 to read along the following lines: “The Policy may be amended by the Council as necessary.”, as suggested by the Representative of Mexico; and to review the definitions of the terms “Sanction” and “Vendor” contained in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 to determine whether some of the information provided therein could instead be set forth in footnotes and to amend the text, if and as appropriate, as suggested by the Representative of Congo.

162. In taking the action proposed by the President, the Council: provisionally approved the draft ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy as set forth in the Appendix to C-WP/14553 and amended above; and delegated authority to the President to give final approval to the revised text of the Policy to be provided by the Secretariat, which would then come into immediate effect, in accordance with paragraph 12.1 thereof. The Council requested the Secretary General to present a report on the Policy’s implementation in one year’s time, during the 213th Session.

163. In noting that Administrative Instructions for the implementation of the approved Policy would be developed by the Secretary General pursuant to paragraph 12.3 thereof, the Council requested that they: address the procedural aspects of the sanctions proceedings in a more detailed fashion; elaborate on the process for Vendor rehabilitation, including the removal of the Vendor’s name from the

C-MIN 210/3 (Open) -72-

UN Ineligibility List following successful ICAO rehabilitation; and reflect that consultants should only be used as investigators as a last resort in order to reduce costs.

164. While recognizing that the Administrative Instructions were intended for the Secretariat, the President requested that upon completion they be circulated electronically to Representatives for information. It was noted, in this regard, that: the said Administrative Instructions, together with the approved Policy, would be posted on the Council’s secure website; the Policy would also be published on the Procurement page of ICAO’s public website so as to be available to all Vendors, in accordance with paragraph 2.1; and the Secretariat intended to provide annual statistics on Vendor sanctions, which would be duly reflected in the list of periodic reports to the Council posted on the Council’s secure website.

Any other business

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

Work Programmes of the Council for the 210th and 211th Sessions Schedule for consideration of items during the 210th Session

165. It was noted that the President had agreed to requests from the Chairpersons of the AFI SECFAL Plan Steering Committee and the AFI Plan Steering Committee to defer to the next (211th) Session Council’s consideration of the oral report of the Fourth Meeting of the AFI SECFAL Plan Steering Committee and the oral report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the AFI Plan Steering Committee, in order to enable the provision of more concrete results arising from the implementation of the Committees’ respective Work Programmes, as well as of information on the relevant conclusions of the upcoming AFI Aviation Week (Gaborone, Botswana, 22-25 May 2017). It was understood that the Work Programmes of the Council for the 210th and 211th Sessions would be amended accordingly (cf. C- WP/14530 Revised and C-WP/14581, respectively).

Subject No. 14.2:

Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities during 2016 and Operating Plans for 2017

166. At the request of the Secretary General, the Council agreed to waive Rule 26 b) ii) of its Rules of Procedure (Doc 7559), whereby working papers are to be distributed to all Representatives at least five working days in advance of the meeting at which they are to be considered, and Rule 26 b) iv), whereby other documents are to be distributed at least 24 hours beforehand, to enable information paper C-WP/14570 (Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities during 2016 and Operating Plans for 2017) and the oral report thereon by the Implementation, Strategy and Planning Group (ISPG) to be tabled for discussion on the afternoon of Monday, 27 February 2017. It was recalled that, pursuant to the Council’s earlier decision (207/9), an informal briefing relating thereto would be given in the morning. Individual meetings had been or would be held between the various Council regional groups and the relevant ICAO Regional Directors(s), who would be in attendance for both the briefing and subsequent Council meeting.

Informal briefing during the 211th Session

167. Further to a point raised by the Representative of Mexico regarding the increasing frequency of laser attacks on aircraft, which posed a major risk to operations in the vicinity of airports, the President suggested, and the Council agreed, that an informal briefing be given during the upcoming 211th Session on that and other troubling phenomenon, such as alcohol use in the cockpit. The Secretariat

-73- C-MIN 210/3 (Open) was requested to identify such emerging issues for presentation at the informal briefing. The President emphasized that the briefing would assist the Council in assessing the significance of each of those issues and in determining an appropriate course of action.

168. The meeting adjourned at 1300 hours.

-75- C-MIN 210/4

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2017, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu

Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

PRESENT: Algeria — Mr. A.D. Mesroua Kenya — Ms. M.B. Awori Argentina — Mr. G.E. Ainchil Malaysia — Mr. Y.-H. Lim Australia — Mr. S. Lucas Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Brazil — Mrs. M.G. Valente da Costa Nigeria — Mr. M.S. Nuhu Cabo Verde — Mr. C. Monteiro Panama — Mr. G.S. Oller Canada — Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) Republic of Korea — Mr. J. Hur China — Mr. Shengjun Yang Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov Colombia — Mr. A. Muñoz Gómez Saudi Arabia — Mr. S.A.R. Hashem Congo — Mr. R.M. Ondzotto Singapore — Mr. T.C. Ng Cuba — Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri South Africa — Mr. M.D.T. Peege Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado Egypt — Mr. A. Khedr Sweden — Ms. H. Jansson Saxe France — Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) Turkey — Mr. A.R. Çolak Germany — Mr. U. Schwierczinski United Arab Emirates — Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) India — Mr. A. Shekhar United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rodmell Ireland — Mrs. A. Smith Floch United Republic of Tanzania — Mr. R.W. Bokango Italy — Mr. M.R. Rusconi United States — Mr. S. Kotis (Alt.) Japan — Mr. S. Matsui Uruguay — Mr. M. Vidal

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Mr. H. Yoshimura ― President, ANC Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. J. Bollard (Alt.) ― Australia Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. V. Smith ― D/ADB Mr. P. Jardim (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. A. Mishra ― RD, APAC Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. B. Kashambo ― RD, ESAF Mr. L. Sacchi Guadagnin (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. L. Fonseca de Almeida ― RD, EUR/NAT Mr. R.H. Godinho (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. M. Khalifa ― RD, MID Mr. R. da Rosa Costa (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. M. Cintron ― RD, NACC Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. F. Hoyer ― RD, SAM Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. M. Jallow ― RD, WACAF Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. H. Gourdji ― DD/MO Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. C. Radu ― DD/SAF Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. M. Fox ― C/PRC Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mr. M. Vreedenburgh — C/IMP-SAF Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Dr. A. Jordaan ― C/MED Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mr. W. Parks ― ISD-SEC Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. M. Marin ― A/C/OPS Mr. W. Voss (Alt.) ― United States Mr. A. Bilaver ― OSG Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay Mr. A. Larcos ― ACC Ms. D. Cooper ― Précis-writer

C-MIN 210/4 -76-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Chile Cyprus Ghana Greece Lebanon Mozambique Paraguay Peru

Airports Council International (ACI) Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO) European Union (EU) International Air Transport Association (IATA)

-77- C-MIN 210/4

Subject No. 14.2: Regional plans

Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities during 2016 and operating plans for 2017

1. The Council considered this item on the basis of information paper C-WP/14570, which presented the Regional Offices’ activities for the year 2016 and the operating plans for 2017. It was noted that the reports of each of the Regional Offices were presented as separate appendices to the working paper, which were also available electronically, in English only, on the Council website and ICAO-NET. The Council also had for consideration an oral report thereon from the Implementation, Strategy and Planning Group (ISPG). In addition, the Council had the benefit of an informal briefing by Regional Directors, which occurred on the morning of Monday, 27 February 2017.

2. In her introduction of the paper, the Secretary General recalled that its format had been enhanced on the basis of comments made by Council Representatives during their consideration of the 2015 Annual Report (cf. C-WP/14381; 207/9) and was now more focussed on providing the Council with contextual information on each region and Regional Office while taking into account key challenges faced. The paper highlighted the achievements in 2016 as well as the respective Regional Offices’ intentions for 2017 coupled with potential risks faced by each office. She underscored its importance as a first step to align and integrate the 2017 Regional Offices annual operating plans with the ICAO Business Plan 2017 – 2019 and its bureaux operating plans, and that the ISPG would assist in accelerating this work considerably. She stressed that all Regional Office programmes, projects and key activities were linked to expected results and key outcomes for each Strategic Objective and were undertaken in coordination with Headquarters in order to reflect a holistic approach to the work of ICAO as established in the ICAO Business Plan 2017 – 2019.

3. On a related subject, the Secretary General underscored the progress made on the revision to the Regional Office Manual (ROM) by eighteen focal points representing each office and bureau within the Organization so as to ensure it was an Organization-wide effort. Priority had been given to Part 5 (Technical Cooperation and Technical Assistance) of the manual in order to improve the Organization’s procedures for the coordinated implementation of related projects which included the identification of accountabilities within the Organization for each phase of a technical cooperation or technical assistance project. She indicated that the manual would be made available on a web-based platform by mid-July 2017.

4. The Chairperson of the IPSG (Representative of Australia) then presented the oral report on the group’s review of C-WP/14570. The ISPG had noted that the Council had intended that the report be provided in the form of a working paper (C-DEC 207/9 and 208/1 refer), however, as there was no Council action proposed, the ISPG recommended that the Council accept this year’s report in the form of an information paper notwithstanding the previous decision which was taken in the context of previous reports that recommended actions to Council.

5. The ISPG noted that the paper was a marked improvement from previous papers in both form and substance, particularly in regard to the alignment of the Regional Offices’ 2017 operating plans with the ICAO Business Plan and bureaux operating plans, and that alignment of format and structure across the reports for each region aided in a comparative review.

6. The IPSG also noted a breadth of achievements and outcomes by Regional Offices, with a number of common areas:

C-MIN 210/4 -78-

a) a continued, general improvement in rates of Effective Implementation (EI) by States across all ICAO regions and a general, although not universal downward trend in the number of States with Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs);

b) the introduction of No Country Left Behind (NCLB) campaign initiatives into all ICAO Regions’ operating plans; and

c) ongoing pursuit of more efficient use of airspace including the implementation of Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBUs), that had allowed regions to keep pace with increasing demands for airspace capacity.

7. The ISPG identified a number of common challenges across all regions:

a) shortages of financial and human resources in many States, impacted States’ engagement with ICAO, including attendance at Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) and Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs), responses to State letters and ability to contribute to achieving targets in regional operating plans;

b) a lack of political will within many States to support civil aviation, including with resources for civil aviation authorities and investment in civil aviation infrastructure. The ISPG noted with appreciation the efforts being made by all offices to reach out to States at the most senior levels to build the necessary support for investments in civil aviation;

c) ICAO Regional Offices’ own human resources remained a challenge. The ISPG noted that two additional posts approved in the 2017 – 2019 budget for each Regional Office would assist, but the increasing scope and complexity of the work, and new work for the implementation of the CORSIA, meant staffing represented a common risk to all offices;

d) poor telecommunications infrastructure and/or services prevented Regional Offices using tele- and video-conferencing capabilities to coordinate with States and Headquarters. The ISPG recognized that this would require investment in Regional Office facilities;

e) challenges in intra-regional coordination, amongst other regional bodies, as well as inter-regional coordination with other ICAO regions were evident, with an increasing number of major traffic flows across ICAO regions a contributing factor; and

f) escalated political security situations in many States has had a negative impact on the achievement of regional safety and air navigation targets, with travel restrictions impacting the conduct of audits and provision of assistance by the Regional Offices.

8. During the review of the 2016 operating plans and activities, the ISPG noted a degree of inconsistency in reporting of targets and actual results. The last column of the tables setting out the plans was intended for the Regional Office to identify its performance targets in respect of key activities and the associated deliverables and their KPIs, but the report presented to Council did not specifically identify whether targets were met. The Regional Directors were consulted on this and the ISPG was advised that many of the Regional Offices’ targets also represented achievements during 2016. The ISPG encouraged Regional Directors to provide an oral update in respect of achieved targets during their informal briefing on the Annual Reports while noting that the provision of information on the achievement of targets was an essential element of annual reporting.

-79- C-MIN 210/4

9. The Representative of Spain considered that the term “Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool” (CPMFT) might be somewhat cumbersome as an acronym and suggested that something simpler ought to be used. Despite this, he recognized that a streamlined online mechanism would allow for focus on the strategic issues of greatest importance and the working paper could be greatly simplified if the CPMFT were to include: the IPSPG proposed presentation of 2016 targets and results; the proposed 2017 targets and outcomes; and year-end status and objectives so that progress could be measured. In concurrence with the ISPG Chair, the Representative of Spain considered it essential that all Regional Offices had video-conference facilities and highlighted the importance of a Regional Offices human resources policy. In regard to the goal to redesign and organize the Conference of Directors- General of Civil Aviation (DGCAs) and the Ministerial Conference 2017, referenced in paragraphs 4.4 and 4.6 on page A-5 of the APAC report, the Representative of Spain remarked on the importance of leveraging these meetings to progress the Organization’s work programme.

10. Sharing the views expressed by the Representative of Spain, the Representative of Mexico suggested that the challenges highlighted by the ISPG and in the Regional Offices’ presentations be included in a Secretariat working paper with recommended actions to Council and he underscored the need to update the tables containing the 2016 operating plans with actual achievements against the targets and KPIs.

11. In thanking the Secretary General for the update on the Regional Office Manual, the Representative of South Africa highlighted the importance of ensuring that the manual was continually updated. In querying the existence of the regional affairs dashboard to align all Regional Office activities, he also underscored the criticality of close coordination between the Regional Offices and Headquarters and the importance of ensuring that these were properly aligned.

12. The Strategic Planning and Regional Affairs Coordinator (C/PRC) indicated that the CPMFT had exactly the same intent as the regional affairs dashboard, to show alignment between the strategic objectives, the Business Plan, the operating plans of the Organization and the Regional Offices, and that the informal briefing on the progress of this tool, scheduled in the 211th Session, would highlight its similarities with the dashboard.

13. Supplementing this information, the Director, Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) explained that the dashboard previously operated under a different management structure and methodology. Many of the tools in the original dashboard were now on the integrated Safety Trend Analysis Reporting System (iSTARS) and were being redeveloped so that the renewed deployment of these applications complemented the CPMFT. These updates would also be provided in the informal briefing scheduled to occur during the 211th Session.

14. Agreeing with the comments made by the Representatives of Spain and Mexico, the Representative of the Russian Federation pointed out an editorial correction, as confirmed by RD NACC, that in the table on Environmental Protection on page E-18 of the NACC annual report, the text of the key performance indicator for Expected Result 12 “Effective implementation rates of safety and security oversight systems; number of outstanding SSCs and SSeCs” should be amended since it related to the chapter on economic development of air transport.

15. In response to the queries by the Representatives of Mexico, Spain and South Africa, the Secretary General indicated that in regard to the identified challenge of Regional Office human and financial resources, this related to existing budget constraints and competing priorities. Nevertheless, she planned to use carryover funding for staffing to implement CORSIA and in addition, contributions in- kind from Member States would be welcome. In regard to ICT facilities, resources required would need to be identified and Secretariat savings reviewed for this purpose although funding may need to be directed towards increased Regional Office travel costs given the NCLB activities. She highlighted the Council approval of her proposal to increase two posts for each Regional Office without additional budget and that the recently established Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP), which was

C-MIN 210/4 -80-

responsible for mobilizing resources to assist States with implementation of aviation initiatives. It would also provide assistance to the Regional Offices in carrying out these tasks and as efforts in this area were expected to intensify, next year’s report would outline progress achieved. In regard to the alignment of resources between Headquarters and the Regional Offices, due to budget constraints, multi-tasking with related staff training were being employed with efficiencies gained being monitored and she reiterated the request to Member States to provide in-kind contributions and expertise to assist the Regional Offices, which would allow for more intensified technical assistance and technical cooperation activities to achieve the NCLB objectives.

16. The Representative of the Russian Federation highlighted the need to pay special attention to the identified common challenge of the Regional Offices’ own human resources especially in light of security issues being monitored by only one specialist financed through extra-budgetary resources in the EUR/NAT Regional Office and taking into account the Secretary General’s indication that Council had approved two additional posts for each Regional Office. In this regard, the Regional Director, Europe and North Atlantic (RD EUR/NAT) clarified that one post had been approved in the 2017 – 2019 budget for his office and that a Safety Officer had been recruited. The Secretary General added that during the recent budget discussions, RD EUR NAT in consultation with Council Representatives from European Member States had indicated there was no need a this time for the addition of a security officer post in the proposed budget.

17. The President of the Council observed that there were very strong regional institutions in Europe with competencies to assist Member States with certain issues. It was also important to remember that the EUR/NAT Office had non-EU Member States accredited to it that needed support and the offer from EU States to assist those non-EU Member States was appreciated although the EUR/NAT Office was accredited to do this as well.

18. In response to a query from the Representative of South Africa on States’ understanding of the ASBU concept, the Regional Director, North American, Central American and Caribbean (RD NACC) explained that less developed States were challenged by the complexities of the concept and continued training would be required in this area. The Regional Director, Western and Central Africa (RD WACAF) added that understanding and familiarity with ASBU was lacking in his region as well but workshops and seminars had been conducted and a special implementation project would be conducted for his region as well as for the Eastern and Southern Africa region (ESAF) in the fourth quarter of 2017 by way of addressing these issues.

19. Given ongoing issues related to the aviation responsibilities for certain States in the Eastern Caribbean, which held a jurisdictional relationship with certain European States, as indicated in the EUR/NAT presentation, the Representative of Colombia wondered whether it might not be more efficient to have those States in the Caribbean being transferred to fall under the responsibility of a different Regional Office. In response, RD NACC explained that certain territories in the Caribbean were indeed being overseen by the aviation system of a related European country, which necessitated considerable coordination with the EUR/NAT Office. At the same time there were other States in the Caribbean with their own civil aviation authority and oversight mechanisms. The President of the Council added that that for various political reasons, some States were part of different regional plans from the regional office they were accredited to which underscored the importance of effective inter-regional coordination in order that all States were properly and duly covered.

20. Endorsing the need for a standardized Regional Office report format in order that the common challenges could be identified, the Representative of Malaysia highlighted the challenges in the Asia and Pacific (APAC) operating plan and risks for 2017 that related to Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) activities and the need for expert assistance from Australia and New Zealand to help achieve an improvement in effective implementation (EI) rates. He added that proposals to enhance implementation in these regions should be included in the Regional Office reports.

-81- C-MIN 210/4

21. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council:

a) noted the information provided in C-WP/14570;’

b) agreed that the tables containing the 2016 operating plans should be updated with an additional column reporting actual achievements against the targets and KPIs, and that any additional information thereof should be circulated to Representatives on the Council before the commencement of the 211th Session;

c) noted the introduction of the CPMFT and its reporting capabilities will have implications for the form and structure of future Regional Office Annual Reports, including for the operating plans;

d) noted that while the situation in each region varied, there remained an ongoing need to harmonize the information being presented from each region and which was contained in these reports for the purposes of comparison between the regions in the achievement of established targets and KPIs;

e) welcomed the variety of new project initiatives that had been undertaken by the Regional Offices, particularly in the context of the No Country Left Behind initiative, and encouraged the continued development of such regional initiatives in order to enhance operating plans; and

f) requested the Secretariat to consider common challengers identified by the IPSG with a view to addressing these, taking into account available resources, and for further information in this regard to be shared with the Council in due course.

Subject No. 14: Subjects relating to air navigation

Safety Week Presentation

22. The President of the Air Navigation Commission (P/ANC) and the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) delivered a joint presentation on Safety Week, which provided information on, inter alia, developments concerning the update to the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP), Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP); the forthcoming Global Planning Symposium (11 – 15 December 2017), air navigation work programme and changes to the structure of ANB.

23. Comments made in the course of the discussion were noted by the Secretariat, especially in relation to addressing the challenges faced by the Air Navigation Bureau in respect of actions arising from the Thirty-Ninth Session of the Assembly (September/October 2016), for which additional resources will be required.

24. In relation to the third joint ICAO/UNOOSA Aerospace Symposium (Vienna, 29 to 31 August 2017), the Representative of South Africa suggested that it would be important for the Air Navigation Commission to already initiate the process on engaging with UNOOSA, given the expected challenges in this area, especially in regard to space debris.

25. In this regard, the President of the Council observed that it would also be important to have clarification on the role required of ICAO within the sphere of these activities. Related to this would be the necessity of considering existing structures and the extent to which they provided the regulatory global framework in this area.

C-MIN 210/4 -82-

26. In concluding consideration of this item, the Council noted the challenges posed by the range of emerging issues that were outlined during the presentation, including inter alia, remotely-piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), aviation system block upgrades (ASBUs), cyber-related issues, and Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS), and in relation to outer space issues, requested that the Secretariat continue to monitor developments vis-à-vis regulatory aspects thereof and to inform the Council accordingly.

Subject No. 14.1.1: International Standards and Recommended Practices

Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 174 to Annex 1

27. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14560 which presented a proposal of the Air Navigation Commission for Amendment 174 to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing. The amendment concerned a proposal developed by the Secretariat to render compliant a practice used by some States whereby pilot licences issued by one State are automatically validated by the other States party to a formal agreement under common licensing regulations.

28. It was noted that, having examined the technical circumstances associated with the implementation of the amendment, the Air Navigation Commission considered that an effective date of July 2017 and a proposed applicability date of 9 November 2017 would be suitable for implementation of the provisions.

29. In introducing C-WP/14560, the President of the Air Navigation Commission (P/ANC) emphasized the proposed amendment was intended to bring significant safety and efficiency benefits to States automatic licence validation processes in terms of mobility of licensed personal and reduced administrative costs and would resolve a non-compliance issue with Article 32 a) of the Convention on Licenses of personnel to enable automatic validation of licenses to those States party to a formal agreement under common licensing regulations; and that the proposed five-year transition period to 31 December 2022 would ease the administrative burden to States that had issued licenses prior to November 2017.

30. In response to a query from the President of the Council on how Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) would audit these provisions given the option for State implementation of these Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), the Deputy Director, Monitoring and Oversight clarified that not all SARPs were covered by audit protocol questions and any new provisions were routinely reviewed to determine their level of importance and application by all States.

31. The Representative of Spain sought clarification on the means by which licenses issued prior to November 2017 would be validated during the transition phase to 31 December 2022; and drawing attention to Note 2 to 1.2.2.3.1 on page C-3, he observed the need to include the notion that a regional aviation safety body would require a certain set of competencies in order to maintain the common licensing regulations for its Member States.

32. P/ANC explained that due to the lengthy State rulemaking process, Standard 1.2.2.3.2.1 on page C-3 of the paper provided the necessary five-year period for those States with a license validation process to transition to the new SARPs procedures. In regard to regional aviation safety organizations (ROOS), P/ANC indicated that these organizations provided an optimal means to develop and maintain common regulations, and by enforcing a surveillance system, would ensure continuing implementation of the common licensing regulations amongst its Member States, although bilateral or multilateral agreements between States could achieve the same outcome.

-83- C-MIN 210/4

33. In support of the amendment, the Representative of Colombia observed the importance of personnel mobility in the aviation sector yet underscored the financial impact the policy would have on some States through the loss of trained personnel seeking better economic opportunities elsewhere. This would result in higher costs for States to support their aviation sectors and these concerns would have to be addressed.

34. Although her State’s original response to the amendment proposal had been agreement without comment, the Representative of Cuba wished to put on record that following further internal State discussions, Cuba agreed to the intention and general objective of the amendment, however, would maintain its national legislation’s current procedure for validating licences as per the Chicago Convention. In this context, it was important to stress that the implementation of the proposed amendment was optional and non-application by States would not generate any findings in the USOAP process. At the same time, States which decided not to implement automatic validation of pilot licenses should however, their ramp inspectors accordingly. The Representative of Cuba also sought clarification on the procedure for filing of differences to these provisions and the processing of related oversight audit protocol questions as the intent was to verify the oversight requirements for the inspection of the new licences.

35. In response to the queries by the Representatives of Spain and Cuba, the Acting Chief, Operational Safety Section (A/C/OPS) explained that the provisions had a two-fold transition period in that the embedded applicability of the year 2022 would allow adequate time for State implementation of the provisions and he cited the similarly optional fatigue risk management provisions. Furthermore, any related USOAP protocol question would be addressed only to those States that had implemented the provisions. He underscored that all States would have an oversight responsibility in that they would need to amend their inspection procedures to recognize the automatic validation of pilot licences compliant with the new Annex 1 provisions.

36. In answer to a question by the Representative of South Africa, P/ANC explained that the European States were carrying out the automatic validation of pilot licences and that other regions had shown interest in doing so in order to increase the mobility of licensed personnel.

37. Addressing a query by the Representative of the Congo regarding the amendment to referenced World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Document 258 in the Note to paragraph 4.8 on page C-3 of the paper, P/ANC clarified that the opportunity had been taken to update the document title and number and it was unrelated to the proposal regarding automatic licensing validation.

38. Noting the different November applicability dates for Annex amendment proposals, the President of the Council suggested that at some point it would be helpful if the Secretariat could provide the Council with information on the Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRC) cycle of dates used to determine the Annex applicability dates.

39. The Council, by thirty-five votes in favour, none against and no abstentions (one Representative being absent):

a) adopted, as Amendment 174 to Annex 1, the amendment to the SARPs as contained in Appendix C to C-WP/14560;

b) approved, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to Notes and attachments as contained in Appendix C to the paper;

C-MIN 210/4 -84-

c) approved the Resolution of Adoption in Appendix D to the paper; and

d) approved, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to the Foreword of Annex 1, as contained in Appendix E to the paper.

Subject No. 14.1.1: International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)

Report of the ANC – Adoption of Amendment 42 to Annex 6, Part I

40. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14561, which presented a proposal of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) for Amendment 42 to Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part I — International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes. The amendment proposal, developed by the Secretariat with the assistance of the Normal Aircraft Tracking Initiative/2 (NATII/2), introduced an additional Standard and Recommended Practice (SARP) to facilitate the practical implementation of normal tracking provisions.

41. It was noted that, having examined the technical circumstances associated with the implementation of the amendment, the Air Navigation Commission considered that an effective date of July 2017 and a proposed applicability date of 8 November 2018 would be suitable for implementation of the provisions.

42. In supplementary information provided to the Council, the President of the Air Navigation Commission (P/ANC) indicated that this amendment was complementary to the normal aircraft tracking provisions that had been adopted by Council in 2015. The proposed provision permitted variations to the automated reporting interval of the normal aircraft tracking requirement to commence under certain circumstances acceptable to the State of the Operator in order that the aircraft tracking provisions did not impose an unacceptably high burden on operators and to permit continued operations in the event of a loss of elements of the tracking system.

43. In noting the publication date of “1Q 2017” for the supporting documentation, Circular 347, Aircraft Tracking Implementation Circular on page A-1 of the paper, the President of the Council underscored the need to highlight in the State letter of adoption that the amendment addressed the concerns raised by States in the practical implementation of aircraft tracking and that supporting guidance would be forthcoming with the publication of Circular 347.

44. In response to a query by the Representative of the Republic of Korea on the methods to be used by operators in identifying and implementing aircraft tracking in oceanic areas such as a unified method of information sharing; and whether additional SARPs were required in the short-term, P/ANC indicated that the each operator would need to consider its own capabilities to augment the tracking system and that Circular 347 would provide the necessary guidance to the operator on the development of a mitigation method and the process for State approval of the risk assessment and methodology for each operator.

45. A/C/OPS also pointed out that there was a current requirement for air navigation service providers to publish tracking information in their Aeronautical Information Publication, and based on the Normal Aircraft Tracking Implementation Initiative (NATII) recommendation, that the information be entered into a repository that would be made available to operators. He confirmed no new SARPs were envisaged and that the Secretariat, in coordination with the ANC, had formed a GADSS Advisory Group. Its initial task was to issue the next version of the GADSS document and to subsequently determine whether provisions in the form of procedures would be required for implementation of the complete concept.

-85- C-MIN 210/4

46. The Representative of Singapore requested clarification on the impact assessment since according to his understanding, the purpose of normal tracking was to facilitate the rescue of a downed aircraft and aircraft would now be flying in regions were normal tracking was not available.

47. The President of the Council observed a provision had been made for normal tracking in the form of 15-minute reports where no air traffic control was available, whether over oceanic airspace or the polar routes, and now an opportunity was available to address this by other means, in exceptional circumstances and as assessed between the operator and regulator. At the policy level, the concern would be to ensure this opportunity did not become the norm.

48. D/ANB recalled that NATII provided a global standard that was a suitable minimum in areas where air traffic control could not provide surveillance while realizing that there were exceptions in which the Standard could not meet with existing technology. The polar region, as an example of an exception, needed to be addressed with the supplemental Standard. Other instances of equipment failure, network failure, intermittent loss of communication also had to be addressed. The risk was not large and was encompassed within a complete package of technical standards that were accompanied by operating procedures and guidance material. Recognizing that this was a search and rescue-based Standard, the safety value was not necessarily a component in the near-term, but in the longer term, under the GADSS concept would become part of a network of proactive responses to contingencies.

49. The Council, by thirty-six votes in favour, none against and no abstentions:

e) adopted, as Amendment 42 to Annex 6, Part I, the amendments to Standards and Recommended Practices as contained in Appendix C to the paper;

f) approved, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to Notes and attachments as contained in Appendix C to the paper;

g) approved the Resolution of Adoption in Appendix D to the paper; and

h) approved, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to the Foreword of Annex 6, Part I, as contained in Appendix E to the paper.

Subject No. 14.4.2: Regional air navigation meetings

Report of the ANC – Recommendations to enhance participation by Member States in the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) and Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs)

50. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14563, which recalled that during a previous consideration of the report on the same subject, the Council had expressed concern at the limited involvement of some States’ authorities in the work, meetings and related activities of planning and implementation regional groups (PIRGs) and regional aviation safety groups (RASGs), thus limiting the implementation of their objectives and conclusions as well as overall outcomes (C-DECs 208/8 and 208/14 refer).

51. In his introduction of the paper, the President of the Air Navigation Commission (P/ANC) highlighted the need for effective coordination and harmonization of the PIRGs and RASGs work along with increased attendance at their meetings and increased support from State and industry technical experts to the work of the groups.

52. The Representative of Mexico supported the ANC assessment of the concerns raised on the PIRGs and RASGs work and that the long-standing suggestion to create incentives for the decision-

C-MIN 210/4 -86-

making authorities to participate in some capacity had been addressed. Referring to action item f) in the Executive Summary, the Representative of Mexico underscored the need to promote the benefits of participation in the work of the groups; and in determining the best means to disseminate this information to the regions, he suggested a letter from the Secretary General be disseminated to the appropriate level to ensure participation of Directors General at these meetings.

53. The Representative of Spain thanked the ANC for its work on a means to enhance the role of the PIRGs and RASGs and participation at their meetings. The ANC proposed actions were correct, nevertheless, beyond the suggestion by the Representative of Mexico, he recalled that at the previous Council discussion on the item (208/14 refers), it was determined that the problem was structural in nature and not an issue that could be resolved by means of a State letter or terms of reference. Clarification was required of the PIRGs and RASGs roles in relation to the regional air navigation plans, their approval process and how they were merged into national, regional and global plans, and it had been suggested at the time that a small working group be established to address all these issues.

54. In reference to paragraph 2.3 of the suggested RASG terms of reference, presented on page A-2 of the working paper, the Representative of the Republic of Korea queried whether there were technical difficulties for industry participation in the RASGs, given the crucial role industry experts played in advancing safety issues.

55. P/ANC explained the current task was to increase State participation as industry already contributed tremendously to the work of the group. He pointed out that the modification to paragraph 2.3 emphasized the partnership required between States, organizations and industry for successful outcomes and the introduction of paragraph 2.4 allowed RASGs the flexibility to determine how States and industry could best support the achievement of RASG objectives.

56. D/ANB recalled that the RASGs were initiated in order to have robust dialogue between regulators and industry and the methodology by which that had evolved in the regions depended on the norms of the relationships in each region and the ANC proposed amendments reflected that in a balanced way. In addressing the comments raised by the Representative of Spain, D/ANB indicated that the need for a small group had been encompassed within developments currently underway in the Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP) update process and to some extent within the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) and that the working group comprised of experts dealing with the GANP and GASP would develop a product that would meet with the Council’s suggestions.

57. With respect to the PIRGS, the President of the Council pointed out the concern that there was an increased separation of responsibility between the regulator and the service provider in many States. As the PIRGs were attended by service providers, the level of internal coordination by which the PIRG meeting recommendations were addressed by the regulators at the policy level for incorporation into national regulations was uncertain. In relation to action item f) and the reporting of PIRG and RASG results to the regional DGCA meetings, it was very important that there be a feedback mechanism on the level of implementation of the global plans to the Council through the ANC and he observed that the RASG terms of reference did not seem to clearly reflect this. In this regard, it was important for the regional groups to understand that they were tasked on an annual basis to report back actionable recommendations on the implementation of the global plans. The Regional Office annual reports were tending in that direction and so should the RASG and PIRG reports in order to increase responsibility for the level of implementation of the plans.

58. In thanking P/ANC for the very thorough report and in support of the paper, the Representative of Cuba commented that in reference to action item e) to request the Secretary General to hold specific senior management events to raise awareness, a feasible means to bring together Directors General and Ministers should be found especially given their heavy mission and work schedules. In regard to action item g) to highlight to States the importance and benefit to States and service providers of their participation in the PIRGs and RASGs work, it was also very important to explain to States that

-87- C-MIN 210/4

participation was important and that the appropriate technically qualified experts and decision-making authorities should attend the meetings in order for there to be successful outcomes. In regard to the possible creation of a single regional aviation structure, she cautioned that a PIRG/RASG merge might not be viable for all regions and proposed meetings be scheduled back-to- back to enable fuller participation with the added benefit of reduced costs to States. She supported paragraph 2.4 of the RASG suggested terms of reference as it would allow for flexibility in managing the group’s work and meetings based on regional requirements, and she saw great value in the contributions made by industry participation although more State participation was required.

59. The Representative of Colombia considered the structural problem had to do with governance and the numerous meetings which were costly to States. He suggested paragraph 2.6 of the RASG terms of reference be amended to allow more responsibility to the Regional Offices for governance and in order to understand the interconnection of the various bodies, he suggested the Secretary General undertake a targeted mapping exercise. He thought the PIRG terms of reference should be determined by the Council and that the PIRGs should report to Council on implementation issues. In this regard, the President of the Council pointed out that the RASGs and PIRGs were established by the Council and undertook their work on behalf of the Organization and he suggested that clarification might need to be provided for these bodies to ensure that it was clearly understood that they had a functional responsibility to the Council and to work in partnership with Organization.

60. Echoing support for the comments by the President of the Council and the Representatives of Spain and Cuba, the Representative of South Africa emphasized the need to maximize the attendance of high-level participants at these meetings and one way to do so was to hold back-to-back PIRG and RASG meetings, which could represent an added efficiency in doing so.

61. Noting some regions already conducted back-to-back meetings while others were trying to merge the two bodies, the President of the Council pointed to the ANC recommendation that there be flexibility in each region in order that the RASGs and PIRGs organizational structure and meeting modalities could evolve according to the unique requirements of each region.

62. In concurrence with the comment by the President of the Council and in support of the paper, the Representative of Singapore suggested that the target audience be indicated to States when the Regional Offices convened PIRG and RASG meetings.

63. In thanking P/ANC for the paper, the Secretary General underscored the Secretariat support to the ANC and the Regional Offices to enhance participation by Member States in the PIRGs and RASGs. In regard to the issue of the level of attendance at the groups’ meetings, she fully supported the comment by the President of the Council that each region should retain the flexibility to determine the approach that was best suited to its characteristics since the one-size fits all approach would be impractical. She noted that some of the Regional Offices had already started to optimize the process with back-to-back meetings or were giving consideration to merging the two groups while others believed the current structure was still valid and effective. In due course, the ANC would determine the progress made through the various experiences and would report back to Council on the outcomes.

64. In concluding consideration of this item, the Council:

a) requested that the President of the Air Navigation Commission (P/ANC) and Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) undertake a further review of the proposed revised terms of reference for RASGs, as well as the existing terms of reference for the PIRGs, and delegated the authority to the President of the Council to approve any consequential amendments to the terms of reference of both the RASG and the PIRG arising as a result of this review;

C-MIN 210/4 -88-

b) requested the Secretary General to provide guidance for PIRGs and RASGs on adopting a projects methodology for the planning and implementation of their work programmes for inclusion in the PIRG and RASGs procedural handbooks;

c) requested the Secretary General to provide guidance and tools to PIRGs and RASGs on facilitating inter-regional alignment, harmonization, sharing of best practices and lessons learned, and in addition requested that Regional Offices engage to actively coordinate the appropriate level of participation from Member States at the meetings of the PIRGs and RASGs;

d) agreed:

i. that PIRGs and RASGs should be allowed the flexibility to use the most effective and efficient organization structure and meeting modalities that best suit the characteristics of each region;

ii. that PIRG and RASG meeting invitations should be published well in advance to facilitate the planning by States for attendance and by the relevant Regional Office for convening of the meeting; and

iii. that there should be ongoing efforts to harmonize the conclusions and meeting outcomes of PIRGs and at the same time both PIRGs and RASGs should inform the Directors General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and relevant Civil Aviation Commission/Conference (CAC) of their results.

e) requested the Secretary General to consider holding specific Director or equivalent management-level events (e.g. Directors of flight safety and air navigation services regulation and oversight), in conjunction with PIRG and RASG plenary meetings to encourage senior management participation in the meetings;

f) agreed that at regional ICAO Directors General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Civil Aviation Commission/Conference (CAC) meetings, both attended by DGCAs, the importance and benefit of State participation in the work of PIRGs and RASGs should be highlighted; and

g) requested the Secretary General to highlight to States, through the most effective means available, the importance and benefit to States and service providers of their participation in the work of PIRGs and RASGs, the need for national coordination to ensure effective participation and of coordinating their regional efforts in this context, and urged all related international and regional organizations and industry stakeholders to also support and participate in the work.

65. The meeting adjourned at 1740 hours.

-89- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2017, AT 1000 HOURS)

CLOSED MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Mr. H. Yoshimura ― President, ANC Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. H. Gourdji ― DD/MO Mr. L. Sacchi Guadagnin (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. M. Fox ― C/PRC Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. N. Rallo ― C/OAS Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) ― Canada Mr. A. Bilaver ― SPCP Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. A. Meyer ― IAA Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Miss S. Black ― Précis-writer Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. W. Voss (Alt.) ― United States Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay *Part-time

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -90-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Cyprus Greece Lebanon Libya Paraguay Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) European Union (EU)

-91- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

Subject No. 14: Subjects relating to air navigation

Report on the ICAO Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR)

1. The Council reviewed C-WP/14558 Restricted, in which the Secretary General, pursuant to its earlier request (209/6), outlined specific proposals for the future of the ICAO CZIR and for follow- up work by the Organization which had been coordinated with the Repository Review Group (RRG).

2. In introducing the paper, the Secretary General underscored that since the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, ICAO had diligently worked with States and industry to explore and identify means to improve the safety and security of civil aviation operations over or near conflict zones. Those efforts included the formation by the Secretary General of the Task Force on Risks to Civil Aviation arising from Conflict Zones (TF RCZ), which had developed a comprehensive twelve-item Work Programme to address issues related to the safety and security of civil aircraft operating in airspace affected by conflict. The Council had been regularly briefed on the progress of implementation of the Work Programme. One element thereof addressed the issue of how relevant information could be effectively collected and shared to enhance risk assessments for operations over or near conflict zones. For such purpose the TF RCZ had launched a pilot project to review existing mechanisms and develop proposals for appropriate modifications and solutions to enhance the effectiveness of information-sharing. The proposals had been presented at the 2015 High-level Safety Conference (HLSC 2015), which had recommended that ICAO develop, as a matter of urgency, a simple centralized web-based repository to collect and disseminate information which supported the assessment of risks over or near conflict zones.

3. The Secretary General recalled that in establishing the ICAO CZIR (204/10) the Council had agreed that the Repository be operational for an initial one-year evaluation phase starting on 2 April 2015. The RRG had been formed at the same time to monitor the CZIR’s operation and to report regularly to the Council with any recommendations for improvements, for approval. Following the completion of the said evaluation phase, the Council had reviewed the Repository’s operation (208/15) and directed the Secretariat to consider further improvements to the CZIR and to prepare appropriate proposals for consideration by the RRG during the 209th Session. The RRG had subsequently reported to the Council (209/6) that significant progress had been made by States and industry in developing new innovative systems, separate from the CZIR, which served to rapidly share information concerning the risks associated with operations of civil aircraft over or near conflict zones. Furthermore, since July 2016, the number of new postings on the CZIR had decreased substantially. In light of these developments, the Council had requested that a comprehensive working paper be presented during the current session in which it would be invited to consider whether or not to continue with the CZIR and whether it might not be more appropriate to re-direct the resources currently invested in the Repository to other areas, such as the development within States of their risk management capabilities.

4. The Chief, Strategic Planning and Regional Affairs Coordination (C/PRC) then gave a PowerPoint presentation (may be found on the Council secure website at https://portal.icao.int/council/Pages/meeting.aspx?session=210) in which he elaborated on the comprehensive survey which the Secretariat had accordingly conducted on the availability and types of information for operators over or near conflict zones (cf. paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 and Appendix to C- WP/14558 Restricted). The key findings of the survey, whose target population had purposely been limited to air operators and air navigation service providers (ANSPs) [through the assistance of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC), and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO)], were as follows: the information provided by entities external to ICAO meets the requirements of the end-users; there is a requirement to standardize

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -92-

the format in which risk information is made available; and there is a requirement to develop solutions allowing for timely and automated access to such information.

5. In also elaborating on the Secretariat’s further study on the use of the ICAO CZIR (cf. paragraph 2.5), C/PRC had highlighted that, as of 16 January 2017: the CZIR contained only two entries from States concerning risks within their own sovereign airspace, which represented 2 per cent of all of the information provided through the States’ own channels; three States had provided a link to their own websites containing restrictions or advisories for air operators under their oversight; and there were 25 per cent fewer visitors to the public CZIR website in 2016 compared to the period of time since its launch on 2 April 2015 until 31 December 2015. Thus the amount of information posted on the CZIR had drastically declined, and the usage and access of the Repository had equally declined.

6. In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, C/PRC indicated that subsequent to the said study, an additional CZIR posting had been received from a State concerning three other States’ respective airspaces. As no objections had been made by the States affected, those entries were now also contained in the CZIR.

7. The Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) highlighted that, in the Secretariat’s view, the CZIR had met its intended purpose, namely, to promote the development of alternative ways to integrate risk assessment information and to make it available to the operator community in real-time in a way that was acceptable to the latter. He emphasized, however, that the sources of information utilized government information to generate their integrated products and did so in a way that was much more timely and complete than what the Secretariat had been able to accomplish with the CZIR. Consequently, it was recommended in the paper that the Council: note that the Repository has ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information as evidenced by the quantity, nature and use of information presently available on the site; and consider: discontinuing the CZIR as a means to disseminate specific risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones; having ICAO continue to provide links to States’ own websites in the form of a library of information sources as a service to States and the operator community; and having ICAO continue to explore, through a continuous review of its Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and guidance material, how to improve the sharing of risk information and relevant assessment processes among States, as discussed during the 208th Session (208/15) and with the operator community. As had been noted in the Council previously, it was necessary to find a standardized way to automate those processes so that they could be understood by the industry community that was providing the information services, and also by States as they published their information, so as to promote consistency in the publication and use of risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones.

8. Referring to paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the paper on the results of the Secretariat’s study on the use of the ICAO CZIR, the Representative of Egypt underscored that the fact that no new entries had been posted on the Repository in the interim between the RRG’s oral report during the last session (209/6) and 16 January 2017, the fact that the only two entries posted by States on the CZIR concerned risks to the States’ own sovereign airspace, and the fact that the number of visitors to the public CZIR website had decreased in 2016 were all inconsistent with the pace of world events that could generate risks to civil aviation, which had not declined. The fact that the percentage of all information pertaining to risks from conflict zones issued by States through their own channels and posted on the CZIR had decreased from 78 per cent on 9 January 2016 to 2 per cent on 16 January 2017 further demonstrated that the Repository had ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information. The Representative of Egypt reiterated (209/6) that the Repository had adversely affected ICAO’s credibility and reputation. For all these reasons, he supported action paragraphs a), b) and c) in the executive summary of the paper.

-93- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

9. While thus agreeing to the discontinuation of the CZIR, the Representative of Egypt opposed modifying it into a library of links to States’ websites where risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones could be made available, as proposed in action paragraph d). He emphasized that by providing the said links ICAO would be an accomplice, either directly or indirectly, in the publication of any incorrect information, which could cause political or economic damage to the State affected. In also opposing action paragraph e), whereby the Secretariat would re-direct its resources to review relevant ICAO provisions and guidance as a means to promote consistency in the publication and use of such risk-based information, the Representative of Egypt underscored that ICAO’s role, as an organization comprised of States, was to work with them and their Governments and not with operators. It should therefore re-direct its resources to building States’ capacities to address the challenges facing international civil aviation.

10. Speaking on behalf of the ABIS Group (comprising Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland), the Representative of Ireland recalled that the ABIS Group had been a strong supporter of ICAO’s work on conflict zones from the beginning and that it had had high hopes for the CZIR at the time of its establishment almost two years ago (204/10). Underscoring that information-sharing to inform proper risk assessment by States and airlines was at the heart of the work on conflict zones, she noted that the Council had recently adopted (207/8) Amendment 15 to Annex 17 – Security to improve security-related risk assessment by States and that guidance material had been updated in the ICAO document Civil Aircraft Operations over Conflict Zones. The Representative of Ireland emphasized that while those were good steps forward, the reality was that many States simply did not have access to the intelligence information required to make those risk assessments. Furthermore, it was not realistic to expect that many States would develop that intelligence capacity for that purpose. In order to carry out their obligations pursuant to the relevant Standards, States would have to look to other sources for information.

11. While the ABIS Group had been hopeful that the CZIR would fill that gap, based on the evidence presented today in C-WP/14558 Restricted, it reluctantly agreed that the Repository had ceased to function as an effective means to gather and disseminate specific risk-based information on conflict zones [cf. action paragraph b) of the executive summary of the paper]. Given the limited number of postings now on the CZIR, it considered that the Repository no longer reflected the reality of risk information currently available and that its continued operation therefore represented a risk to the reputation of ICAO. More importantly, there was a risk that some States and airlines might still look to the Repository as the complete and authoritative source on global risks related to conflict zones and make operational decisions based on that information. For these reasons, and with much regret, the ABIS Group agreed that the CZIR should be discontinued.

12. Assuming that the CZIR ceased to function, the ABIS Group considered that the library of links to States’ own information on conflict zones was absolutely indispensable, at the very least until there was an alternative means for sharing such information. It encouraged those States that had previously posted information on the CZIR to add their national links to the library, which would be in addition to the links to States’ websites that had already been provided and posted on the Repository. The ABIS Group suggested that the Secretariat work closely with those States to arrange for the posting of their national links in the library, and that that work be reflected in an additional action paragraph in the paper’s executive summary.

13. While noting, from the Secretariat’s above-mentioned survey, that airlines and States currently had access to information from private and public sources to support their risk assessments, the Representative of Ireland queried whether the situation would remain the same in the future. Observing that it was not sufficient, in any other area of ICAO’s work, to say that States were doing what they

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -94-

needed to do to keep air travel safe, she underscored that the Organization assured itself of that fact through its SARPs, guidance material and audits of those elements, where appropriate. ICAO routinely shared, and facilitated the sharing of, all kinds of information to assist States in that work. In affirming that this area of ICAO’s work should be no different, the Representative of Ireland stressed that that was why improved information-sharing to support proper risk assessment remained at the heart of the conflict zone work and should remain the focus of ICAO’s attention, even if the mechanisms for sharing that information needed to change. The Representative of Ireland recalled that the said survey had shown that there was sufficient risk information available to airlines and ANSPs, but that it was not always available on a timely basis or in an accessible format. In underscoring that an airline that received information too late was the same as an airline that had no information, the Representative of Ireland noted that Representatives were all aware that a lack of information on conflict zones could have tragic and fatal consequences such as those that had led to the loss of 298 lives in the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster.

14. While expecting that some more arguments would be made in the Council along the lines of the intervention by the Representative of Egypt that ICAO should not facilitate the sharing of risk information that was not accepted by the State affected, the Representative of Ireland underscored that the reality was that intelligence gathering was not a perfect science: it could only ever be an assessment of the existing risk and there would always be differences of opinion on the nature and level of that risk. She emphasized that there were diplomatic channels that could be used to try to address such differences of opinion in the event that any arose. Affirming that ICAO’s first responsibility was safety, as the President of the Council often said, and that other considerations must come second, the Representative of Ireland stressed that in that context ICAO must err on the side of caution and facilitate the sharing of risk information where it existed. She underscored that as the CZIR had not worked as hoped, it was necessary to find other ways to do so.

15. Recalling that during the Council’s previous discussion of the CZIR (209/6) several Representatives had expressed concern about solutions being developed outside ICAO for sharing risk information, the Representative of Ireland emphasized that a central role for industry had always been part of that work. She noted that action item 6 in the TF RCZ’s Work Programme (cf. HLSC/15-WP/33, Appendix B) made specific reference to a lead role for industry in sharing information, including operationally. The Representative of Ireland underscored that all twelve of the TF RCZ’s recommended actions had been endorsed by the HLSC 2015, supported on several occasions by the Council, and supported most recently by the 39th Session of the Assembly.

16. Noting that the CZIR was ICAO’s first attempt at the global sharing of information which was crucial to the safety of the air travelling public, the Representative of Ireland stressed that while it had not been an easy exercise, the Council should not conclude therefrom that information-sharing could not work in other ways. Reiterating that ICAO must continue its efforts to find solutions that worked, the Representative of Ireland emphasized that her Delegation and the ABIS Group stood ready to assist the Secretariat and the Council, as necessary, in that work.

17. The President of the Council highlighted that the ICAO Aviation Security Point of Contact (PoC) Network, which had been created before the CZIR, was available for the exchange of information on any potential security risks that a State may wish to disseminate regionally or globally. He reiterated that it had been necessary to establish the CZIR as the Council had considered at that time that the existing non-ICAO mechanisms for disseminating risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones were insufficient. The Council had now been apprised that external entities had developed new innovative systems which were patronized more than the CZIR as they had become more informative. Thus while the CZIR had served as a gap-filler, there were now alternative ways to disseminate such risk-based information. Hence the Secretary General’s proposal to discontinue the

-95- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

Repository and to re-direct resources to support capacity-building in States.

18. In expressing full support for the actions proposed in the paper, the Representative of the Russian Federation underscored that it would be the States concerned, and not the Organization, which would be responsible for the contents of the websites to be accessed by means of links in the envisaged ICAO library. He suggested that the Secretary General issue a State letter encouraging States to provide such links on a voluntary basis.

19. To a further point raised by the Representative, the President of the Council clarified that the links in the said library would not be to private sector websites.

20. In endorsing the intervention by the Representative of Egypt, the Representative of Kenya likewise supported action paragraphs a), b) and c) and completely disagreed with action paragraphs d) and e). In emphasizing that only three of ICAO’s 191 Member States, representing some 1.7 per cent of its membership, had provided links to their own websites containing restrictions or advisories for air operators under their oversight, she maintained that the Organization should not direct its resources to the library as proposed in action paragraph d). With respect to action paragraph e), the Representative of Kenya recalled that during the Council’s previous discussion of the CZIR (209/6), it had been indicated that it would be preferable to re-direct ICAO’s resources to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities, as referred to in paragraph 1.4 of the paper. Noting, from the results of the Secretariat’s survey of the user community, that the aviation industry was already utilizing the resources available from States’ websites, she emphasized that there was no indication that ICAO should supplement that information. The Representative of Kenya underscored that if the Council admitted that the CZIR had failed, then it should ask why and draw on the lessons learned. Observing that the paper completely ignored that issue, she emphasized that new Council Representatives were consequently only receiving partial information regarding the Repository. The Representative of Kenya averred that it would have been better if Section 1. Introduction of the paper had set forth the reasons for the CZIR’s failure so as to enable all Representatives to take an informed decision regarding the Repository’s proposed discontinuation and the way forward.

21. In also supporting action paragraphs a), b) and c), the Representative of Colombia reiterated that the CZIR was no longer useful, as had been demonstrated by the Secretariat. Expressing concerns regarding action paragraphs d) and e), he underscored that ICAO’s function was not to gather intelligence but rather to protect the safety of international civil aviation from any problems identified in such intelligence. All agreed on the need for the aviation sector to share risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones. However, ICAO was expected to take measures and facilitate arrangements so that “future development of international civil aviation can greatly help to create and preserve friendship and understanding among the nations and peoples of the world” pursuant to Preambular Clause 1 of the Chicago Convention. Furthermore, ICAO did not necessarily have the mandate and the capability to manage the said problems. The Representative of Colombia thus considered that the Organization needed to focus its resources on major issues such as implementation of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), cyber-security, and other emerging issues, and above all on missions such as meteorology and search and rescue, in which ICAO was not investing sufficient funds.

22. The Representative of Cuba also endorsed action paragraphs a), b) and c), as well as the comment made by the Representative of Egypt that ICAO worked with States and their Governments and not with operators. Referring to action paragraph d), she indicated that she was unsure whether the proposed ICAO library of links to States’ websites was necessary. The Representative of Cuba considered that the best library would be a system-wide information management (SWIM) one enabling easy, real-

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -96-

time access to digital aeronautical information and that all possible resources should be mobilized to achieve it. She emphasized, in that regard, that States required much more guidance and assistance to ensure that no country was left behind in accessing the vast amount of digital aeronautical information that was available and that was of such importance, particularly for the implementation of the Aviation System Block Upgrades (ASBUs). The Representative of Cuba could nevertheless accept the proposed ICAO library of links to States’ websites on the condition that the information contained in those websites related solely to the States’ sovereign airspace and not to the sovereign airspace of other States without their consent.

23. With respect to action paragraph e), the Representative of Cuba agreed that it could be revised to refer to re-directing ICAO’s resources to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities as mentioned in paragraph 1.4 of the paper. Noting that there was a strong security component thereto, she underscored that it was important information for consideration by ICAO PoCs. In underscoring the need for ICAO to do more work in the fields of air navigation and safety, she recalled that some interesting ideas had been put forward in the informal briefing given on 11 January 2017 regarding the proposed amendment to Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services, Attachment C on material relating to contingency planning [Item 11 a) of the TF RCZ Work Programme]. Noting, from the Secretariat’s survey, that NOTAMs were most widely used to disseminate information regarding conflict zones, the Representative of Cuba highlighted the need for the Organization to carry out more work in that area.

24. In voicing support for the paper, the Representative of Australia welcomed the continued work by ICAO to refocus its efforts in the field of conflict zones. Affirming that security issues such as conflict zones were an integral part of ICAO’s work, he emphasized that the Organization could not vacate that field completely after the tragedies that had occurred in the past. In strongly endorsing the comments made by the Representative of Ireland on behalf of the ABIS Group, the Representative of Australia indicated that his Government strongly supported action paragraphs d) and e) as the basis for ICAO’s activities going forward and as a means of facilitating access to information and building States’ capabilities to develop, use and disseminate risk-based information on operations over or near conflict zones. He affirmed that that needed to be an integral part of ICAO’s future work programme.

25. The Representative of Malaysia, a Member of the RRG, agreed to action paragraphs a) to e) and endorsed the interventions by the Representatives of Ireland, on behalf of the ABIS Group, the Russian Federation and Australia. Referring to action paragraph d) on transforming the CZIR into a library of links to States’ websites, he reiterated that ICAO was an organization comprised of Member States and affirmed that such sharing of risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones could be helpful to the latter in performing risk assessments for their operators and in thus ensuring flight safety over conflict zones. The Representative of Malaysia emphasized that such information had not been available at the time of the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.

26. Referring to the proposed actions for consideration by the Council outlined in the PowerPoint presentation and by D/ANB, the Representative of Malaysia underscored the importance of including in the Council’s decision a request that the Secretariat continue to explore, through a continuous review of ICAO SARPs and guidance material, how to improve the sharing of risk information concerning operations over or near conflict zones, and relevant assessment processes. He recommended that, in so doing, the Secretariat give serious consideration to whether there was a need to amend the Chicago Convention to ensure that States’ responsibilities related to the safety of their airspace were more strictly defined in that Convention and in the underlying SARPs so that it was clear in which cases the airspace should be closed, in line with Recommendation 4 of the Dutch Safety Board’s final accident investigation report on MH17. He emphasized that it was for States to decide whether to close their

-97- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

sovereign airspace to ensure the safety of operations therein.

27. Expressing concern that the media had already been made aware of the Council’s current discussion of the CZIR, pre-empting its decision thereon, the Representative of South Africa underscored the need for sister organizations to stop engaging in such activities. In endorsing the interventions by the Representatives of Egypt, Kenya and Colombia, he supported actions paragraphs a), b) and c) in the executive summary of the paper but opposed action paragraphs d) and e), which he found confusing, despite the specificity of the HLSC 2015 recommendations and the Council’s previous decision (209/6) on this issue. Noting that there were four States which had taken it upon themselves to identify conflict zones, and that the latter were mostly in Africa, the Representative of South Africa appealed to those States to look at the global picture and not only at the African region.

28. In also supporting the comments made by the Representatives of Egypt, Kenya and Colombia, as well as those made by the Representative of South Africa, the Representative of Nigeria likewise agreed to action paragraphs a), b) and c) and disagreed with action paragraphs d) and e). With respect to action paragraph d), he recalled, from the results of the Secretariat’s comprehensive survey, that States’ risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones was readily available and was being used by the aviation industry. In averring that the proposed ICAO library of links to States’ websites containing such information was therefore unnecessary, the Representative of Nigeria questioned why ICAO should use its limited resources to supplement what was already available to the aviation industry. With regard to action paragraph e), he indicated that the Organization’s resources should be used to assist States in the management and sharing of risk-based information and in presenting it in a more user-friendly format.

29. The Representative of Ecuador observed that it was widely recognized that ICAO had established the CZIR in response to life-threatening circumstances of high importance globally that had indisputably necessitated action. However, over time, some concerns about the Repository’s operation had arisen, with Representatives having different expectations and different views on how to proceed. Thus while he commended the Organization for its efforts, the Representative of Ecuador agreed to action paragraphs a), b) and c) whereby the Repository would be discontinued. In sharing the concerns expressed by the Representatives of Cuba, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa and Colombia, he opposed action paragraphs d) and e).

30. In very strongly associating himself with the intervention by the Representative of Ireland on behalf of the ABIS Group, the Alternate Representative of the United States voiced support for action paragraphs a) to e). Thanking the Secretariat for all the work it had done with regard to the CZIR, he reiterated that it was a very sad and regrettable day for ICAO as apparently it had been unable to address the big challenge it had faced of effectively conveying risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones through the Repository. Referring to the comments made in opposition to action paragraphs d) and e) to the effect that ICAO’s limited resources should not be directed to modifying the CZIR into a library of links to States’ websites, and to reviewing relevant ICAO provisions and guidance as a means to promote consistency in the publication and use of such risk-based information, the Alternate Representative of the United States emphasized that ICAO Member States also had limited resources and that as his Government reviewed its budgetary priorities in the coming weeks it would take into consideration the Council’s current deliberations. He hoped that Representatives would bear that in mind.

31. In also expressing appreciation for the Secretariat’s efforts, the Representative of Saudi Arabia supported all of the actions proposed in the executive summary of the paper as a whole. Averring that the Council’s decision would lack substance if it did not include above-mentioned action paragraphs

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -98-

d) and e), he voiced concern that ICAO would no longer be living up to its responsibilities to Member States. The Representative of Saudi Arabia highlighted that ultimately the responsibility for sharing risk- based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones lay with the States concerned themselves. He noted that in the event that they indicated that their sovereign airspace was safe for operations, then they would have a moral responsibility and perhaps a legal responsibility if an incident were to occur therein. The Representative of Saudi Arabia underscored that the Council should uphold ICAO’s responsibilities and protect the lives of air travellers and not serve the narrow interests of certain States.

32. Voicing strong support for the interventions by the Representatives of Kenya, Egypt, Colombia, South Africa, Nigeria, Cuba and Ecuador, the Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania noted that they had each given very substantive reasons for their position regarding the actions to be taken by the Council. He thus agreed to action paragraphs a), b) and c) and to the revision of action paragraph e) to reflect paragraph 1.4 of the paper relating to re-directing ICAO resources to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities. Referring to the intervention by the Representative of Kenya, he reiterated that in drawing lessons learned from the CZIR’s operation it was necessary to consider why the Repository had ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information.

33. In expressing support for all five action paragraphs, the Representative of the United Kingdom agreed with the Representative of Saudi Arabia that if the full set of actions was not taken by the Council, and action paragraphs d) and e) were not accepted, then the Council’s decision would have no substance. That, in turn, would mean that ICAO’s response to one of the greatest tragedies of the last few years i.e. the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, would be to abandon its efforts relating to the sharing of risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones and the development of capacity for risk assessment, which he considered would be severely problematic in terms of the Organization’s reputation. Underscoring that such information sharing and capacity-building were both necessary to be effective, the Representative of the United Kingdom maintained that it was necessary for the Council to agree to both action paragraphs d) and e) together.

34. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of South Africa, the Representative of the United Kingdom emphasized that the States that had decided to provide information to ICAO on risks to aviation arising from conflict zones for posting on the CZIR had not done so randomly but rather in response to the recommendations of the HLSC 2015, which had been held under the auspices of ICAO, and the request of the Council. He recalled that the said States had even come under criticism for not submitting the said information fast enough – an important point to consider.

35. Noting that all were aware of what had happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 and of the task that ICAO had consequently been given, the Representative of Sweden also voiced support for action paragraphs a) to e).

36. In likewise endorsing all of the action paragraphs, the Representative of France supported the arguments put forward by the Representatives of Ireland, on behalf of the ABIS Group, the Russian Federation, Australia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Sweden and the Alternate Representative of the United States. Affirming that safety took precedence over any political issues, he underscored the need for ICAO to have a No Passenger Left Behind policy, along the lines of its No Country Left Behind policy.

37. Expressing support for the paper and its proposed actions in their totality, the Representative of Singapore recalled that the CZIR had arisen from the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 tragedy and reiterated that safety was paramount for ICAO.

-99- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

38. In also believing that safety took precedence over all other issues, the Representative of Turkey underscored that ICAO was the leading UN organization responsible for securing the safety of international civil aviation. For that reason, he supported all five action paragraphs a) to e).

39. The Representative of the Congo endorsed action paragraphs a), b) and c) in accordance with the interventions by the Representatives of Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and the United Republic of Tanzania. Referring to action paragraph d), he indicated that it left him slightly perplexed as the proposed library of links to States’ websites seemed to be a second repository. Affirming that the comment made by the Representative of Kenya in voicing disagreement to action paragraph e) was quite objective, the Representative of the Congo concurred that ICAO’s resources should instead be directed to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities in line with paragraph 1.4 of the paper.

40. The Representative of Canada expressed support for all five action paragraphs.

41. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates thanked the Secretariat for all of the work it had done in establishing the CZIR and in maintaining it for close to two years. She endorsed the intervention by the Representative of Ireland on behalf of the ABIS Group and the comments made by other Representatives in support thereof. In also endorsing the intervention by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the Representative of the United Arab Emirates emphasized that safety and security should be prioritized over other issues in addressing risks to civil aviation arising from conflict zones. For these reasons, she supported all of the action paragraphs a) to e).

42. The Representative of Spain also expressed gratitude for all of the work done in connection with the CZIR. Underscoring the need for the Council to acknowledge, as he humbly did, that the Repository was a failed undertaking, he expressed the hope that that would not negatively impact ICAO’s credibility in the future. In emphasizing the need for it to also acknowledge that the Organization still had a responsibility to ensure aviation safety, which was based on the sharing of risk-based information, the Representative of Spain indicated that he would be unable to look in the faces of the families of the 298 victims of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 tragedy if ICAO did not continue to pursue its mission of ensuring that such a tragedy never recurred. He thus, with humility, agreed to action paragraphs a) to c) relating to the discontinuation of the CZIR.

43. The Representative of Spain supported action paragraph d), whereby the Repository would be modified into a library of links to States’ websites, subject to two caveats: firstly, that there be a clear indication that the list of links was not exhaustive and never would be; and secondly, that the risk- based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones contained in the States’ websites came from State sources and not from private sources, as otherwise ICAO would be promoting third-party business. In also supporting action paragraph e) relating to the promotion of consistency in the publication and use of such risk-based information, the Representative of Spain spoke in favour of adding another action paragraph to reflect the comment made by the Representative of Kenya that ICAO should re-direct its resources to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities as referred to in paragraph 1.4 of the paper.

44. In voicing support for action paragraphs a) to e), the Representative of Uruguay agreed with the Representative of Ireland that ICAO must err on the side of caution and facilitate the sharing of risk information where it existed.

45. The Representative of Panama also endorsed the five action paragraphs, as did the

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -100-

Representative of Brazil. In affirming that the security and safety of passengers’ lives were of paramount importance, the Representative of Brazil indicated that she could agree to the proposed library as long as the links it contained were to States’ websites and not to the websites of private companies. She also supported reflecting in the Council’s actions paragraph 1.4 of the paper relating to the re-directing of ICAO’s resources to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities.

46. The Representative of Mexico emphasized that although the actions proposed in the paper had been coordinated with, and carefully reviewed by, the RRG, it was necessary to address the concerns and scepticism expressed by a number of Representatives regarding some of the proposals. To that end, the Council should accept: the suggestions made by the Representatives of Spain regarding action paragraph d) i.e. highlight that the library’s list of links was not exhaustive and never would be and that the risk-based information contained in the States’ websites came from State sources and not from private sources; and the suggestion made by the Representative of Kenya that action paragraph e) be revised to refer to re-redirecting ICAO’s resources to the development within Member States of their risk management capabilities, as mentioned in paragraph 1.4 of the paper. Additionally, the Council should: acknowledge that although the CZIR had evolved since its establishment it had not met the Council’s original expectations; and provisionally approve the modification of the Repository into a library of links to States’ websites, while continuing to monitor its development.

47. In appreciating and sharing the strong and well-articulated intervention by the Representative of Ireland on behalf of the ABIS Group, as further elaborated by other supportive Representatives, the Representative of Italy endorsed all five proposed actions a) to e). He emphasized that the Council should never refrain from taking every possible action to improve safety and strengthen risk assessment capability. The Representative of Italy thus hoped that the envisaged library of links to States’ websites would be as complete and as functional as possible.

48. The Representative of the Russian Federation expressed support for most of the comments made by the Representative of Malaysia. He reiterated his view that the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 tragedy had not been due to the pilots’ lack of information for risk assessment but rather to the airspace not having been appropriately restricted by the State of Occurrence given the existing risks. Recalling his 25 years of operational experience in aviation, he agreed with D/ANB that there was a problem with the standardization of the format in which risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones was provided, and underscored that there was also a problem with the relative priorities accorded safety and commercial issues. The Representative of the Russian Federation suggested that ICAO consider working more actively with the Governments of those States that were not placing appropriate restrictions on their airspace over or near conflict zones.

49. In summarizing the discussion, the President of the Council observed that all Representatives agreed to action paragraphs a), b) and c) as set forth in the executive summary of the paper, whereby the Council: noted the information contained in the paper; noted that the Repository has ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information as evidenced by the quantity, nature and use of information presently available on the site; and directed the Secretariat to discontinue the Repository as a means to gather and disseminate specific risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones.

50. Furthermore, the majority of Representatives agreed to action paragraph d) in the form presented, whereby the Council directed the Secretariat to modify the Repository into a library of links to States’ websites that provide such risk-based information. However, a number of Representatives had raised questions regarding that action paragraph and some had requested that it be completely rejected. Concern had been expressed regarding the information provided through such links, and whether it was focussed on each State’s own airspace or on the airspace of other States. Some Representatives had

-101- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

pointed out that action paragraph d) referred to “States’ websites”, and that there was nothing to suggest that the information would be derived from the private sector. Noting that some suggestions had been made for some form of disclaimer, the President indicated that it would help allay concerns to have a disclaimer that would highlight, inter alia, that: the list of links to States’ websites was not exhaustive and was provided solely for convenience of reference; and ICAO was not responsible for the contents of the States’ websites. He suggested that the Council leave it to the Secretariat to determine whether the library’s contents could be limited to links to those State websites where the State provided risk-based information regarding its own airspace. The President considered that such a disclaimer would address the concerns raised regarding action paragraph d).

51. In then referring to action paragraph e), the President suggested, as a compromise solution, that it be amended to reflect the proposed action outlined in the PowerPoint presentation and by D/ANB as referred to by the Representative of Malaysia (cf. paragraph 26 above), and paragraph 1.4 of the paper as referred to by the Representative of Kenya and other Representatives, to read as follows: “request the Secretariat to continue to explore, through a continuous review of ICAO SARPs and guidance material, how to improve States’ risk-management capabilities, the sharing of risk information concerning operations over or near conflict zones, and relevant assessment processes.”. In enquiring whether that would be an acceptable compromise for all Representatives, the President underscored that ever since the very difficult issue of the CZIR had first been discussed every effort had been made to ensure that the Council’s decision was not only based on the majority view but also captured, to the maximum extent possible, the interests of all Representatives.

52. Referring to the President’s comments regarding action paragraph d), the Alternate Representative of the United States highlighted that his State’s links were to risk-based information which the United States provided for its operators and which covered both its own airspace and the airspace of other States. As there was no way to separate that information into two sets, one relating to the United States’ airspace and another relating to other States’ airspace, the links which the United States could provide for inclusion in the envisaged ICAO library would remain in their present form. Recalling that there had been a disclaimer on the CZIR site, the Alternate Representative of the United States considered that it would be completely acceptable to have one on the library site as outlined by the President.

53. The Representative of Ireland indicated that while the ABIS Group could agree to the idea of a disclaimer as a compromise solution, any suggestion that States would have to edit the information which they already provided would not be acceptable to it.

54. While supporting the President’s summary, the Representative of the Russian Federation reiterated the concern which he had previously expressed regarding the existing disclaimer on the CZIR site and averred that the proposed disclaimer for the ICAO library would likewise undermine the Organization’s reputation. Recalling the comment made by the Representative of South Africa, he emphasized the need for the library to include links to the relevant websites of all States, without restriction, so as to uphold international civil aviation’s spirit of global cooperation and preserve ICAO’s reputation. The Representative of the Russian Federation cautioned that otherwise the information would, once again, only be suitable for the “yellow press” i.e. non-aviation professionals.

55. While also endorsing the President’s summary, the Representative of Kenya referred to the proposed disclaimer that would be posted on the ICAO library and emphasized the need for the Council to consider: the Organization’s role in providing the said links to States’ information, drawing on the lessons learned from the CZIR; and whether ICAO wished to be able to associate itself with that information or whether it wished to leave that information to the States concerned. She underscored that it would be prudent for ICAO to step aside the minute it found that its role was being compromised.

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -102-

56. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of the Russian Federation, the President suggested, as an alternative to including in the ICAO library only the links to Member States’ websites that were provided by the States on a voluntary basis, that the library instead contain links to the websites of the civil aviation authorities (CAAs) of all 191 Member States, from which users could navigate to the desired area for the requisite information. He highlighted that that would facilitate access to all CAA websites and to whatever information was published.

57. While indicating that she could accept the President’s suggestion if it met with the consensus of other Representatives, the Representative of Kenya questioned what value would be added by including links to all CAA websites given that the latter were already easily accessible and used by operators and other stakeholders.

58. Observing that there was some concern that ICAO would in some way be endorsing the information provided by States on their websites when it included links to those websites in the envisaged library, D/ANB underscored that it would be clear from ICAO’s disclaimer that the content was created and provided by the respective State, which was solely responsible for that content, including, without limitation, all of the items on that State’s website. He emphasized that ICAO did not endorse, review or control any of the States’ websites currently linked on the CZIR and would not do so for the websites linked on the envisaged library.

59. Responding to the question raised regarding added-value, D/ANB indicated that there were thousands of international operators which employed aviation professionals from all over the globe who spoke a variety of languages. It was clear that in some cases those aviation professionals were unaware where information related to their respective flight plans could be found, particularly if the States within which they operated did not provide that information. He underscored that by establishing a library containing an inventory of links to the CAA websites of all 191 Member States ICAO would be providing a centralized location where the aviation professionals could double-check all available sources of information provided by those Member States, which would be a positive action for the Organization to implement on behalf of the Council. Noting, from the views expressed, that the Council would be unable to reach consensus on requesting States to limit the contents of their websites to be linked on the ICAO library to information related to their own airspace, D/ANB indicated that it would be possible for the Secretariat to operationalize the President’s proposal to include in the library a link to a CAA website for any of the 191 Member States that so requested. He further noted that in the Secretary General’s envisaged State letter notifying the Council’s decisions regarding the discontinuation of the CZIR and its modification into a library, all States could be encouraged to provide their respective links, on a voluntary basis, for posting in the latter.

60. The Representative of South Africa fully endorsed the comments made by the Representative of Kenya and the Russian Federation.

61. In voicing support for the President’s summary and his suggestion that the ICAO library contain links to all Member States’ CAA websites, the Representative of Egypt agreed with the Representative of Spain that a disclaimer should be posted in the library so as to avoid any confusion in the future.

62. The Representative of the United Kingdom emphasized that currently there was no restriction on the number of States that could provide links to their websites for posting on the CZIR site. Referring to the comment made by D/ANB on the envisaged State letter, he indicated that those States which had submitted information for posting on the CZIR but which had not provided the links to their websites for inclusion on the Repository’s site should be particularly encouraged to provide the links to

-103- C-MIN 210/5 (Closed)

their CAA websites for posting on the ICAO library.

63. Speaking on behalf of the ABIS Group, the Representative of Ireland endorsed the intervention by D/ANB. Noting that all Representatives could agree that ICAO’s objective was to facilitate the sharing of information related to risks to aviation arising from conflict zones, she questioned how asking operators and other stakeholders to review 191 different CAA websites via the ICAO library to try to find such risk-based information could be considered facilitation.

64. In sharing the views expressed by the Representatives of Kenya and Ireland, on behalf of the ABIS Group, the Representative of Cuba maintained that including the links to 191 CAA websites on the ICAO library would not add any value, particularly if not all of the relevant Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs), aeronautical information circulars (AICs) and aeronautical information publication (AIP) supplements were posted on those websites. She reiterated that the best library would be a SWIM system enabling easy access, in real-time, to the requisite digital aeronautical information, which should follow a standard format to ensure user-friendliness.

65. Noting that some Representatives were not in favour of his alternative suggestion for the ICAO library, the President proposed that the Council instead accept the original proposal for the library as set forth in action paragraph d), namely, that it contain links to States’ websites providing risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones, on the understanding that: in the Secretary General’s envisaged State letter notifying the Council’s decisions on this subject States would be encouraged to provide, on a voluntary basis, the links to their own websites where such risk-based information resided, for posting in the ICAO library; and a standard disclaimer would be posted in the latter. The majority of Representatives supported this proposal. The President observed that all Representatives were in favour of revised action paragraph e) as set forth in his summary (cf. paragraph 51 above).

66. Observing that a few Representatives, including the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the Chairperson of the RRG, had a different understanding of the contents of the envisaged ICAO library than the Secretariat, the President requested D/ANB to provide clarification.

67. D/ANB noted that the list of links proposed in action paragraph d) was currently available on the CZIR for the three States which had provided the links to their respective websites. He indicated that each of those links was to a landing page containing a list of the State’s publications. That list was dynamic, with the State concerned being responsible for updating its contents. D/ANB emphasized that ICAO only linked to the landing page and not to each individual link on each risk area listed thereon, and that the Secretariat would not be monitoring the changes that States made to their respective landing pages. In underscoring that that was not the Secretariat’s responsibility, he noted that that would be tantamount to transferring the Repository process from ICAO’s own webpage to States’ webpages, which was not the intent of action paragraph d). D/ANB noted that the Secretary General’s envisaged State letter would offer the opportunity for States which were publishing risk information generally for their own operators to provide ICAO with the link to where that information publicly resided so that it could be made available on the ICAO library.

68. In then taking the action proposed in the executive summary of C-WP/14558 Restricted, as amended by the President in light of the discussion, the Council:

a) noted the information contained in the paper, as well as the supplementary information provided orally;

C-MIN 210/5 (Closed) -104-

b) noted that the ICAO CZIR has ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information as evidenced by the quantity, nature and use of information presently available on the site;

c) directed the Secretariat to discontinue the ICAO CZIR as a means to gather and disseminate specific risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones, while agreeing to the continuation of the RRG, for the time being;

d) provisionally approved the modification of the ICAO CZIR into a library of links to States’ websites where such risk-based information can be made available, on the understanding that the Secretary General would present a progress report on the library’s development for its consideration during the next (211th) session;

e) requested the Secretary General to issue a State letter informing States of the Council’s above decisions and encouraging them to provide, on a voluntary basis, the links to their own websites where such risk-based information resided, for posting in the envisaged ICAO library; and

f) requested the Secretariat to continue to explore, through a continuous review of ICAO SARPs and guidance material, how to improve States’ risk-management capabilities, the sharing of risk information concerning operations over or near conflict zones, and relevant assessment processes.

69. With regard to paragraph 68 d) above, the Council requested the Secretariat to consult with the RRG regarding the library’s design, which would include a standard disclaimer highlighting, inter alia, that: the list of links to States’ websites was not exhaustive and was provided solely for convenience of reference; and ICAO was not responsible for the contents of the States’ websites and was not liable for any damages resulting from the use of the said library or the information provided through the links to the States’ websites.

70. The Council reconvened in open session at 1145 hours to consider the remaining item on the order of business.

-105- C-MIN 210/5 (Open)

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 1 MARCH 2017, AT 1145 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

C-MIN 210/5 (Open) -106-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Cyprus Greece Lebanon Libya Paraguay Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) European Union (EU)

-107- C-MIN 210/5 (Open)

Subject No. 14.5: Safety oversight

Progress report on the implementation of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USOAP CMA)

1. This subject was considered on the basis of: information paper C-WP/14562, in which the Secretary General presented a progress report on the implementation and activities of the USOAP CMA, highlighting the milestones achieved, activities conducted and improvements made in 2016, as well as outlining the activities and developments planned for 2017; an accompanying PowerPoint presentation by the Deputy Director, Monitoring and Oversight Section (DD/MO); and a related oral report by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC).

PowerPoint presentation

2. DD/MO gave a PowerPoint presentation (may be found on the Council website at https://portal.icao.int/council/Pages/meeting.aspx?session=210) in which he introduced C-WP/14562 on the USOAP CMA and provided clarification regarding some of the terminology used therein so as to enable a better appreciation of the Programme-related tools and methodology that had been developed for States and ICAO. In highlighting that 2017 marked the Programme’s 20th anniversary, he recalled that it had first started as a voluntary, confidential Safety Oversight Assessment Programme for only Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft and Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft. Now, after 20 years, it had evolved to the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) under a continuous monitoring approach (CMA), a mandatory programme for 17 of the 19 Annexes that was fully transparent. DD/MO underscored that ICAO’s USOAP methodology and maturity in auditing and monitoring were now being modelled by other international organizations and UN Specialized Agencies, including, inter alia, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), using, in some cases, identical terminology.

3. In highlighting the most significant USOAP CMA milestones achieved in 2016 (cf. Section 2 of the paper), DD/MO cited: the continued improvement in the Online Framework’s (OLF’s) functionality and user experience; the launch of a designee system to perform an increased number of validation activities to respond to States’ growing demand; the roll-out of a new initiative to support continuous monitoring in general and off-site validation activities, in particular through the more active participation of ICAO Regional Offices and safety partners; the issuance of an ICAO Report on the USOAP CMA activities conducted over a three-year period starting with the launch of the CMA on 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2015, which was available on the ICAO public website and on the OLF; the conduct of two USOAP CMA standardization training sessions for ICAO Headquarters and Regional Office staff; the USOAP CMA quality management system’s (QMS’s) successful completion of its annual surveillance audit, ensuring its ongoing compliance with ISO certification Standard 9001:2008 and preparations now underway to upgrade its ISO certification to the latest Standard 9001:2015, which was more performance- and risk-based; and the achievement of an overall level of State satisfaction with USOAP CMA activities of 92 per cent, which represented an increase in comparison to 2015.

4. DD/MO then elaborated on the USOAP CMA activities performed in 2016, including audits, ICAO Coordinated Validation Missions (ICVMs), off-site validations and training [seminars/workshops and computer-based training (CBT)], and their impact on the average global level of effective implementation (EI) of the eight critical elements (CEs) of a State’s safety oversight system (cf. Section 3 and Appendices A and B). He highlighted that the audit areas with the lowest level of EI were aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG) and aerodrome and ground aids (AGA), and the

C-MIN 210/5 (Open) -108-

CEs with the lowest level of EI were CE-4 (qualified technical personnel) and CE-8 (resolution of safety issues).

5. In outlining the USOAP CMA activities and improvements planned for 2017 (cf. Section 4), DD/MO underscored that a total of 50 activities were planned, an increase of ten compared to what had been planned for 2016 but with the same budgetary allotment. He noted that in accordance with the decision of the 39th Session of the Assembly a temporary group of experts would be established shortly after the current Council session to conduct, under the ANC’s guidance, a structured review of the USOAP CMA, including its methodology, processes and tools to identify adjustments to the Programme with a view to its further evolution and strengthening, taking into consideration ICAO’s evolving safety strategy and States’ progress in implementing safety management practices (cf. A39- WP/512, paragraph 33.28; P/6). The group would comprise experts nominated by selected States and a RSOO, and was expected to be chaired by a State-nominated expert.

ANC oral report

6. In presenting the Commission’s oral report, the President of the ANC indicated that during its review of C-WP/14562 at the Second Meeting of its 204th Session on 17 January 2017, the Commission had acknowledged the positive results of the USOAP CMA activities conducted in 2016, as well as future activities and improvements planned for 2017. It had been noted that some of the efficiencies gained, which had enabled the conduct of an increased number of activities, were the result of introducing two new features into the Programme: the designee system; and the more active participation in validation activities from ICAO Regional Offices and safety partners, specifically the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

7. The ANC had discussed the participation of additional Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs) along with the processes followed to ensure the impartiality and independence of the USOAP CMA when rolling out the new features of the Programme. The concern had been raised that a RSOO or Officer of a RSOO could be engaged as a part of the USOAP CMA team for auditing activities involving Member States of the particular RSOO. That was to be avoided for CMA audits as it would constitute a conflict of interest where a RSOO Member State would be audited on functions which had been delegated to the RSOO for performance on behalf of that Member State. The Secretariat had provided a thorough description of the new features introduced and had indicated that all activities, including the designee system and the collection of evidence by ICAO Regional Officers and safety partners for validation in ICAO Headquarters, were subject to the principles, methodologies, processes and procedures established by the USOAP CMA on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by ICAO with each Member State and in accordance with the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual (Doc 9735). It had also been mentioned that the Forum on Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs) for Global Aviation Safety, scheduled to take place in Ezulwini, Swaziland from 22 to 24 March 2017, would provide further guidance to the Forum participants on the role of RSOOs in the USOAP CMA, including the insurance of independence when supporting ICAO and the provision of assistance in preparation for audits and the delivery of training.

8. Regarding the USOAP CMA OLF, the ANC had noted the improvements made and had highlighted the usefulness of the off-site solutions created, especially for States with poor access to the Internet.

9. With respect to the structured review of the USOAP CMA by the temporary group of experts, the ANC, during its review (204/3) of C-WP/14559 (Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Safety and air navigation capacity and efficiency) and the input of the Working Group on Strategic Review and Planning (AN-WG/SRP) thereon, had agreed that the group’s Terms of Reference

-109- C-MIN 210/5 (Open)

(ToR) would be developed with guidance from the Commission. Some ANC Members had volunteered to work thereon with the Secretariat. The group’s ToR had accordingly been developed. It had also agreed that the ANC would be kept informed by the group and that the Commission would provide guidance to the latter, as necessary.

10. The Secretariat had provided the ANC with further details, describing the process envisaged for the said temporary group, the proposed timelines and specific working arrangements. It had been mentioned that Assembly Resolution A32-11 (Establishment of an ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme) and Assembly Resolution A37-5 [The Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) Continuous Monitoring Approach] would also need to be taken into consideration to define the scope of the Group’s work.

11. The ANC had commended the Secretariat for: the additional USOAP CMA activities undertaken in 2016 as a result of the maturity of the Programme and the efficiencies gained in its implementation, including enhanced coordination with ICAO Regional Offices; the States’ overall level of satisfaction with USOAP CMA activities (92 per cent in 2016); and improvements to the interactive tools to support the Programme, in particular, the USOAP CMA OLF.

Discussion

12. Responding to a question raised by the President of the Council regarding the participation of RSOOs in Programme activities, DD/MO recalled that the generic USOAP CMA MoU approved by the Council for signature by all Member States contained a provision recognizing that ICAO can engage a RSOO to perform such activities. He reiterated, however, that no RSOO can be engaged to audit a Member State of that RSOO on functions that had been delegated to the RSOO as that would constitute a potential conflict of interest (cf. Doc 9735, paragraph 4.5.2 and Appendix B).

13. The Representative of Mexico commended the Secretariat for the excellent performance of, and progress achieved through, the USOAP CMA, which continued to be compliant with the ISO 9001:2008 certification Standard. Referring to the structured review of the USOAP CMA, he suggested that: focus be placed on strengthening the Programme’s development rather than on making changes that might adversely affect its said performance: and that consideration be given to how to build capacity in order to increase the number of qualified and certified USOAP CMA auditors in the various specialties and ICAO working languages. The Representative of Mexico further suggested that in due course the ANC, together with the Secretariat, develop an action plan to address, within the framework of the ICAO No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative, that pending issue, as well as those CEs of a State’s safety oversight system with low EI levels as depicted in Figure B-2 in Appendix B to the paper, and any other issues identified during the USOAP CMA structured review.

14. In expressing satisfaction with the USOAP CMA, which had been developed from scratch and had evolved over the last twenty years ago to its present form, the Representative of Spain underscored that it had delivered positive results and affirmed that it would continue to do so in the future. He queried what the current level of global aviation safety would be if the Programme had never been established. Referring to Figure B-1 in Appendix B depicting the average level of EI by audit area, the Representative of Spain highlighted that the three audit areas with the lowest level of EI were: aircraft accident and incident investigation (AIG) (55 per cent), which in theory was to be conducted independently; aerodrome and ground aids (AGA) (57 per cent), and air navigation services (ANS) (59 per cent). Noting that States were in the process of devolving more autonomy to accident and incident investigation authorities, airport operators and ANSPs, and in the case of AGA and ANS, were allowing privatization, he expressed concern over the said low levels of compliance. Emphasizing that greater

C-MIN 210/5 (Open) -110-

autonomy and privatization could not be permitted without guarantees of acceptable safety outcomes, the Representative of Spain emphasized the need to consider the matter from policy and structural perspectives.

15. In then seeking clarification regarding the functioning of the USOAP CMA designee system introduced in September 2016, the Representative of Spain enquired in particular as to the current number of designees and future projections.

16. Referring to the temporary group of experts that would conduct the structured review of the USOAP CMA, he noted that various terms were used in ICAO for such groups, such as “panel”, “study group” or “task force”. In underscoring the need to use common terminology, he observed, from the comments made regarding the scope of its work, that it was probably a task force and requested that the group’s detailed ToR, which had been prepared under the ANC’s guidance, be circulated electronically to Representatives for information purposes. Averring that it might not be sufficient for only the ANC to be kept informed of developments by the group, the Representative of Spain sought clarification regarding future reporting to the Council and the target date for completion of the structured review.

17. The Representative of Saudi Arabia highlighted the need for the Secretariat, in assessing the EI level of a State’s safety oversight system using its responses to USOAP CMA Protocol Questions (PQs), to take into consideration that developing States did not have the same capacity as developed States to implement ICAO safety-related SARPs.

18. Recalling that his State had provided ICAO with long-term secondees in the form of software engineers to develop and enhance the USOAP CMA OLF in collaboration with the Secretariat, the Representative of the Republic of Korea indicated that it consequently felt that it should assume a certain degree of responsibility in the event that any problems arose with that tool. He noted that there were two tracks for reforming and improving the USOAP CMA. The first track comprised measures to ensure accuracy, feasibility and efficiency and included, inter alia: the conduct of more off-site validation activities; the introduction of the said USOAP CMA designee system; sustainable monitoring; the encouragement of increased participation of experts in the off-site validation activities; and the hosting of USOAP CMA standardization training sessions.

19. The second track comprised measures to improve the user-friendliness and the functionality of the USOAP CMA OLF and included: the redesign of the State Aviation Activity Questionnaire (SAAQ); and the launch of the new Mandatory Information Request (MIR) module. The Representative of the Republic of Korea recalled, in this context, that at ICAO’s request, his State had concluded a MoU with the Organization on 3 May 2012 under which it would develop and implement the USOAP CMA OLF for five years. During the 39th Session of the Assembly, on 1 October 2016, the Republic of Korea had concluded a new MoU with ICAO on technical cooperation for aviation safety, whereby, inter alia, the Republic of Korea would continue to implement the OLF from 3 May 2017 onwards.

20. Noting that States’ overall level of satisfaction with USOAP CMA activities had been 92 per cent in 2016, with the Programme being viewed as one of the most useful and efficient mechanisms, the Representative of the Republic of Korea affirmed that the OLF had greatly contributed to its implementation and enhancement. Acknowledging, however, that nothing was perfect, he indicated that if the group of experts conducting the structured review of the Programme were to identify any problems with the OLF, then the Republic of Korea would be ready to provide assistance to ICAO in order to address any possible requests for the framework’s improvement, in consultation with States.

-111- C-MIN 210/5 (Open)

21. The President of the Council thanked the Republic of Korea for its support in developing and enhancing the USOAP CMA OLF, ICAO’s SARPs-implementation monitoring system.

22. The Representative of Cuba noted, with much satisfaction, the good progress made in implementing the USOAP CMA. Referring to paragraph 2 of the ANC’s oral report (cf. paragraph 6 above), she indicated that it was her understanding that the Programme was focussed more on monitoring and assessing States’ capabilities in providing safety oversight than on the actual implementation of ICAO’s safety-related SARPs per se. The Representative of Cuba welcomed the evidence-based validation process performed on the basis of information provided by the audited States, in particular, the launch of the new designee system and the more active participation in validation activities by safety partners. Aware, however, that the latter could give rise to potential conflicts of interest she sought further information thereon.

23. The Representative of Cuba noted, from Slide 11 of the PowerPoint presentation, that USOAP CMA CBT was provided to State-nominated experts who met ICAO’s criteria to become auditors and ICVM subject matter experts (SMEs) in the various USOAP CMA audit areas, and recalled that at the informal briefing given on 27 February 2017 on the Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities during 2016 and Operating Plans for 2017 (C-WP/14570), one of the Regional Directors (RDs) had highlighted the difficulties encountered by States’ aviation professionals in meeting those criteria. In voicing concern over the required qualifications for auditors and ICVM SMEs specializing in ANS, one of the three audit areas for which the average global level of EI was less than 60 per cent, she underscored that it was necessary to not only have in-depth knowledge or familiarity of some nine areas of expertise but also to be a holder of an air traffic controller certificate or licence and to have a minimum of five years’ active controller experience (cf. Attachment F to State letter AN 19/34- 15/35 dated 13 May 2015). Emphasizing that in the past it had not been necessary to be an ATC in order to qualify to become an ANS auditor or ICVM SME and to take the USOAP CMA CBT, the Representative of Cuba sought clarification.

24. The Representative of India underscored that the Council would have had a better understanding of the effectiveness of the continuous monitoring approach if Figure B-1 in Appendix B had indicated how the average level of EI of the various audit areas had progressed over the last few years following the full launch of the CMA in January 2013. He then enquired as to the criteria for the selection of States for USOAP CMA activities, as well as to the criteria for the selection of States to be invited to nominate experts to serve as Members on the group conducting the structured review of the Programme, the group’s ToR and the timeline for its report to the Council.

25. Commending the Secretariat on the excellent results achieved by the USOAP CMA, the Representative of Colombia emphasized that the latter could serve as a model for other UN organizations. Referring to paragraph 3 of the ANC’s oral report (cf. paragraph 7 above), he recalled that there were, inter alia, two RSOOs in the Caribbean, the Central American Agency of Aviation Safety (ACSA) and the Caribbean Aviation Safety and Security Oversight System (CASSOS), and one RSOO in Latin America, the Latin American Regional Safety Oversight Cooperation System (SRVSOP). The Representative of Colombia underscored that it would be useful to have a map showing the location of the various RSOOs and an indication of their respective functions, as well as a list of the designees and types of experts available to take part in USOAP CMA activities. He expressed appreciation to the ANC for having raised the issue of potential conflicts of interest arising from the participation of RSOOs in such activities.

26. In also voicing appreciation to the Republic of Korea and the Secretariat for developing and improving the USOAP CMA OLF, the Representative of Colombia affirmed that it was an excellent means of sharing information and was ICAO’s best aviation safety tool. Recalling the comments made by

C-MIN 210/5 (Open) -112-

the Representative of Cuba, he noted that as there were more than ten thousand ICAO SARPs, it was not possible to audit the implementation of all of them. Consequently the focus of the USOAP CMA was on assessing the States’ capacity to internally audit and ensure implementation of ICAO safety-related SARPs in the eight audit areas identified in the Programme (cf. Figure B-1 in Appendix B). The Representative of Colombia emphasized that the USOAP CMA methodology constituted a real ICAO success story.

27. Noting that he had previously been an auditor for ICAO’s initial voluntary Safety Oversight Assessment Programme, and was thus speaking from experience, the Representative of Panama thanked the Secretariat for its excellent work over the last twenty years in developing and implementing the USOAP CMA, which was impressive. In echoing the comments made in that respect by the Representative of Spain, he emphasized that if the Programme had not been in place during that time, then the safety of the global air transport system would be at a much lower level than it was at present, and the global accident rate, much higher, causing fewer people to choose to travel by air. The Representative of Panama nevertheless expressed concern that the safety-related deficiencies currently being identified through the USOAP CMA audits were the same ones that had been identified twenty years ago. He cited, as examples, the resolution of safety issues (CE-8) and deficiencies in the audit area of AIG. Emphasizing that insufficient progress had been made in the intervening time in rectifying the various deficiencies, the Representative of Panama highlighted that the average global level of EI had remained approximately the same.

28. Referring to his own State, the Representative of Panama recalled that it had been the first to volunteer to accept an ICAO USOAP audit. It had been conducted in 2005, with Panama achieving an EI level of 85 per cent. However, ten years later, following a USOAP CMA audit in 2015, its EI level had dropped by almost 50 per cent, to 36 per cent, reflective of the fact that a number of aviation accidents had occurred in the interim. Averring that what had happened was inacceptable, the Representative of Panama indicated that many other States found themselves in a similar situation.

29. The Representative of South Africa supported the intervention by the Representative of India. Drawing attention to Figure B-1 in Appendix B and Slide 9 of the PowerPoint presentation, he enquired as to how action to raise the average EI levels of AIG, AGA and ANS to above 60 per cent could be fast-tracked. Noting that an accident was the result of a chain of incidents, the Representative of South Africa emphasized that their low EI levels were of particular concern due to the inter-relationships between those three audit areas. With regard to AIG, he highlighted how BASI and the Banjul Accord Group Accident Investigation Agency (BAGAIA) had provided his State with excellent information regarding the establishment of an autonomous accident investigation authority. In seeking further guidance from the Secretariat on that issue, the Representative of South Africa underscored that it was very difficult for some States to establish a stand-alone accident investigation authority due to financial constraints. He commended the United States’ National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) as a good model as it did not single out the accident investigation authority as a stand-alone entity.

30. D/ANB recalled that when he had assumed his position almost two years ago the one thing that he had not wished to disturb had been the high quality of the ISO-certified USOAP CMA process, which was truly one of the Organization’s crown jewels. Over the past twenty years, the Programme had developed a reputation for objectivity, thoroughness and quality, as well as for consistent evolution which enabled it to keep pace with developments in the industry and in States. In noting that the underlying challenge facing aviation was consistency in the quality of regulatory oversight in the fields of safety, air navigation and security, he indicated that DD/MO and the Chief of the Safety and Air Navigation Oversight Audit Section (C/OAS) would elaborate on how ICAO was tackling that challenge as it related to the first two fields.

-113- C-MIN 210/5 (Open)

31. Responding to queries regarding the structured review of the USOAP CMA being undertaken pursuant to the decision of the 39th Session of the Assembly (cf. A39-WP/512, paragraph 33.28; P/6), D/ANB indicated that it would be conducted by an independent temporary group of experts which would be chaired by an expert nominated by a State. The group would work with Secretariat support and under the close guidance of ANC Members, the Council’s technical experts, to enable the group to develop the best possible set of recommendations. The outcomes of the group’s structured review of the USOAP CMA would be submitted to the Council in the form of a working paper, through the ANC, no later than at the 214th Session in June 2018. In that way, any proposed changes to the Programme could be presented to the Thirteenth Air Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/13) in the Fall 2018, where they could be discussed in conjunction with other proposals. There was thus a very aggressive timeline for the completion of the group’s work in 2017 so that its report could be reviewed by the ANC and presented to the Council for consideration in a timely fashion.

32. In noting that MO was the most thoroughly tasked Section in ICAO in terms of output per employee and the number of activities undertaken (audits, ICVMs, off-site validations, regional seminars/workshops, etc.), DD/ANB emphasized that it was very concerning that currently there were only 99 qualified USOAP CMA auditors and ICVM SMEs on the roster to provide support to the Programme in the Organization’s six working languages. Observing that that shortage was reflective of the overall deficit of technical competence available to States and the industry, and that it was a matter of concern to all, he indicated that the Secretariat was exploring ways to increase the pool of qualified aviation safety experts available to support the USOAP CMA.

33. Providing further details regarding the structured review of the Programme’s processes and methodology, DD/MO reiterated that it was necessary to present the group’s outcomes to the Council no later than the 214th Session so that they could be shared with AN-Conf/13, taken into account in preparing the Organization’s draft Budget for 2020-2022 to ensure appropriate resourcing, and presented to the 40th Session of the Assembly in 2019. In noting that three three-day meetings had been budgeted for the group, he indicated that the details would be finalized once the Chairperson had been appointed and the group’s first meeting had been convened.

34. With respect to the group’s composition, DD/MO noted that there would be ten experts nominated by States, including States with experience in implementing a State Safety Programme (SSP). EASA would also be a Member of the group, representing RSOOs.

35. DD/MO underscored that the issues raised by the Representatives of Mexico and Saudi Arabia relating to strengthening the Programme’s development, increasing the number of auditors and ICVM SME in the various specialties and ICAO working languages, and the scope of applicability of USOAP CMA PQs were encompassed in the group’s ToR.

36. Referring to the points raised by the Representatives of Mexico, Spain and South Africa regarding the three audit areas having the lowest EI levels (AIG, AGA and ANS), DD/MO emphasized that a detailed analysis thereof was provided in the ICAO Report on the USOAP CMA activities conducted from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015. While noting that their EI levels were significantly lower than the EI levels for PEL, OPS and AIR, he underscored the need to bear in mind that monitoring in the latter three areas was more mature as they had been audited for a longer period of time, since the launch of the initial Safety Oversight Assessment Programme. As auditing in the areas of AIG, AGA and ANS had only been introduced under the CSA in 2005, States had had less time to establish effective oversight and to seek assistance from ICAO to resolve related deficiencies.

37. In emphasizing that action was being taken to address the situation within the framework

C-MIN 210/5 (Open) -114-

of the ICAO NCLB initiative, DD/MO noted that the USOAP CMA audit results were being used to identify priorities for the provision of training, as well as of technical assistance and technical cooperation. The fact that the recruitment and retention of sufficient qualified technical personnel (CE-4) posed a challenge for all States throughout all the various regions made such training a key concern for them. DD/MO highlighted that the Regional Offices were undertaking missions to the States to assess the progress they had made in rectifying their safety-related deficiencies, to identify any challenges being faced in that regard, particularly in the areas of AIG, AGA and ANS, and to assist in the updating of the States’ Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

38. Responding to the questions raised by the Representative of Spain regarding designees, DD/MO noted that a cautious approach was being taken, with very stringent criteria having been established for the selection of prospective designees, who were required to be highly-qualified and experienced USOAP CMA experts, and comprehensive processes and procedures having been put in place to administer the system and to oversee the designees. The system, introduced in September 2016, was starting small, with there currently being only three designees, all of whom were recently-retired ICAO auditors and were performing USOAP CMA off-site validation activities. It was expected, however, that there would shortly be another three qualified designees to support the performance of off- site validation activities, CAP assessments and CAP updates.

39. To the query by the Representative of Cuba regarding the role of safety partners in the validation process, DD/MO clarified that they only collected evidence. The evidence collected by RSOOs participating in USOAP CMA activities and by Regional Offices during missions to States to assess their progress in rectifying their safety-related deficiencies was submitted to ICAO Headquarters for review and validation by OAS.

40. Noting that the Secretariat had worked very closely with the long-term secondees provided by the Republic of Korea to develop and enhance the USOAP CMA OLF, DD/MO underscored that it was their efforts that had made the OLF what it was today.

41. In providing further clarifications in response to the points raised regarding the audit areas with the lowest EI levels, C/OAS reiterated that relevant information and statistical data were contained in the ICAO Safety Report on the USOAP CMA activities conducted from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015, which he invited Representatives to consult. Agreeing with the Representative of Panama that the same safety-related deficiencies that had been identified in audited States some twenty years ago continued to exist in many of those States, he underscored that it was for the same reason that had given rise to the deficiencies in the first place: more than 75 per cent of States did not have a system in place that enabled their authorities [Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) or accident investigation authority, when was permanent one was established] to recruit and retain sufficient qualified technical personnel (CE-4) (cf. paragraph 4.2.1.1 of the said Report). In emphasizing that that, in turn, prevented the other CEs from being effectively implemented, C/OAS noted that that was valid in particular in the audit areas of PEL, OPS, and AIR. He indicated that as safety oversight systems were dynamic, USOAP CMA audits continued to be conducted and had demonstrated their usefulness.

42. Recalling the comments made by the Representative of Spain, C/OAS reiterated that in many States, in ANS and even in aerodromes, there was not a clear distinction between the State as a regulator and the State as a service provider, which precluded the establishment and implementation of a safety oversight system. He noted that while AIG was a separate issue, there were common factors, such as the difficulty to recruit and retain sufficient qualified technical personnel. C/OAS emphasized that if a State’s CAA encountered such a difficulty, then its investigation authority would likely encounter an even greater difficulty. In highlighting that ICAO had been very active in promoting, and developing guidance for, the establishment of Regional Accident Investigation Organizations (RAIOs), C/OAS underscored

-115- C-MIN 210/5 (Open)

that in addition to ones that had been established many years ago, such as the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC), there were new ones, such as BAGAIA. He stressed the need for States to provide the RAIOs with the necessary support.

43. With regard to AGA, C/OAS underscored that the Secretariat had taken many actions to address its low EI level and was confident that they would yield results. He cited, as an example, the publication, in 2015, of the first edition of the Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aerodromes (PANS-Aerodromes) (Doc 9981), which contained guidance for the certification of aerodromes. A second edition thereof had been issued in 2016. In also highlighting ICAO’s joint efforts with the aviation community, C/OAS cited ICAO’s Runway Safety Programme (RSP), which promoted the establishment of multidisciplinary Runway Safety Teams (RSTs) at aerodromes, and Airports Council International’s (ACI’S) Airport Excellence (APEX) in Safety Programme, which provided assistance to ACI Members to improve their level of safety and compliance with relevant ICAO SARPs. He emphasized that now that awareness had been raised regarding the low EI level of AGA and the implementation tools had been developed, it remained for States to find solutions at the national level and/or regional level. C/OAS noted that while RSOOs were one of the possible solutions, ICAO was looking for innovative options beyond the traditional State or RSOO alternatives.

44. With respect to ANS, C/OAS recalled that while Annex 1 – Personnel Licensing, Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft and Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft had been the core Annexes audited under the initial Safety Oversight Assessment Programme, when the Programme had later been transitioned into the USOAP CSA, audits had expanded to encompass matters covered by all safety related SARPs in all safety related Annexes, but only three additional Annexes had been considered as core Annexes, namely Annex 11 – Air Traffic Services, Annex 13 – Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation and Annex 14 – Aerodromes. Consequently, whenever ICAO requested secondments of ANS experts by States to assist in the conduct of Programme activities, the nominees were required to have competence in ATM, ideally at both the operational and safety oversight levels. The criteria to be met for each of the audit areas were transparently set forth in the State letter requesting secondments.

45. Responding to the question raised by the Representative of India regarding the selection of States for USOAP CMA activities, C/OAS indicated that the criteria therefor were transparent and were set forth in the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Manual (Doc 9735). He emphasized that the whole selection process was fully coordinated between ICAO Headquarters, ICAO Regional Offices, and the States concerned.

46. In supplementing the clarifications provided by the Secretariat, the Secretary General reaffirmed that safety was of paramount importance to the Organization and that the USOAP CMA was the critical tool for enabling ICAO to successfully perform its safety function and ensure the safety of the global air transport system. She assured the Council that the Secretariat will do everything possible to ensure the Programme’s efficiency and effectiveness and, in particular, will continue to harmonize and better coordinate the USOAP CMA activities in order to achieve further efficiencies. The Secretary General recalled, in this context, that it had been possible to undertake additional USOAP CMA activities in 2016 as a result of the Programme’s maturity and the efficiencies gained in its implementation, including enhanced coordination with ICAO Regional Offices.

47. The Secretary General highlighted that the Secretariat aimed to train staff in the Regional Offices, as well as State-nominated experts, in order to increase the pool of qualified auditors and ICVM SMEs who could be utilized by ICAO for the USOAP CMA activities. She reiterated that the audit results were being used to identify priorities for such training, as well as for ICAO’s technical assistance and technical cooperation, which the Secretariat was making efforts to enhance, in particular through

C-MIN 210/5 (Open) -116-

improved coordination with the Regional Offices. It was anticipated that these efforts and the others mentioned above will enhance the delivery of USOAP CMA activities.

48. The Secretary General underscored that, through the structured review of the USOAP CMA, the Secretariat, in cooperation with the temporary group of experts (under the ANC’s guidance), and with States, would provide the Council with an enhanced Programme.

49. Referring to the comments made by the Representatives of Spain and Panama, the President of the ANC noted that the Task Force that was currently working on the revision of the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) would examine and assess the relationship between the EI level and the actual achieved level of operational safety. Underscoring that the EI level was not the sole indicator thereof, he indicated that the Task Force would consider other indices/approaches with which to assess the achievement of operational safety. The President of the ANC noted that the said temporary group of experts would provide its input to the Task Force for consideration.

50. Having completed its consideration of this subject, the Council noted the information provided in C-WP/14562 and in the ANC’s oral report, as well as the supplementary information provided orally. Comments made regarding the structured review of the USOAP CMA were noted for consideration by the temporary group of experts. It was understood that: the group’s detailed ToR, which had been prepared under the ANC’s guidance, would be circulated electronically to Representatives for information purposes, as requested by the Representative of Spain; and the outcomes of the review would be submitted to the Council in the form of a working paper, through the ANC, no later than at the 214th Session in June 2018.

51. In noting, with concern, the insufficient number of qualified USOAP CMA auditors and ICVM SMEs currently on the roster (99), the Council underscored the need to continue to encourage States and recognized organizations to nominate experts for secondment to ICAO as auditors and ICVM SMEs, on a long- or short-term basis, in support of the Programme. Acknowledging, however, that the said shortage was reflective of the overall deficit of technical competence available to States and the industry, the Council requested that the Secretariat consider the provision of additional training for potential auditors and ICVM SMEs to increase the pool of qualified aviation safety experts on which ICAO could draw for the conduct of USOAP CMA activities, and on which States and the industry could likewise draw.

52. With reference to the issue raised regarding ANS, one of the three audit areas for which the average global level of EI was less than 60 per cent, the President of the Council suggested that the Secretariat review the required qualifications and experience for prospective auditors and ICVM SMEs in that area so as to expand the pool of available experts.

53. The meeting adjourned at 1300 hours.

-117- C-MIN 210/6

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 3 MARCH 2017, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Mr. H. Yoshimura ― President, ANC Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. R. da Rosa Costa (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) ― Canada Mr. V. Smith ― D/ADB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. R. Bhalla ― C/FIN Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mrs. J. Hupe ― DD/ENV Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. M. Belayneh ― DD/TCB Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. O. Myard ― C/EAO Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. R. Macfarlane ― DD/AN Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. T. Hasegawa ― DD/ECD Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. M. Fox ― C/PRC Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mrs. L. Comeau-Stuart ― C/POD Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. Y. Fattah ― PM/ANB Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mr. T. Tanaka ― C/CC Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) ― United Arab Emirates Dr. A. Jordaan ― C/MED Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. M. Leitgab ― ADADB Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay Miss S. Black ― Précis-writer

*Part-time

C-MIN 210/6 -118-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Cyprus Greece Indonesia Lebanon Libya Paraguay Peru Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

European Union (EU)

-119- C-MIN 210/6

Subject No. 24.3: Action on Assembly resolutions and decisions

Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Safety and Air navigation capacity and efficiency

1. The Council considered this subject on the basis of: C-WP/14559, in which the Secretary General proposed actions to implement the resolutions and decisions of the 39th Session of the Assembly (A39) in the fields of safety and air navigation capacity and efficiency; and an oral report thereon by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC), which had reviewed the paper at its Third Meeting of its 204th Session on 24 January 2017.

ANC oral report

2. Recalling that the ANC and the Secretariat had established the Air Navigation Work Programme (ANWP), the Commission had noted the information provided by the Secretariat that the outcomes of the Assembly had been cross-checked with the said Work Programme and that of the more than 100 action items listed in the Appendix to C-WP/14559, the vast majority could be mapped to existing work. Of the items that would affect some change to the ANWP, fifteen would require resources additional to the Regular Programme Budget approved by A39.

3. The Commission had further noted that at the time of its review some level of extra budgetary resources had been mobilized for most of those fifteen items, mainly in the form of seconded staff. The Secretariat had clarified, however, that in certain instances the constraints were non-monetary, as in the case when a highly specialized expert would be required.

4. The Commission had noted that action item b) in the executive summary of C-WP/14559 indicated that once the proposed actions outlined in the Appendix to the paper were approved by the Council, as amended by its discussions, the Secretariat would make any necessary changes to the Business Plan (BP) and the ANWP in keeping with all relevant procedures. To that end, the ANC was likely to see specific proposals emanating from the Assembly resolutions and decisions. In fact, the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Air Navigation Work Programme (AHWG ANWP) would begin preliminary consideration of the items not already included in the ANWP.

5. The Commission then made numerous recommendations to amend the description and/or time-frame/target date for implementation of certain of the proposed actions, and presented some recommendations for additional actions (which may be found on the Council secure website at https://portal.icao.int/council/Pages/Search.aspx?doctype=C-WP_14559). Two key recommendations were highlighted by the President of the ANC in presenting the Commission’s oral report, as follows:

• on remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) (p. A-4), the Commission had agreed that the item of non-instrument flight rules (IFR) unmanned aircraft system (UAS) was a priority as it can present a safety hazard to international aviation and that consideration should be given to addressing the issue earlier than the 2020 timeline indicated by the Secretariat in the Appendix to C-WP/14559. The Commission had further noted that a faster outcome would require an appropriate strategy in the regions and a way to leverage what was already being done, and might require taking a different approach to the normal practices as these may not be fast enough. The Commission would consider that issue as part of the ANWP as a matter of priority.

• on cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22), the Commission had noted that the second Global Air Navigation Industry Symposium (GANIS/2) was an industry symposium and, as such, was neither a decision-making body nor one with any vested

C-MIN 210/6 -120-

authority. To that end, the Commission recommended that the bullets listed under that item be amended accordingly. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that a work plan, with industry input, should be presented to the Council prior to GANIS/2, so as not to delay the work.

6. The Commission had also reviewed elements of page A-4 of C-WP/14542 (Addressing Cybersecurity in Civil Aviation) as that was a matter that overlapped with the considerations of the Technical Commission. On that subject, the Commission had noted that the action proposed was aligned with C-WP/14559.

7. Similarly, the Commission had reviewed the action proposed in C-WP/14556 related to Assembly Resolution A39-22 [Formulation and implementation of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) and notification of differences], as it also overlapped with the Technical Commission’s considerations. The Commission had notes that the action proposed was aligned with C-WP/14559.

8. The Commission recommended that the Council confirm that the proposed actions outlined in the Appendix to C-WP/14559, as amended by the ANC’s recommendations, effectively responded to the implementation of the A39 resolutions and decisions in the fields of safety and air navigation capacity and efficiency. It invited the Council to note that various action items, including those related to the consideration of the development of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), were being processed through the relevant established ANC procedures.

Discussion

9. Noting that the ANC had conducted a very thorough review of C-WP/14559, the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) indicated that the Secretariat was, in spirit at least, in line with many of the Commission’s comments in terms of desiring to have the envisaged work proceed in the same direction. With regard to RPAS (p. A-4), he emphasized that advancing the fourth quarter/2020 (Q4/2020) timeline for developing a global baseline of provisions and guidance material for the proper harmonization of regulations on UAS that remained outside of the IFR framework posed a challenge to the Secretariat, in terms of not only mobilizing the financial and human resources required within the Organization, but also gaining the consensus of the various States so as to be able to present the proposed new provisions in time for an earlier adoption. While the RPAS Panel (RPASP) would be consulted to determine what could be done in terms of accelerating that work, the Secretariat did not want the latter to proceed ahead of the States. It wanted the work to instead be conducted at a pace that would enable the States to ingest it and to incorporate it in their own concepts and regulatory plans. To some degree, the Secretariat considered that the RPASP was not ready to deliver that work early enough as it lacked the level of maturity internally in its own regional work. Nevertheless, the Secretariat took on board the ANC’s comments regarding RPAS and would work closely with the Commission, the RPASP, States and the aviation industry to seek earlier solutions.

10. With respect to cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22), D/ANB agreed with the President of the ANC that a draft work plan to address that issue should not be presented at GANIS/2, an industry symposium, for approval. Such approval would instead come from the ANC, the Council and/or a high-level divisional style meeting. Averring that it would not be desirable to wait until the Thirteenth Air Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/13), tentatively scheduled to take place in the third quarter of 2018 (Q3/2018), D/ANB indicated that the Secretariat would provide a timeline that allowed thorough consultation with the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP) and the appropriate ANC panels with a view to presenting the draft work plan to the Council at some point prior to GANIS/2 (Montréal, 11-13 December 2017).

-121- C-MIN 210/6

11. Underscoring that the role of the ANC, one of the Organization’s most important bodies, was to provide the Council with technical advice, the Representative of South Africa expressed concern that in most of its comments on the actions proposed in the Appendix to C-WP/14559 the Commission only “noted” certain aspects and did not advise the Council thereon. Observing that different language was used in the various actions proposed regarding the GASP and the GANP pursuant to Assembly Resolution A39-12 and A39-WPs/512 and 513 (p. A-1, A-9 and A-12), he emphasized the need for clarity. The Representative of South Africa also stressed the need to define the obstacles being faced in addressing the issue of RPAS and to recommend the way forward. Underscoring that one of the main challenges was the development and implementation of regulations for non-IFR UAS, he highlighted the need for the ANC to do more than “note” and to propose concrete action.

12. Drawing attention to the action proposed to address the issue of harmonization of States’ regulations on approved maintenance organizations (AMOs) (p. A-8), the Representative of South Africa sought clarification regarding the reference made to “reduce the regulatory and oversight burden”. In also seeking further information on flight crew mental fitness (p. A-23), he stressed the need to start addressing that issue, especially in view of the events that had led to the introduction of reinforced cockpit doors on aircraft and the circumstances that had led to the deliberate crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 on 24 March 2015. The Representative of South Africa emphasized the need to be very thorough in addressing all activities in the cockpit, including “bottle and throttle” i.e. the use of alcohol.

13. With regard to the issue of a child restraint system (CRS) (p. 23), the Representative of South Africa noted, from information released by the World Health Organization (WHO), that the number of obese people worldwide was increasing, and highlighted that the size of seatbelts and the width of seats on aircraft posed a challenge to such air travellers.

14. In endorsing the ANC’s oral report, the Representative of Mexico indicated that although he had initially had some concerns about how the fifteen new action items on the ANWP arising from the Assembly for which additional financial and human resources were required would be implemented, he had no difficulty in accepting the clarification provided by the Secretariat to the Commission in that regard (cf. paragraph 3 above) as long as it was reflected in the Council’s decision. Agreeing with the ANC that the issue of non-IFR UAS was a priority as it can pose a safety hazard to international aviation, he highlighted the need for ICAO to demonstrate leadership in addressing it. The Representative of Mexico underscored that the Organization faced a dual challenge in that regard: achieving a convergence of positions, particularly those of States and regions that had already produced regulations on RPAS; and ensuring that the States that lacked the capacity to produce such regulations were not left behind.

15. The Representative of Mexico also shared the view expressed by the ANC regarding the issue of cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience. In endorsing some of the comments made by the Representative of South Africa, he underscored that ICAO, at some point ICAO but not as a priority, should consider issues such as the size of seatbelts and the width of seats on aircraft. In concluding, the Representative of Mexico voiced support for the proposed actions set forth in the Appendix to C-WP/14559, as amended pursuant to the ANC’s recommendations, as well as the proposed actions contained in the paper’s executive summary.

16. The Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania likewise supported the said proposed actions. Referring to aircraft tracking (p. A-3), he recalled that although the issue of capacity building in the area of search and rescue (SAR) had often been raised, especially for the Africa-Indian Ocean (AFI) region, the time-frame/target date given for holding regional workshops/seminars on the implementation of SAR requirements was Q4/2019 i.e. towards the end of the current triennium. He thus recommended that the Secretariat review that time-frame/target date with a view to holding some of those

C-MIN 210/6 -122-

workshops/seminars earlier. In addition, the Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania endorsed the intervention by the Representative of South Africa.

17. Recalling her earlier suggestion that an ICAO Corporate Key Performance Indicator (KPI) be established to measure the efficiency and timely updating of certain ICAO documentation (cf. C-MIN 210/1, paragraph 38), the Representative of Cuba indicated that her State had been unable to obtain updated editions of the following two manuals relating to aeronautical information management (AIM) and sought information as to when they would be prepared by the Secretariat and published: Doc 8126 – Aeronautical Information Services Manual (including AIXM and eAIP), the last edition of which had been issued in 2009 and which consequently was not in line with Amendment 39 to Annex 15 – Aeronautical Information Services, which had become effective on 22 November 2016; and Doc 10039 – Manual on System Wide Information Management (SWIM) Concept (Doc 10039), an interim advance (unedited) edition of which was currently available in English only, pending its official approval and publication in final form. She also enquired as to when the following related guidance material would be prepared and issued: the new Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aeronautical Information Management (PANS-AIM); the Manual on Quality Management System for AIS; and the AIM Training Development Manual. The Representative of Cuba emphasized that without the above-mentioned documents it would be difficult for States to implement Phase 2 of the roadmap for the transition from AIS to AIM, as well as the AIM-related SARPs and the relevant A39 resolutions and decisions. She noted, with satisfaction, from the ANC’s tentative work programme for its 206th Session in September/November 2017 (cf. C-WP/14564, Appendix B), that the Commission would be conducting during that session a final review of proposed amendments to Annex 15 and the new PANS-AIM.

18. The Representative of Saudi Arabia highlighted the need for ICAO to undertake further efforts to establish a policy and general framework for cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22) in view of the rapid advances being made in electronic technologies. He underscored the importance of cooperating not only with the aviation industry but also with non-aviation entities having experience in the said areas, such as financial institutions and stock exchanges. The Representative of Saudi Arabia expressed appreciation to the United Arab Emirates, which would soon be hosting the inaugural 2017 ICAO Cyber Summit and Exhibition, whose theme was Making Sense of Cyber (Dubai, 4-6 April 2017).

19. Observing that the time-frames/target dates for implementation for a number of proposed actions arising from A39 listed in the Appendix to the paper were beyond the next session of the Assembly in 2019 (A40) (e.g. Q4/2020), the Representative of Spain emphasized the need to identify for each of those proposed actions what would be accomplished by A40 as the Council was required to report thereon, even if the work would continue after that Assembly. In agreeing with the comments made by the ANC regarding cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22), he reiterated that the Council itself, and not GANIS/2, should determine the work plan to address that issue and that the proposed actions relating thereto should be amended accordingly. The Representative of Spain enquired whether the envisaged group of experts to steer and coordinate the work on cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience would come under the ANC. In also querying whether the envisaged Task Force to progress issues regarding cross-border transferability of aircraft (p. A-15) would come under the Commission, he sought further information on the work to be carried out and on the timeframe for its completion and consideration by the Council. In noting that the ANC recommended that work to address the issue of flight crew mental fitness (p. A-23) be completed as a matter of priority, the Representative of Spain sought clarification as to the remaining tasks to be performed. In also enquiring as to the work to be done with regard to the aerodrome certification database (p. A-24) and accident investigation database (p. A-24), he indicated that it could perhaps be carried out by ICAO interns.

-123- C-MIN 210/6

20. Referring to the point raised by the Representative of South Africa regarding the GASP and the GANP, the President of the ANC noted that while all of the proposed actions relating thereto were important, there were two key issues to be addressed: monitoring the implementation in States and the regions of the existing versions of the Plans as endorsed by A39; and revision of the GASP and the GANP for presentation to the next session of the Assembly (A40) in 2019 for endorsement. He underscored that although the proposed actions were currently set forth in several separate items in the Appendix to the paper, the format would be revised for future reports on this subject, in particular, the report to A40, in order to make the priorities clear.

21. With respect to the comments made by the Representative of Mexico regarding non-IFR UAS, the President of the ANC indicated that there were two main ANWP items relating thereto: the development of provisions and guidance material for those small UAS to ensure the global harmonization of States’ national regulations; and the establishment of a website to provide best practices and examples from States that had such national regulations in place for non-IFR UAS.

22. Recalling the remarks made by the Representative of Spain regarding the time- frame/target dates for implementation for certain proposed actions that went beyond A40 in 2019 (e.g. Q4/2020), the President of the ANC emphasized that those dates reflected when the envisaged work was expected to be completed. In the case of the development of new provisions, such as for non-IFR UAS, Q4/2020 reflected their expected applicability date.

23. Responding to the query by the Representative of South Africa relating to AMOs (p. A-8), the President of the ANC noted that a maintenance organization approved in one State received oversight not only from that State but also from various other States. The purpose of the proposed action was to reduce the regulatory and oversight burden not only for the AMO itself but also for the States. In highlighting that the Airworthiness Panel (AIRP) was already working on related draft amendments to Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft and Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft, he underscored that once the ANC had completed its preliminary and final reviews thereof, the proposed Annex amendments would be presented to the Council for adoption in 2018.

24. With regard to the various comments made on flight crew mental fitness (p. A-23), the President of the ANC noted that the sharing of information on the mental health condition of flight crew members and the application of the safety management principle thereto was a very complicated issue to address due to the need to respect the flight crew members’ privacy. The Commission recommended that the related work be completed by the MPSG as a matter of priority given its importance.

25. Recalling the intervention by the Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, the President of the ANC indicated that the Commission, together with the Secretariat, would review the proposed Q4/2019 time-frame/target date for holding the SAR-related regional workshops/seminars (p. A-3) to determine if it could be advanced for some of them.

26. The President of the ANC noted that the Commission had acknowledged that the important AIM-related manuals referred to by the Representative of Cuba had not yet been published. Having received recommendations from several regional groups in that regard, the ANC had already discussed with the Secretariat how to facilitate the manuals’ development. Highlighting that secondees were being provided for that purpose, the President of the ANC underscored that the Commission would continue to monitor the situation with a view to having the manuals published as soon as possible.

27. With regard to the comments made by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the President of the ANC indicated that the Commission was willing to provide support to the Council for the development of a policy on cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22). Responding to the

C-MIN 210/6 -124-

query by the Representative of Spain, he clarified that the envisaged group of experts to steer and coordinate work on that issue was not an ANC group but rather a task force created by the Secretariat. The said task force would coordinate with the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP) and the relevant ANC panels [Communications Panel (CP), RPASP and Information Management Panel (IMP)] to develop comprehensive provisions for managing current and future cyber-threats and vulnerabilities.

28. In offering additional clarifications in response to points raised by the Representative of South Africa, D/ANB noted that seat belt extenders were now provided by many airlines. He highlighted that the Secretariat was working on an update to Doc 9376 – Preparation of an Operations Manual that would make such seat belt extenders a part of the recommended guidance. Recalling that ICAO produced almost 500 new Standards each year, he emphasized the consequent need to strike a balance between SARP development and the associated regulatory burden for States. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, D/ANB indicated that the Secretariat was in the process of updating much of the guidance material relating to operational SAR with global tracking and the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS). It was expected that those updates would be presented to States at the said regional workshops/seminars, which was part of the reason for the delay in holding the latter.

29. In noting that the Deputy Director, Aviation Security and Facilitation (DD/ASF) of the Air Transport Bureau (ATB) would serve as Secretary for the said Cybersecurity Task Force, D/ANB indicated that while the latter would thus be led by ATB it would work in close coordination with ANB, the ANC and the AVSECP, inter alia. He emphasized that the ANWP would contain checkpoints for any deliverables beyond the current triennium so that the Secretariat could monitor timeliness and completion in collaboration with the Commission and the Council.

30. D/ANB further indicated that the Cross-Border Task Force would be led by his Bureau and would work in close coordination with the ANC (as an observer), the Flight Operations Panel (FLTOPS), industry and the States.

31. In providing clarification regarding ICAO’s mental health strategy, which had top priority in her Section, the Chief, Aviation Medicine Section (C/MED) agreed with the Representative of South Africa that flight crew “mental fitness” was a very broad term. For that reason, a multi-disciplinary approach was being taken to address that difficult issue that took into consideration psychological issues (behavior), psychiatric issues (illnesses), the operating environment, training/awareness, and medical confidentiality which needed to be considered vis-à-vis the sharing of mental health information between regulators. She noted that some regulators were already implementing peer support for the flight crew members, as well as for the aviation medical examiners. C/MED highlighted that ICAO had already drafted a complete project plan to address the issue of flight crew mental fitness and had identified the resources required for its implementation, which would be done through the MPSG. She emphasized that the latter comprised not only medical professionals such as psychologists but also representatives of the aviation industry [the International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) and the International Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations (IAOPA)], some trade companies and operators. Recalling that there had been many reports of alcohol and substance abuse by flight crew members, C/MED indicated that that issue would be part of the MPSG’s ToR. A psychologist had already been appointed to provide assistance in that regard.

32. Responding to the question raised by the Representative of Spain regarding an aerodrome certification database (p. A-24), the Deputy Director, Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency (DD/AN) recalled that the ANC had noted the substantial amount of time and the high cost involved in collecting the information required for establishing, and subsequently maintaining, a database on the certification status of individual aerodromes and consequently had recommended that the Secretariat consider the

-125- C-MIN 210/6

value of such a database before presenting a proposal thereon to the Council. The Secretariat would accordingly conduct a study to determine whether it was worthwhile to proceed with a full-fledged aerodrome certification database and report to the ANC on the outcome.

33. In providing clarification regarding GANIS/2, D/ANB indicated that although it was not a decision-making event, it was a very important one in the workflow leading to the next Assembly (A40) in 2019 as the aviation industry would present to ICAO its priorities and desires for regulatory support in the future from the Organization in the GANP and the GASP. He highlighted that during the last two days of GANIS/2 there would be an implementation symposium led by the ICAO Secretariat in conjunction with the industry bodies that it worked with to present the proposed way forward to address those regulatory needs. D/ANB noted that that material, once it has been exposed, would be introduced to the ANC in Q1/2018 and thereafter to the Council prior to presentation at AN-Conf/13, tentatively scheduled to take place in Q3/2018. Thus while GANIS/2 was not a decision-making event, it was a very important one in ICAO’s collaborative dialogue with the aviation industry. Underscoring that the ongoing Organization-wide process of shifting emphasis away from SARPs development to the preparation of guidance material and programme management capacity to deploy SARPs in the field was consuming more and more of the Secretariat’s resources, D/ANB indicated that the Secretariat was working closely with the ANC to find ways to use the resources in panels and other groups to assist with that material even though it was the Secretariat’s responsibility to produce it.

34. Drawing attention to the issue of conflict zones (p. A-6), which had not been reviewed by the ANC as it fell within the Council’s remit, the Representative of Malaysia sought further information regarding two of the proposed actions to implement the Assembly’s decision contained in A39-WP/512, paragraphs 33.17-33.19, namely: “complement the existing work programme on conflict zones through a review of all relevant Annex provisions” and “upon completion of the work programme on conflict zones, called upon the Council to reconsider the inclusion of conflict zones in the work programme of the Legal Committee”, both of which had a time-frame/target date for implementation of Q4/2019. Emphasizing the cross-cutting nature of the issue, which related to both safety and security, he enquired as to how the said proposed actions would be prioritized.

35. D/ANB noted that the said long time-frame/target date (Q4/2019) was partly due to a lack of clarity regarding the availability of the required resources. In reassuring the Representative of Malaysia that the review of all relevant Annex provisions was progressing, with the assistance of a technical expert seconded by the Netherlands, he indicated that the results thereof would be reported to the Council principally through the Secretariat, in collaboration with ASF.

36. The President of the Council recalled that it had been previously agreed (207/7) to reconsider the inclusion of the issue of conflict zones in the Legal Committee’s General Work Programme only after the completion of the work programme recommended by the Task Force on Risks to Civil Aviation arising from Conflict Zones (TF RCZ). He noted that the said review, which complemented that work programme, would enable the Council to determine whether the existing Annex provisions sufficiently addressed the issue of conflict zones. In the event that they did not, and following the completion of the said work programme, the Council could decide to add an item to the said General Work Programme relating to the issue of conflict zones, under which the Legal Committee could consider whether there was a need to amend the Chicago Convention to ensure that States’ responsibilities related to the safety of their airspace were more strictly defined in that Convention and in the underlying SARPs so that it was clear in which cases the airspace should be closed, in line with Recommendation 4 of the Dutch Safety Board’s final accident investigation report on MH17.

37. In welcoming the structured review of the USOAP CMA (p. A-8), the Representative of Australia indicated that he was broadly supportive of the proposed action, in particular in light of the

C-MIN 210/6 -126-

outline of what was planned for the delivery of that review that had been given during the Council’s previous meeting (cf. C-WP/14562; 210/5). He expected that the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the temporary group of experts tasked with the review, and the conduct of the review itself, would appropriately implement the Assembly’s and the Council’s expectations. The Representative of Australia noted that for his Government the said review was in large part about good governance: as the USOAP CMA had been in operation for several years, it was desirable to review its operation and its tools to make them work even better. He emphasized that, to that end of good governance, it was important that the said review have an appropriate structure. The Assembly’s intention in that regard was evident in that a different structure was recommended for the USOAP CMA review: it had endorsed the concept of a review to be conducted by experts from States under the guidance of the ANC (cf. A39-WP/512, paragraph 33.28; P/6). The Representative of Australia proposed that, in line with the working methodology outlined at the last Council meeting (210/5), the proposed action (p. A-8) be amended to read “Establish a temporary group that will perform a structured independent review under the guidance of the ANC …” (new text appears in bold) so as to properly record the Assembly’s intention. With respect to the membership of the temporary group of experts, he urged that a broad cross-section of States be included and that their nominated experts have a broad base of skills and experience in the USOAP CMA and its tools, as well as an understanding of the Programme’s strategic context.

38. Referring to the issue of cross-border transfers of aircraft (p. A-15), the Representative of Australia welcomed the work to ensure that the global safety oversight system kept pace with the evolution of the global aviation business environment. Noting, however, that it was not solely a safety issue, he underscored that economic regulatory matters also had an impact thereon. The Representative of Australia therefore considered that it was important that the said work be undertaken in a way that involved the expertise of ATB in economic regulatory matters to ensure that ICAO properly delivered a regulatory environment that could accommodate the modern airline industry.

39. With regard to assistance to aircraft accident victims and their families (p. A-16), the Representative of Australia agreed with the ANC’s recommendation that the proposed action be amended to reflect that the Technical Commission had requested the Council to consider if SARPs relating to the designation of a focal point during investigations for the provision of such assistance were also required and had not directly recommended the development of such SARPs. Noting that that issue was included in a number of work programmes relating to facilitation, safety, and administrative items, he stressed the importance of bringing those three work streams together and of ensuring that they did not duplicate or contradict each other.

40. In indicating that the Council should be able to agree to the Representative of Australia’s suggested amendment to the proposed action for the USOAP CMA (p. A-8), the President of the Council emphasized that any lessons learned from the structured independent review of that Programme would be applied to the Universal Security Oversight Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USAP-CMA). Recalling that the ToR of the group of experts conducting the USOAP CMA review was being circulated electronically to Representatives for information purposes (210/5), he requested that the ToR of the task force to progress issues regarding cross-border transferability of aircraft (p. A-15) and the task force to steer and coordinate work on cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22) likewise be circulated.

41. Referring to the issue of conflict zones (p. A-6), the Representative of the Russian Federation suggested that the fourth proposed action be amended to reflect the Council’s decision to discontinue the ICAO Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR) and its provisional approval of the modification of the latter into a library of links to States’ websites where risk-based information concerning operations over or near conflict zones can be made available (cf. C-WP/14558 Restricted; 210/5). Noting that under the proposed action for cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-

-127- C-MIN 210/6

22) the ToR for the task force was to be presented to GANIS/2 for approval, he emphasized that the ToR should instead be approved by the Council, in line with the ANC’s recommendation regarding the related work plan, and that the proposed action be amended accordingly.

42. In averring that the said fourth proposed action relating to the issue of conflict zones (p. A-6) had not been agreed by the Assembly in considering related A39-WP/376, and that the points raised in the latter had been referred to the Council for consideration in its further deliberations concerning the future status and operation of the CZIR (cf. A39-WP/512, paragraph 33.18; P/6), the Representative of Ireland suggested that the said proposed action be deleted from the Appendix to C- WP/14559. Referring to the second proposed action, she emphasized that it would benefit from further elaboration to clarify the objectives of the review of all relevant Annex provisions. The Representative of Ireland indicated that, in her view, based on the Assembly’s discussions, the objectives of that review should be: to improve information-sharing between States and with airlines on conflict zone risks, including to explore the possibilities for operational information-sharing; and to improve risk assessment by States and airlines on conflict zone risks.

43. The Representative of Ireland suggested that, for the sake of completeness, an additional item be included in the Appendix on the clarification of the responsibilities of the State of Occurrence of an accident and the responsibilities of a State to which the conduct of the accident investigation is delegated, in certain cases. Noting that all of her comments and suggestions had been submitted in writing to ANB in advance of the Council’s meeting, she expressed the hope that they could be duly reflected in Appendix A.

44. Responding to a query by the Representative of Ireland, the Secretary General confirmed that the issue of conflict zones would continue to be addressed by ANB regardless of the fact that the Officer responsible therefor, the Programme Manager, Crisis and Rapid Response Section (PM/CRR), had recently been appointed as Chief, Strategic Planning and Regional Affairs Coordination (PRC) Section.

45. Recalling that an informal briefing on the progress of work to implement the TF RCZ’s recommended work programme had been given to the Council on 11 January 2017, the President of the Council indicated that the discussion that had taken place at that time should be taken into account by the Secretariat in revising and completing the proposed actions for the issue of conflict zones (p. A-6), as should the Council’s previous related decisions.

46. The Representative of Ecuador endorsed the intervention by the Representative of Spain and welcomed the President of the ANC’s response to his questions. Referring to the issue of RPAS (p. A-4), he noted that many States’ regulatory agencies were unable to keep pace with the rapid advances in technologies and emphasized the consequent importance of providing the requisite support to States to ensure that they did not lag behind in promulgating the necessary regulations. He underscored that ICAO needed to maintain its leadership role in that regard, in line with the Organization’s No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative. In agreeing with the comments made by the Representative of Saudi Arabia regarding the highly important issue of cybersecurity, cyber-safety and cyber resilience (p. A-22), the Representative of Ecuador likewise applauded the hosting, by the United Arab Emirates, of the said inaugural 2017 ICAO Cyber Summit and Exhibition.

47. Concurring with C/MED that mental health was an extremely sensitive and far-reaching issue, the Representative of Ecuador underscored that it was of relevance for all aviation professions and not solely for flight crews. Noting that the impacts of mental health issues varied depending on the aviation professional’s position, he emphasized that they could be managed through the provision of training. In reiterating the importance of taking into consideration the environment in which the aviation

C-MIN 210/6 -128-

professionals were operating, the Representative of Ecuador cited, as examples, the mental health issues that might arise for pilots of commercial aircraft who had previously served in the air force in military conflicts and inexperienced pilots who lost their licenses. He noted that it would be for the ANC to address such regulatory issues. In expressing satisfaction that the third edition of ICAO’s Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984) had been published in 2012, the Representative of Ecuador recommended that a fourth edition soon be issued that would cover all of the issues he had raised regarding the mental health of aviation professionals.

48. Affirming that the air navigation issues addressed in the Appendix to C-WP/14559 were very important in ensuring the safe and orderly development of air transport, the Representative of Colombia voiced general support for action paragraphs a) and b) in the executive summary of the paper. He expressed appreciation to the ANC for the vast amount of work it did in developing the relevant SARPs and to the Secretariat for producing manuals to facilitate States’ implementation thereof. Referring to action paragraph a), he suggested that the new consolidated edition of the document Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 6 October 2016) include the decisions taken by A39, in addition to the resolutions adopted by the latter, to ensure their traceability. The Representative of Colombia reiterated the need for future reports on actions to implement the various Assembly resolutions and decisions to clearly identify the deliverables, provide more specific time-frames/target dates for their implementation and above all, clearly indicate the Bureau/body responsible for such implementation, so as facilitate monitoring of the work by the Council. With regard to action paragraph b), he suggested that it be revised to indicate that the ANC would effect any necessary changes to the ANWP and the Secretariat would effect any necessary changes to the Business Plan in order to clearly delineate the respective responsibilities. In concluding, the Representative of Colombia voiced agreement with the comments made by the Representative of South Africa regarding the size of seatbelts and the width of seats on aircraft, which posed a challenge to obese air travellers.

49. The Representative of France expressed support for the comments made by the Representative of Australia with regard to the envisaged structured independent review of the USOAP CMA by a temporary group of experts under the ANC’s guidance.

50. The President of the ANC underscored that in reviewing the said group’s ToR, the Commission had requested that it be revised to reflect that the experts should work in an independent capacity so as to ensure that the review of the Programme, which would affect all States, was carried out in a fair manner. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of Ecuador, he agreed on the importance of considering all aviation professions in developing ICAO’s mental health strategy. With regard to the intervention by the Representative of Colombia, the President of the ANC emphasized that the ANWP, which had been developed by the Commission in cooperation with the Secretariat, included the delivery time for each item in that work programme and, in the case of SARPs or PANS, also included the effective date and applicability date. He noted that that would enable future reports on the progress of implementation of the Assembly’s resolutions and decisions in the fields of safety and air navigation capacity and efficiency to be more specific.

51. The Representative of Turkey voiced support for the remarks made by the Representatives of South Africa and Spain, as well as for the comments made by the Representatives of the Russian Federation and Ireland on the issue of conflict zones. Referring to the issue of RPAS (p. A-4), he underscored that as the aviation industry, and the aviation sector as a whole, were waiting for concrete results from the ANC, it was desirable to prioritize the latter’s related work. In thanking the United Arab Emirates for hosting the inaugural 2017 ICAO Cyber Summit and Exhibition (Dubai, 4-6 April 2017), the Representative of Turkey affirmed that it would be very useful for the forthcoming discussions in that field.

-129- C-MIN 210/6

52. Note was taken of the changes proposed by Representatives, some of which would impact the Organization’s future work in the said fields. A question raised by the President of the Council regarding Safety Recommendations of Global Concern (SRGC) that ICAO is not made aware of (p. A-24) was also noted by the Secretariat for clarification with the Accident Investigation Panel (AIGP) and subsequent report to the Council.

53. The Council assumed that, notwithstanding budgetary constraints, the Secretariat was exploring ways and means to implement the very important fifteen new action items on the ANWP arising from the Assembly for which additional financial and human resources were required.

54. The Council then endorsed the proposed actions outlined in the Appendix to C-WP/14559, as amended pursuant to the ANC’s recommendations and Representatives’ proposals, which it confirmed would effectively respond to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39 in the fields of safety and air navigation capacity and efficiency. The Council requested the Secretariat to effect any necessary changes to the ICAO Business Plan and the ANWP, in keeping with all relevant procedures. It was noted that: the various action items, including those related to the consideration of the development of SARPs, were being processed through the relevant established ANC procedures; and that a mid-triennial report by the Secretary General on the progress of implementation, through the ICAO Business Plan and the ANWP, of the said Assembly resolutions and decisions would be presented for the Council’s consideration during its 214th Session in June 2018, together with a report thereon by the ANC.

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

ANC Work Programme for the 205th Session

55. The Council reviewed C-WP/14564, in which the ANC presented the proposed Work Programme for its 205th Session for approval and its planned items for its 206th and 207th Sessions for information purposes.

56. In the absence of comments, the Council approved the ANC’s Work Programme for its 205th Session as set forth in Appendix A to C-WP/14564, on the understanding that there might be consequential amendments thereto arising from its above decision on C-WP/14559.

Subject No. 6.3: Election of Chairmen and Members of subsidiary bodies of the Council Subject No. 33: Character and working methods of representative bodies in ICAO (Council, Committees, etc.)

Review of procedures related to the nomination process and selection criteria of the membership of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC)

57. This subject was considered on the basis of the following oral report presented by the Chairperson of the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE), Mr. A. Shekhar, the Representative of India:

58. The Council, at its Thirteenth Meeting of the 207th Session, on 11 March 2016, had requested the WGGE to undertake a comprehensive review of procedures related to the nomination process and selection criteria of the membership of the ANC, taking into account the provisions in Article 56 of the Chicago Convention, Assembly Resolution A38-13 (Composition of the Air Navigation Commission and participation in its work), the Council decisions on the deliberations regarding the increase in the size of the ANC, and related issues such as the desire for every region of the world to be

C-MIN 210/6 -130-

represented, and to report at a subsequent session on the results of that review (cf. C-DEC 207/13, paragraph 20).

59. The WGGE and the ANC Planning Team had held informal consultations on 22 April 2016, at which views regarding the ANC nomination process and selection criteria had been exchanged. Following the WGGE’s Third Meeting of the 209th Session on 22 November 2016, a Sub-group on ANC Membership (SAM) had been established, comprising the Representatives of Argentina (Chairperson), France, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United States to further examine the matter.

60. In considering the SAM’s report at its First Meeting of the current (210th) session on 19 January 2017, the WGGE had recalled the adoption of Resolution A39-6, approving an amendment to Article 56 of the Chicago Convention whereby the membership of the ANC would be expanded from 19 to 21. The WGGE had agreed with the findings of the Sub-group that Attachment B to State letter S 5/3- 16/47 dated 17 June 2016 on the recommended qualifications of nominated candidates constituted an updated reflection of concerns expressed by the Council and its Members on criteria to elect ANC Members based on professional qualifications (education, knowledge, abilities, experience) including as well the advisability of broad geographical representation, spread of technical disciplines, and equal gender representation. The WGGE had also agreed that the recent process to elect ANC Members for the term 2016-2019 (cf. C-WP/14507; 209/2) had taken place in a smooth and constructive atmosphere, providing a ground to express that the current procedures related to the nomination process for ANC Members seemed to be appropriate.

61. Regarding the extent of possibilities to participate in the work of the ANC for States not having experts of their nationality in the Commission, the WGGE had agreed with the Sub-group’s conclusion that the current legal framework protected the participation of such States, granting them the right to be present during meetings, to take the floor to express their views, and to submit documents for the ANC’s consideration.

62. In the absence of comments, the Council took the action recommended by the WGGE and decided to maintain the current procedures related to the nomination process and selection criteria of the membership of the ANC, while noting that those aspects could be revisited upon entry into force of the 2016 Protocol of Amendment relating to Article 56 of the Chicago Convention whereby the size of the Commission would be increased from 19 to 21 Members (cf. Doc 10076).

Subject No. 17.1: Joint Financing Agreement with Iceland Subject No. 17.5: Joint Financing Agreement with Denmark

Recommendations of the Joint Support Committee related to items under the Danish and Icelandic Joint Financing Agreements reviewed during the 210th Session

63. The Council considered this subject on the basis of C-WP/14566, in which the JSC presented the outcome of its review, during the current (210th) session, of reference documents JS- WP/2042 (Interest on the Danish and Icelandic Reserve Funds) (information paper) and JS-WP/2043 (Radome for Sornfelli Radar Located at the Faroe Islands).

64. In introducing the paper, the Chairperson of the JSC, the Representative of Singapore, Mr. T.C. Ng, , highlighted that during the JSC’s meeting a representative of the Danish Service Provider had provided updated information on the status of the project to completely replace the radome protecting the radar antenna system on the Sornfelli radar site located at the Faroe Islands (cf. JS-WP/2043). It had been noted that following the submission of Denmark’s proposal, a severe storm in late December 2016

-131- C-MIN 210/6

had destroyed both the radome and the radar antenna, rendering the project even more urgent in nature. The estimated replacement cost of the new radome remained unchanged, however, and the cost of a new radar antenna and the required repairs to the antenna equipment would be covered under the Danish Service Provider’s insurance policy.

65. In noting the information provided in C-WP/14566 and the supplementary information provided orally, the Council took the action proposed in the executive summary of JS-WP/2043, as recommended by the JSC, and:

a) approved the proposed project to establish a new radome to protect the envisaged new radar antenna system on the Sornfelli radar site located at the Faroe Islands as described in Section 2 and Appendix C of JS-WP/2043, at an estimated cost of DKK 8 312 450 (equivalent to approximately USD 1 165 000), which is 100 per cent allocable to international aviation and would consequently be recovered through the user charge for air traffic control services provided under the Danish Joint Financing Agreement;

b) approved the incorporation of the proposed capital expenditure [DKK 8 312 450 (equivalent to approximately USD 1 165 000)], subject to audit, in Annex II – Inventory of the Danish Joint Financing Agreement, as indicated in Section 2 and in Tables 1 and 2 of JS-WP/2043; and

c) requested the Secretary General to inform the Government of Denmark and other Contracting Governments to the Danish Joint Financing Agreement of the above- mentioned approved actions.

Subject No. 12: Programme of ICAO meetings

Mechanism for high-level meetings to inform Assembly sessions and consequential amendments to applicable Directives and Rules of Procedure

66. The Council had for consideration: C-WP/14565, in which the Secretary General, pursuant to its earlier requests (207/3 and 208/5), presented the results of the review of the Organization’s practice in convening high-level meetings and how they informed Assembly sessions, and of other aspects, such as how regional meetings can feed high-level meetings and potentially provide opportunities for efficiency gains; and an oral report thereon by the WGGE, which had reviewed the paper at its First Meeting of the current session on 19 January 2017.

Oral report by the WGGE

67. The WGGE had noted the progress made on the issues and had agreed that the actions proposed in C-WP/14565 represented concrete steps that would improve efficiencies for both States and ICAO. In its deliberations, it had recognized that while the issues associated with meetings managed by the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB) seemed to be sufficiently addressed in the paper, there seemed to be some remaining issues associated with meetings convened by other Bureaus that still needed to be refined, as follows:

a) the Secretary General recommended, in paragraph 3.1 c) i) of the paper, that Category 2 meetings covered by Doc 8143-AN/873/3 (Divisional-type Air Navigation Meetings and Rules of Procedure for their Conduct) and Doc 8683-AT/721 (Standing Rules of Procedure for Meetings in the Air Transport

C-MIN 210/6 -132-

Field) “be held no later than the third quarter of the second year of a triennium …”. The WGGE had recognized that in some cases it would not be feasible to hold those events within the prescribed schedule. To that end, the WGGE had recommended that paragraph 3.1 c) i) be modified by adding, at the end, the words “, to the extent possible”, so as to read “be held no later than the third quarter of the second year of a triennium, to the extent possible…”;

b) the WGGE had also highlighted the need to have clarity on the expected outcomes and recommended level of State attendance at specific events. To that end, it had recommended that a new action item be added to the executive summary of the paper, as follows: “Requests the Secretariat to indicate, where appropriate, the expected outcomes and recommended level of State attendance at ICAO meetings in the Council working paper on the Programme of Meetings;”;

c) the WGGE had noted that, in paragraph 3.1 a) of the paper, the Council was invited to “note that while the term ‘high-level’ may be used in the title of ICAO meetings and events, it does not refer to a specific category of meeting;”. It had further noted that the paper focused on meetings in the air navigation field and had requested the Secretariat to ensure that that recommendation also applied to air transport meetings. The WGGE had agreed that while that would resolve most of the outstanding issues related to the rules applied for High-level Safety Conferences, some issues still remained, including the potential need for a formal definition for the term “high- level”.

68. After the WGGE’s meeting on 19 January 2017, the Secretariat had provided the following information:

a) it had clarified which set of established rules would apply to the Category 2 meetings that were currently in the tentative Programme of Meetings, for planning purposes, for the next three years. Specifically:

i) Directives to Divisional-type Air Navigation Meetings and Rules of Procedure for their Conduct (Doc 8143-AN/863/3) will apply to the Air Navigation Conference; ii) Standing Rules of Procedure for Meetings in the Air Transport Field (Doc 8683-AT/721) will apply to the High-level Conference on Aviation Alternative Fuels and to the Global Ministerial Conference on Aviation Security; iii) Legal Committee, Constitution, Procedure for Approval of Draft Conventions, Rules of Procedure (Doc 7669-LC/139/5) will apply to the two sessions of the Legal Committee; and iv) at the time of writing, no Category 2 meetings were planned to be held in the area of technical cooperation.

b) while the term “high-level” is not defined in any document, the term is used in the description of Category 1 meetings in the current policy as set by the Council (189/10) and reflected in the Administrative Instruction for the Planning and Convening of ICAO Meetings as follows:

Category 1 – Assembly Sessions and Diplomatic Conferences: A high-level meeting, which may be served by one or more bodies (commissions, committees, etc.), that issues decisions, some of which may be of a binding nature.

-133- C-MIN 210/6

c) in practice, the term “high-level” has been used for Category 2 meetings, albeit not very often. Furthermore the term “high-level” has not been included in the title of Category 1 meetings, mainly owing to the strict naming convention for such meetings that include Assemblies and Diplomatic Conferences. For reference, the description of Category 2 meetings is as follows:

Category 2 – Divisional Meetings, Regional Air Navigation Meetings, and Conferences: A formal meeting with an output (report, conclusions and/or recommendations) that presents recommendations to the Council.

69. Based on the information provided by the Secretariat, the WGGE had recommended that the Council consider including a Note, which would be reflected in the Administrative Instruction for the Planning and Convening of ICAO Meetings, on the use of the term “high-level” in the title of a meeting, as follows:

“The inclusion of the term ‘high-level’ in the title of an ICAO meeting infers that attendance by senior officials, of the level equivalent to that of Director General of Civil Aviation or above, from States and others is desirable in order to achieve the stated outcomes and to that end should normally be used exclusively for relevant Category 1 and 2 meetings.”.

70. The WGGE Members had expressed the view that there might still be a need to further clarify the specifics related to the rules and on how the regional and global meetings inform the Assembly, but had noted the Secretariat’s advice that a number of suggestions for improvement were already contained in the paper and that further action should be based on the experience gained in the current triennium. The WGGE had thus recommended that the Council approve the actions presented in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/14565, as amended by the points highlighted in its oral report.

Discussion

71. It was noted that the Standing Rules of Procedure for Meetings in the Air Transport Field (Doc 8683-AT/721) had been reviewed by the Secretariat to verify whether they were aligned with the proposed mechanism and that no consequential amendments to Doc 8683 were required.

72. Emphasizing that the term “high-level” was very confusing and gave rise to a multiplicity of interpretations, with some States, including his, deeming it to be the ministerial level and others, the level of Directors General of Civil Aviation (DGCAs), the Representative of South Africa sought further clarification as to its meaning. In underscoring the need to specify the recommended level of participation in State letters inviting States to attend high-level meetings, he suggested that such meetings be entitled “High-Level Ministerial” to avoid confusion. The Representative of South Africa further stressed that State letters relating to the convening of DGCA Conferences clearly indicate that the recommended level of attendance was DGCAs.

73. The President of the Council highlighted that although the WGGE had noted the potential need for a formal definition for the term “high-level”, it was recommending the inclusion of a Note in the Administrative Instruction for the Planning and Convening of ICAO Meetings on the use of that term in the title of meetings, rather than defining it to the last letter [cf. paragraphs 67 c) and 69 above]. In recalling that the said Note indicated that “high-level” inferred attendance by senior officials, of the level equivalent to that of DGCAs or above, he emphasized that “above” included Ministers. In expressing the hope that the said Note would prove sufficient, he noted that the Council would be able to see how it

C-MIN 210/6 -134-

worked in practice. The President of the Council underscored that the Organization would continue to convene Ministerial Conferences.

74. Agreeing with the comments made by the Representative of South Africa, the Representative of Turkey reiterated the need for a clear definition for the term “high-level” as the proposed Note was inconsistent with his State’s interpretation, and that of South Africa, inter alia, that “high-level” only meant Government officials and not DGCAs.

75. In expressing satisfaction with the WGGE’s oral report, the Representative of Spain reiterated that the Council would be able to determine the sufficiency of the said Note on the basis of the experience gained in its application. He concurred with the Representative of South Africa that high-level meetings at which attendance at the ministerial level was recommended should be titled accordingly. The Representative of Spain underscored that it was essential to the success of any high-level meeting to clearly identify in advance its agenda and the expected outcomes. In agreeing with the WGGE that some work remained to be done to further clarify how regional and global meetings inform the Assembly, he emphasized that the lessons learned from experience would assist in addressing that issue.

76. Endorsing the intervention by the President of the Council, the Representative of Saudi Arabia noted that State letters inviting participation in ICAO meetings usually gave a clear indication of the recommended level of State attendance and of any requirement for credentials.

77. The President of the Council highlighted that, with the exception of Assemblies, where it was left to the discretion of States to decide whom to designate to lead their Assembly Delegations, it was currently the practice to also send personalized letters of invitation to Ministers to attend relevant high- level meetings which, in some cases, were co-signed by him and the Secretary General.

78. The Representative of South Africa averred that all States should be represented at Assembly sessions at the ministerial level as the Assembly was the Organization’s highest governing body. He stressed that, although it was for States to decide who would lead their Delegations, ICAO should, and must, encourage attendance at the ministerial level, particularly as Assemblies were ordinarily convened on a triennial basis.

79. The Representative of Sweden supported the recommended inclusion of the said Note in the Administrative Instruction for the Planning and Convening of ICAO Meetings given States’ different interpretations of the term “high-level”, which was reflective of their different organizational structures. She noted, in this regard, that in some cases the civil aviation administration (CAA) was part of the State’s Ministry of Transport and in other cases, was separate and independent, and that the delegation of authority was consequently different. It could not therefore be assumed that for all States a “high-level” meeting would necessitate attendance at the level of Ministers.

80. Voicing agreement with the remarks made by the Representative of Sweden, the Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he could accept the WGGE’s oral report as presented.

81. Having completed its consideration of this subject, the Council noted the WGGE’s oral report and took the action proposed in paragraph 3.1 of C-WP/14565, as amended by the WGGE, as follows:

a) noted that while the term “high-level” may be used in the title of ICAO meetings and events, it does not refer to a specific category of meeting;

-135- C-MIN 210/6 b) agreed that future high-level safety conferences should be considered as a type of Divisional-type air navigation meeting and that, consequently, the Directives to Divisional-type Air Navigation Meetings and Rules of Procedure for their Conduct (Doc 8143-AN/873/3) shall apply; c) agreed that Category 2 meetings covered by Doc 8143-AN/873/3 and Doc 8683- AT/721 (Standing Rules of Procedure for Meetings in the Air Transport Field) should:

i) be held no later than the third quarter of the second year of a triennium, to the extent possible (so that they can inform the ICAO Business Plan and Regular Programme Budget for the subsequent triennium);

ii) have agendas organized, to the extent possible, in a manner that is compatible with the framework of relevant Global Plans;

iii) recommend to the Council draft proposals, where necessary and relevant, for:

1) new, or amendments to existing, Assembly Resolutions; and 2) amendments to relevant Global Plans;

iv) recommend to the Council how the next ordinary session of the Assembly may be made more efficient and effective, including:

1) proposals for agenda items (relevant to the work of Category 2 meetings); and

2) proposals relating to the establishment of Committees and Commissions (relevant to the work of Category 2 meetings) of the Assembly [cf. Rule 14 c) of the Standing Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (Doc 7600/8)]; d) agreed that subsequent to the Category 2 meetings, the Secretariat should develop consequential draft amendments to the ICAO Business Plan (which will form the basis of future draft Regular Programme Budgets); e) agreed that at regional meetings held in the year after an Assembly, the regions should make a preliminary assessment of changes they required to the next editions of the Global Plans and other high-level policies considered by the Assembly, and that in the second year of the triennium, the regions should then update their needs for consideration at the regional meeting for that year. If the region met only after the relevant Category 2 meeting, then updates should be presented to the Council or the ANC to be taken into consideration when the relevant Assembly papers were finalized; f) requested the Secretariat to indicate, where appropriate, the expected outcomes and recommended level of State attendance at ICAO meetings in the Council working paper on the Programme of Meetings; and

C-MIN 210/6 -136-

g) requested that the Secretariat include a Note in the Administrative Instruction for the Planning and Convening of ICAO Meetings on the use of the term “high-level” in the title of a meeting, as follows:

82. It was further noted that the above mechanism would be complemented by the current practice of sending personalized letters of invitation to Ministers to attend relevant high-level meetings (with the exception of Assemblies, where it was left to the discretion of States to decide whom to designate to lead their Delegations).

Subject No. 42: Technical cooperation

Operating Plan for the Technical Cooperation Bureau for the period 2017-2019

83. The Council considered this subject on the basis of: C-WP/14554, in which the Secretary General presented a revised TCB Operating Plan for 2017-2019 (cf. Appendix), as well as additional information on the Technical Cooperation Programme’s financial performance and forecast for the next three years, the Council’s reporting requirements for technical cooperation, and the status of implementation of TCB project/key activities and deliverables since the inception of TCB’s first Plan in 2010 (cf. Attachments A, B and C); and an oral report thereon by the TCC, which had reviewed the paper during its Second Meeting of the current session on 23 January 2017.

Oral report by the TCC

84. The TCC had acknowledged that the amended TCB Operating Plan for 2017-2019 was a clear improvement over the previous version presented during the last session (cf. C-WP/14508; 209/6). It reflected the views of the TCC Ad Hoc Working Group which had been previously established to review the format and content requirements for the TCB Operating Plan in coordination with the Director, TCB (D/TCB), and elaborated further on the project/key activities, deliverables and target dates in accordance with the Council’s earlier decisions (208/15 and 209/6)

85. The Committee had, on the other hand, recognized that the TCB Operating Plan faced additional scrutiny and recommended that the following further improvements be made to the TCB Operating Plan, among others: narrative text be introduced to adequately reflect the correlation between it and the ICAO Business Plan; the existing text be reviewed to ensure the logical flow of some of the TCB Operating Plan’s sections; the length of some explanatory text be reduced; the term “head hunting”, used with respect to TCB’s efforts to identify and attract suitable candidates from the various regions for inclusion in the Roster of Experts, be refined; and updated figures and their corresponding text be reflected in the TCB Operating Plan, where appropriate, and presented to the Council during its 212th Session.

86. In presenting the TCC’s oral report, the Chairperson, the Representative of Cuba, Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri, indicated that the Committee also recommended that the text of Section 12 of the TCB Operating Plan (cf. Appendix to C-WP/14554, p. A-17) related to the gradual reduction of administrative support costs charged to technical cooperation and technical assistance projects be aligned

-137- C-MIN 210/6

with the text under Chart 1 (cf. Appendix, Attachment A, p. A-37).

Discussion

87. There being no comments, the Council noted the TCC’s oral report and agreed to the Committee’s above-mentioned recommendations.

88. It was noted that, as also recommended by the TCC, the item Report on the mechanisms and activities implemented by the Technical Cooperation Bureau (TCB) to promote the benefits of its services had been included in the Work Programmes of the Council and the TCC for the 211th Session, for consideration on the basis of an information paper by the Secretary General and an oral report thereon by the TCC (cf. C-WP/14581 Revised, Appendix A, item 8 and Appendix F, item 2).

89. As further recommended by the TCC, the Council:

a) took note of the excellent work done by the Secretariat, and the excellent contribution made by the TCC Ad Hoc Working Group, in revising the TCB Operating Plan for 2017-2019; and b) approved the direction and approach adopted for the TCB Operating Plan for 2017-2019 as presented in the Appendix to C-WP/14554, and requested the Secretariat to correct the identified inconsistencies (cf. paragraphs 85 and 86 above) and to proceed with the suggested improvements for the TCB Operating Plan for 2018-2020, to be presented to the Council for approval in the 212th Session in October/November 2017.

90. It was underscored that the Secretary General should consider using the TCB Operating Plan as an example for the Operating Plans for the Regional Offices, the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) and the Global Aviation Training (GAT) Office, whose content was likewise to be more detailed than the content of the Operating Plans of the Bureaus and Offices in order to meet the Council’s expectations (cf. C-DEC 208/15, paragraphs 31 and 32).

Subject No. 42: Technical cooperation Subject No. 18.14: Other finance matters for consideration by Council

Report on a feasibility study on the establishment of a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund and the potential use of the accumulated surplus

91. The Council had for consideration: C-WP/14555, in which the Secretary General presented the results of a feasibility study undertaken at its request (209/6) on the establishment of a ceiling for the Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) Accumulated Reserve Fund and the potential use of the excess surplus to assist developing States participating in the Technical Cooperation Programme, including the associated risks, and proposed an alternative solution; and a joint TCC/FIC oral report thereon.

Joint oral report by the TCC and the FIC

92. During their joint meeting on 23 January 2017, the Committees had been informed pursuant to ICAO Financial Regulation 9.4 (Doc 7515) the AOSC Fund was utilized to meet the costs of administration, operation and support of the Technical Cooperation Programme as the Fund was primarily financed from administrative overhead charges to projects implemented through TCB.

C-MIN 210/6 -138-

93. In that regard, it had been recalled that the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund was kept strictly as a reserve for funding potential shortfalls in years when the Technical Cooperation Programme was not able to support the AOSC expenditures, avoiding the need for recourse to the Regular Programme Budget pursuant to Assembly Resolution A39-16 (Consolidated statement of ICAO policies on technical cooperation and technical assistance), Appendix A, Operative Clause 6.

94. The Committees had recognized that due to potential risks to the AOSC Fund, such as fluctuating exchange rates and the volatile nature of TCB’s activities coinciding with world economic and business cycles, the establishment of a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund and the disbursement of the excess surplus was not an option recommended by the Secretariat. Consequently, the Secretary General proposed an alternative solution in the form of the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund, which may receive up to 25 per cent of a particular year’s AOSC surplus to improve TCB’s operations. She proposed that in years when the annual AOSC surplus exceeds the threshold of CAD 0.5 million, 50 per cent of the portion of the AOSC annual surplus to be allocated to the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund (cf. C-DEC 155/7), not exceeding CAD 125 000, be earmarked for the ICAO Programme for Aviation Volunteers (IPAV) Fund and/or technical assistance projects.

95. To that end, the Committees: had acknowledged the presence of the said existing mechanism, the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund, and that its use was under the delegated authority of D/TCB; and had supported that, on a one-time basis, funds be transferred therefrom to be earmarked specifically for the IPAV.

96. The Committees had noted the Secretary General’s further proposal that, to compensate for the low number of qualified volunteers on the IPAV roster, Regular Programme Professional staff specialized in particular disciplines serve as IPAV experts on fact-finding missions and projects of short duration, on a voluntary basis and on their own time. In that regard, reservations and skepticism had been widely expressed due to the potential conflicting interests that such an arrangement may present.

97. Overall, the Committees expressed their gratitude to the Secretariat for its proposals, recognizing that the foundation has been laid out for future discussions should the financial position of the AOSC accumulated reserve change significantly.

98. In conclusion, the Committees had invited the Council to request the Secretary General to approve the one-time transfer of CAD 100 000 from the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund to be earmarked specifically for IPAV, for purposes of assisting developing States participating in the Technical Cooperation Program for the solution of safety and security findings derived from audits carried out under ICAO’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USOAP CMA) and Universal Security Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USAP-CMA).

99. The Committees had not recommended that the Council request the Secretariat to identify ICAO Regular Programme Professional staff to serve as IPAV experts, but rather that the existing terms of eligibility for the IPAV remain unchanged.

Discussion

100. In fully supporting the TCC/FIC joint oral report, the Representative of Mexico emphasized the importance of ensuring that the proposed transfer of CAD 100 000 to the IPAV was for one time only and would not set a precedent for future years.

-139- C-MIN 210/6

101. The Chairperson of the TCC, the Representative of Cuba, Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri, indicated that while a one-time transfer was not exactly in the spirit of the joint TCC/FIC discussion, she could nevertheless support it if that were the consensus decision of the Council. Noting that the funds transferred to the IPAV were intended to assist States participating in the Technical Cooperation Programme, which had been in operation for some 65 years, she suggested that to facilitate the selection of recipient States by D/TCB only those that had participated in the Programme for the last three years should be considered. The Chairperson of the TCC underscored that while the said two Committees had not discussed that issue, it was important that the Council define the period of participation in the Programme in order to focus the utilization of the funds transferred to the IPAV.

102. The President of the Council suggested, on the basis of the above intervention by the Chairperson of the TCC, that: the Council’s decision exclude any reference to the proposed one-time transfer not setting a precedent; and that it instead reflect that other duly-justified proposals to use the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund to assist developing States in support of the ICAO No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative could be presented for the Council’s consideration in future. While confirming that the CAD 100 000 to be transferred to the IPAV would be used to assist developing States participating in the Technical Cooperation Program, he indicated that he found the proposed three-year time-frame for participation in the latter confusing.

103. In voicing support for the Committees’ joint oral report, the Representative of Saudi Arabia reiterated his request that a ceiling be established for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund with a view to using the excess surplus to assist developing States participating in the Technical Cooperation Programme. He asked that the Secretariat accordingly present a proposal for the Committees’ consideration during the next (211th) session. The Representative of Colombia seconded these requests.

104. D/TCB recalled that the TCC/FIC recommendation was that further discussion of such a ceiling be postponed until such time as the financial position of the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund had changed significantly.

105. Underscoring that the two Committees had just considered the feasibility of a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund on the basis of C-WP/14555, the Chairperson of the FIC, the Representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. M. Rodmell, averred that it would not be efficient for them to repeat consideration of that issue during a second, consecutive session. Noting that the AOSC accumulated surplus was reported to the Committees and the Council on a regular basis, he indicated that it was open to them to return to the issue of establishing such a ceiling at some unspecified point in the future.

106. In light of the comments made by D/TCB and the Chairperson of the FIC, the President of the Council suggested that: the Committees and the Council not consider the feasibility of a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund during the next session as the latter’s financial position would not have changed significantly in the interim; and that they instead return to that issue in the event that its financial position did change significantly, bearing in mind that the Assembly’s approval was required for the establishment of any such ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund. The Representative of Saudi Arabia endorsed this proposal.

107. In then noting the TCC/FIC oral report, the Council took the action recommended by the Committees and:

C-MIN 210/6 -140-

a) requested the Secretary General to approve the one-time transfer of CAD 100 000 from the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund to be earmarked specifically for the IPAV, for purposes of assisting developing States participating in the Technical Cooperation Program for the solution of safety and security findings derived from audits carried out under ICAO’s USOAP CMA and USAP-CMA; and

b) decided that the existing terms of eligibility for the IPAV remain unchanged and that Regular Programme Professional staff not serve as IPAV experts on a voluntary basis and on their own time in view of potential conflicts of interest.

108. It was understood that: other duly-justified proposals to use the TCB Efficiency and Effectiveness Fund to assist developing States in support of the ICAO No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative could be presented for the Council’s consideration in future; and that the TCC, FIC and the Council could, at any time, return to the subject of establishing a ceiling for the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund in the event that its financial position significantly changed, bearing in mind that the Assembly’s approval was required for the establishment of any such ceiling.

Subject No. 24.3: Action on Assembly resolutions and decisions

Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Policy and administrative subjects

109. This subject was discussed on the basis of: C-WP/14556 presented by the Secretary General, which set forth, in Appendices A through E, proposed actions for consideration by the Council, the FIC, the HRC, the TCC and the WGGE to implement the resolutions and decisions of A39 which emanated from policy and administrative subjects deliberated upon by the Executive Committee and the Administrative Commission; oral reports by the FIC (on Appendix B), the HRC (on Appendix C), and the WGGE (on Appendix E); and a joint TCC/FIC oral report (on Appendix D).

Oral report by the FIC

110. The FIC, at its First Meeting of the current session on 23 January 2017, had reviewed only those items that were directly related to financial issues, namely the following Assembly Resolutions set forth in Appendix B to the paper: Assembly Resolution A39-31 (Discharge by Member States of financial obligations to the Organization and action to be taken in case of their failure to do so); Assembly Resolution A39-32 (Assessments to the General Fund for 2017, 2018 and 2019); Assembly Resolution A39-33 (Working Capital Fund); Assembly Resolution A39-34 (Amendment of the Financial Regulations); Assembly Resolution A39-35 (Approval of the accounts of the Organization for the financial years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and examination of the Audit Reports thereon); Assembly Resolution A39-6 (Appointment of the External Auditor); and Assembly Resolution A39-37 (Budgets for 2017, 2018 and 2019). The FIC had accepted and confirmed all of the respective actions proposed in Appendix B without discussion and had accordingly recommended that the Council confirm that they effectively responded to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39.

Oral report by the HRC

111. At its First Meeting of the current session on 26 January 2017, the HRC had focused its discussions on Appendix C to the paper, with the main subjects for consideration having included proposed actions emanating from Assembly Resolution A39-30 (ICAO Gender Equality Programme) and decisions related to Human Resources management at ICAO. No comments had been made by Committee Members on the respective proposed actions. However, during the discussion it had been

-141- C-MIN 210/6

noted that consideration could be given to further enhancing the general presentation of action items in terms of responsibilities and deliverables.

112. The HRC had recommended to the Council to confirm that the proposed actions outlined in Appendix C effectively responded to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39.

Oral report by the WGGE

113. The WGGE, at its First Meeting of the current session on 19 January 2017, had reviewed Appendix E which presented items for its consideration. During the discussion, the importance of implementing Assembly Resolution A39-21 (Addressing the low response rate by Member States to State letters) in a timely manner had been stressed. The Secretariat had been requested to review the implementation timelines for the proposed actions and to revise the target dates, in particular in relation to the review of the format of State letters and Electronic Bulletins. As agreed with the Secretariat, the WGGE recommended that the time-frame/target date for implementation of the first two proposed actions for Assembly Resolution A39-21 relating to the implementation of a registry attributes scheme for State letters and the review of the format of State letters and Electronic Bulletins, be advanced from the fourth quarter of 2017 (Q4/2017) to the second quarter of that year (Q2/2017), as reflected in the Appendix to the WGGE’s oral report.

114. The Secretariat had also been requested to present proposals for the development of a registry attributes scheme and a web-based system to report on response rates to State letters to the WGGE for review and input.

115. The WGGE recommended to the Council to confirm that the proposed actions outlined in Appendix E, with the above amendments, effectively responded to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39.

Joint oral report by the TCC and the FIC

116. At a joint meeting held on 23 January 2017, the TCC and the FIC had reviewed Appendix D to the paper. While the paper itself had been well received, Members had sought clarifications regarding the time-frame/target date for implementation of the proposed action under Assembly Resolution A39-16 (Consolidated statement of ICAO policies on technical cooperation and technical assistance), which related to TCB’s continued pursuit of the gradual reduction of administrative support costs charged to technical cooperation and technical assistance projects. The Secretary of the TCC, D/TCB, had clarified that the implementation date identified was intended to reflect the end of the 2017-2019 triennium and no formal implementation plan had been or would be elaborated as the proposed action was an ongoing and permanent activity of TCB.

117. The Committees had acknowledged that the administrative support costs charged to technical cooperation and technical assistance projects had been approved by A39 in the Regular Programme Budget for the 2017-2019 triennium, wherein a yearly transfer was made from the AOSC Fund to the Regular Programme Budget for Regular Programme support services provided to TCB, and a yearly reimbursement was paid from the Regular Programme Budget to the AOSC Fund for procurement and travel services provided by TCB to the Regular Programme.

118. The Committees had also acknowledged that the establishment of the Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP) and its staffing levels would be presented by the Secretary General to the Council for consideration as the proposed action fell beyond the scope of the TCC.

C-MIN 210/6 -142-

119. Members of both Committees expressed significant concerns with Assembly Resolution A39-17 (ICAO Programme for Aviation Volunteers) related to the use of ICAO Professionals (regular staff members) in selected areas of expertise to serve as experts under the IPAV on a voluntary basis and on their own time, to compensate for the lack of skilled and experienced volunteers, and recommended that this option be rejected by the Council.

120. In conclusion, the Committees recommended that the Council:

a) consider the establishment of the SPCP and the appropriate levels of staffing upon presentation by the Secretary General, given the broad implications to the Organization;

b) reject the proposed action to use ICAO Professionals in selected areas of expertise to serve as IPAV experts on a voluntary basis and on their own time, and delete that reference from Appendix D to C-WP/14556; and

c) confirm that the proposed actions outlined in the Appendix, with the above- mentioned slight amendments, effectively responded to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39.

Discussion

121. It was noted that the FIC and the HRC did not recommend any changes to the proposed actions outlined in Appendices B and C.

122. With regard to Appendix D, in view of its earlier decision not to use ICAO Professional staff as IPAV experts on a voluntary basis and on their own time [cf. paragraph 107 b) above], the Council agreed to the TCC’s and FIC’s joint recommendation that reference thereto accordingly be deleted from the proposed actions for related Assembly Resolution A39-17. It was noted that the Committees’ other recommendation had been addressed by the Council’s previous decisions (209/7 and 210/1) regarding the establishment of, and staffing arrangements for, the new SPCP and its two Sections [Partnerships and Resource Mobilization (PRM) and Strategic Planning and Regional Affairs Coordination (PRC)].

123. Further to a point raised by the Representative of Colombia regarding the time- frame/target date for implementation of the first proposed action for Assembly Resolution A39-16 (Consolidated statement of ICAO policies on technical cooperation and technical assistance) (“Continue to pursue the gradual reduction of administrative support costs to technical cooperation and technical assistance projects”), the Council noted the clarifications provided by D/TCB during both the TCC/FIC joint meeting and the present meeting, that: “End 2019” reflected the end of the 2017-2019 triennium and that no formal implementation plan had been, or would be, elaborated as the said proposed action was an ongoing and permanent activity of TCB; there had been no increase in the administrative overhead; and that, on the contrary, the latter had decreased in recent years. At the suggestion of the Secretary General, it was agreed to amend the said time-frame/target by adding “Ongoing” to reflect the continuing efforts being made. It was noted that if a further reduction in the administrative overhead were successfully achieved, then a report would accordingly be presented to the Assembly.

124. In emphasizing that it was necessary to decrease the administrative overhead in order to encourage more States to use TCB to execute their technical cooperation projects, the Representative of Colombia underscored that that would lead to better results for TCB, in terms of the volume of the Technical Cooperation Programme, as well as for the Organization and the international aviation

-143- C-MIN 210/6

community as a whole, in terms of enhanced implementation of ICAO SARPs, particularly those relating to safety and air navigation capacity and efficiency.

125. Supporting this intervention, the Representative of South Africa stressed that the administrative overhead charged for TCB-executed technical cooperation projects must come down and remain down.

126. With respect to Appendix E, the Council agreed to the WGGE’s recommendation that the time-frame/target date for implementation of the first two proposed actions for Assembly Resolution A39-21(Addressing the low response rate by Member States to ICAO State letters), relating to the implementation of a registry attributes scheme for State letters and the review of the format of State letters and Electronic Bulletins, be advanced from Q4/2017 to Q2/2017. It was noted that the Secretariat’s proposals for the development of such a registry attributes scheme and a web-based system to report on response rates to State letters would be presented to the WGGE for review and input.

127. To a point raised by the Representative of Mexico and supported by the Representative of Colombia regarding the first proposed action for human resources management (Appendix C), the Secretary General clarified that the reference made to diversity encompassed equitable geographical representation (EGR). She recalled that the annual reports to the Council on the status of the ICAO work force included information and statistics on the status of EGR in the various regions. The Secretary General further indicated that a triennial report on the status of the ICAO work force was also submitted at each Assembly which similarly addressed the EGR issue. In addition, a dedicated working paper reporting on enhancements made to human resources management was likewise submitted every three years to the Assembly. At the suggestion of the President, it was agreed to amend the time-frame/target date for implementation for the said proposed action (“End 2019”) to instead refer to “Ongoing” to reflect the continuing efforts being made and to the fourth quarter of 2019 (Q4/2019) to reflect the submission of the said reports to the next Assembly.

128. In light of the Committees’ oral reports and the discussion, the Council endorsed the proposed actions outlined in Appendices A to E of C-WP/14556, as amended in paragraphs 122, 123, 126 and 127 above, which it confirmed would effectively respond to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39 relating to policy and administrative subjects.

Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Economic development of air transport

129. This subject was considered on the basis of: C-WP/14545, in which the Secretary General proposed actions to implement Assembly Resolution A39-15 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies in the air transport field), as well as other resolutions and decisions relating to the economic development of air transport; and an oral report thereon by the Air Transport Committee (ATC), which had reviewed the paper at its First Meeting of the current session on 18 January 2017.

Oral report by the ATC

130. The ATC had focused its consideration on the proposed actions presented in the Appendix to C-WP/14545. There had been general agreement that the actions outlined therein responded to the implementation of the resolutions and decisions of A39. Some discussion had taken place concerning several specific proposed actions, as follows:

a) with respect to the action on the Global Air Transport Plan (GATP) (p. A-1), the Committee had taken note of the caution expressed by some Members over the status of such a Plan in comparison to the Global Air Navigation Plan (GANP) or the

C-MIN 210/6 -144-

Global Aviation Security Plan (GASeP), given the difference between the two in terms of their nature and ICAO’s mandates in the respective fields. It had also noted the clarification on the intent of the initiative and the procedures to be followed, including the involvement of the ATC’s concerned panels to first examine the proposed concept of the GATP and provide recommendations for consideration by the governing bodies. It had been agreed to recommend that the word “framework” be replaced by the word “concept” in the text accompanying the time-frame/target date for implementation;

b) support had been expressed for the continuation of the work related to international agreements for air transport liberalization in light of its importance, as well as for work related to “smart regulation principles” which was considered useful for States in their regulatory practice (p. A-1 and A-2 respectively).

c) there had been general support for ICAO’s activities in the area of consumer protection (p. A-2). The Committee had noted the view that attention should be given to harmonize States’ practices for the benefit of the travelling public and operators. It had also been recognized that the ICAO core principles on consumer protection are high-level, non-binding and non-prescriptive guidance for States. The Secretariat had been requested to bear those in mind when conducting work in that area.

d) with regard to proposed actions related to aviation data and analysis, attention had been drawn to those aspects touching on environmental protection which will need appropriate coordination with other bodies of ICAO in charge of environmental protection. The Committee had agreed that work on aviation data and analysis involving the implementation of Assembly Resolutions A39-2 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Climate change) and A39-3 [Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Global Market- based Measure (MBM) Scheme] (p. A-5 and A-6 respecti vel y) should be undertaken in consultation and coordination with concerned ICAO bodies and groups of experts on environmental protection.

Discussion

131. The Council agreed to the ATC’s recommendation that the text accompanying the time- frame/target date for implementation for the GATP (p. A-1) be amended by replacing the word “framework” with the word “concept”. In addition, the President suggested that the Secretariat replace the term “smart regulation” used in the title and description of the second proposed action to implement the Assembly’s decision set forth in A39-WP/518, paragraph 39.26 (p. A-2) with a more appropriate term.

132. In the absence of further comments, the Council, as recommended by the ATC, then endorsed the proposed actions outlined in the Appendix to C-WP/14545, as amended above, which it confirmed would effectively respond to the implementation of Assembly Resolution A39-15 and other resolutions and decisions of A39 relating to the economic development of air transport. The Secretariat was requested to taken into consideration the ATC’s comments as set forth in its oral report when conducting the relevant tasks.

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

-145- C-MIN 210/6

Voluntary Air Transport Fund (TRAF)

133. The Council heard the following oral report by the Chairperson of the ATC, the Representative of Kenya, Ms. M.B. Awori, on the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations on the TRAF, which had been based on an oral report by the Secretary General.

134. The ATC had taken note of the fact that some of the tasks in the Work Programme related to the economic development of air transport, although endorsed by the Assembly, were not covered by the Regular Programme Budget and that their ongoing operation would therefore depend on resources made available from extra-budgetary resources, including the TRAF. It had further noted that since the Fund’s establishment in 2014, despite promotion by the Organization to Member States and other donors, only a small amount of contributions had thus far been received.

135. While appreciating the announcement that a few additional contributions were expected in the near future, the Committee had agreed that the Secretariat should continue its efforts to promote the Fund. In that regard, the ATC had encouraged all Member States to make voluntary contributions to the Fund in support of the Organization’s work in the air transport field. In addition, the Committee had noted that the next progress report on the TRAF would be presented as part of the Secretary General’s regular consolidated report on the ICAO Technical Assistance Programme, which would cover all ICAO Voluntary Funds and would be tabled for consideration during the next (211th) session.

136. In noting the above oral report, the Council reiterated the ATC’s appeal to all Member States to make voluntary contributions to the TRAF.

137. Recalling that her State had offered to provide ICAO with a secondee to work as a P-2 Associate Technical Officer, Aviation Security in the Air Transport Bureau (ATB), the Representative of the United Arab Emirates expressed the hope that the approval process would be expedited.

Subject No. 24.3: Action on Assembly resolutions and decisions

Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Environmental protection

138. Tabled for the Council’s consideration was C-WP/14546, in which the Secretary General proposed actions to implement Assembly Resolutions A39-1, A39-2 and A39-3, which, taken together, constitute the consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection (cf. Appendices A, B and C, respectively). The Council’s earlier decision (209/3) regarding the overall plan of activities in preparation for the implementation of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) pursuant to Assembly Resolution A39-3 was duly reflected in Appendix C.

139. The Representative of Ireland noted that, in general, she was very supportive of C-WP/14546, in particular, of Appendix C thereto which set forth concrete actions needed to implement CORSIA. The Representatives of Spain and Japan likewise voiced support for the proposed actions to implement Assembly Resolutions A39-1, A39-2 and A39-3. In so doing, the Representative of Spain drew attention to Appendix C and highlighted the need to not only closely monitor the progress of implementation of each of the proposed actions relating to the basket of measures to address CO2 emissions from international aviation but also identify the improvements resulting from their implementation.

140. With respect to Assembly Resolution A39-1 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – General provisions, noise and local

C-MIN 210/6 -146-

air quality), note was taken of the comments/suggestions then made regarding the following proposed actions:

• Appendix A, General, paragraph 3 – the need to consider the use of existing tools to assess the present and future impact of global aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions given the high cost of developing such tools from scratch, as highlighted by the Representative of Ireland and supported by the Representatives of Spain and France; • Appendix A, General, paragraph 5 – the need to consider existing aviation environmental indicators which States used, as also highlighted by the Representative of Ireland and supported by the Representatives of Spain and France; and

• Appendix A, General, paragraph 9 – the manner in which to publish information being developed by the CAEP which updates information contained in the 1999 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, as highlighted by the Alternate Representative of the United States.

141. With regard to the third bullet of the preceding paragraph, the Deputy Director, Environment (DD/ENV) clarified that although the suggestion made by the Alternate Representative of the United States, that the proposed action for paragraph 9 be amended to reflect that the CAEP’s updated information would be posted on the ICAO website, was in line with the recommendation made at the first Steering Group (SG) Meeting of the CAEP/11 cycle (Washington, D.C. 5-9 December 2016), it would be for the Council to decide on the format of conveying that information when it reviewed the Committee’s related report. For that reason, paragraph 9 made no reference thereto.

142. Recalling that at the 22nd Conference of the Parties (COP/22) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Marrakech, Morocco, 7-18 November 2016) he had made reference to the work being carried out by the CAEP to update information contained in the above-mentioned 1999 IPCC Special Report, the President of the Council indicated that in considering the Committee’s related report, the Council would decide on the manner in which that information would be published, taking into account the said CAEP/11 SG Meeting recommendation. He noted that if the CAEP’s updated information was substantial, then consideration would be given to publishing it as a saleable ICAO document. The IPCC, the UNFCCC and other relevant stakeholders would be informed accordingly.

143. With reference to Assembly Resolution A39-2 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Climate change), note was taken of the comment made by the Representative of South Africa regarding paragraph 18 b) (Best practices on aircraft end-of-life, such as aircraft recycling) on the need to advance the time-frame/target date for the proposed action (February 2019) and to monitor developments in the International Maritime Organization (IMO) relating to the recycling of ships with a view to applying them to the aviation sector. In addition, it was agreed that the following changes be made to the proposed actions for:

• paragraph 2 – the phrase “while emphasizing the need to ensure that international aviation continues to develop in a sustainable manner” be added at the end of the first item, as suggested by the Representative of China and supported by the Representatives of South Africa and the Russian Federation;

-147- C-MIN 210/6

• paragraphs 8 and 9 – the text properly reflect the spirit of those paragraphs, particularly with regard to the conduct of detailed studies to assess the impact of the global aspirational goals, including the impact on growth, as well as the costs in all countries, especially developing countries, as highlighted by the Representative of Saudi Arabia; and

• paragraph 9 – the text should also reflect the need for States to participate in the exploration of a long-term global aspirational goal, as suggested by the Representative of China and supported by the Representatives of South Africa and the Russian Federation.

144. With regard to Assembly Resolution A39-3 [Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Global Market-based Measure (MBM) Scheme], the President underscored, in response to points raised by the Representatives of the Russian Federation and India, that the time-frames/target dates for implementation for the various proposed actions were those set forth in the relevant paragraphs of that Assembly Resolution and in the Council’s previous decision (209/3). While they should therefore be retained, they should be viewed as the last possible dates for completing the actions, and efforts should be made to accelerate CORSIA-related work wherever possible, such as the work related to the establishment of a consolidated central registry under the auspices of ICAO [paragraph 20 g)]. The Council would have the opportunity to discuss the various time-frames/target dates for implementation before it approved the roadmap for CORSIA implementation.

145. Referring to the process for developing CORSIA-related SARPs, the Representative of China emphasized the need for it to be transparent and for the Council to be kept up-to-date regarding work thereon by the CAEP and its Global MBM Technical Task Force (GMTF). He stressed that in developing such SARPs, it was necessary to do an analysis of their potential impact on States, which would include an assessment of, inter alia: the feasibility of the timeframe for the SARPs’ approval process and implementation; and their economic impact, particularly on the growth of air transport in developing countries. While noting that the ANC would probably review pertinent technical aspects of the draft CORSIA-related SARPs, the Representative of China suggested that the Council form a technical group of experts from relevant States to also review the latter and make recommendations to the Council. Referring to the future implementation of the CORSIA-related SARPs following their finalization and adoption by the Council, he called on those States which were compliant therewith to avoid applying unilateral measures on other States that were non-compliant, such as levying a tax on their operators’ international aviation emissions, as that would give rise to barriers to new markets and an uneven playing field. In then drawing attention to the action proposed for paragraph 24 of Assembly Resolution A39-3, the Representative of China sought clarification as to how the Secretariat intended to promote the use of emissions units generated that benefit developing countries and to encourage States to develop domestic aviation related projects.

146. The Representatives of India, South Africa and the Russian Federation endorsed the above intervention by the Representative of China.

147. The President of the Council emphasized that the draft CORSIA-related SARPs would undergo an assessment of their safety impact, financial impact, security impact, environmental impact and efficiency impact as part of the standards-making process followed for all new or improved ICAO SARPs. All States would have the opportunity to participate in that process through the subsequent circulation of the draft CORSIA-related SARPs for comment under cover of a State letter. It was envisaged that, following a review of the responses received, the draft SARPs would be presented to the Council for adoption in a working paper that would also include the said impact assessment, as well as an

C-MIN 210/6 -148-

implementation task list setting forth the essential steps to be followed by States in order to implement the proposed SARPs and an outline of the associated technical guidance material necessary to foster that implementation. The said guidance material would be prepared and made available by the SARPs’ applicability date. The President noted that the CAEP, a technical body, was already assisting the Council in performing the basic CORSIA-related work. Indicating that the mechanism for the review of the said draft SARPs might not necessarily involve the ANC and that another body might be used for that purpose, he suggested that the mechanism be left for consideration when the Council discussed, at its next meeting (210/7), C-WP/14548 [Update on work on a global market-based measure (GMBM) scheme] and the related oral report by the Advisory Group on CORSIA (AGC).

148. The Representative of Japan stressed that his State expected the ANC to perform the full scope of its duties with regard to the CORSIA-related SARPs development process under whatever mechanism was determined by the Council, in consultation with the President of the ANC.

149. The President underscored that the Secretariat should encourage the active participation of the World Bank (WB), as well as other organizations (eg. UNFCCC Secretariat), in the establishment and operationalization of the CORSIA-related infrastructure. In addition, it was agreed that the following changes be made to the proposed actions for Assembly Resolution A39-3:

• paragraphs 15, 20 a), 20 c), 20 e) and 20 f) – the reference made in item 5) to the filing of differences to the CORSIA SARPs be deleted, as suggested by the Representative of Spain; and • paragraph 20 g) – the text be amended to refer to cooperation with the WB, among others, in establishing the central registry, as suggested by the President of the Council in light of a proposal made by the Representative of Ireland and supported by the Representatives of Spain and France.

150. Recalling that a WB representative had provided valuable information on the Bank’s experience with registries at the said CAEP/11 SG Meeting in December 2016, and that a WB representative had attended the last GMTF meeting in February 2017, the Representative of France stressed the need to give the WB access, on a more systematic basis, to CAEP meetings and documents relating to the establishment of the consolidated central registry under the auspices of ICAO to enable the latter to capitalize on its experience and expertise and to create synergies.

151. The following cautionary remarks were noted and would be taken into consideration in carrying out future work arising from Assembly Resolution A39-3:

• paragraph 6, first proposed action – as highlighted by the Representative of France and supported by the Representative of the Russian Federation, the need to allow sufficient time for the conduct of the envisaged environmental studies, surveys and analyses in order to achieve robust results that were consensus-based and to avoid the risk of providing incentives for the development of alternative fuels that might pollute more than fossil fuels in terms of CO2 emissions as that would negatively affect CORSIA’s environmental integrity and ICAO’s credibility; and • paragraph 6, second proposed action – the experts might not complete the methodology to account for the use of sustainable alternative fuels in an aircraft operator’s offsetting requirement under CORSIA by the indicated time-frame/target date of June 2018, as highlighted by the Representative of Ireland and supported by the Representative of France.

-149- C-MIN 210/6

152. Referring to paragraph 9 d) of Assembly Resolution A39-3 on the update of information on volunteer States in CORSIA, the Representative of Ireland recalled that her State had volunteered to participate in the scheme’s pilot phase and first phase and appealed to other States to so volunteer as soon as possible, as did the Representative of France.

153. Noting that his State and other States which had not yet volunteered were closely monitoring developments, the Representative of India emphasized that it would be helpful if more of the States which had declared their intention to voluntarily participate in the pilot phase and the first phase of the CORSIA at the 39th Session of the Assembly actually volunteered. Recalling, from the list posted on the ICAO website, that of the 66 States which had declared their intention only 16 States had volunteered in response to State letter ENV 6/1 – 16/87 dated 9 September 2016, he enquired whether the Secretariat planned to take follow-up action.

154. DD/ENV clarified that the Secretariat regarded any form of pronunciation by a State of its willingness to voluntarily participate in the CORSIA from its outset, whether a response to the said State letter or any other communication, as a declaration by that State. She noted that, as requested by the Council, the said list of States which had declared their intention to voluntarily participate in the scheme included an indication of the source of that information. DD/ENV emphasized that unless a State had subsequently communicated to ICAO the withdrawal of its willingness to participate in the CORSIA, it was included in the list.

155. In supporting the interventions by the Representatives of China and India, the Representative of South Africa stressed the need for States, at all times, to embrace the spirit of multilateralism, which had enabled ICAO to become the organization that it was today, and to reject unilateralism.

156. Noting that recent research showed that the use of alternative aviation fuels was extremely inefficient, and that it was estimated by the CAEP’s GMTF that only up to 3 per cent of international aviation fuel consumption could consist of such fuels in 2020, the Representative of the Russian Federation suggested that alternative aviation fuels be excluded from the said basket of measures as they would not enable any significant progress to be made in reducing CO2 emissions from international aviation. The President of the Council indicated that his concerns would be addressed through the proposed actions set forth in Appendix B to the paper.

157. The above comments on Assembly Resolution A39-3, including the process for developing CORSIA-related SARPs, were noted.

158. In then concluding its consideration of C-WP/14546, the Council endorsed the proposed actions outlined in Appendices A, B and C thereto, as amended in paragraphs 140, 143 and 149 above, which it confirmed would effectively respond to the implementation of Assembly Resolutions A39-1, A39-2 and A39-3, respectively.

159. The meeting adjourned at 1300 hours.

-151- C-MIN 210/7

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 3 MARCH 2017, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

PRESENT: Algeria — Mr. A.D. Mesroua Kenya — Ms. M.B. Awori Argentina — Mr. G.E. Ainchil Malaysia — Mr. Y.-H. Lim Australia — Mr. S. Lucas Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Brazil — Mrs. M.G. Valente da Costa Nigeria — Mr. M.S. Nuhu Cabo Verde — Mr. C. Monteiro Panama — Mr. G.S. Oller Canada — Ms. W. Drukier Republic of Korea — Mr. J. Hur China — Mr. Shengjun Yang Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov Colombia — Mr. A. Muñoz Gómez Saudi Arabia — Mr. S.A.R. Hashem Congo — Mr. E. Anguesomo (Alt.) Singapore — Mr. T.C. Ng Cuba — Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri South Africa — Mr. M.D.T. Peege Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado Egypt — Mr. A. Khedr Sweden — Ms. H. Jansson Saxe France — Mr. P. Bertoux Turkey — Mr. A.R. Çolak Germany — Mr. U. Schwierczinski United Arab Emirates — Miss A. Alhameli India — Mr. A. Shekhar United Kingdom — Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) Ireland — Mrs. A. Smith Floch United Republic of Tanzania — Mr. R.W. Bokango Italy — Mr. M.R. Rusconi United States — Mr. S. Kotis (Alt.) Japan — Mr. S. Matsui Uruguay — Mrs. M. Gonzalez (Alt.)

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Mr. H. Yoshimura ― President, ANC Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Hupe ― DD/ENV Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. R. Macfarlane ― DD/AN Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mr. T. Tanaka ― C/CC Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. A. Larcos ― ACC Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Miss A. Tyo ― Précis-writer Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay

C-MIN 210/7 -152-

Representatives to ICAO

Cyprus Equatorial Guinea Greece Indonesia Lebanon Paraguay Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Airports Council International (ACI) European Union (EU)

-153- C-MIN 210/7

Subject No. 14.1.1: International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)

Adoption of Amendment 12 to Annex 16, Volume I

1. Tabled for the Council’s consideration was C-WP/14567, which presented a proposal by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) for Amendment 12 to Annex 16 – Environmental Protection, Volume I – Aircraft Noise. The proposed amendment addressed technical issues arising from the Tenth Meeting of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP/10) (Montréal, 1-12 February 2016) associated with the development and application of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for aircraft noise certification.

2. In introducing C-WP/14567, the President of the Air Navigation Commission (P/ANC) outlined that the proposed Amendment included harmonization of language used to define reference atmospheric parameters, removal of differences to outdated flightpath measurement techniques, corrections to guidelines for noise certification of tilt-rotors, and changes to deal with general technical, nomenclature and typographical issues. He added that in support of this amendment, the Environmental Technical Manual (Doc 9501), Volume I – Procedures for Noise Certification of Aircraft would be updated by April 2017.

3. The Representative of Germany advised that while his State had agreed without comment to the proposed Amendment to Annex 16, Volume I, he nonetheless was seeking clarification on a few issues. Referring first to the new section on Nomenclature: Symbols and Units, beginning on page C-2 of Appendix C to C-WP/14567, he had noted that other Annexes did not contain this type of information and was curious as to why this section was being introduced into the Annex. He also questioned the narrow scope of some of the definitions contained in this new section, stating that, for example, certain terms applied to much wider ranges of aircraft than were reflected in the definition. He also requested clarification behind the rationale for the amendment of certain formulas contained in the Annex.

4. Offering clarification on the first point raised by the Representative of Germany, P/ANC advised that the decision to introduce the section on Nomenclature: Symbols and Units had been taken to correct existing symbols, and amalgamate the information into one section to improve readability for the users.

5. Following from the above comments, the Deputy Director, Environment Branch (DD/ENV), reminded that the work programme of the CAEP as approved by the Council included the task of harmonization of Annex 16, as it related to the work performed in the certification of aircraft. Therefore, while some of the changes proposed could appear minor, it was a matter of harmonization throughout the Annex to present the highest consistency possible. This work presented a challenge when addressing changes to some of the definitions in chapters that had been used for a long time and where certification had been done for many aircraft. Precision was required as well as an effort to avoid unintended consequences in the certification of future aircraft. In short, the intent of the experts was to harmonize the material, while acknowledging that there existed limitations to doing so.

6. The Council, by 36 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, adopted, as Amendment 12 to Annex 16, Volume I, the amendments to the Definitions and the SARPs as contained in Appendix C to C-WP/14567. The Council also approved, as part of the said Amendment, the amendments to the Notes and Attachments as contained in that same Appendix C. In addition, the Council approved the Resolution of Adoption set forth in Appendix D and, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to the Foreword of Annex 16, Volume I, as set forth in Appendix E.

C-MIN 210/7 -154-

7. It was noted that, having examined the technical circumstances associated with the implementation of the Amendment, the ANC considered that an effective date of July 2017 and a proposed applicability date of 1 January 2018 would be suitable for the implementation of these provisions.

Subject No. 14.1.1: International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)

Adoption of Amendment 9 to Annex 16, Volume II

8. The Council considered C-WP/14568, which presented a proposal by the ANC for Amendment 9 to Annex 16 – Environmental Protection, Volume II – Aircraft Engine Emissions. The amendment proposal concerned the introduction of new non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) SARPs and general technical improvements to Volume II.

9. In introducing the Working Paper, P/ANC outlined the contents of the proposed amendment which in addition to the introduction of new SARPs addressing non-volatile Particle Matter (nvPM) included general technical improvements to Annex 16, Volume II. He added that in support of this amendment, the Environmental Technical Manual (Doc 9501), Volume II – Procedures for the Emissions Certification of Aircraft Engines would be updated by April 2017.

10. The Representative of South Africa referred to Section 3 of C-WP/14568, as well as to a similar item in C-WP/14567, regarding the issue of cost impact. Noting that in several instances, the possible cost impacts of the amendment on States and industry were deemed likely to be low, he opined that low was a relative concept and wished clarification on the measures used to arrive at this conclusion. He then made a request that the Council be provided with a brief summary of noise and performance levels of older fleets in order to better grasp the improvements that had taken place in aviation.

11. The comments from the Representative of South Africa were noted. It was understood that this would be later determined whether this request would be addressed via an informal briefing or an information paper.

12. The Council, by 36 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, adopted, as Amendment 9 to Annex 16, Volume II, the amendments to the Definitions and the SARPs as contained in Appendix C to C-WP/14568. The Council also approved, as part of the said Amendment, the amendments to the Notes and Attachments as contained in that same Appendix C. In addition, the Council approved the Resolution of Adoption set forth in Appendix D and, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to the Foreword of Annex 16, Volume II, as set forth in Appendix E.

13. It was noted that, having examined the technical circumstances associated with the implementation of the Amendment, the ANC considered that an effective date of July 2017 and a proposed applicability date of 1 January 2018 would be suitable for the implementation of these provisions, with the exception of the proposed nvPM Standard applicable to turbofan and turbojet engines with rated thrust greater than 26.7kN, for which there was a proposed embedded applicability date of 1 January 2020.

Subject No. 14.1.1: International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)

Adoption of the First Edition of Annex 16, Volume III

-155- C-MIN 210/7

14. The Council reviewed C-WP/14569, whereby the ANC presented a proposal for the first edition of Volume III – Aeroplane CO2 Emissions of Annex 16 – Environmental Protection which related to the introduction of a new CO2 emissions certification Standard for aeroplanes.

15. In his introduction, P/ANC described that the proposed first edition of Annex 16, Volume III concerned the introduction of a new CO2 emissions certification Standard for aeroplanes, and that in support of this amendment, a new third volume of the Environmental Technical Manual (Doc 9501), would be published. He concluded his introduction by outlining the process which led to the proposed adoption of this new volume of Annex 16, which took 160 experts approximately 7.5 years, and encompassed 26 meeting and workshops, 419 working papers, 286 information papers, and three informal briefings to the ANC.

16. The Representative of the Republic of Korea commented on the structure of the provisions in the proposed new volume of Annex 16. He queried, bearing in mind the complexity of the Annex, whether consideration could be given, in the long term, to revising the structure in order to separate the high-level provisions from the very detailed technical provisions.

17. The Representative of Colombia offered his congratulations to all those who contributed to the work on the new Standard. He expressed his pleasure with the introduction of a two per cent annual reduction in emissions through this new measure and voiced his desire that this would also be covered in the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

18. With regard to paragraph 3.3.1 on cost impact, which stated that aeroplane design would need to comply with the proposed CO2 Standard, the Representative of South Africa queried how this demand for compliance would be transmitted to the aircraft manufacturers.

19. The President of the Council clarified that the State of Manufacture of the aircraft would be responsible for ensuring compliance by the aircraft manufacturers. Additionally, addressing the query from the Representative of the Republic of Korea, the President reminded that some annexes such as Annex 8 and Annex 18 focused on high-level provisions, and the guidance material related to these Annexes also had to be complied with. However, converting other Annexes to this style would in some cases be a herculean task.

20. The President of the Council also took the opportunity to offer his congratulations to the members of the CAEP, the ANC and the Secretariat for their work and to underscore the importance of the adoption of the new volume of Annex 16. The Standard was the first-ever CO2 emission Standard adopted by any sector, and this fact needed to be transmitted to the global community, as it was an important element in the environmental basket of measures. The Secretariat was requested to produce a press release on this achievement, which complemented the other actions taken by ICAO, including in the form of the adoption of the CORSIA. The efforts undertaken with the Global Air Navigation Plan and the ASBU implementation had addressed the other elements in the basket of measures. The remaining element, the use of alternative fuels, would need time to be finalized, but activity in this regard was foreseen in the coming year.

21. The Council, by 36 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, adopted as the first edition of Volume III of Annex 16, the Definitions and SARPs as contained in Appendix C to C-WP/14569. The Council also approved, as part of new Volume III, the Notes and Attachments as contained in that same Appendix C. In addition, the Council approved the Resolution of Adoption set forth in Appendix D and, as part of the said first edition, the Foreword of Annex 16, Volume III, as set forth in Appendix E.

C-MIN 210/7 -156-

22. It was noted that, having examined the technical circumstances associated with the implementation of the new first edition of Annex 16, Volume III, the ANC considered that an effective date of July 2017 and a proposed applicability date of 1 January 2018 would be suitable for the implementation of these provisions, with the exception of the following, for which there were proposed embedded applicability dates as indicated:

a) subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg maximum take-off mass for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020, except for those aeroplanes of less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less;

b) subsonic jet aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 5 700 kg and less than or equal to 60 000 kg maximum take-off mass with a maximum passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or less, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

c) all propeller-driven aeroplanes, including their derived versions, of greater than 8 618 kg maximum take-off mass, for which the application for a type certificate was submitted on or after 1 January 2020;

d) derived versions of non-CO2-certified subsonic jet aeroplanes of greater than 5 700 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which the application for certification of the change in type design was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

e) derived versions of non-CO2-certified propeller-driven aeroplanes of greater than 8 618 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which the application for certification of the change in type design was submitted on or after 1 January 2023;

f) individual non-CO2-certified subsonic jet aeroplanes of greater than 5 700 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which a certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 1 January 2028; and

g) individual non-CO2-certified propeller-driven aeroplanes of greater than 8 618 kg maximum certificated take-off mass for which a certificate of airworthiness was first issued on or after 1 January 2028.

Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Environmental Protection - Recent Developments

23. Tabled for consideration by the Council was Information Paper C-WP/14547, presented by the Secretary General, which reported on recent developments within ICAO in the field of aviation and the environment, including the results of the first CAEP Steering Group Meeting of the CAEP/11 cycle (Washington, D.C. 5-9 December 2016); elaborated on the Organization’s outreach activities, including upcoming ICAO meetings and the States’ Voluntary Action Plans initiative and assistance; and provided details regarding ICAO’s cooperation with other United Nations (UN) bodies, in particular, its attendance at, and the outcomes of, the Twenty-second Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (COP22) (Marrakech, Morocco, 7-18 November 2016) and the Forty-fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Bangkok, Thailand, 17-20 October 2016).

-157- C-MIN 210/7

24. Referring to paragraph 1.7 on CAEP Administrative Issues, and specifically to the question of the concerns related to the CAEP secure portal data use agreement and approaches to be identified to further facilitate access to the CAEP secure portal and CAEP documentation to CAEP members and observers, their advisors, and others that needed to be consulted, the Representative of Ireland queried whether any progress had been made in this regard and whether any timelines had been set for the completion of this work.

25. DD/ENV reported that Secretariat was in the process of developing a presentation for the next Steering Group of CAEP, and further to discussions with the Secretary General it had already been arranged to grant access to Council Members who wanted direct access to the CAEP Global Market- based Measure Technical Task-Force (GMTF) papers, and not only on the results of the Steering Group. She raised the caveat that the papers which could be accessed did not result from the discussions in the CAEP, but rather were the positions for specific members of that group and would not necessarily have gone through the CAEP expert.

26. The President of the Council emphasized that no interested party should be forbidden access to the material on the portal, but reiterated the caveat that Council Representatives should await the final report before raising any comments.

27. The Council noted information paper C-WP/14547. Note was also taken of updated information provided orally by the Secretary General regarding the recent ICAO Alternative Fuels Seminar (Montréal, 8-9 February 2017) as well as the upcoming ICAO Conference on Alternative Fuels, scheduled to take place from 11-13 October 2017 in Mexico.

Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment

Update on Work on a Global Market-based Measure (GMBM) Scheme

28. This subject was considered on the basis of C-WP/14548, presented by the Secretary General and a related oral report by the Advisory Group on Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (AGC). The working paper provided details on the need for additional resources for the preparation of CORSIA implementation, with an outline of the various means for obtaining such resources, progress made in securing some resources, possible risks that would arise in the absence of necessary resources, and the means to mitigate such risks. The paper also provided updated information on the result of the CORSIA-related discussion at the recent CAEP Steering Group meeting in December 2016.

29. It was noted that since its establishment, pursuant to the Council decision (C-DEC 209/3), the AGC had met twice in January and February 2017 and the Chairperson of the AGC (Representative of Mexico) summarized the essential points of these meetings which discussed the need for additional resources for the preparation of CORSIA implementation, as well as the results of the recent CAEP Global Market-based Measure Technical Task Force (GMTF) meeting held in February 2017. It was highlighted that States should be informed of the list of required actions they needed to undertake (e.g. national regulatory framework), with clear timelines for the implementation of CORSIA. The report also outlined the AGC’s next steps, which included the third meeting of the AGC to be held on 8 March 2017, where it would consider the programme and arrangements for regional seminars (27 March to 27 April 2017) and the seminar to be held in Montréal (10 to 11 May 2017). The fourth meeting of the AGC would be held in late May 2017 to review the outcome of the seminars and further progress by CAEP GMTF.

C-MIN 210/7 -158-

30. The President of the Council reminded that the AGC meetings had operated in an open forum, and all Council Representatives had been invited to participate and to submit comments on the GMBM issue.

31. The Representative of the United States voiced his State’s appreciation of the AGC’s report. He also looked forward to further details on the Secretariat’s resource needs and hoped to receive that information in the near future. Turning to paragraph 2.2 of the Oral Report, he drew attention to the fact that in November 2016 the United States provided an expert to ICAO for at least one year to assist with CORSIA implementation. It was therefore respectfully suggested that ICAO review its staffing request in light of the support received from the United States and from others that may not have been taken into account and to provide the AGC with updated information at its next meeting. With regard to the upcoming CORSIA seminars (paragraph 4.1), the United States noted the importance of the involvement of Member States in developing the programme and presentations to be used by the Secretariat at these events, appreciated the significant work carried out by the GMTF to prepare the draft SARPs, and looked forward to discussing this further during the 211th Session of the Council.

32. Turning to the CAEP GMTF’s Interim Programme Assessment Group (IPAG), the Representative of the United States relayed that his State was encouraged by the GMTF’s meaningful work toward an early decision on eligible offset programmes and looked forward to discussing this progress as well during the next Council Session. He expressed the view that the relationship of the Interim Programme Assessment Group (IPAG) to the standing advisory body had been clearly defined in the recommendations that the Council had reviewed in the CAEP/10 report in June 2016 as well as in the IPAG’s Terms of Reference and encouraged the CAEP to include these documents with any materials that would inform the upcoming discussion in June. As a final point, he expressed some confusion vis-à- vis the recommendations contained in paragraph 5.1 c). Reiterating that the GMTF could only make recommendations to Council and could not take decisions, as appeared to be suggested by the wording of 5.1 c), he proposed the following alternative wording:

“c) reiterate that CAEP GMTF is to make recommendations to Council regarding the eligible emissions units to be purchased by aircraft operators under the CORSIA, for Council consideration and approval”.

33. The proposed alternative wording was supported by the Representative of Saudi Arabia.

34. Expressing her State’s pleasure with the progress that had been made recently by the CAEP on the development of the draft CORSIA SARPs and guidance for an MRV system, the Representative of Canada voiced support for the early action process proposed by IPAG as this would allow for the testing of the system before it would be implemented. In terms of the resources required for the CORSIA implementation, it would be important for the Organization to clearly demonstrate how the resources requested would ensure a positive outcome and the smooth implementation of CORSIA in each participating State. Canada also encouraged the building of partnerships to reduce the total costs, as was mentioned in paragraph 2.4 of the Oral Report.

35. Expressing thanks for C-WP/14548 and for the Oral Report of the AGC, the Representative of Ireland was pleased that the situation in relation to the resources being provided by the European Union and Germany had been acknowledged as well as the references to the financial contribution made by the Netherlands. She wished to draw attention that the AGC discussions might have overlooked the capacity-building support directly relevant to the CORSIA that was also being provided by the European Union under the project in the African and Caribbean regions to develop State Action Plans on CO2 emissions reductions. Advising that this EU project would be completed in 2017 this year, she mentioned that internal discussions were already ongoing regarding a new project starting in 2018,

-159- C-MIN 210/7

and that this development should be noted. Anticipating the State letter from the Secretariat seeking additional resources, her Delegation called on all States to consider such a request very seriously. Regarding the recommendations contained in paragraph 5.1 of the Oral Report, she expressed pleasure, as was referenced in the discussion on C-WP/14547, that Council Members would have access to the GMTF documents.

36. Thanking the Secretariat for its working paper and the Chairperson of the AGC for the Oral Report, the Representative of India raised the question of the requirements for additional resources particularly with relation to the facilitation of financial support referenced in paragraph 22 a) of Assembly Resolution A39-3 Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Global Market-based measure (MBM) Scheme. Paragraph 3.3 of C-WP/14548 referred to a possible partnership with the World Bank and an initial estimate by the latter for infrastructure development of $500,000 per State. He expressed the view that, as had been discussed in the recently conducted informal briefing, this point would need to be fine-tuned. He queried whether the Secretariat would be in a position to provide to the Council the exact nature of the requirement across different countries as well as the timeframe in that regard. The other issue that had not been discussed in either the AGC or the informal briefing was how the progress in the GMTF was unfolding particularly in relation to the Emissions Unit Criteria and the timeframe envisaged, both of which were important with respect to India, and queried whether the Secretariat could provide some clarification in this regard.

37. The Representative of Spain encouraged the CAEP and GMTF to continue their work, voicing his satisfaction with the work done thus far, the programme, its goals and its timetable for following through on the request from the Assembly. Admitting that the timetable as proposed was tight, he was of the view that it could nonetheless be met. With regard to the resources required, given the confirmation of a number of contributions from European countries, the United States and others, he proposed that it might be beneficial for the Council to receive an update which would clarify the permanent resources needed versus those requirements which could be covered by secondees. He believed it was important to have a clear picture, given the Organization’s budget for this subject over the next triennium. With regard to the IPAG work, he noted that this work was just beginning and that it would proceed in the future with a more robust mechanism that would have to be developed in the coming months. With regard to the alternative text for paragraph 5.1 c) proposed by the United States, he agreed that the GMTF’s role was an advisory one, rather than that of decision-making.

38. Addressing the concerns expressed by the Representative of India, DD/ENV elucidated that during the informal briefing to the Council and in the discussions of the Council Advisory Group the Secretariat had explained that, at that stage, the estimates and calculations had been those received from the World Bank and that a series of undertakings would need to be done before more specific numbers could be brought before the Council. Outlining the current stage of resourcing, she advised that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had provided an expert to handle the subject of registries and assist the Secretariat with this task, while IT staff in the organization were also being brought in to ensure all bases were covered. Consultations with the World Bank were continuing. This activity was progressing in the CAEP, and the Secretariat was looking into presenting more information to the Advisory Group and in the next briefing on the registries. Information would continue to be collected from States during the series of seminars to be held at the end of March/early April 2017. States were also being asked what they had already implemented, in order to complement the information in the possession of the Secretariat. A registry was also part of the entire exercise that would be approved with the MRV. The more complex the MRV and the SARPs approved for communicating the cancellation of the units, the more complex the registry would have to be. She was not at this stage able to provide a final figure on the registry prior to the full discussion with the Council on the package. It would be necessary first to know the registry’s requirements before discussing its size and complexity. The information would be built as the process progresses, and she reassured the Council that it and the AGC

C-MIN 210/7 -160-

would be kept appraised on the progression of the work. Draft job descriptions had been prepared for the resources needed by the Secretariat, and the Secretary General would be taking action on them upon the conclusion of the current session of the Council.

39. With regard to the work of the IPAG, referred to paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of C-WP/14548, the Representative of the Russian Federation stated that in his understanding, Assembly Resolution A39-3 did not include instructions to the Council to assess emissions unit programmes as suggested in the working paper. He understood that the assessment of emissions unit comprised part of the CORSIA- related activities but queried the basis of the mandate for carrying out work on the assessment of emissions unit programmes. It had been his understanding that the Assembly had merely requested that a standing body be created to assess the emissions units, but not to assess the projects that would be using these units.

40. Turning to the matter of infrastructure development, based on the working paper, the Representative of the Russian Federation estimated that an additional $3.5 million would be needed. He expressed interest in seeing the global picture of the implementation situation, in terms of the funding currently on hand and the additional funding required. Stating that this question was one of reputational risk for the Organization, he believed that the Council would be following this very closely with a view to understanding to what extent ICAO could fulfil the infrastructure development requirements within the timeframe established. The actions required in accordance with adopted Assembly Resolutions, including A39-3, established a very tight implementation deadline of half a year. Therefore he wished to underscore that from 1 January 2019 the MRV implementation would have to have been done in almost all States, and therefore he felt that the Secretariat would need to tally how many States would actually be participating and how many States might be exempted. He reiterated the World Bank’s cost estimate for infrastructure development was significant and expressed interest in seeing a breakdown of the cost components, as his assumption was that the total would in fact be a bit higher.

41. In taking the action proposed by the President of the Council in light of the discussion and the AGC’s recommendations, the Council:

a) reaffirmed that to fulfil the provisions of Assembly Resolution A39-3 Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Global Market-based Measure (MBM) Scheme, the Secretariat was requested to prioritize the allocation of resources for CORSIA- related activities;

b) acknowledged the need for additional resources to undertake preparatory activities for CORSIA implementation, including those to cover additional staff and capacity-building activity in the regions, as described in paragraph 1 of C-WP/14548, and the progress and means to obtain the additional resources, as described in paragraph 2 thereof;

c) welcomed the support that had been provided by various Member States in the form of the secondment of personnel to the Secretariat or voluntary funding to undertake a range of tasks related to the implementation of CORSIA, and in this regard, specifically acknowledged the contributions received to date from Germany, Netherlands, and the United States, as well as from the European Union;

d) noted that as outlined in C-WP/14548 and reported by the AGC, costs to hire two additional officers for MBM-related registries and carbon markets would be

-161- C-MIN 210/7

covered by the voluntary contributions of the Netherlands and the 2016 carry- over budget, while recognizing the need to recruit three additional officers (for work related to environmental analysis, alternative fuels, State action plans) as soon as possible, either on a secondment basis or through voluntary funding; e) noted that as outlined in C-WP/14548 and reported by the AGC, costs arising for the holding of the 2017 regional seminars and other outreach activities, including development of brochures, training kits and practical guidelines/manuals, would be covered by the 2016 carry-over budget, while additional funding and/or other in-kind contributions would be needed to undertake regional seminars in 2018 and beyond; f) requested the Secretary General to issue a State letter that would seek the contribution of additional resources and/or other in-kind contributions, as well as to encourage Member States to build partnerships in cooperating on the implementation of CORSIA and to keep ICAO informed of such partnerships; g) requested the Secretary General to report, at the 212th Session of the Council, on the status of the 2016 carry-over budget as well as the contributions from States and partnerships among States, so that the Council could discuss any further actions to ensure sufficient resources for the purposes of ensuring the timely implementation of CORSIA; h) reaffirmed that all Council Representatives should have access to the CAEP- GMTF secure website, in addition to all documentation relating to CAEP meetings and CAEP Steering Group meetings; i) noted the work being undertaken by the CAEP-GMTF Interim Programme Assessment Group (IPAG) but reiterated that the CAEP-GMTF is to make recommendations regarding the eligible emissions units to be purchased by aircraft operators under the CORSIA, for Council consideration and approval; j) requested that the CAEP-GMTF provide periodic reports to the AGC and the Council on the progress being made regarding the development of CORSIA- related SARPs and guidance in order that appropriate guidance be provided on this area of activity; k) requested that the Secretariat provide a progress report at the 211th Session on the implications for States on the establishment and operationalization of CORSIA-related infrastructure, once the CAEP-GMTF had defined the design features of the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system and registry architecture; and l) noted that the draft text for SARPs and guidance material would be finalized by the time of the next CAEP-GMTF meeting from 5 to 9 June 2017, for approval by the CAEP Steering Group meeting in September 2017, with subsequent consideration by the Air Navigation Commission and the Council, and in this regard delegated the authority to the President to determine the most appropriate review mechanism for undertaking the necessary work in finalizing the SARPs prior to their adoption by the Council.

C-MIN 210/7 -162-

Any other business

Subject No. 50: Appointment of new Observer on the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)

42. In the absence of comments by 23 February 2017 to his e-mail dated 6 February 2017, the President, on behalf of the Council, had approved the nomination of Mr. Michel Adam as the new CAEP Observer from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to replace Mr. Andreas Hardeman, with effect from 24 February 2017.

Subject No. 10: Request from the European Union (EU) to participate as Observer in closed meetings of the Council on aviation security

43. In the absence of comments by 25 January 2017 to the President of the Council’s e-mail dated 12 January 2017, Mr. Christopher Ross, Head of Office, Office of the European Union (EU) in Montréal, had been invited, in accordance with Rule 32 a) of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559), to participate as Observer on behalf of the EU during the 210th Session of the Council’s consideration, in closed session, of all items related to aviation security.

Subject No. 10: Requests from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) to participate as Observers in closed meetings of the Council on aviation security

44. Further to the President of the Council’s e-mails dated 12 January 2017 and 14 February 2017 and the Council’s subsequent decision (cf. C-DEC 210/2, paragraphs 11 and 12), Mr. Michael Comber, Director, ICAO Relations, IATA, and Mr. Nico Voorbach, CANSO Director, ICAO and Industry Affairs, may each only be invited, in accordance with Rule 32 a) of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559), to participate as Observer on behalf of their respective industry organization during the 210th Session of the Council’s consideration, in closed session, of items related to aviation security on a case-by-case basis, provided there was sufficient reason why their respective industry organization should be permitted or invited to attend.

Council working papers presented for information

45. As the President of the Council had not received any requests to have the following information papers tabled for consideration, it was considered that the Council had noted the information provided therein:

• C-WP/14582 — Financial situation of the Organization and Level of the Working Capital Fund (WCF), circulated under cover of PRES OBA/2614 dated 13 February 2017, with a deadline of 23 February 2017 for comments;

• C-WP/14584 — Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled “Comprehensive review of United Nations system support for Small Island Developing States: Initial findings” (JIU/REP/2016/3);

• C-WP/14585 — Report of the JIU entitled “Public information and communications policies and practices in the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/2015/4);

-163- C-MIN 210/7

• C-WP/14586 — Report of the JIU entitled “Review of activities and resources devoted to address climate change in the United Nations system organizations” (JIU/REP/2015/5);

• C-WP/14587 — Report of the JIU entitled “Evaluation of mainstreaming of full and productive employment and decent work by the United Nations system organizations – Summary Report” (JIU/REP/2015/1); and

• C-WP/14588 — Report of the JIU entitled “Succession planning in the United Nations system organizations” (JIU/REP/2016/2), all of which were circulated under cover of PRES OBA/2620 dated 15 February 2017, with a deadline of 22 February 2017 for comments.

Council President Certificates

46. In recalling that in the context of the No Country Left Behind initiative, the Council had established the Council President Certificates in order to recognize Member States from each region that have made significant progress in resolving their safety oversight deficiencies and improving their rate of effective implementation (EI) of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), the President indicated that the following thirteen States would be awarded a Council President Certificate for 2016: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Egypt, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Paraguay, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.

47. The Council noted that a letter would be sent to each of these States concerning their selection and that their achievements would be highlighted through ICAO communications. It was further noted that the certificates would be awarded by the President at the earliest opportunity through appropriate recognition ceremonies.

Report on the COSM recommendations

48. The Council was informed that following their review of the Report on Implementation of Recommendations of the Council Off-site Strategy Meetings (COSM), the Implementation, Strategy and Planning Group (ISPG) would present an oral report thereon at the final meeting of the current session, which was scheduled for Wednesday, 8 March 2017.

49. The meeting adjourned at 1550 hours.

-165- C-MIN 210/8

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 6 MARCH 2017, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General PRESENT: Algeria — Mr. A.D. Mesroua Kenya — Ms. M.B. Awori Argentina — Mr. G.E. Ainchil Malaysia — Mr. Y.-H. Lim Australia — Mr. S. Lucas Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Brazil — Mrs. M.G. Valente da Costa Nigeria — Mr. M.S. Nuhu Cabo Verde — Mr. C. Monteiro Panama — Mr. G.S. Oller Canada — Ms. W. Drukier Republic of Korea — Mr. J. Hur China — Mr. Shengjun Yang Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov Colombia — Mr. A. Muñoz Gómez Saudi Arabia — Mr. S.A.R. Hashem Congo — Mr. R.M. Ondzotto Singapore — Mr. T.C. Ng Cuba — Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri South Africa — Mr. M.D.T. Peege Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado Egypt — Mr. A. Khedr Sweden — Ms. H. Jansson Saxe France — Mr. P. Bertoux Turkey — Mr. A.R. Çolak Germany — Mr. U. Schwierczinski United Arab Emirates — Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) India — Mr. A. Shekhar United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rodmell Ireland — Mrs. A. Smith Floch United Republic of Tanzania — Mr. R.W. Bokango Italy — Mr. M.R. Rusconi United States — Mr. S. Kotis (Alt.) Japan — Mr. S. Matsui Uruguay — Mr. M. Vidal ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mr. J. Bollard (Alt.) ― Australia Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) ― Canada Mr. V. Smith ― D/ADB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. R. Bhalla ― C/FIN Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mr. M. Belayneh ― C/GAT Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mr. O. Myard ― C/EAO Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Mr. A. Detchou ― DD/LP Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. C. Dalton ― C/AMO Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. D. Martinez ― M/TPP Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. J. Huang ― SLO Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Ms. H. Jackson ― EAO Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Ms. L. Kinsella — Ethics Officer Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mr. E. Liapakis ― Ombudsman Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Ms. S. Brand ― C/RPM Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay Mr. A. Opolot ― LEB Mrs. J. Jankovic ― EAO Ms. G.B. Doğan, Head of Ms. H. Thanassoulias ― EAO Department, Directorate General of Ms. M. Weinstein ― LEB Civil Aviation, Turkey Mr. A.O. Yaman, Technical Inspector Ms. O. Bondareva ― LEB Directorate General of Civil Mr. A. Larcos ― ACC Aviation, Turkey Ms. L. Wirtanen ― Précis-writer

C-MIN 210/8 -166-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Cyprus Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Ghana Greece Lebanon Libya Mozambique Paraguay Sudan Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Airports Council International (ACI) European Union (EU)

-167- C-MIN 210/8

Subject No. 14.3.8: Aviation training

Review of Issues relating to the ICAO Aviation Training Policy

1. The Council had for consideration an oral report by the Implementation, Strategy and Planning Group (ISPG) on the outcome of its review of issues relating to the ICAO Aviation Training Policy, which was presented by the Chairperson of the ISPG (Representative of Australia).

Oral Report

“The Council at its fourth meeting during the 209th Session requested the ISPG, in consultation with the Acting Chief, GAT Office (A/C/GAT), to consider, in the context of the ICAO Civil Aviation Training Policy, the issues of the fees charged for training courses offered under partnership agreements concluded between ICAO and third parties and the generation of revenue to support organizational priorities through the ARGF, as well as the issue of standardizing the title, scope and evaluation of Civil Aviation Management Programmes jointly developed with ICAO under a partnership agreement, and to present any proposals thereon to the Council during the next (210th) Session (C DEC 209/4 refers).

The ISPG at its first meeting during the 210th Session on 23 February 2017 received a report from the GAT Office on the issues raised by the Council. The ISPG was informed of the recent fee reduction by 25% (from US$4 000 to US$3 000) of the joint ICAO-Concordia University Certificate in Strategic Management, which the ISPG welcomed. The ISPG noted many of the activities of the GAT Office differ from other ICAO activities, as they operate on a full cost-recovery basis, in accordance with the ICAO Civil Aviation Training Policy set by the Council. The GAT Office outlined the development of an ICAO Pricing Policy on the fee structure of GAT products and services which is being finalized by the Secretariat for Council’s consideration during 2017. The Pricing Policy, which will comply with the Civil Aviation Training Policy, will include pricing rationale, assumptions, price structure, benchmarking of ICAO training fees, the establishment of a reserve fund, and a scholarship for trainees from States with Effective Implementation (EI) rates below 60%.

The ISPG also discussed the importance of ensuring training is responsive to needs. The ISPG noted the ICAO Training Board, chaired by the Secretary General and composed of Bureau Directors, to address cross-cutting training policy issues and endorse annual priorities, and an ICAO Training Working Group to facilitate inter-Bureau/Office coordination for the development and delivery of ICAO training. The ISPG welcomed these efforts to coordinate activities and needs.

The ISPG recommends that the Council note with appreciation the significant reduction in the fees for the ICAO-Concordia University Certificate course, and urge continued rigorous attention to fee levels. The ISPG concluded that the forthcoming Pricing Policy should give more transparency to training fees, and as it is planned to be submitted to the Council during 2017, there was no need for the ISPG to present specific proposals on these issues during this session.”

Discussion

2. Noting that programmes similar to the ICAO-Concordia University John Molson School of Business (JMSB) Certificate in Strategic Management were offered by the Singapore Aviation Academy, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and the Korean School of Aviation for half of the price, the Representative of South Africa remarked that a global indication on pricing for comparison purposes would be beneficial.

C-MIN 210/8 -168-

3. The President of the Council suggested that a comparative pricing analysis be conducted by the Secretariat in addition to the Pricing Policy which would be tabled for consideration by the Council in its 211th Session.

4. While underscoring the importance of training for States and its contribution to aviation safety, the Representative of Malaysia sought clarification on the rationale for the recent fee reduction of twenty-five per cent from US$ 4000 to US$ 3000 for the ICAO-JMSB Certificate in Strategic Management.

5. The Representative of Mexico considered that completely separating the Global Aviation Training (GAT) activities from the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) when developing the Pricing Policy would allow the prices of future courses to be competitive.

6. Addressing the comments raised by the Representatives of Malaysia, Mexico and South Africa, the Deputy Director, Technical Cooperation Bureau (DD/TCB) indicated that benchmarking had been used in preparing the pricing policy to evaluate competitiveness or accessibility of ICAO training products with other training provided by international organizations and education providers. He remarked that the benchmarking exercise had shown that pricing for five- to ten-day and fifteen-day courses offered by ICAO were more cost effective, twenty-five per cent lower, than those offered by other competitors in the aviation field; online courses were in line with the average pricing offered by competitors; and executive programmes such as the ICAO-JMSB Executive Certificate Programme in Civil Aviation Management were priced lower than others.

7. With respect to the reduction in fees, DD/TCB noted that a meeting had been held with the Advisory Board established under the ICAO-JMSB MoU and some variables had been identified in the fee structure that could be adjusted without affecting the quality of the course. One example was to use case studies based on ICAO experience instead of paying royalty fees for case studies from Harvard University and Stanford University, which reduced the cost and made the course more relevant for the participants. With respect to the contribution to the ARGF, which was reflected in the triennial budget, DD/TCB noted that this issue had been considered when developing the pricing assumptions and price structure. He indicated that the Pricing Policy would also provide details on the introduction of a reserve fund that would offer reasonable fees and scholarships to some States that had effective implementation (EI) levels of less than sixty per cent.

8. In sharing the view expressed by the Representative of Mexico, the Representative of Spain reiterated the need for the Council to address, at some point later in the year, to what extent the Global Aviation Training (GAT) activities should be decoupled from the ARGF.

9. In likewise supporting the comments of the Representative of Mexico, the Representative of Colombia stated that activities such as GAT, which assisted States in the implementation of SARPs, should not be related to Revenue and Product Management (RPM), adding that a better approach would be to target organizations with funding for aviation.

10. The Secretary General noted that the GAT Office had made great efforts to reduce the fees in order to provide services to Member States and, in particular, for those States in need of training. With respect to the comments made by the Representatives of Mexico and Spain on decoupling the GAT activities from the ARGF, she recalled that an increase of 26 per cent in the ARGF contribution to the Regular Programme Budget had been included in the 2017-2018-2019 budget. In highlighting that the element of training had been included in the Secretariat’s commitment to the ARGF surplus, the Secretary General proposed that the Council might wish to consider this issue during the next budget cycle.

-169- C-MIN 210/8

11. In recalling that the Council had been informed that the courses would conducted on a cost-recovery basis, the Representative of Malaysia remarked that the report from the ISPG had not made reference to this point. He suggested that this information be included in the Pricing Policy and future reports.

12. In concluding consideration of this item, it was noted that a pricing policy was currently being developed, which would highlight the cost-recovery nature of GAT activities as well as include a pricing rationale, assumptions, price structure, benchmarking of ICAO training fees, provision for the establishment of a reserve fund and a scholarship system to be available for trainees from States with Effective Implementation (EI) rates below 60 per cent. In addition, it was understood that the Secretariat would undertake a continuous revision of fees to ensure cost-effectiveness and affordability of ICAO training products and services.

13. The Council also expressed agreement with the conclusion reached by the ISPG that the forthcoming Price Policy should provide more transparency to training fees. In this regard, it was noted that this policy would be presented for consideration by the Council at the 211th Session (June 2017).

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

Request of the International Satellite System for Search and Rescue (International Cospas-Sarsat Programme) for inclusion in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO Meetings

14. The Council had for review C-WP/14571, in which the President of the Council presented a request from the International Satellite System for Search and Rescue (International Cospas-Sarsat Programme) for inclusion in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO Meetings. In doing so, the Council noted that Cospas-Sarsat is a leading international agency in coordinating search and rescue efforts worldwide and which declares its mission as providing accurate, timely and reliable distress alert and location data to help search and rescue authorities.

15. In highlighting the important work carried out by Coscap-Sarsat on the update of the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS) and the new generation of emergency locator transmitters (ELTs) and beacons, the Representative of Spain expressed his unreserved support for their inclusion in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO Meetings.

16. Responding to a query on the size of the Coscap-Sarsat Secretariat, the Chief, Airspace Management and Optimization Section (C/AMO) indicated that although the Secretariat was relatively small, their personnel was very active and maintained a close collaborative relationship with ICAO.

17. Noting that France was currently the Chair of the Cospas-Sarsat Council, the Representative of France voiced strong support for their request and, in view of the interaction and convergence of goals between ICAO and Cospas-Sarsat, he expressed surprise that they had not already been included in the List. The Representative of Turkey likewise fully supported and welcomed the addition of Cospas-Sarsat in the List.

18. Following consideration, the Council approved the request from Cospas-Sarsat to be included in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO Meetings as observer.

C-MIN 210/8 -170-

Subject No. 16: Legal work of the organization Subject No. 24.3: Action on Assembly resolutions and decisions

Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – legal subjects

19. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14572, which presented a report on actions arising from resolutions and decisions related to legal subjects, emanating from the Legal Commission of the 39th Session of the Assembly. In doing so, the Council recalled that previously during the fourth meeting of the 209th Session, a detailed discussion had taken place on the actions taken by the 39th Session of the Assembly regarding the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee.

20. While expressing support for the paper, the Representative of Mexico referred to paragraph 2.2.1 and highlighted the importance of all items on the work programme and the order of priority which had stemmed from modifications made by the Council and observations of the Legal Committee. Drawing attention to subparagraph 8 of Article 21 – Report of registrations of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), he underscored the need to consider this issue carefully in terms of efficiency because the aim of the article was to promote better aircraft traceability and safety. With respect to paragraph 2.3, he remarked that the Council would need to provide very clear instructions on the expectations from the Legal Committee on the issue of conflict zones in order to avoid confusion and duplication of work. This was noted.

21. With respect to the issue of conflict zones, the President of the Council noted that the action on this issue would need to be based on a review of the recommendations that would be considered by the Council in due course on this specific item. Once the Council had the opportunity to give further consideration to all the issues, it would then be possible to determine whether more work on this specific issue would be required.

22. Following from the comments raised by the Representative of Mexico, the Representative of France also drew attention to the importance of the Article 21 issue and sought clarification on the timeline, on page A-1, for the proposed action. Remarking that the survey could bring limited feedback due to the technical and complex nature of this issue, he noted that additional work would be useful and suggested that an expert group working in parallel to the survey be considered, in order to best prepare the Legal Committee discussions. Indeed, the Representative of France queried whether the Chairperson of the Legal Committee had been contacted in regard to the preparation of the meeting and so that a discussion could already take place on how the survey would dovetail with the work of the Committee and the expected timeframe. The Representative noted that the dates for the meeting would at this stage have to be taken as tentative and could only be confirmed once consultations had taken place with the Chairperson of the Committee.

23. Responding to this query, the Director of the Legal Affairs and External Relations Bureau (D/LEB) advised that he had held discussions with the Chairman of the Legal Committee, and noted that the expectation was to first send out the questionnaire, which would provide a clearer idea on the issues and, after a meeting of the expert group later in the year, to draft an initial report for the Legal Committee.

24. Drawing attention to an editorial correction on page A-1, the Representative of the Russian Federation requested that the title and subject of the item on conflict zones be amended to ensure consistency with the wording used in previous documentation on the same subject, including working papers that had been presented at the thirty-ninth session of the Assembly in September/October 2016.

25. In expressing support for the paper, the Representative of South Africa drew attention to A39-WP/507 and requested an update from D/LEB on the status of: contributions to the Assad Kotaite

-171- C-MIN 210/8

Graduate and Postdoctoral Fellowship Fund (Appendix D); the work of the Task Force on Legal Aspects of Unruly Passengers including the review of contents of a Model Legislation on Certain Offences Committed on Board Aircraft (Appendix E); and regional coordination to develop mechanisms necessary to address any legal or institutional issues that could inhibit the implementation of CNS-ATM in the region (Appendix F).

26. D/LEB explained that this paper had focused only on the new elements of the work programme which were introduced by the Assembly and did not include ongoing items. He indicated that the status of items on the work programme of the Legal Committee had been addressed by the Council a number of times over the past two years. Responding to the queries raised by the Representative of South Africa, D/LEB informed that the Assad Kotaite Graduate and Postdoctoral Fellowship Fund was administered by the Technical Cooperation Bureau and held a balance at the end of 2015 of approximately $21 000, noting that the disbursements from the fund were usually about $5 000 per student in various other aspects of aviation.

27. On the issue of unruly passengers, D/LEB noted that the “Diplomatic Conference to Consider Amending the Tokyo Convention of 1963”, which had been held in 2014, had resulted in the adoption of a protocol to the Montreal Convention and a resolution requesting ICAO to update a circular on unruly passengers which contained a degree of suggested text for model legislation. He added that the task force had met twice and was expected to meet one last time in the forthcoming week to provide its input into updating the circular. Referring to the issue of using regional cooperation for the promotion of CNS-ATM, it was also indicated that the work had not yet progressed to the stage where work was required from ICAO. It was noted that although some input had been received from different regions, the work was largely at an early stage in the regions. Some funding had supported regional activities in Africa, for example, whereas in other regions the work was still only at the discussion level.

28. Referring to the open-ended timeframe for implementation of the Review of the Application of ICAO Treaties relating to Conflict Zones, the Representative of Malaysia recalled that the Council had noted the fourth quarter of 2019 as the timeframe, and suggested that this item be aligned accordingly. The President of the Council concurred with the proposal with the inclusion of the proviso if Council considered it necessary to undertake further work.

29. Voicing support for the Council action on the conflict zones with the clarifications, the Representative of Spain also concurred with the suggestions made by the Representatives of Mexico and France in regard to expediting the implementation of Article 21 of the Chicago Convention. In remarking that Item 4 of the General Work Programme of the Legal Committee related to CNS/ATM systems had not been included as a new action item, he underscored that this issue would become increasingly important to address for which legal aspects would need to be clarified. Noting that there was a trend towards global systems for communications, air navigation and surveillance as well as for air traffic management, he indicated that the introduction of a new global system for surveillance based on ADS-B was planned for 2018. This was noted.

30. Commenting on CNS/ATM systems, the Representative of Colombia indicated that this topic had not elicited much discussion in the Legal Commission and he suggested that more involvement from legal experts in this issue would be beneficial. He then noted that the paper referred to a review of both Assembly resolutions and decisions, whereas the Assembly Resolutions in Force (Doc 10075) only contained the resolutions. He proposed that consideration be given to amending this document to include both resolutions and decisions. In response, the President of the Council observed that amending a long- standing and substantial document such as the Assembly Resolutions in Force (Doc 10075) would have resource and financial implications for the Organization and therefore other options might need to be considered to accommodate this.

C-MIN 210/8 -172-

31. In expressing strong support for the paper, the Representative of Canada echoed the views of other Representatives who had highlighted the importance of Item 8 on the implementation of Article 21 of the Chicago Convention. She remarked on the added value of conducting the survey and moving forward on this issue more quickly.

32. The President of the Council indicated that the Secretariat would take note of the comments raised by the Representatives of Canada, France, Mexico and Spain; would progress the work quickly; and would consider whether a Secretariat study group or task force would be needed, in collaboration with the Air Navigation Bureau (ANB).

33. In expressing appreciation to the Representatives of the Council for their advice, the Secretary General highlighted the importance of legal affairs and its support to programme activities, and indicated that the Secretariat would ensure that the programme activities would be well coordinated, in particular with the legal area, and delivered on time.

34. In concluding its consideration of this Council, it was agreed to amend the proposed action relating to “Review of the Application of ICAO Treaties relating to Conflict Zones”, so that it would now read: “Pending reconsideration by the Council, when the work programme in other areas is completed in the fourth quarter of 2019”.

35. As regards the item dealing with the “Implementation of Article 21 of the Chicago Convention”, it was acknowledged that, depending on the outcome of the analysis of the questionnaire, the Secretariat would assess in liaison with the Chairman of the Legal Committee, the need for the establishment of a study group or task force, with a view to facilitating the work of the Legal Committee.

Subject No. 11: ICAO publication policy Subject No. 18.14: Other finance matters for consideration by Council

Report on Access to top-selling publications

36. The Council considered this item on the basis of information paper C-WP/14573, which pursuant to the Council’s decision at the sixth meeting of the 206th Session, reported on the impact of providing Member States with free access to up to 25 electronic copies of the five top-selling ICAO publications. The Council also had for consideration an oral teport thereon from the Chairperson of the Finance Committee.

37. The Chairperson of the Finance Committee (FIC) (Representative of the United Kingdom) presented the Oral Report on the FIC’s consideration of C-WP/14573, which had taken place on 27 January 2017. In presenting the summary, the Chairperson advised that during its discussions, the Committee had noted that a survey had revealed that 80 per cent of Member States required ten or less electronic copies of the five top-selling publications, and that only four States had indicated that they needed twenty-five copies of all top-selling publications. In terms of the financial impact of providing free copies to States, the initial impact on the revenues of the Ancillary Revenue Generating Fund (ARGF) was understood to be limited. The Committee has also stressed the need to protect the intellectual property of the Organization. In conclusion, the Committee had noted that the current system of access to top-selling publications seemed to be functioning adequately for the time being and supported continued monitoring of the arrangement by the Secretariat.

38. In closing consideration of C-WP/14573, Council noted that the system was progressing well and that no further action was required at this time.

-173- C-MIN 210/8

Subject No. 11.1: Publications regulations

Amendment to the ICAO Publications Regulations (Doc 7231)

39. The Council considered this item on the basis of information paper C-WP/14574, which summarized the amendments introduced to the ICAO Publications Regulations (Doc. 7231) as a result of the implementation of the ICAO Policy on Publications as approved by the Council on 13 November 2015 (C-DEC 206/6).

40. Introducing C-WP/14573, the Secretary General remarked that the paper summarized the amendments to Doc. 7231 which she had approved under the authority delegated by the Council. She indicated that a new edition had been published effective 18 February 2017, as amended in the framework of the ICAO Policy on Publications approved by the Council. She noted that the amendment reflected the Council’s decisions with the principal goal of regulating States’ access to ICAO publications during the 2017-2018-2019 triennium. As confirmed by the Council, controlled access would be provided to the five top-selling publications for up to twenty-five users per State as well as unrestricted access to all other publications on the ICAO-NET. The Secretary General noted that consequently Article IX – Distribution of Publications, had been amended to reflect the changes on the modalities for distribution of publications in electronic format and the distribution procedure for publications in paper format had also been amended. Pursuant to the decision of the Council (C-DEC 206/6), the administrative instructions for the implementation of the ICAO Policy on Publications had been issued on the implementation guidelines and procedures. She explained that the administrative instructions outlined the procedures for pricing as well as copyright and provided the list of the top-selling publications that were available to States through a controlled environment and presented the structure for the coordination of publications activities and reporting to the Council. She also indicated that ICAO had launched a consultation process with States on access to ICAO publications and a separate report on this subject would be presented to Council subsequently in the current session (C-WP/14573 refers).

41. Drawing attention to the Appendix, page A-5, paragraph 2 b), the Representative of Germany recalled that questions had arisen, during lengthy discussions on the topic of providing free publications in paper format, on the logic of substituting a free electronic publication for one in paper when electronic distribution was free of charge. As such, he had understood that free publications in paper format would be provided according to the free quota rather than instead of electronic copies.

42. While sharing the concern expressed by the Representative of Germany, the Representative of the Russian Federation referred to the Appendix, Article XII, which he suggested be amended by deleting the last sentence as it was a duplication of the text in Article XIII. He then questioned whether the ICAO Publications Regulations would require approval by Council and, if so, he suggested adding the wording “for approval by the Council”.

43. Responding to the query raised by the Representative of the Russian Federation, the Secretary General explained that the authority for amendments to the ICAO Publications Regulations had been conferred to the Secretary General on an operational level under the framework of the ICAO Policy on Publications which was approved by the Council.

44. In remarking that the issue was more a question of timing rather than delegated authority, the President of the Council proposed that any amendments to the regulation could still be brought to the attention of the Council for their views before promulgation in order to avoid introducing amendments on which the Council had been unaware and which would inevitably lead to comments subsequently being raised in a Council meeting.

C-MIN 210/8 -174-

45. The Representative of Spain requested clarification on the term “commercial entities” which had been used in the amendment. He also drew attention to the apparent difference between the pricing policy for publications covered under Administrative Instructions which was presented to Council as information and the pricing policy for training which would be approved by the Council.

46. Responding to the query raised by the Representative of Spain, the Chief, Revenue and Product Management Section (C/RPM) explained that “commercial entities” had been used as a term to refer to entities such as airlines, air navigation service providers, academia and others, and noted that a list of these entities had been presented in the informal briefing on the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) (16 January 2017).

47. Following consideration, the Council decided that paragraph 2 b) of Article IX of the Regulations be amended so that it would read: “Member States may request free publications in paper format in addition to electronic, according to the scale of free quota….” and also that Articles XII and XIII of the Regulation be amended to reflect that any future proposed amendments to the ICAO Publications Regulations would be presented to the Council before they are promulgated by the Secretary General.

Subject No. 18.4: Other financial matters for consideration by Council

Establishment of the Resource Mobilization Fund

48. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14591, which concerned the establishment of the Resource Mobilization Fund (RMF) in accordance with the relevant Financial Regulations and Rules, in order to manage effectively the voluntary funds, to facilitate the prioritization of projects submitted for funding, to allocate efficiently and to disburse timely the funds received from Member States, donors and relevant stakeholders.

49. In introducing C-WP/14591, the Secretary General noted that the policy aimed to consolidate and streamline ICAO’s resource mobilization efforts to make funding more predictable, effective and efficient to complement the Regular Programme Budget. This paper requested the Council’s approval for the establishment of the Resource Mobilization Fund (RMF) in accordance with the Financial Regulations and Rules, Article VII, Regulation 7.1, in order to: effectively manage the voluntary funds; facilitate the prioritization of projects submitted for funding; and efficiently allocate and disburse in a timely manner the funds received from Member States, donors and relevant stakeholders. She underscored that ICAO had received contributions from Saudi Arabia in support of the MID Region No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative and from the World Bank to provide technical assistance related to capacity-building to the Democratic Republic of Congo. She noted that the RMF would provide a funding mechanism to accept voluntary contributions from donors which support the achievements of ICAO’s mission and objectives as well as to assist States in securing funding to enhance their civil aviation systems without being limited to a specific theme.

50. While drawing attention to paragraph 2.2 which stated that the RMF would provide a broad mechanism to contribute to ICAO’s mandate and obtain the necessary resources to meet its objectives, the Representative of Mexico noted that the introduction referred to the two specific projects related to Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which he felt did not appear to comply with the general philosophy of the RMF. He remarked that he had understood that resource mobilization was intended to assist States in complying with SARPs and meeting their responsibilities for oversight and their overall capability. Referring to paragraph 2.1 c), which referred to supplementing ICAO’s work programme in areas not covered or under-funded by the Regular Programme Budget, he remarked that the

-175- C-MIN 210/8

wording was not clear and might lead to misinterpretation. The Representative of Mexico was also concerned about the overall number of funds that been created over the years which he felt might lead to inefficiencies and cause confusion for States when making contributions. He remarked that some of these funds could be consolidated and reviewed by the WGGE to evaluate their effectiveness.

51. Responding to the comments raised by the Representative of Mexico, the Chief, Finance Branch (C/FIN) clarified that the funds were currently organized according to the Strategic Objectives and no fund existed for specific mandates to advance civil aviation in general or for the NCLB, for instance. Acknowledging the comment on the plethora of funds, he indicated that the funds were intended for internal purposes to channel these funds according to the purpose or Strategic Objective. He explained that according to the Financial Regulations all expenditures had to be reported by Strategic Objective, including voluntary contributions. Citing the project in the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example, which was a specific ring-fenced project, he noted that a fund was needed to capture this contribution in the financial statements. The RMF had been designed to serve as the accounting vehicle for multiple projects, including separate ring-fenced projects.

52. Expressing agreement with the concerns raised by the Representative of Mexico, the Representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the terms of reference of the Safety Fund (SAFE), which had been established by the Council (C-DEC 190/6), had been developed very carefully, taking into account the background, objective, projects, contributions, administration and governance, as well as the contributors, types of contributions and limitations. He underscored that it was absolutely necessary to take the time to develop proper terms of reference when establishing any fund, including in this instance for the RMF.

53. In expressing gratitude to the Secretariat for the paper and highlighting the importance of the RMF, the Representative of Egypt remarked that his understanding had been that the fund would become effective once the Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships Office (SPCP) had been established and confirmation had been received that the contributions had met the requirements of the fund. He voiced support for the paper on the condition that the objective of the RMF was to facilitate the activities of the SPCP; otherwise it was not clear to him on why a specific fund was being created with no specific cases in mind.

54. In acknowledging the comments of the Representative of Egypt, C/FIN explained that the purpose of the RMF was indeed to facilitate the work of the SPCP by providing a vehicle to capture the contributions from prospective donors. Responding to the point made by the Representative of the Russian Federation, C/FIN recalled that a terms of reference had been necessary in the establishment of SAFE, which was the first fund to be created for a specific strategic objective. He noted that other funds such as the AVSEC Fund, the Air Transport Fund and the Environment Fund had subsequently been created as well. With the establishment of the SPCP, C/FIN explained that a Project Review Committee (PRC), chaired by the Secretary General, with representation from all Bureaux, would prioritize the projects and earmark the funds for specific projects. He underscored the importance of having a single unified focal point in the Secretariat that would consider several projects with implications in more than one fund, particularly in the context of the NCLB.

55. In voicing satisfaction with the explanation which C/FIN had provided, the Representative of Spain nevertheless reiterated the concerns expressed by the Representatives of Egypt, Mexico and the Russian Federation. Noting that currently there were funds for each Strategic Objective, he remarked on the risk of some duplication, such as those funds part of this RMF dedicated to safety that could impinge on the SAFE Fund or those funds part of the RMF dedicated to environment that could overlap the Environment Fund. While indicating that he had no difficulty with the creation of one review committee for different funds, he highlighted the need to define the intended purpose of the contributions of the RMF

C-MIN 210/8 -176-

for all five Strategic Objective areas. The Representative of Spain endorsed the creation of the RMF with the aforementioned modifications and caveats.

56. Also drawing attention to the proliferation of voluntary funds, the Representative of Germany remarked that it raised concerns on the budget mechanism and the direction of the Organization. He questioned whether in the future States might decide not to contribute to the Regular Programme Budget but instead make their voluntary assessments to all kinds of separate funds, whether earmarked or not. Commenting on the magnitude of the ARGF and the fact that already about four to five per cent of States’ contributions were voluntary funds, he expressed concern that the Organization might be moving outside of the Regular Programme Budget. He requested that the issue of States’ assessments, RMF and all voluntary funds be taken into account during the FIC discussions on the next budget cycle.

57. The President of the Council recalled that in addition to the normal assessed contribution, many States also voluntarily contributed in cash and in kind, and by providing secondments and hosting ICAO events for instance. It needed to be recognised that with a zero nominal growth budget it simply was not possible for the Organization to fund the entire Business Plan and that voluntary contributions would need to be sought. At the same time, when States provided voluntary contributions, they naturally reserved the right to direct the resources to areas or issues that they considered important. The President also cautioned against trying to regulate voluntary funding too tightly since this might have a detrimental effect on long-term contributions.

58. In expressing appreciation to the Representatives for their valuable advice and responding to the comments of the Representative of Mexico and others on the current voluntary contribution funds, the Secretary General agreed that there would be a need to review how to streamline the funds in due course. With respect to the comments raised by the Representative of Germany, she concurred that further discussion would be required. Recalling that the Business Plan for this triennium had totalled $400 million while the Regular Programme Budget had amounted to $302 million, she noted that voluntary funds from Member States, organizations and financial institutions were needed in order to supplement the shortfall required to carry out the tasks identified in the Business Plan.

59. The Representative of Saudi Arabia voiced support for the action proposed by the Secretary General with the understanding that the RMF would provide a mechanism to collect contributions and each fund would have a pre-defined objective.

60. Following from the comments of C/FIN, the Representative of the Russian Federation remarked that the idea of consolidating funds was a good idea. However, in citing as an example the Air Transport Fund which held a balance of only $3 000, he remarked that clearly States had not been so willing to make additional contributions to this fund. While indicating that he supported the creation of the RMF and its purpose in compensating for the $120 million budget deficit, he stressed that States needed to understand the aim and restrictions of each fund. In this regard, he reiterated that developing a terms of reference specifically for the RMF would ensure that the fund would meet its intended purpose as well as meet the expectations of donors.

61. Responding to the comments raised by the Representative of the Russian Federation, C/FIN explained that it was intended for the appeal for funds to be based on specific projects. The documentation that would be issued would outline an appeal for specific project funding and would be prepared by the SPCP. Among other things, this would include information such as the intent, benefit, purpose and results or the project for which funding was being sought.

62. In supplementing C/FIN’s comments, the Secretary General remarked that the objective of the fund would be clarified for States in advance. In addition, she indicated that a reporting system was

-177- C-MIN 210/8

currently being developed by the Secretariat so that it would be in a position to provide a progress report for donors, which included the timetable, results and deliverables.

63. In expressing support for the creation of the fund, the Representative of Turkey associated himself with the comments made by the Representative of Germany. Remarking that the proliferation of funds could lead to confusion and make it difficult to control and audit the funds, he stressed that creating funds should be carried out carefully in the future. He suggested that instead of having several funds, a list of objectives could be developed for every field, which could be merged to support the budget and to which States could make their contributions. Remarking that creating the necessary funds in the future would become more and more difficult, he indicated that a more practical approach should be taken on this matter.

64. In concluding, the Council understood that the RMF would provide donors with a mechanism to contribute to the ICAO mandate and mission generally without earmarking their donation to a specific programme or strategic objective. This would allow ICAO to direct the resources to the strategic objective or programme most needed

65. In addition, the Secretariat undertook to ensure that comprehensive information would be provided in advance to Member States to clearly articulate the purpose and expectations of the Fund. It was further noted that the Secretariat is undertaking action to ensure that an appropriate review mechanism is in place by which donor States and international organizations could monitor how the funds are being expended as well as results being achieved from the activities that are carried out.

Subject No. 20: Periodic reports by the Secretary General

Annual Report of the Ethics Officer

66. The Council considered this item on the basis of information paper C-WP/14575 (Revision No. 2), which outlined the activities undertaken by the Ethics Officer in the course of the previous year in the period since her appointment with the Organization on 14 April 2016. The Council also had for consideration an oral report thereon from the Human Resources Committee (HRC).

67. The Chairperson of the Human Resources Committee (Representative of Egypt) presented the report on the HRC consideration of C-WP/14575, which had taken place at its first meeting of the 210th Session of the Council, on 26 January 2017. In presenting the summary, the Chairperson informed that the Committee had benefitted from the presence of the Ethics Officer, Ms. Leanne Kinsella.

68. With regard to paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the report, the Chairperson indicated that several Committee members had expressed concern at the wording and suggestion that specific protocols might be necessary in order to regulate interactions between Council Representatives and the Secretariat. The Committee had taken note of the clarification provided by the Ethics Officer that these two paragraphs and the recommendation contained therein referred to the recruitment process and did not pertain to substantive aviation policy matters. In this connection, the Committee reaffirmed that it was necessary and appropriate for Secretariat staff to share information openly and transparently with Representatives on the Council as they sought to undertake their role and fulfil their responsibility as the governing body of the Organization in relation to aviation policy and other substantive matters, in accordance with the unique provisions of the Chicago Convention. The Committee had taken note, however, of the concerns relayed by the Ethics Officer that interactions between the Council and staff should not be used by staff members as an avenue to lobby for favourable recruitment decisions. In conclusion, the majority of the Committee members had not endorsed the observation contained in paragraph 3.2.2 of the report, but the Committee had taken note of the clarifications provided by the

C-MIN 210/8 -178-

Ethics Officer that the context in which this part of the report was written pertained specifically to the recruitment process and there was no question that the Council clearly had the mandate to interact with the Secretariat on substantive aviation policy matters. In this connection, the Committee recommended the Council to request the Secretariat to ensure that the ICAO Framework of Ethics and the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service be fully complied with by Secretariat staff members.

69. In welcoming the oral report from the HRC, the Secretary General emphasized that according to the Ethics Framework, it was the duty and responsibility of the Ethics Officer to submit his/her annual report independently to the Council. The Secretary General also took the opportunity to reaffirm her full support to the Ethics Officer to carry out her functions, and noted that considerable progress had been made in the Secretariat as a result of her activities in terms of an overall enhancement to ethics management.

70. In taking note of the overview of activities undertaken in 2016, in paragraph 2, the Representative of Mexico remarked that there would be a need to make a clear distinction between the legal advice and practices of the United Nations and the opinion of the Ethics Officer in the rest of the paper so as to facilitate decision-making and transparency. With respect to paragraph 3.2.2, the Representative of Mexico took into account the views and recommendations of the HRC and suggested that the Council not approve the recommendation contained in this part of the report as it might undermine the integrity of the Council as representatives of sovereign States. Referring to paragraph 3.4, he suggested that the proposal be considered in terms of its cost effectiveness by the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) in consultation with the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC). He also suggested that paragraph 3.5 be reviewed by the HRC while taking into consideration the specific nature of ICAO and practices of other organizations. In regard to the proposal in paragraph 3.5.4, the Representative remarked that the HRC or an ad hoc group might serve as a first instance to consider without prejudice this option. Drawing attention to the Appendix, paragraph 5, he observed that a number of matters relating to reports of retaliation might in reality have alternative resolutions. He also noted that the Advisory Joint Appeals Board (AJAB) comprised members of the staff which might compromise their independence with regard to the measures imposed.

71. The Representative of the United Kingdom noted that a strong ethical focus and clear and consistent action to deal with misconduct were essential for the Council to have confidence that the Organization was being administered appropriately. Underscoring the importance of the role of the Ethics Officer and most importantly the need to ensure meaningful independence for the role, he was pleased that the Secretary General also endorsed this principle. With respect to the proposal in paragraph 3.2.2, he concurred that developing protocols was perhaps not the best way forward to deal with this matter but noted nonetheless that this issue should be kept under review. Referring to the proposals on professional investigative capacity and the provision of legal assistance to staff members, in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5.4, respectively, he noted that these proposals would have financial implications and proposed, along the lines of the Representative of Mexico’s suggestion, that the Ethics Officer provide the Council with a comparison between the approach taken by ICAO on these matters and the rest of the United Nations system, including any other matters deemed important to be brought to the attention of the Council. Remarking that it was sometimes difficult to understand the context in terms of comparable organizations, he indicated that a benchmarking exercise might help in these matters. The Representative of the United Kingdom then proposed that the Ethics Officer provide a further report in the 211th Session on the taking forward of the proposals that would set the context for the Council in their discussions on the general Ethics Framework.

72. In expressing gratitude to the Secretary General for having endorsed the independence of the Ethics Officer, the Representative of Spain underscored that this enunciation was in line with the position of the Council. With respect to the report of the Ethics Officer, he suggested that in the future it might be

-179- C-MIN 210/8

more appropriate for the report to include the comments of the Secretary General, if any, so that there would be no question as to whether the comments or the position pertained to the Secretary General or the Ethics Officer. Remarking on the proposal in paragraph 3.2.2, he stated that along with other Representatives, he did not share the assessment and therefore did not accept the recommendation. He voiced agreement with paragraph 3.3 on the provision of legal assistance to Secretariat staff, and also endorsed the suggestions of the Representatives of Mexico and the United Kingdom on the need to explore those avenues. He suggested that the proposal in paragraph 3.4 be explored in cooperation with the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) and that the proposal in paragraph 3.5.4 be followed up in conjunction with the HRC, while taking into consideration the financial implications to the Organization.

73. In welcoming the provision of the independent advice from the Ethics Officer, the Representative of Australia underscored the importance of this role in ensuring that the Council had an appropriate framework in place that was administered effectively. He stressed that it was essential in this environment to have an approach for any claims of misconduct or other problems within the Organization, including corruption, particularly in view of the resource mobilization strategies. He noted that the highest standards of reputation in governance needed to be upheld and the independent ethics framework was key in ensuring the delivery of the ICAO anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy endorsed by the Council. He voiced support for the proposal made by the Representative of the United Kingdom to bring forward a further report to the Council on these issues at a future session.

74. The Representative of Sweden recalled that most of the discussion that had occurred at the HRC meeting had been devoted to the first part of the Ethic Officer’s report, as reflected in the oral report. She lent her support to the proposal made by the Representative of the United Kingdom on paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5.4, and underscored the importance of the role of the Ethics Officer for the Organization and the independence of her functions as emphasized by the Secretary General. Drawing attention to the Appendix, she noted that a number of issues including corruption, sexual harassment, unlawful conduct, gross negligence and others were mentioned and indicated that the Council should signal zero tolerance for this type of behaviour in the Organization. In concluding, she voiced support for further looking into a number of the proposals contained in the report.

75. The Representative of the Russian Federation expressed appreciation to the Ethics Officer for the report and indicated his support of the HRC oral report. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.2.2, he explained that some contacts with the Secretariat should be seen as normal practice in the course of the work of the Organization, citing the example of Council Representative meeting with the Language and Publications Branch to discuss terminology in translation. Noting that paragraph 3.3 was based on United Nations standards, which he considered a positive approach, he requested clarification on this point. In addition, in relation to paragraph 3.5, the Representative sought further information on whether ICAO had a policy to protect anonymous whistle-blowers.

76. The Representative of the United States noted that as a general principle his State attached great importance to the strength of the ethics function in United Nations organizations and the independence of the Ethics Officer. He was heartened by the Secretary General’s introductory remarks, which clearly had lent support to these principles since it indicated that ICAO was taking advantage of the best practices throughout the United Nations system. To that end, he strongly associated himself with the comments of the Representatives of Australia and Sweden among others.

77. The Representative of Ireland associated herself with the interventions made by the Representatives of Australia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States among others.

78. The Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania voiced his disagreement with the

C-MIN 210/8 -180-

conclusions drawn in paragraph 3.2.2. He also drew attention to paragraph 3.3.1, which provided a comparison of costs related to professional investigations. He cautioned that it might seem cost effective for a United Nations investigative body to be deployed to carry out an investigation in a regional office, but noted that this would really only seem to apply to regional offices that were located in close proximity, such as Nairobi. Aligning himself with others who felt that the recommendation was a good way forward but more work would be required, he also expressed support for the proposal of the Representative of the United Kingdom. With respect to the provision of legal assistance to staff members, he concurred with the Representative of Mexico and others in suggesting that further work would be needed.

79. In joining the previous speakers on the recognition of the independence of the Ethics Officer that was noted by the Secretary General, the Representative of Japan suggested that this type of report be coordinated internally between the Secretary General and the Ethics Officer before publication in order to avoid any misunderstandings such as had occurred with the recommendation to introduce protocols to govern contact between Council delegations and Secretariat staff.

80. The Representative of Turkey highlighted the importance of the role of the Ethics Officer and noted that a meaningful independence was essential to carry out her functions. He also expressed appreciation to the HRC, of which he was a member, and remarked that the HRC had considered the report to be informative but had noted with concern that certain recommendations had been directed not only to the Secretariat but also to Council delegations. In his view this had not been appropriate in a report such as this and should have been rectified before publication of the report.

81. In likewise welcoming the report, the Representative of Brazil expressed agreement with the comments made by the Representatives of Mexico, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In highlighting the importance of independence, she remarked on the fact that the Ethics Officer by virtue of having presented her report in this way, had demonstrated that she exercised independence in her role. With respect to paragraphs 3.3.3 and 3.3.4, she indicated that there had not been sufficient time to evaluate if the fee-for-service engagement of investigators would be necessary and she remarked that since there was a cost involved, it would be preferable to proceed carefully and take the time needed to properly consider this matter.

82. The Representative of Argentina voiced agreement with the need for the Ethics Officer to carry out her functions with full independence, which he noted should nonetheless not prevent the Council from undertaking its role as the governing body in resolving issues.

83. In responding to the comments of the Representatives on the Council, the Ethics Officer indicated that she had taken note of the suggestions and would follow up with a more detailed proposal in due course. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of Japan, she indicated that it was very good advice to undertake further consultation to avoid any misunderstanding. With respect to the query made by the Representative of the Russian Federation on anonymous whistle-blower allegations, she indicated that throughout the United Nations system these were usually not investigated unless there was compelling prima facie evidence. She explained that this was due to the individual being accused having the right to respond to allegations and to identify the accusers and, as Ethics Officer, she would not be able to follow up on the allegation if there was insufficient evidence.

84. The Secretary General remarked that she had taken careful note of the comments made by the Representatives on the Council, in particular related to the cost-effectiveness of the two proposals in paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5.4, and suggested that the Ethics Officer would conduct a further analysis based on the United Nations system’s best practices which could then be presented to the Council. Emphasizing the importance of cost-effectiveness in using resources to address ethical issues and noting that the Ethics Office’s budget did not contain substantive resources, she indicated that a cost analysis would perhaps be

-181- C-MIN 210/8

the best way to proceed and the outcome of any such analysis could certainly be provided to the Council for consideration.

85. Responding to a query made by the Representative of Malaysia on whether ICAO had an Ombudsman who could provide the type of service described in paragraph 3.5.4, the Secretary General explained that the ICAO Ombudsman was a channel for the informal conciliation of conflicts.

86. By way of supplementary information, the Ethics Officer advised that ICAO had a staff representative who provided legal advice to staff members who were either accused of misconduct or who wished to make an appeal to the Organization against an administrative decision such as, for example, if they had submitted an allegation and there had been a decision not to investigate. In working closely with this representative, the Ethics Officer noted that a number of limitations had been identified on the current arrangements and these had led to the recommendation for the need for additional legal assistance to staff, which was way this had been referred to in her report.

87. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council:

a) emphasized that a strong ethical focus within ICAO was important and welcomed the assurance from the Secretary General that the post of Ethics Officer was fully independent with occupants in this position being unrestricted in his/her ability to fulfil his/her responsibilities as well as to make recommendations without any hindrance or undue influence;

b) reaffirmed the importance of unfettered two-way channels of communication existing between Council Representatives and staff members of the Secretariat especially in the context of seeking clarification in advance on issues that were to be considered by the Council, and in this connection, noted that the majority of members of the HRC had not endorsed the observation contained in paragraph 3.2.2 of C-WP/14575, which had recommended the development of protocols to govern this form of communication;

c) agreed in-principle with the recommendation contained in paragraph 3.4 of C-WP/14575, the feasibility of developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the UN Office of Internal Oversight for a fee-for-service engagement of its investigators, but suggested that it would be preferable at this stage for ICAO to use existing internal resources as far as practicable, and in this connection requested the Ethics Office to consult with the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) on alternative cost-effective options that could meet this objective while taking into account current budget implications and limitations;

d) agreed in-principle with the recommendation contained in paragraph 3.5.4 of C-WP/14575, for ICAO to consult with the UN Office of Staff Legal Assistance (OSLA) to explore the feasibility of a fee-for-service arrangement to provide legal assistance to staff members in the preparation of complaints/allegations and the preparation of appeals in cases of misconduct or potential misconduct, and in this connection, suggested that the Ethics Officer review best practices within the UN system and then discuss this option further with the Human Resources Committee (HRC) with a view to exploring all possible cost-effective options that could meet this requirement while taking into account current budget implications and limitations; and

C-MIN 210/8 -182-

e) requested the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE) to review the Ethics Framework and to consider whether any further amendments might be necessary in order to ensure as well as strengthen the independence of the Ethics Officer.

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

2016 Report on the Activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO)

88. The Council considered this item on the basis of Information Paper C-WP/14577, which in accordance with the Charter of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO), presented a summary report on the activities carried out by EAO during 2016. Appendices A and B outlined the status of recommendations made in previous interal and audit evaluation reports respectively.

89. In introducing C-WP/14577, the Chief, Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (C/EAO) outlined the activities undertaken by EAO during the past twelve months which included the completion of three internal audits and two evaluations; an internal audit currently pending endorsement by the Secretary General; and two audits and one evaluation in progress. He noted that there had been a slight decrease in the number of audit reports completed compared to previous years due to a nine-month maternity leave absence of one of the two internal auditors. He indicated that a summary of the main findings in the audits and evaluations was found in C-WP/14577 including the evaluation reports that had been presented in C-WP/14467 on the evaluation of Member States’ needs and expectations and in C-WP/14576 on the evaluation of the selected programme activities of the South American Regional Office related to ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay. He indicated that all the internal audit and evaluation reports were made available on the Council website.

90. Turning to the one investigation and two preliminary reports carried out by EAO when the Ethics Officer post was vacant, C/EAO indicated that although compared to previous years the number of investigations was lower, the volume of work had equalled the completion of approximately half of an audit. C/EAO underscored that the investigations assigned to EAO were carried out by the internal auditors and himself as a cost-saving measure instead of budgeting a post for a dedicated investigative officer or paying fees to an external consultant. In addition, he drew attention to EAO’s role as focal point within ICAO for the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) for which EAO had coordinated ICAO’s input to sixteen JIU reviews and in the coordination of the preparation of the Secretariat Action Plans to implement the External Auditor’s recommendations and follow up on their status with the Secretariat management.

91. Concerning the information contained in the Appendices, the Representative of Spain requested an explanation for the low completion rates of twenty per cent for the internal audit of consultants, in Appendix A, and fourteen per cent for the evaluation of Member States’ needs and expectations, in Appendix B. In drawing attention to the audit of ARGF governance, in Appendix A, he questioned how an audit could be ongoing for a year without a definitive outcome and in which one of the recommendations appeared to have been contested. The Representative stressed the importance of information on such delays and problems being shared with the Council. In noting that one of recommendations from the internal auditor had stated the need for a comprehensive strategic document, the Representative of Spain concurred that a plan with a three-year horizon that included financial details and activities should be developed in conjunction with the plan for the Global Aviation Training (GAT) Office. In addition, he considered that the action plan should be progressed earlier than December 2017 in order to report to the Council in the 211th Session as part of the strategic planning cycle. In drawing attention to comments from the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) in the audit report on the difference of views between the internal audit team and the Secretariat, he asked for clarification on

-183- C-MIN 210/8

the role of the EAAC and whether the Committee had scope to interact freely with everyone.

92. Responding to the query on the recommendations arising from the ARGF audit, C/EAO remarked that the audit report had been initiated at the end of 2015 and a preliminary report was completed and issued at the end of April 2016. He explained that the normal procedure entailed requesting the audited entity to respond within fifteen days, but at times an extension was requested to enable an in-depth review of the documentation and recommendations. While indicating that, in general, recommendations were accepted, he stated that from time to time a recommendation was rejected, which inevitably delayed the process. He noted that in the case of the ARGF audit, two recommendations had been entirely rejected. When a recommendation was rejected, EAO had an option to eliminate the recommendation if the observation was found to be inappropriate or to change the recommendation while ensuring that it retained the same objective and if the audited entity agreed to the change or to present the final report to the Secretary General with an action plan in the case of a complete rejection of the recommendation by the audited entity. In this instance, there had been irreconcilable opinions between the various parties on the ARGF recommendations with the result being that the Secretary General had requested advice from the EAAC. After the EAAC had discussed the matter with EAO and the audited party, the EAAC had prepared a summary which had been attached to the report. In conclusion, C/EAO indicated that the comments of the EAAC had not been accepted.

93. Responding to a request for clarification made by the President of the Council, C/EAO indicated that initially two recommendations had not been accepted but eventually this had been reduced to one, which in this instance was related to recommendation no. 10 on the accounting treatment of the results of the ARGF. The President of the Council then suggested that future reports should contain the recommendations that were not accepted by management.

94. In responding to the question on the lower rate of implementation for the recommendations of the audit of consultants, the Senior Internal Audit Officer in EAO explained that the audit had been completed in early 2016 with a target date for implementation in early 2017, and therefore some of the recommendations had not been implemented by the deadline of 31 December 2016 for the report.

95. In sharing the comments made by the Representative of Spain, the Representative of France also underscored the importance of ensuring that appropriate measures were in place to ensure a smooth transition given the impending departure of C/EAO. He also took the opportunity to thank C/EAO for the work that he had undertaken over the years while serving in this role with ICAO.

96. The Secretary General likewise expressed her appreciation to C/EAO for his dedication and contribution to the Organization during his five-year tenure.

97. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.5, the President of the Council proposed that all the items outlined as areas for improvement for the ARGF be captured in the enhanced operating plan for ARGF which would be considered by the Council in the 211th Session.

98. With respect to the recommendation no. 10, which had stipulated that in order to ensure transparency and comparability of results achieved across different funds, staff costs budgeted under the ARGF but carrying out Regular Programme activities should be reported consistently year on year, C/EAO explained that this type of cost had been treated differently depending on the year. In this case, the point had been that the reporting mechanism needed to be consistent in order to ensure that comparative figures were available year on year.

99. C/FIN remarked that this issue concerning the disputed audit recommendation on the ARGF, reflected the cost of staff that were embedded in ARGF but worked for the Regular Programme. He

C-MIN 210/8 -184-

explained that this cost was shown as an additional contribution into the Regular Programme Budget. Drawing attention to other instances in which the Council had used its authority to transfer cost, C/FIN mentioned as an example the contribution of $496 000 from ARGF to Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC). Another example was the cost of Technical Officers in the Regional Offices which was transferred from the AOSC into the Regular Programme Budget. He underscored that the movements from one cost centre to another, which were used for management reporting purposes, did not impact the audited financial statements in any way and therefore in his view had not warranted inclusion as part of the audit recommendation. 100. The Secretary General advised that all the audit recommendations accepted by the Secretariat had been incorporated into the operating plans of the respective Bureaux. She also drew attention to the increasing rate of implementation of the audit recommendations and stressed that the ongoing efforts of the Secretariat were aimed at implementing all the recommendations from the internal and external audits, as well as from the JIU, in order to reach a 100 per cent implementation rate to the recommendations accepted by the Secretariat.

101. The Chairperson of the FIC (Representative of the United Kingdom) took the opportunity to remind members of FIC of an outstanding invitation for them to make suggestions in relation to ARGF reporting. He noted that the suggestions would be discussed with D/ADB in the first instance to determine how they could be incorporated into the reporting process.

102. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council noted that in relation to the audit that had been conducted on the governance of the Ancillary Generation Revenue Fund (ARGF), one recommendation had not been accepted by management. In this connection, the Council further noted that as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Finance Committee would review the report pertaining to this audit in the context of its scheduled assessment of the operating plan of the ARGF.

Any other business

International Women’s Day – round-the-world flight

103. The Council congratulated India as well as the national carrier, Air India, for having become the first airline to fly around the world with an all-female crew and especially for doing so in order to highlight International Women’s Day (8 March 2017). It was noted that the round-the-world flight involved a Boeing 777 Air India airplane, which had flown across the Pacific Ocean from New Delhi, India to San Francisco, United States, and then onwards across the Atlantic Ocean to return to New Delhi on 6 March 2017.

104. The meeting adjourned at 1730 hours.

-185- C-MIN 210/9

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TUESDAY, 7 MARCH 2017, AT 1430 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

PRESENT: Algeria — Mr. A.D. Mesroua Kenya — Ms. M.B. Awori Argentina — Mr. G.E. Ainchil Malaysia — Mr. Y.-H. Lim Australia — Mr. S. Lucas Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Brazil — Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) Nigeria — Mr. M.S. Nuhu Cabo Verde — Mr. C. Monteiro Panama — Mr. G.S. Oller Canada — Ms. W. Drukier Republic of Korea — Mr. J. Hur China — Mr. Shengjun Yang Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov Colombia — Mr. A. Muñoz Gómez Saudi Arabia — Mr. S.A.R. Hashem Congo — Mr. R.M. Ondzotto Singapore — Mr. T.C. Ng Cuba — Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri South Africa — Mr. M.D.T. Peege Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado Egypt — Mr. A. Khedr Sweden — Ms. H. Jansson Saxe France — Mr. P. Bertoux Turkey — Mr. A.R. Çolak Germany — Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) United Arab Emirates — Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) India — Mr. A. Shekhar United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rodmell Ireland — Mrs. A. Smith Floch United Republic of Tanzania — Mr. R.W. Bokango Italy — Mr. M.R. Rusconi United States — Mr. S. Kotis (Alt.) Japan — Mr. S. Matsui Uruguay — Mr. M. Vidal

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) ― Canada Mr. V. Smith ― D/ADB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mr. O. Myard ― C/EAO Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mrs. L. Comeau-Stuart ― C/POD Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Ms. K. Balram ― C/SEA Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Ms. H. Jackson ― EAO Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mr. E. Liapakis ― TRV and Ombudsman Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Mrs. J. Jankovic ― EAO Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Miss S. Black ― Précis-writer Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay

Ms. G.B. Doğan, Head of Department, DGCA, Turkey Mr. A.O. Yaman, Technical Inspector, DGCA, Turkey

C-MIN 210/9 -186-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cameroon Chile Cyprus Ghana Greece Indonesia Lebanon Paraguay Peru

European Union (EU)

-187- C-MIN 210/9

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

Report on the evaluation of selected programme activities of the South American Regional Office: ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay

1. The results of the evaluation conducted by the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) of the provision of ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay by the South American Regional Office (SAM RO) (Lima) during the period 2011 to 2016 were considered by the Council on the basis of information paper C-WP/14576 presented by the Secretary General. The full evaluation report was available on the Council’s website.

2. In introducing the report, the Chief, EAO (C/EAO) noted that the evaluation had been proposed by his Office on the basis of a rationale that involved consideration of aviation- and development- related indicators, the provision of assistance to the States in the region, and the potential for lesson learning. An evaluation had been targeted for the SAM region in particular due to consideration of the geographical distribution of evaluation coverage. The evaluation had been conducted by EAO’s Evaluation Specialist, Mrs. J. Jankovic, as part of the annual work plan for 2016, and had followed the ICAO Evaluation Policy and the Norms and Standards for Evaluation approved by the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG).

3. The evaluation provided an independent assessment of the provision of ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay delivered by the SAM RO during the five-year period 2011-2016. It had focused on technical assistance services provided to the Uruguayan Civil Aviation Authority, DINACIA (Dirección Nacional de Aviación Civil e Infraestructura Aeronáutica, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional – Uruguay). The assistance had been coordinated and overseen by the SAM RO using the Regional Safety Oversight Organization (RSOO) mechanism, El Sistema Regional de Cooperación para la Vigilancia de la Seguridad (SRVSOP), and through the project financed from the Safety Fund (SAFE).

4. The evaluation’s findings and recommendations were based on a comprehensive analysis of quantitative and qualitative data and interviews with ICAO and DINACIA management and staff. A field visit to the SAM RO, where interviews had been held, had been conducted from 16 to 20 May 2016 with the assistance of the Technical Evaluation Consultant, Mr. Gustavo de Leon.

5. Through its findings and recommendations, the evaluation highlighted the importance of structural change in the civil aviation authority structure in Uruguay to enable the capacity that had been built through ICAO’s interventions. The technical assistance missions coordinated and overseen by the Regional Office and delivered by the experts from the SRVSOP had been found to be efficiently and effectively conducted and planned using a performance-based approach.

6. EAO’s five recommendations had all been accepted by the Secretariat and progress was already being made in implementing some of them (cf. Secretariat Action Plan contained in Appendix A to the report). The evaluation was considered timely and relevant since: it assessed the provision of technical assistance under the framework of the ICAO No Country Left Behind (NCLB) initiative; and would inform the development by the SAM RO, in consultation with States, of a Regional Plan to Support Air Transport to facilitate decision-making by SAM States over the next fifteen years.

7. C/EAO expressed appreciation to the SAM RO and DINACIA management and staff for their assistance and cooperation during the evaluation, which had ensured that it was a collaborative and effective endeavour.

C-MIN 210/9 -188-

8. In thanking EAO for the evaluation and its related report, the Representative of Uruguay highlighted that the report provided a concrete example of the implementation of the letter and spirit of the ICAO NCLB initiative. He underscored that the support provided by ICAO through the Technical Cooperation Bureau (TCB) and the SAM RO had been decisive in building the capacities and work methodologies needed by Uruguay to promptly rectify its two Significant Safety Concerns (SSCs) and to achieve substantive improvements in the great majority of the critical elements of a safety oversight system. Uruguay had drawn important lessons from the evaluation which would be taken into account going forward, including: the positive results to be achieved from using a performance-based approach in planning technical support missions; and the need to make structural and internal organizational adjustments, which were essential to ensuring the sustainability of the good results and capacity-building achieved thus far and to creating an environment that was more favourable for the development of civil aviation in Uruguay (cf. Appendix A, Secretariat Action Plan, Recommendations 1 and 2).

9. Referring to the evaluation’s conclusions set forth in paragraph 4.1 of the report, the Representative of Spain voiced satisfaction that the provision of technical assistance to Uruguay had been found to be efficient and effective, which would put Representatives’ minds at rest. Underscoring that the use of the SRVSOP mechanism to deliver technical assistance in the region had been an eye-opener, he was pleased to note, from the Secretariat’s agreed action for Recommendation 1, that it could be extended to other regions and indicated that Representatives would be interested in receiving more details regarding the mechanism’s financing and operation. The Representative of Spain remarked that the Council would also wish to be provided with more information regarding the Regional Plan to Support Air Transport in the SAM region over the next 15 years and whether that initiative could also be implemented in other regions.

10. With regard to the evaluation’s recommendations, the Representative of Spain emphasized the relevance of Recommendation 1, as well as of Recommendations 4 and 5. In highlighting the importance of Recommendation 2 on the promotion of changes in the civil aviation authority structure to establish a more enabling environment for civil aviation development, on which the Representative of Uruguay had also commented, he affirmed that such structural changes were essential for ensuring the sustainability of a large number of technical assistance projects in the various regions. Expressing satisfaction that EAO’s Evaluation Specialist had identified that point, the Representative of Spain underscored that ICAO’s technical assistance activities, including missions to the recipient States and the provision of training courses and documentation, would not be sustainable if the States’ relevant entities were not solidly established and financed. He stressed that Recommendation 2 was applicable not only to Uruguay but also to many other States.

11. Emphasizing that the evaluation report was very encouraging for the SAM region, the Representative of Colombia voiced satisfaction that it highlighted not only those areas where improvements could be made but also positive developments. He observed that that was in line with the Organization’s modern techniques for success, which involved not only identifying and mitigating risks but also seeking and capitalizing on opportunities. In highlighting that SAM States funded the majority of technical assistance projects in that region, the Representative of Colombia cited the establishment of a mini system-wide information management (SWIM) network, which enhanced communication between them. He noted, in that regard, that the SRVSOP Technical Committee developed, adopted and updated the safety-related Latin American Aviation Regulations (LARs), which facilitated the harmonization of States’ national regulations. Recalling that the evaluation had highlighted the important capacity of SAM RO staff to catalyze political commitment for action and to make business cases to attract investment and manage projects for promoting fundamental change for the better, he underscored that that could be extrapolated to other ROs.

-189- C-MIN 210/9

12. C/EAO emphasized that his Office’s evaluations were already used as a means to share best practices in a positive and cooperative way, taking into account local circumstances. He highlighted, in this context, that all Regional Offices were invited to take into consideration, and draw lessons from, relevant EAO evaluations whenever they developed new technical assistance and technical cooperation projects.

13. Recalling that the SRVSOP mechanism had been established in 1998 and had commenced operations in 2002, with the creation of the ICAO regional technical cooperation project trust fund for the pooling of financial and in-kind resources, the Representative of Panama affirmed that it was effective, so much so that even States from other regions requested support therefrom for their projects. He highlighted that, as a founding member of the SRVSOP, Panama had benefited from the mechanism, which had helped it to achieve an effective implementation (EI) level of 85 per cent in its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) audit conducted by ICAO in 2005. However, Panama had unfortunately had to withdraw for a time from participating in the SRVSOP, which was one of the reasons why it had only achieved an EI level of 36 per cent during its 2015 USOAP audit. Underscoring that his State had since undertaken corrective actions, the Representative of Panama expressed appreciation to the Secretariat for its assistance in that regard and for its successful management of the Programme. He also voiced appreciation for the evaluation report, which demonstrated the importance of the SRVSOP.

14. The President of the Council agreed that the SRVSOP was a good example of a project management approach whereby States provided the financial and in-kind resources and the RO managed the projects.

15. The Secretary General noted with satisfaction that EAO’s evaluation had provided such a success story for the ICAO NCLB initiative in terms of the outcomes achieved through the said provision of technical assistance to Uruguay. Referring to the Secretariat Action Plan, she indicated that pursuant to the agreed actions for Recommendation 1, at the recent Full Senior Management Group (FSMG) meeting on 25 February 2017, attended by all Regional Directors and Bureau Directors, RD SAM had shared his Office’s best practices which had enabled it to successfully assist Uruguay in enhancing its implementation of ICAO’s safety-related Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and in building the capacity of its civil aviation sector. In emphasizing that the positive experience gained by the SAM RO in the provision of technical assistance could be of benefit to the other ROs, the Secretary General cited, in particular, how interactions between the SAM RO and the SRVSOP, a RSOO, had led to enhanced synergies and efficiency gains. She underscored that the RDs would have further discussions, together with the Secretariat at ICAO Headquarters, on how they could apply the lessons learned from the said EAO evaluation in providing technical assistance in other regions and States.

16. In providing additional information in order to give Representatives a complete picture, the Director, TCB (D/TCB) noted that the technical assistance projects in the SAM region were administered by his Bureau, which provided administrative assistance relating to the contracts, travel arrangements and payment of the experts. The SAM RO was responsible for the projects’ contents and for deciding what work was to be done, where and when. EAO’s said evaluation illustrated how TCB staff was working very closely with the SAM RO to make the delivery of technical assistance in Uruguay a success story in support of the ICAO NCLB initiative. D/TCB underscored that the other regions benefitted from the same cooperation and coordination from the Secretariat.

17. Note was taken of the comments made and the supplementary information provided during the discussion.

18. In then taking the action proposed by the President, the Council:

C-MIN 210/9 -190-

a) endorsed the five recommendations arising from EAO’s evaluation of the provision of ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay by the SAM RO and the Secretariat Action Plan to implement them as set forth in Appendix A to C-WP/14576;

b) taking into account the lessons learned from the said evaluation, requested the Secretariat to apply Recommendations 1, 3 and 5 (reproduced below) to other ICAO technical assistance projects, as appropriate:

Recommendation 1 – Plan technical support missions using a performance-based approach; Recommendation 3 – Integrate State Safety Programme capacity development in ongoing technical support to Uruguay; Recommendation 5 – Evaluate technical support missions and project implementation for their quality and effectiveness;

c) with respect to Recommendation 2, while acknowledging the positive developments that had taken place in Uruguay as a result of ICAO’s technical assistance, noted that to ensure their sustainability a more enabling environment for its civil aviation sector should be established by restructuring to provide the civil aviation authority with the necessary autonomy, and encouraged Uruguay to continue to pursue the programme that it had been implementing in that regard; and

d) requested the Secretary General to convey the Council’s above message to the appropriate Uruguayan authorities during her upcoming visit in April 2017, in order to support the civil aviation sector in Uruguay in building a sustainable system on which good development can be founded, so that Uruguay will continue to serve as a very good example to other States.

19. On behalf of the Council, the President congratulated the Secretary General and the Secretariat staff involved, both in SAM RO and in TCB, on the successful delivery of technical assistance to Uruguay in support of the ICAO NCLB initiative.

Review of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO)

20. The Council considered C-WP/14526 Revised, whereby the Chairperson of the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE), the Representative of India, Mr. A. Shekhar, pursuant to the Council’s earlier request (206/6), presented a revised Charter for EAO for its approval. The revised Charter had been prepared by the WGGE’s reconstituted Sub-group on Supporting the EAO Mission (SEM) [comprising the Representatives of the Russian Federation (Chairperson), Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United Republic of Tanzania], following a holistic review of EAO’s existing Charter alongside the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC). The proposed changes strengthened EAO’s Charter by ensuring its compliance with international standards, and clarified the roles and responsibilities of EAO, as well as those of the Council and the Secretary General vis-à-vis EAO.

21. In accordance with paragraph 2 of EAO’s existing Charter, the EAAC had been consulted through its Chairperson, Mr. Kurt Grüter, and following further discussions with the SEM had expressed its agreement to the proposed revised EAO Charter. While a few WGGE Members had subsequently expressed concern over the insertion of new provisions whereby the Council would approve EAO’s annual evaluation and internal audit plan and its indicative triennial plan on a rolling basis, in view of the

-191- C-MIN 210/9

Working Group’s broad support for the proposed revised EAO Charter, and the fact that the said provisions were compliant with international standards, the WGGE had decided to recommend it to the Council for approval. It also recommended that consequential amendments be made to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350).

22. Recalling the efforts made over the years to enhance the EAO Charter following its approval in 2009 (187/11), the Representative of Mexico indicated that, in light of the report by the Chairperson of the WGGE, and ICAO’s unique features which distinguished it from other organizations of the United Nations (UN) system, he was in favour of the Council approving the proposed revised EAO Charter, which he affirmed constituted a big step forward.

23. Noting that he was one of the WGGE Members who had expressed some concern regarding the potential impairment of EAO’s independence arising from the proposed Council approval of EAO’s annual evaluation and internal audit plan and indicative triennial plan [cf. paragraph 34 b) of the TOR], the Alternate Representative of the United States underscored that his concern remained. While he could accept the proposed revised EAO Charter if the majority of the Council so decided, he wished to place on record his concern that Council approval of EAO’s said plans was not in conformity with UN best practices. The Alternate Representative of the United States emphasized that although much was said regarding ICAO’s unique features, the Organization was part of the UN system and should consistently seek UN best practices as its guide.

24. In then providing supplementary information for the Council’s consideration, the Alternate Representative of the United States noted that the UN’s Independent Audit Advisory Committee (IAAC) had stated that the operational independence of the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was achieved by the Under-Secretary General for Internal Oversight Services having the authority to decide on the final work plan of the OIOS. He recalled that the IAAC had issued a report in 2009 which had defined OIOS operational independence to include the ability of OIOS to determine its final work plans and the contents of its final reports. Furthermore, the IAAC, recognizing that international organizations were not the same as private companies, had stated that in the context of the UN, impairment of OIOS independence would include any restriction on its ability to determine its final work plans and the content of its final reports. The IAAC had reiterated those same conclusions on the importance of OIOS operational independence in its recent August 2016 report.

25. The Alternate Representative of the United States indicated that his above-mentioned ongoing concern was due to the fact that approval by any body other than EAO of the latter’s work plans opened up the possibility of undue pressure being placed on that Office to alter them in a way that could be problematic. While he did not wish to block consensus in the Council regarding the proposed revised EAO Charter, he strongly felt that that was an important issue that needed to be considered. In seeking the view of C/EAO, given his extensive knowledge and experience in this field, the Alternate Representative of the United States emphasized that Representatives needed to have a better understanding of why it was proposed to deviate from UN best practices by having the Council approve EAO’s work plans.

26. Responding to a query by the President of the Council, C/EAO clarified that the UN’s OIOS was the equivalent of his Office and roughly covered the same areas of competency.

27. In then replying to the Alternate Representative of the United States, C/EAO observed that, pursuant to the current Charter, his Office conducted broad consultations with the senior management group, the Secretary General, the President of the Council, Representatives, and the EAAC in developing EAO’s work plans and took into consideration all of the ideas put forward. After prioritizing internal audit activities using a risk-based methodology, and assessing the evaluability and strategic importance of evaluation topics, EAO established its annual work plan and presented it to the

C-MIN 210/9 -192-

Secretary General in the form of a C-WP, which was thereafter presented to the Council for information. In noting that the Council could request EAO to consider a specific topic for an internal audit, C/EAO recalled that that had happened in 2016, when his Office had been requested to carry out a performance audit of the Middle East Regional Office (MID RO) (Cairo). He indicated that, in such a case, the new topic was added to the EAO work plan and did not replace an existing topic. EAO conducted an additional analysis to ensure that the new topic could be audited and that the requisite resources were available. 28. C/EAO emphasized that the same procedure would be followed under the proposed revised EAO Charter, with the exception that EAO’s work plans would be approved by the Council. He suggested that EAAC’s views be solicited in the event the Council proposed additional topics for internal audits during its consideration of EAO’s work plans. C/EAO indicated that in the majority of cases, EAAC would endorse the work plans as presented to the Council and indicate that the suggested additional topics, while good, could not replace any of the ones already listed therein. The Council would be informed accordingly. C/EAO noted that there remained the question of how to proceed in the event the Council disagreed with the EAAC’s views.

29. Noting that it would be his successor who would be presenting EAO’s future work plans, C/EAO stressed the need for the Council to continue to ensure EAO’s independence and that the work plans truly corresponded to ICAO’s objectives and were based on risk and not on other considerations.

30. While supporting the proposed revised EAO Charter, the Representative of Sweden suggested that paragraph 6 thereof be amended by replacing the word “consulting” with the word “advisory”, in order to be consistent with paragraph 17, which indicated that EAO shall act solely in an advisory capacity. She also sought clarification regarding the unspecified standards for EAO professionals referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 25.

31. The Chairperson of the WGGE endorsed the proposed change to paragraph 6. Noting that the said first sentence of paragraph 25 had been inserted at the request of EAAC during the consultation process and that there were specific standards, he suggested it be amended by deleting the word “aforementioned” and by inserting a footnote referring specifically to the relevant standards for EAO professionals.

32. The Council agreed to the above-mentioned amendments to paragraphs 6 and 25 of the proposed revised EAO Charter. 1

33. The Representative of Turkey noted that he had been one of the few WGGE Members who had shared the concern expressed by the Alternate Representative of the United States during the Working Group’s meetings on this subject. While had no intention of challenging the authority of the Council to approve EAO’s annual evaluation and internal audit plan and indicative triennial plan, or of going against any consensus reached in the Council regarding the proposed revised EAO Charter, he was concerned that in the event that such plans contained investigative issues, the Council’s approval might give rise to conflicts of interest, possibly impairing the independence of EAO’s investigations, and to violations of privacy. The Representative of Turkey stressed the need to be very careful in such cases.

34. Observing that there was an argument to be made both for and against having the Council approve the said EAO work plans, the Representative of Argentina emphasized that while each

1 The Council subsequently decided to maintain the word “consulting” in paragraph 6 based on the mandatory definition of internal auditors as required by the international auditing standards issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors (cf. C-DEC 211/3, paragraph 39 and C-DEC 210/9 Revised, paragraph 9).

-193- C-MIN 210/9

organization of the UN system did have its own unique features, it was always desirable to follow the UN best practices. He considered that EAO work plans, which might include an investigation component, should be presented to the Council for consideration but not for obligatory approval.

35. While he largely shared the concerns expressed by the Alternate Representative of the United States and the Representative of Turkey, the Representative of France averred that the legal uncertainty regarding the EAO Charter was detrimental and that it was thus necessary for the Council to take a decision thereon. In commending the work done by the Chairperson and Members of the WGGE in revising the Charter, he indicated that if the Council had reached a consensus on approving the proposed revised text, then he would join it, despite still having some doubts regarding the chosen solution. The Representative of France emphasized that he and his Delegation would pay close attention to the way in which future EAO work plans were reviewed and approved by the Council with the aim of ensuring that nothing impaired the independence of EAO’s internal audits, evaluations and investigations.

36. In affirming that the proposed revised EAO Charter was a step forward, the Representative of Colombia voiced support for action paragraphs a) and b) of the executive summary of the paper relating to the Council’s approval thereof and to the consequential changes to be made to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) to reflect that the appointment and dismissal of C/EAO were to be carried out in future with the Council’s approval. He underscored that in certain areas ICAO needed to follow its own practices rather than UN best practices, particularly as it had been founded before the UN.

37. Noting that he was a Member of the WGGE’s SEM, the Representative of Spain indicated that he consequently supported the Working Group’s recommendations as presented in the paper. Referring to the intervention by the Representative of Turkey regarding EAO investigations, he underscored that the EAO work plan considered by the SEM had related only to internal audits and evaluations and not to investigations. The Representative of Spain agreed with the Representative of Turkey that investigations could not be included in an EAO work plan, particularly a long-term one such as the indicative triennial work plan. He underscored that, by nature, investigations arose as a result of credible allegations of misconduct and were not planned in advance.

38. Referring to the comments made by the Alternate Representative of the United States, the Representative of Spain indicated that it was an erroneous perception that the Council would be interfering with an EAO work plan if it were to introduce therein topics for internal audits. He noted that there was a defined audit universe which was established by EAO on the basis of, inter alia, topics suggested by the Secretary General, the President of the Council and Representatives, and which was prioritized by EAO using a risk-based methodology. While he thus did not think it possible for the Council to introduce a new topic into that defined audit universe, the Representative of Spain indicated that it could question EAO’s risk assessment and priorities for internal audit activities. If that were to happen, then the EAO work plan would be submitted to the EAAC, which would determine the appropriateness of the said risk assessment and priorities. He emphasized the need for the Council to bear in mind those important points when it decided on the mechanism to follow in the future.

39. While taking into account the points raised and concerns voiced by the Alternate Representative of the United States and the Representative of Turkey, the Representative of Japan shared the position expressed by the Representative of France. He thus had no objection to the proposed revised EAO Charter, out of respect for the majority view of the Council.

40. Responding to the concerns expressed by some Representatives that approval by the Council of EAO’s annual evaluation and internal audit plan and indicative triennial plan might result in undue pressure being placed on EAO to alter its work plan or, in the event that such plans contained investigative issues, might give rise to conflicts of interest, possibly impairing the independence of

C-MIN 210/9 -194-

EAO’s investigations, and to violations of privacy, the Chairperson of the WGGE reiterated that the Council’s approval of EAO’s said work plans was compliant with the standards promulgated by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and the Norms and Standards for Evaluation approved by the UNEG. He cited the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) Report entitled “State of the Internal Audit Function in the United Nations System” (JIU/REP/2016/8) in this context. The Chairperson of the WGGE emphasized that removal of the proposed provisions relating to the Council’s approval of EAO’s annual evaluation and internal audit plan and its indicative triennial plan would render the whole EAO Charter non-compliant with the said IIA and UNEG Standards.

41. The Representative of Australia supported the comments made by the Representative of France regarding the existence of concerns about the proposed approach in the revised EAO Charter and the need to move forward while remaining vigilant that nothing impaired the independence of EAO’s internal audits, evaluations and investigations. With reference to JIU/REP/2016/8 cited by the Chairperson of the WGGE as arguing for the governing body to have a role in approving the EAO work plans, he underscored that it actually drew a distinction, in paragraphs 57 to 61, between private sector and UN system bodies and argued in some paragraphs that in the UN system governing bodies should not have a role in approving the internal audit plans of UN system organizations. In light of the multiplicity of views regarding that issue, the Representative of Australia considered that the Council should endorse the approach recommended by the Representative of France.

42. Observing that ICAO’s uniqueness had often been referred to during the discussion, the President indicated that while ICAO was a part of the UN system, it was the only organization with a permanently-sitting governing body i.e. the Council. Although that did not mean that all of ICAO’s practices should be different from those of other UN system organizations, it also did not mean that they should all be the same. Emphasizing that ICAO’s uniqueness was beneficial, the President highlighted that as a result of the Organization’s efforts, aviation was the first sector to adopt a global market-based measure to address CO2 emissions, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), and a global CO2 emissions certification standard for aircraft engines. He underscored that the only reason why it was possible to operate 100 000 flights per day, transporting some 9-10 million passengers across many boundaries, was that the aviation industry was globally regulated on the basis of the Chicago Convention and the universally-applicable SARPs adopted by the Council. In thus agreeing with the comment made by the Representative of Colombia that in certain areas ICAO needed to follow its own practices rather than those of other UN Agencies, the President reiterated that ICAO played a leadership role. It was necessary to showcase it more, however, as leadership was in the eye of the beholder.

43. The President recalled, from the Council’s earlier consideration of the EAAC’s 2015- 2016 Annual Report (cf. C-WP/14527, paragraph 2.6.1; 209/4), that the EAAC had questioned the relevance of the JIU’s work to ICAO as the nature of the topics covered by its reports was not always pertinent or of high risk to ICAO. ICAO staff was required to submit a significant amount of information to the JIU for its various reports. Furthermore, ICAO currently contributed some USD 50 000 annually towards the cost of the JIU. He indicated that it might consequently be necessary for the Council to consider that issue at some point in the future. The President encouraged Representatives to discuss it beforehand between themselves to facilitate the Council’s decision-making.

44. As a compromise solution to the subject now under consideration, the President proposed that the Council approve the revised EAO Charter set forth in the Appendix to C-WP/14526 Revised, as amended in paragraph 32 above 2, on the understanding that: EAO would refrain from including in its

2 The Council subsequently decided to maintain the word “consulting” in paragraph 6 based on the mandatory definition of internal auditors as required by the international auditing standards issued by the Institute of Internal

-195- C-MIN 210/9

annual evaluation and internal audit plan and its indicative triennial plan any investigative issues; and Representatives would remain vigilant in ensuring the independence of EAO’s internal audits, evaluations and investigations. The Council so agreed. In addition, as recommended by the WGGE, the Council requested the Secretariat to make appropriate changes to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) to reflect that the appointment and dismissal of Chief, EAO are to be carried out in future with the approval of the Council, in accordance with paragraph 34 f) of the said approved EAO Charter.

Subject No. 10: ICAO relations with the United Nations, the Specialized Agencies and other international organizations

Report of the JIU entitled “Analysis of the evaluation function in the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/2014/6)

45. The Council had for consideration information paper C-WP/14589 on this subject, which had initially been circulated under cover of President’s memorandum PRES OBA/2620 dated 15 February 2017 and was now being tabled for discussion at the request of the Representative of Spain in view of its close relationship to the previous item on the review of, and Charter for, the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) of ICAO. The paper highlighted the key findings of the JIU’s 2013 study of the evolution, development and advancement of the evaluation function in the UN system (JIU/REP/2014/6). A summary of the JIU Report’s eight recommendations addressed to ICAO, the comments of the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) and the response of the ICAO Secretariat were set forth in the Appendix to the paper.

46. In introducing the paper, C/EAO noted that the JIU’s said study had examined centralized evaluation functions of the organizations in the UN system, which at ICAO were conducted by the evaluation function assigned to EAO. It had also looked at decentralized evaluation functions, which currently did not exist at ICAO. Recommendation 9 addressed the Secretariat’s current view regarding establishing such a function at ICAO. The report presented the development of the evaluation function in the UN system assessing the following questions:

• Has there been progression in the growth and development of the evaluation function in the UN system? • What is the level of development of the evaluation function? • What is its capacity to support UN system organizations and its response to demands, changes and challenges? • How has it added value? and • What alternative approaches exist for an effective evaluation function that serves the UN system in the current context?

47. In highlighting that the evaluation function at ICAO had been enhanced by the Council’s adoption of the ICAO Evaluation Policy in October 2014 (C-WP/14189; 203/3), C/EAO underscored that his Office’s evaluations, which were conducted upholding the revised 2016 UNEG Evaluation Norms and Standards, were for the dual purpose of accountability and learning and strove to use multidisciplinary perspectives. He noted that a UNEG peer review was tentatively scheduled for EAO’s evaluation function in the second half of 2017, which might also provide input and recommendations for reassessing the ICAO Evaluation Policy, the ICAO evaluation strategy and priorities of the evaluation function.

Auditors (cf. C-DEC 211/3, paragraph 39 and C-DEC 210/9 Revised, paragraph 9).

C-MIN 210/9 -196-

48. C/EAO observed that of the said eight JIU recommendations addressed to ICAO, two were directed to the Council as governing body and had already been implemented: Recommendation 3 relating to the development of a comprehensive budget framework and resource allocation plan for the evaluation function; and Recommendation 4 on the establishment of a term limit for the Head of Evaluation (a single non-renewable term of office of between five and seven years with no possibility of re-entry into the organization) and the necessary qualifications and experience. In addition, Recommendation 2 on the adoption of a balanced approach in addressing the dual purpose of evaluation i.e. accountability and learning, was already being applied by ICAO.

49. The Representative of Spain expressed satisfaction that: ICAO had accepted and already implemented Recommendation 4 through, inter alia, the Council’s decision (208/4) to revise the five-year, non-renewable term of appointment for the post of C/EAO to a seven-year, non-renewable term; and that it had accepted and was in the process of implementing Recommendation 6 through, inter alia, reporting to the Council on the evaluation function in accordance with the provisions of EAO’s Charter, as revised under the previous item (cf. paragraph 44 above). Referring to Recommendation 7, he underscored the usefulness of informing the Council of the UNEG peer review results.

50. Having completed its consideration of C-WP/14589, the Council took note of: the information contained therein; the supplementary information provided by C/EAO in his introduction of the paper; and the comments made during the discussion, in particular, that it would be useful for the Council to be informed of the results of the envisaged UNEG peer review.

Report of the JIU entitled “Review of the organizational Ombudsman service across the United Nations system” (JIU/REP/2015/6)

51. This subject was considered on the basis of information paper C-WP/14583, which had initially been circulated under cover of President’s memorandum PRES OBA/2620 dated 15 February 2017 and was now being tabled for discussion at the request of the Representative of Spain given its close relationship to the two previous items.

52. Introducing the paper, C/EAO noted that it highlighted the key findings of the JIU’s 2015 study of the functioning of the Ombudsman offices in UN system organizations (JIU/REP/2015/6). A summary of the JIU Report’s eight recommendations addressed to ICAO, the comments of the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) and the response of the ICAO Secretariat was set forth in the Appendix to the paper. Of the said eight recommendations, one was directed to the Council as governing body and had been accepted and is being applied: Recommendation 5 relating to reporting by the Ombudsman to the legislative body on systemic issues identified on a regular basis. Pursuant to that recommendation, as appropriate and as deemed necessary, systemic issues can be brought to the attention of the Council by the ICAO Ombudsman at any time. In addition, four other recommendations had already been implemented: Recommendation 1 on the review, update and dissemination of the Ombudsman’s Terms of Reference (TOR) across the organization; Recommendation 2 on increasing staff awareness and promoting a better understanding of the Ombudsman function; Recommendation 3 on facilitating access of all field staff to Ombudsman services; and Recommendation 6 relating to, inter alia, the continuous training of Ombudsman practitioners.

53. The ICAO Ombudsman, Mr. M. Liapakis, recalled that ICAO had been one of the first UN system organizations to establish an Office of the Ombudsman, in 1991. He underscored that there were four Standards of Practice as set by the International Ombudsman Association (IOA) which were the cornerstones of all Ombudsman Offices: independence, neutrality, impartiality, and, most importantly, confidentiality. The key element which distinguished any Ombudsman Office from any other Office was its focus on informal dispute resolution, as mentioned by the Secretary General during the Council’s

-197- C-MIN 210/9

consideration of the Annual Report of the Ethics Officer for 2016 (cf. C-WP/14575 Revision No. 2; 210/8).

54. In noting, with pride, that his Office functioned very well, the Ombudsman highlighted that he had informal monthly discussions with the Secretary General regarding staff issues. In addition, he discussed relevant staff issues with the Director of the Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB), Human Resources (ADB-HR), and the President of the ICAO Staff Association on a “need only” basis. Observing that the present Secretary General, Dr. Fang Liu, was the seventh Secretary General at whose discretion he had served, the Ombudsman indicated that he had always appreciated the fact that his observations, advice and recommendations were taken into consideration in the decision-making process. He wished to place on record that the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman had never been infringed upon or circumvented at any time during his tenure.

55. Emphasizing that he was available for consultation by all ICAO staff regarding any employment-related issue, the Ombudsman noted that he always asked each individual for explicit permission to assist in looking into his/her matter with a view to informally finding a solution. He underscored that while every international organization was unique in its own way, the JIU study had revealed that the same staff issues arose throughout the UN system. The Ombudsman stressed the importance of ensuring that there was never a breakdown in communication and above all, a breakdown in respect when seeking to informally resolve a staff issue.

56. On behalf of the Council, the President thanked the Ombudsman for all the work that he was doing on behalf of the Organization, which was in addition to his regular duties.

57. In expressing appreciation for this opportunity to hear the views of the ICAO Ombudsman, the Representative of Spain highlighted that pursuant to Recommendation 5, it should be possible for the Ombudsman to report to the legislative body i.e. the Council on systemic issues identified on a regular basis. While noting that the Ombudsman had not addressed the Council in recent times, probably due to the lack of any major staff issues requiring its attention, he emphasized that it was nevertheless important for the Council to hear from the Ombudsman from time to time on his activities.

58. Drawing attention to Recommendation 3, the Representative of Spain enquired whether ICAO Regional Office staff had access to the Ombudsman of another UN system organization in the same location as called for under that recommendation. In then referring to Recommendation 2, he queried how questions relating to the ICAO Ombudsman service were included in staff surveys and how that mechanism could be further developed going forward, with the responses being used to increase staff awareness and promote a better understanding of the Ombudsman function in ICAO.

59. In offering clarifications, the Ombudsman noted that the seven Secretaries General at whose discretion he had served had had different reporting requirements. While some had wished to receive information on staff issues on a yearly basis, the present Secretary General had requested that it be provided on a monthly basis. In his said informal monthly discussions with Dr. Liu, the Ombudsman upheld strict confidentiality and did not reveal the names of the individuals concerned. He noted that the key staff issues discussed related to, inter alia: personality conflicts; career development, including non- selection for an advertised vacant post; performance appraisals; and the administration of benefits, such as pensions and medical insurance. With the permission of the individual concerned, the Ombudsman verified whether due process had been followed. As he had access to all records concerning staff (except for medical records and records on ongoing legal proceedings), he was able to review the tangible evidence that had been presented. Thereafter the Ombudsman informed the individual if due process had been followed, provided advice regarding his/her options and suggested actions to be taken to informally resolve the issue.

C-MIN 210/9 -198-

60. The Ombudsman took it as a badge of honour that some individuals who did not know whom to turn to, being unwilling to formally discuss sensitive issues and/or fearing retaliation, placed their trust and confidence in him. Emphasizing that, as in all cases, he informally provided confidential, off-the-record and impartial assistance, he stressed that any breach of confidentiality on his part would constitute misconduct and would discourage such staff from consulting the Ombudsman. Noting that there was not one systemic staff issue that was raised in discussions with individuals, the Ombudsman indicated that he was consulted about everything and anything related to their employment at ICAO. He cited, as examples, inappropriate verbal and written communications.

61. With regard to Recommendation 3, the Ombudsman underscored that all Regional Office and Technical Cooperation Bureau (TCB) Project staff had access to his services. He noted that since 2012, as part of ICAO’s outreach programme, he and the Ethics Officer undertook a visit to each Regional Office on a two-year interval schedule, during which they met staff and provided training in their respective areas. Observing that the said staff sometimes had the perception that they were not part of ICAO and that their issues were being unheeded by Headquarters, the Ombudsman emphasized that such visits had proved to be very successful, enabling both him and the Ethics Officer to keep a finger on the pulse of each Regional Office and also to convey the message that they served all ICAO staff. Underscoring that he was always available for consultation, he noted that he held discussions with Regional Office and TCB Project staff whenever the need arose, regardless of the time difference, availing himself of whatever means of communication was most convenient to the individual, including Skype. The Ombudsman indicated that he and the Ethics Officer would be visiting the Bangkok RO at the end of March 2017, followed by the Mexico, Lima, Dakar, Cairo and Paris ROs and the Beijing RSO in May 2017.

62. Responding to the question raised regarding Recommendation 2, the Ombudsman emphasized that staff awareness of the Ombudsman Office and the Ethics Office was constantly being increased through Staff Association surveys, ethics training and surveys, and the growing number of orientation courses given by ADB-HR to the influx of new staff. Noting that ADB-HR even referred cases to him, he emphasized that informal dispute resolution by the Ombudsman was very much promoted throughout the UN system and was increasingly receiving attention.

63. Supplementing these explanations, the Secretary General noted that the Ombudsman performed his service on a part-time basis, in addition to his regular duties, based on TOR which were in accordance with UN Standards and which she had approved. She reiterated that all Regional Offices were being visited on a regular, two-year interval basis, and that training was being provided, in order to ensure that all ICAO staff were provided with Ombudsman service. In emphasizing the independence of the Ombudsman Office, the Secretary General underscored the Ombudsman’s role and responsibilities in independently carrying out informal dispute resolution.

64. In expressing her appreciation for her informal monthly discussions with the Ombudsman regarding staff issues, the Secretary General highlighted that they enhanced her understanding of staff members’ concerns and enabled her to work with senior management and the ICAO Staff Association to address them.

65. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of Spain regarding Recommendation 5, the President of the Council reiterated that as appropriate and as warranted, the Ombudsman could at any time bring systemic issues to the Council’s attention.

66. In voicing appreciation for the information shared by the Ombudsman, the Representative of Malaysia underscored that the service which he provided under the purview of the Secretary General

-199- C-MIN 210/9

was very important in informally resolving some staff issues of a legal nature. With all due respect to the present Ombudsman, he was nevertheless of the view that it was high time to consider creating a full-time Ombudsman position to provide legal assistance to staff members free-of-charge.

67. The President of the Council emphasized that ICAO had not only been one of the first UN system organizations to establish an Office of the Ombudsman, it had also been among the first of comparable organizations to create an Ethics Office. Recalling that in taking its earlier decision regarding the Annual Report of the Ethics Officer for 2016 the Council had requested the Ethics Officer and the Human Resources Committee (HRC) to explore all possible cost-effective options to meet the requirement to provide legal assistance to staff members in the preparation of complaints/allegations and the preparation of appeals in cases of misconduct or potential misconduct while taking into account current budget implications and limitations [cf. C-WP/14575 Revision No. 2, paragraph 3.5.4; C-DEC 210/8, paragraph 18 d)], he indicated that the Representative of Malaysia’s suggestion could be considered by the Ethics Officer and the HRC in that context, with due attention being paid to the financial implications.

68. The Ombudsman highlighted, in this regard, that the UN Office of Administration of Justice had established that the preliminary step in the formal system for filing an application with the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) contesting an administrative decision could be suspended if it was considered that the matter could be informally resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman and Mediation Services. Referring to the said Annual Report of the Ethics Officer, he reiterated that ICAO staff could avail themselves of the services of a Staff Representative and Counsel on Internal Administrative and Legal Proceedings (cf. C-WP/14575 Revision No. 2, paragraph 3.5.3) in preparing complaints/allegations and appeals. The Ombudsman noted that the Counsel contacted him on occasion regarding a staff issue. In highlighting that he acted as a filter by advising individuals about their options for addressing the issues they faced, he emphasized that he avoided any conflicts of interest, including such as might arise if he were to sit on interview panels, and remained neutral and impartial. Furthermore, the Ombudsman ensured that his consultations with staff remained informal, as the resolution process would otherwise be compromised, such as through his provision of legal advice. He noted that although he was not a lawyer, the Office of the Ombudsman had worked very well since its establishment in 1991. In appreciating the suggestion made by the Representative of Malaysia, the Ombudsman reiterated that he served at the discretion of the Secretary General and emphasized that it was a question of what was in the best interest of ICAO staff and, most importantly, the Organization.

69. Having completed its consideration of this subject, the Council took note of: the information contained in C-WP/14582; the supplementary information provided by the ICAO Ombudsman, Mr. M. Liapakis, and the Secretary General regarding, inter alia, the Ombudsman’s TOR, role and responsibilities in working independently to informally resolve issues facing staff at ICAO Headquarters and the Regional Offices and TCB Project staff, and the various outreach activities conducted; and the comments made during the discussion, including the suggestion made by the Representative of Malaysia that consideration be given to creating a full-time Ombudsman position to provide legal assistance to staff members free-of-charge, taking into account the possible financial implications. It was agreed that that suggestion be considered by the Ethics Officer and the HRC as part of their exploration of all possible cost-effective options to meet the requirement to provide legal assistance to staff members in the preparation of complaints/allegations and the preparation of appeals in cases of misconduct or potential misconduct while taking into account current budget implications and limitations [cf. C-WP/14575 Revision No. 2, paragraph 3.5.4; C-DEC 210/8, paragraph 18 d)].

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

Review of the Terms of Reference of the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC)

C-MIN 210/9 -200-

70. The Council considered this subject on the basis of the following oral report presented by the Chairperson of the WGGE, the Representative of India, Mr. A. Shekhar:

71. The Council, at its Fourth Meeting of the 208th Session (208/4) on 20 May 2016, had requested the WGGE to review the EAAC’s Terms of Reference (TOR) and to report thereon in due course. The WGGE, at its First Meeting of the 209th Session on 27 October 2016, had assigned that task to its reconstituted Subgroup on Supporting the EAO Mission (SEM Sub-group) for report to the WGGE during the 210th Session. The SEM Sub-group was chaired by the Representative of the Russian Federation, with the Representatives of Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United Republic of Tanzania as Members.

72. The WGGE had met twice during the 210th Session, on 19 January and 21 February 2017, to consider the SEM’s proposed amendments to the EAAC’s TOR which the Sub-group had developed following its holistic review of EAO’s Charter alongside the said TOR (cf. paragraphs 20-44 above) and which included, inter alia, the following new insertions:

i) roles and responsibilities of the Chairperson of EAAC; ii) the scope of the EAAC's advice to include the ICAO Framework on Ethics and coordination of planning and coverage of topics between internal, external audit and evaluation; and iii) need to inform the Council of the EAAC’s work plan for the following year.

73. As envisaged under the existing EAAC TOR, those proposals had been referred to the EAAC for consultation, through its Chairperson, Mr. Kurt Grüter. Following several subsequent discussions with the SEM, the EAAC had expressed its agreement with the proposed amendments to its TOR as presented in the Appendix to the WGGE’s oral report.

74. The EAAC had, however, reiterated its desire that the Council reconsider its position (201/1) on the financing by ICAO of Members’ travel expenses taking into account the practices in several UN agencies and the understanding that Members’ independence would not necessarily be eroded thereby. The WGGE had noted that the Finance Committee (FIC) would address that issue in the Committee’s oral report on C-WP/14578 on the appointment of EAAC Members (to be considered by the Council under the next item) and that the EAAC TOR would be revised if and as necessary to reflect the Council’s decision thereon. The Working Group therefore recommended that the Council approve the proposed amendments to the EAAC’s TOR as presented in the Appendix to its oral report.

Discussion

75. As a general comment, the Alternate Representative of the United States indicated that his State continued to have concerns, under both this item and the next item (Appointment of EAAC Members), regarding the payment by the nominating State of its candidate’s travel expenses. The United States considered that that constituted a conflict of interest and did not comport with paragraph 2.4 of both the existing and the proposed revised EAAC TOR, which specified that “Members of EAAC shall be independent of the Secretariat, Council Members, the External Auditor and any other body that may be perceived as a conflict of interest.”. A State paying its nominee’s travel expenses called that into question.

76. The Alternate Representative of the United States then proposed the following changes to the proposed revised EAAC TOR (cf. Appendix): that paragraph 5.2 on the duties of EAAC be expanded

-201- C-MIN 210/9

to include consideration of, and advice to the Council on, the appointment, performance and dismissal of the Ethics Officer (in addition to C/EAO) (cf. 12th bullet); and that paragraph 8.1 be amended to reflect that the EAAC’s annual report shall document any concerns or recommendations relating to the independence and performance of the ethics function (in addition to the internal or external audit and evaluation functions) (cf. 2nd bullet) and shall document any significant concerns or recommendations EAAC Members may have in relation to the ICAO Framework on Ethics (in addition to the Organization’s risk management, controls and accountability processes) (cf. 4th bullet).

77. While not opposed to these changes, the Representative of Mexico emphasized that he was uncomfortable taking a decision thereon during the present meeting as he lacked sufficient information. He underscored that the proposals warranted further analysis, particularly in light of the decision taken by the Council at its previous meeting with regard to the Annual Report of the Ethics Officer for 2016 (cf. C-WP/14575 Revision No. 2; 210/8), whereby the Ethics Office was to consult with EAO and the HRC on certain issues. The Representative of Mexico indicated that the EAAC’s view regarding the proposed changes could also be sought.

78. The Representative of Spain observed that two separate issues had been raised by the Alternate Representative of the United States: the independence of the Ethics Officer; and the EAAC’s role vis-à-vis ethics issues. With respect to the latter, he recalled that the WGGE was proposing that the EAAC TOR be expanded to include the review of the ICAO Framework on Ethics [cf. paragraph 72 ii) above and paragraph 1.1 of the revised EAAC TOR]. The Representative of Spain thus considered that the various changes proposed by the Alternate Representative could be included, with the exception of the issue of the appointment, performance and dismissal of the Ethics Officer, which he could not recall having been discussed previously in the WGGE and which would have repercussions for The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350).

79. To the point raised by the Alternate Representative of the United States regarding the payment of EAAC Members’ travel expenses, the Representative of Spain indicated that it would be necessary to first obtain a legal opinion on whether it was possible for ICAO to defray those costs under Article 63 of the Chicago Convention. In the negative, the point would be moot.

80. The Chairperson of the WGGE noted that although the EAAC had reiterated its desire that the Council reconsider its position and have ICAO pay its Members’ travel costs so as to reinforce their independence, the general view of the Working Group had been that it was necessary for the EAAC TOR to reflect the Council’s existing decision thereon (192/8 and 201/1). However, the WGGE left it open for the Council to take any further decision in that regard.

81. With reference to the suggested changes to the proposed revised EAAC TOR put forward by the Alternate Representative of the United States, the Chairperson of the WGGE underscored that although the latter was a WGGE Member, the changes had not been presented to the Working Group for prior consideration. He highlighted the need to consider whether EAAC Members, most of whose core competencies were in the areas of audit, evaluation, risk management and finance, would be sufficiently competent to address ethics-related matters.

82. The Representative of Kenya averred that payment by ICAO of the EAAC Members’ travel expenses would open a Pandora’s Box inasmuch as it would set a precedent for other Council Committees and for panels which offered the Organization their services. She emphasized that it would be inappropriate to single out the EAAC from among other Council Committees for such remuneration, and that the Council would be contradicting itself if it were to reopen that issue.

C-MIN 210/9 -202-

83. In supporting the interventions by the Representatives of Mexico and Kenya, the Representative of South Africa questioned why the Council would wish to review the issue of the payment of EAAC Members’ travel expenses when the Committee was functioning very well under the current payment mechanism. The Chairperson of the WGGE clarified that the review of the EAAC TOR had been undertaken by the Working Group at the request of the Council (208/4) and that the issue of ICAO defraying EAAC Members’ travel expenses had been raised during its consultations with the Committee.

84. Responding to the comment made by the Representative of Kenya, the Alternate Representative of the United States emphasized that it would be possible to avoid opening a Pandora’s Box if the EAAC nomination process were changed to nomination on an individual basis rather than on a State basis.

85. In endorsing the proposed revised EAAC TOR, the Representative of the Russian Federation underscored that the EAAC had agreed thereto, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the WGGE oral report (cf. paragraph 73 above), and that the TOR was subject to a periodic review by EAAC Members under paragraph 9.1 thereof “to ensure that it continues to reflect best professional practice, remains relevant to the operating context of the Organization, and continues to meet the needs of the Council”. Any proposed amendments thereto would be submitted to the Council for approval. Referring to the interventions by the Representatives of Spain and Kenya, he noted that pursuant to Article 63 of the Chicago Convention, “Each Contracting State shall bear … the remuneration, travel and other expenses … of its nominees or representatives on any subsidiary committees or commissions of the Organization.”, which was a very clear response to the question of opening a Pandora’s Box.

86. Following the above initial comments regarding the financing of EAAC Members’ travel expenses by the respective nominating States or by ICAO or on another basis, the President suggested, and the Council agreed, to defer further discussion of that issue to the next item on the order of business.

87. Recalling the difficulties which had arisen in developing both the original EAAC TOR and the EAO Charter, and the close involvement of the Chairperson of the EAAC in their formulation, the Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he would prefer that the Council not make any further substantive changes to the EAAC TOR without first obtaining the said Chairperson’s view thereon. While noting that the proposals by the Alternate Representative of the United States appeared, at first sight, to have much merit in the sense that they might help strengthen assurance around the ICAO Framework on Ethics, which the WGGE was proposing come under the EAAC’s review, he would prefer to address them as part of an early review of the EAAC TOR pursuant to paragraph 9.1 thereof. The Representative of the United Kingdom considered that the Council should now approve the proposed revised EAAC TOR in the form presented by the WGGE and later discuss the changes proposed by the Alternate Representative of the United States during the said review process. The Representatives of Spain and Mexico agreed.

88. In light of the discussion, the President suggested that the Council: approve the proposed revised EAAC TOR as presented in the Appendix to the WGGE’s oral report; and refer the proposals made by the Alternate Representative of the United States (cf. paragraph 76 above) to amend paragraphs 5.2 and 8.1 thereof to the WGGE for consideration, in consultation with the EAAC and taking into account the comments made, and report to the Council during the next (211th) session. In so doing, the WGGE should also consider the possible consequent need to review the ICAO Framework on Ethics and the recruitment process for the Ethics Officer and to accordingly make amendments to The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350) if necessary. The Council so agreed.

-203- C-MIN 210/9

Appointment of Members of the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC)

89. The Council had for consideration: C-WP/14578, in which the Secretary General presented three options for inviting nominations of candidates to serve as Members on the EAAC for a three-year term from 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2020; and an oral report thereon by the FIC, which had reviewed the paper at its Third Meeting of the current session on 27 January 2017.

Oral report by the FIC

90. In presenting the oral report, the Chairperson of the FIC, the Representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. M. Rodmell, indicated that although the opinions of FIC Members on the three options had been divided, the majority had been in favour of option a) [“Request the Secretary General to issue a State letter similar to the one issued on 17 March 2014 (O 4/8-14/17) and encourage States to forward a copy of this to their State Audit Institutions.”]. In particular, Members had agreed that States should not restrict consideration of possible candidates to their country’s aviation ministry but should be advised to distribute a copy of the State letter to their State Audit Institutions, or other relevant authorities, in order to ensure that the most appropriate and best qualified candidates were nominated.

91. Regarding option b) [“In order to ensure that applications are received from as wide a range of individuals as possible, request the Secretary General to place an advertisement for candidates on the ICAO website and in the international press.”], the majority of FIC Members had not supported the proposal to place advertisements in the international press; however, they had agreed that a notice should be placed on ICAO’s website drawing attention to the State letter and the call for nominations.

92. Opinions had been divided on option c) [“Decide whether to re-visit the issue of whether ICAO can pay for the travel costs of EAAC Members should a well-qualified candidate apply independently, and where his/her State is not in a position to provide the necessary financing.”]. The majority of FIC Members had supported the status quo, whereby the travel costs of EAAC Members were paid by the nominating State. However, there had also been support for reviewing that decision again once the result of the call for nominations was known. One FIC Member had suggested that, in order to reduce travel costs, the EAAC could make use of electronic communications rather than face-to-face meetings.

93. In summary, the FIC had recommended: that a State letter be issued and that it include a request to disseminate it to the relevant authorities; that the call for nominations be highlighted on ICAO’s website; and that the status quo be maintained regarding the payment of EAAC Members’ travel costs.

94. The Chairperson of the FIC highlighted that although there had not been a clear consensus in the FIC regarding any of the three options set forth in paragraph 3.1 of the paper, there had been a clear majority view in each case. With regard to the financing of EAAC Members’ travel expenses [cf. sub-paragraph c)], he underscored that while the Chairperson of the EAAC, Mr. Kurt Grüter, was strongly in favour of ICAO paying those costs, the majority of FIC Members considered that the status quo should be maintained, with the nominating States continuing to finance EAAC Members’ travel expenses.

Discussion

95. The President noted that although the decisions of the Council were taken by a majority pursuant to Rule 62 of the Standing Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559), in practice he tried to ensure that they were taken by consensus whenever possible as that was the best way to ensure

C-MIN 210/9 -204-

Representatives’ support going forward.

96. Observing that there was consensus in the Council regarding option a), and agreement that option b) should not be supported, the President indicated that attention should now focus on option c) relating to the financing of EAAC Members’ travel expenses. He recalled that that issue had been under discussion since the presentation of the EAAC’s second annual report (cf. C-WP/14072, paragraph 6.3; 200/3), in which it was highlighted that the non-payment by ICAO of EAAC Members’ travel costs had had a direct impact on representation and on a number of occasions had meant that the EAAC had not been quorate. In addressing that issue it was necessary for the Council to consider the existing rules and procedures governing the issue, including Article 63 of the Chicago Convention.

97. Noting that all three options set forth in paragraph 3.1 of the paper were inter-related, the Alternate Representative of the United States emphasized that a legal interpretation of Article 63 would be based on the current procedure, whereby States nominated suitably-qualified experts to serve as EAAC Members. Highlighting that there were other models used by other international organizations in the UN system under which States did not nominate candidates to serve on Committees, he underscored that if ICAO were to adopt such a model then Article 63 would no longer apply. The Alternate Representative of the United States suggested that in order to address the strong view expressed by the Chairperson of the EAAC in favour of ICAO paying EAAC Members’ travel expenses, the Council should consider in future revising the nomination process for EAAC Members so as to also allow individuals to apply in a personal capacity rather than being nominated by States. This was noted.

98. The President underscored that by agreeing to option a), the Council was agreeing to the issuance of a State letter which, similar to State letter O 4/8-14/17 dated 17 March 2014, would invite Governments i.e. States to nominate candidates to serve as EAAC Members and request them to disseminate the State letter to their State Audit Institutions and other relevant authorities in order to ensure that the most appropriate and best qualified candidates were nominated. In enquiring whether the Council wished to change that nomination process as suggested, he emphasized that it would otherwise not be possible, under Article 63 of the Chicago Convention, to resolve the issue of the payment of EAAC Members’ travel expenses by ICAO. The President recalled, in this context, that although many participants in ICAO’s panels were not from States but rather from international organizations, ICAO still did not defray their travel expenses. He noted that an exception was when the Secretariat wished to interview short-listed internationally-recruited candidates for D-1 and D-2 posts, in which case the Organization covered the candidate’s travel expenses.

99. Referring to the comments made by Representatives under the previous item and during the present discussion regarding the issue of financing of EAAC Members’ travel expenses, the Director of the Legal Affairs and External Relations Bureau (D/LEB) clarified that in accordance with Article 63 of the Chicago Convention, “Each Contracting State shall bear … the remuneration, travel and other expenses … of its nominees or representatives on any subsidiary committees or commissions of the Organization.”. Consequently, those States that chose to nominate EAAC Members were responsible for financing their respective nominee’s expenses, including their travel expenses. This was noted.

100. Highlighting that the EAAC was only composed of five to seven Members, whereas ICAO was composed of 191 Member States, the President of the Council underscored that only those Member States which were prepared to fund all related travel and subsistence costs would nominate a candidate to serve as an EAAC Member. If the Council were to decide to seek experts who were not nominated by States, then it could start discussing payment of their travel expenses by ICAO pursuant to the suggestion made by the Alternate Representative of the United States.

101. The Representative of South Africa endorsed D/LEB’s legal interpretation of Article 63,

-205- C-MIN 210/9

and the earlier comment made by the President regarding the Council taking decisions by majority.

102. In complementing the intervention by the Alternate Representative of the United States, the Representative of Canada emphasized the need to determine whether the EAAC was substantially different from all other subsidiary bodies of ICAO in the sense that its independence and function might necessitate a different treatment. In the affirmative, the Council might wish to discuss whether Members’ travel expenses should be paid by ICAO.

103. The Representative of Turkey underscored that by agreeing to options a) and b), the Council accepted that there might be independent candidates who were suitably-qualified to serve as EAAC Members. It only remained to decide whether such candidates should defray their own travel expenses. Indicating that he was not very strict under those circumstances, the Representative of Turkey emphasized that if the Council, the President or the Secretary General were to identify a good candidate whose services were essential for the EAAC, then ICAO should pay his/her travel expenses.

104. Responding to the Representative of Canada’s query, the Chairperson of the FIC stressed that at the present time the EAAC was not substantially different from the other subsidiary bodies. However, as suggested by the Alternate Representative of the United States, the Council could make it so by changing the nomination process from a nomination by States to a nomination on an individual basis. It was thus a question of whether the Council wished to do that at this stage. The Chairperson of the FIC emphasized the need to take into account that a clear majority of FIC Members had not supported that position.

105. Speaking as the Representative of the United Kingdom, he indicated that he was in favour of ICAO defraying EAAC Members’ travel expenses and of considering ways to do so at a future Council session.

106. Emphasizing that the issue underlying the payment of EAAC Members’ travel expenses was the allocation of resources, the Representative of Mexico highlighted that it was already difficult for the Secretariat to mobilize the resources required for ICAO’s core work. While he maintained his position that ICAO should not cover EAAC Members’ travel expenses, he indicated that if EAO could defray those costs using its budgetary allocation, then he could agree thereto. However, the Representative of Mexico was uncertain that that would solve the problem of attendance at EAAC meetings.

107. Observing that option a) did not refer to State nomination, the Alternate Representative of the United States averred that it could be interpreted as meaning that a State letter would be issued in which States would be encouraged to disseminate it to their State Audit Institutions and other relevant authorities which might be aware of suitably qualified individuals who could put forward their own nominations to serve as EAAC Members. While not expecting this issue to be resolved during the present meeting, he wished the Council to be open to his suggestion to revise the nomination process so as to also allow individuals to apply in a personal capacity rather than being nominated by States, which would have implications for the financing of EAAC Members’ travel expenses. The resource issue raised by the Representative of Mexico was a separate matter which was likewise for future discussion.

108. In enquiring as to the number of EAAC meetings held at ICAO Headquarters per year, the Representative of Kenya questioned why the Council was spending so much time discussing the payment of airfare for seven EAAC Members at a time when the Secretary General was endeavouring to mobilize resources for much larger projects for ICAO and States were making voluntary contributions every day to support the Organization’s work.

109. There being no further comments, the Council noted the FIC’s oral report and, in taking

C-MIN 210/9 -206- the action recommended by the Committee:

h) requested the Secretary General to issue a State letter, similar to the previous State letter on this subject (State letter O 4/8-14/17 dated 17 March 2014) inviting nominations of candidates to serve as EAAC Members for a three-year term from 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2020 and requesting States to disseminate it to their State Audit Institutions and other relevant authorities in order to ensure that the most appropriate and best qualified candidates are nominated;

i) requested the Secretary General to place a notice on the ICAO public website drawing attention to the aforementioned State letter and the call for nominations to serve on the EAAC; and

j) decided, by a majority, to maintain the status quo with regard to the financing of EAAC Members’ travel expenses, with the nominating States remaining responsible for payment of those costs pursuant to Article 63 of the Chicago Convention.

110. It was understood that, in accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the revised EAAC TOR (cf. paragraph 88 above): the President of the Council would consider the nominations received; and a report presenting his recommendation regarding the appointment of EAAC Members for the period 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2020 would be submitted to the Council for consideration during the next (211th) session.

Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Options to enhance succession planning in ICAO

111. The Council considered this subject on the basis of: C-WP/14579, in which the Secretary General, further to the Council’s earlier request (208/10), reported on the progress made to date in integrating succession planning with other overarching talent management strategies in ICAO, and presented actions to further enhance succession planning in the Organization; and an oral report thereon by the Human Resources Committee (HRC), which had reviewed the paper at its First Meeting of the current session on 26 January 2017.

Oral report by the HRC

112. In presenting the oral report, the Chairperson of the HRC, the Representative of Egypt, Mr. A. Khedr indicated that the Committee Members had noted with appreciation the actions taken to date on succession planning, which were directly inter-related with many other ongoing human resources management policies, strategies and procedures, including, inter alia, workforce planning, staff mobility, learning and development, career guidance, and knowledge transfer.

113. The HRC had noted that ADB-HR, in collaboration with Bureaus and Offices, would continue to build on the progress made to date by pursuing additional activities which would strengthen ongoing measures and further enhance overall succession planning activities in ICAO.

114. The HRC had therefore recommended that the Council note the progress made to date and the actions presented to further enhance succession planning in ICAO.

-207- C-MIN 210/9

Discussion

115. In expressing support for the paper and the HRC’s oral report, the Representative of Mexico suggested that in future quantifiable data be provided to enable the Council to assess the progress being achieved in improving succession planning in ICAO.

116. Affirming that that was a good suggestion, D/ADB indicated that future updates on the progress made in succession planning would incorporate quantifiable data in the areas where the succession planning activities undertaken lent themselves to quantification. This was noted.

117. Responding to a point then raised by the President of the Council, D/ADB underscored that ensuring continuity was an important element of succession planning. The Secretariat was vigorously monitoring compliance with recruitment timelines to ensure the timely filling of vacancies arising from the departure of personnel. He noted that other elements, such as the provision of career guidance and the retention of personnel through offering the possibility of staff mobility, were more qualitative in nature, rendering it difficult to obtain quantifiable data with which to track progress.

118. In completing its consideration of this subject, the Council: noted the progress made to date in integrating succession planning with other over-arching talent management strategies (relating to workforce planning, staff mobility, learning and development, career guidance and knowledge transfer) as summarized in Section 3 of the paper; and endorsed the actions presented in Section 4 thereof to further enhance succession planning in ICAO, whereby ADB-HR, in collaboration with Bureaus and Offices, would pursue: a) the development of competency profiles for key occupational groups and the integration of those competencies in the design of learning and development programmes;

b) broadening the development of pools of talent for specific competencies to assist in ensuring that as many staff as possible are equipped with competencies required to fill vacancies, when they become available; and

c) strengthening accountability for “knowledge sharing/transfer” throughout the Organization by embedding it in job descriptions, performance management, and orientation and training programmes.

119. The meeting adjourned at 1730 hours.

-209- C-MIN 210/10

COUNCIL — 210TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2017, AT 1000 HOURS)

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Secretary General

PRESENT: Algeria — Mr. A.D. Mesroua Kenya — Ms. M.B. Awori Argentina — Mr. G.E. Ainchil Malaysia — Mr. Y.-H. Lim Australia — Mr. S. Lucas Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Brazil — Mrs. M.G. Valente da Costa Nigeria — Mr. M.S. Nuhu Cabo Verde — Mr. C. Monteiro Panama — Mr. G.S. Oller Canada — Ms. W. Drukier Republic of Korea — Mr. J. Hur China — Mr. Shengjun Yang Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov Colombia — Mr. A. Muñoz Gómez Saudi Arabia — Mr. S.A.R. Hashem Congo — Mr. R.M. Ondzotto Singapore — Mr. T.C. Ng Cuba — Mrs. M. Crespo Frasquieri South Africa — Mr. M.D.T. Peege Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado Egypt — Mr. A. Khedr Sweden — Ms. H. Jansson Saxe France — Mr. P. Bertoux Turkey — Mr. A.R. Çolak Germany — Mr. U. Schwierczinski United Arab Emirates — Mr. M. Salem (Alt.) India — Mr. A. Shekhar United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rodmell Ireland — Mrs. A. Smith Floch United Republic of Tanzania — Mr. R.W. Bokango Italy — Mr. M.R. Rusconi United States — Mr. S. Kotis (Alt.) Japan — Mr. S. Matsui Uruguay — Mr. D. Amado (Alt.)

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT: Dr. N. Luongo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mrs. J. Yan — CoO/OSG Mrs. M.F. Loguzzo (Alt.) ― Argentina Mr. I. Galán ― D/TCB Mr. N. Castro da Silva (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. B. Djibo ― D/ATB Mr. L. Sacchi Guadagnin (Alt) ― Brazil Mr. J. Augustin ― D/LEB Mr. R. da Rosa Costa (Alt.) ― Brazil Mr. S. Creamer ― D/ANB Mr. P. Langlais (Alt.) ― Canada Mr. V. Smith ― D/ADB Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) ― China Mrs. J. Hupe ― DD/ENV Mr. M. Millefert (Alt.) ― France Mr. H. Gourdji ― DD/MO Mr. N. Naoumi (Alt.) ― Germany Mrs. L. Comeau-Stuart ― C/POD Mr. M. Ishii (Alt.) ― Japan Ms. K. Balram ― C/SEA Mrs. D. Valle Álvarez (Alt.) ― Mexico Mr. A. Opolot ― LEB Mr. S. Kim (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Ms. O. Bondareva ― LEB Mr. K. Lee (Alt.) ― Republic of Korea Miss S. Plourde ― LEB Mr. D. Subbotin (Alt.) ― Russian Federation Mr. A. Larcos ― ACC Mr. M.S. Habib (Alt.) ― Saudi Arabia Miss M. Barry ― Précis-writer Mr. S. Vuokila (Alt.) ― Sweden Mrs. K.L. Riensema (Alt.) ― United Kingdom Mr. J. Méndez (Alt.) ― Uruguay

Ms. G.B. Doğan, Head of Department, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Turkey Mr. A.O. Yaman, Technical Inspector Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Turkey

C-MIN 210/10 -210-

Representatives to ICAO

Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Cyprus Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Greece Lebanon Paraguay Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Airports Council International (ACI) Civil Air Navigation Services Organization (CANSO) European Union (EU)

-211- C-MIN 210/10

International Women’s Day

1. The President of the Council drew attention to the priorities being highlighted worldwide in support of International Women’s Day, whose theme for 2017 was “Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030”. He observed that the theme highlighted the importance of gender equality to the overall sustainability of civil societies worldwide and raised awareness of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) number 5, which deals specifically with women’s empowerment, which tied into the Next Generation Aviation Professionals (NGAP) programme.

2. Recalling the 39th Assembly’s Resolution on the ICAO Gender Equality Programme (A39-30), the President strongly encouraged Council States and the Secretariat to support the 2017 theme for International Women’s Day, inclusive of its hashtag #BeBoldForChange.

3. The Secretary General expressed her pleasure at seeing that the 2017 theme for International Women’s Day aligned with the message that ICAO was sharing with governments and industry groups. She recalled that 30 per cent of the professional posts in the Organization were currently held by women and stated that ICAO and its aviation partners had intensified their gender efforts to help more young girls and women gain access to academic opportunities in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.

4. With the 39th Assembly’s endorsement for a reinvigorated ICAO Gender Equality Programme, the Secretary General stated that she had made it her personal priority to draw greater attention to the need to address gender issues, both within ICAO and in the aviation sector.

5. The Representative of South Africa observed that the incumbents of the five D-2 level Director posts and seven D-1 level Regional Director positions were all men. He was of the view that, in taking action, ICAO should lead by example and seek to redress this gender imbalance.

6. In a similar vein, the Representative of Sweden observed the gender imbalance in the Council and expressed the view that a greater balance between men and women was beneficial in all aspects of relations and organizations.

7. The Representative of Ireland associated herself with the comments of the previous interventions in noting that it was also a day to reflect on the progress of the Organization on the path to gender equality.

8. The Representative of Australia mentioned a report commissioned by the Australian Human Rights Commission that had been released for International Women’s Day and which highlighted the economic benefits to companies that had policies that were effectively implemented to increase diversity within their organizations because of consumers’ tendency to go out of their way to engage with brands and companies that promoted diversity and followed through in that regard. The Representative suggested that the Organization and the aviation industry consider the correlation between diversity and economic benefits.

9. In the course of the meeting, numerous additional congratulations were expressed to all the female Representatives on the Council, as well as to the women in the Secretariat and around the world, on the occasion of International Women’s Day.

C-MIN 210/10 -212-

Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

Alignment of the ICAO Policy on Secondment and the ICAO Service Code

10. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14590, which presented consequential amendments to The ICAO Service Code in order for it to be aligned with the ICAO Policy on Secondment, and which had been approved by the Council at its fourteenth meeting of the 208th Session (C-DEC 208/14 refers). The Council also had for consideration the following oral report thereon of the Human Resources Committee (HRC), presented by the Chairperson of the HRC (Representative of Egypt).

11. At its first meeting of the 210th Session of the Council, the Human Resources Committee (HRC) had considered C-WP/14590, Alignment of the ICAO Policy on Secondment and The ICAO Service Code.

12. Further to the approval of the ICAO Policy on Secondment at the 208th Session of the Council, the working paper had proposed amendments to The ICAO Service Code for alignment purposes with the said policy. The working paper had also proposed an amendment to the ICAO Policy on Secondment related to provisions on advertisement of secondment opportunities.

13. In its deliberations, the Committee had discussed a variety of subjects on the matter of secondments to ICAO. It had been highlighted that this issue was of critical importance for the Organization, and the need for transparency and efficiency had been stressed.

14. In view of the comments made during the discussions, the HRC had decided, in accordance with Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Standing Committees of the Council, to form a working group which had been tasked to perform a holistic review and comprehensive study of the existing ICAO Policy on Secondment. The working group would also review statistics of secondees currently working at ICAO and review future requirements of secondments for the work of the Organization. The working group would perform its duties under the leadership of the Chairperson of the HRC and consist of the Representatives of Colombia, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey and the United States. The Secretariat had been requested to provide all necessary information and support to the group. The working group had been tasked to report back to the HRC together with necessary recommendations during the 211th Session of the Council.

15. The HRC had recommended that the Council keep the provisions in the ICAO Policy on Secondment and The ICAO Service Code unchanged until the Committee would have concluded its work and until recommendations would be submitted to the Council for its consideration and approval.

16. The Representative of Germany expressed his agreement with the proposed action but queried whether it was advisable for the HRC to include Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) and Associate Experts (AEs) in the ICAO Policy on Secondment. Observing that such individuals were provided to ICAO under capacity-development programmes (C-WP/14980, paragraph 4.1 refers), which were distinct from secondments, the Representative was of the view that reference to JPOs and AEs should be excluded from both the ICAO Policy on Secondment and The ICAO Service Code. This was noted.

17. Given the establishment of the HRC working group noted in paragraph 14 above, the Council decided to maintain the provisions in the ICAO Policy on Secondment and The ICAO Service

-213- C-MIN 210/10

Code unchanged until the working group had completed its review and following which the HRC would report to the Council on recommendations arising.

Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel Subject No. 7.2: Recruitment policy Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service

ICAO Policy on Secondment – Cooling-off period

18. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14580, which pursuant to a request at the fourteenth meeting of the 208th Session, provided information on the use of the six-month cooling-off period that applied to seconded personnel, including the background, rationale and past decisions taken in ICAO, as well as best practices of the United Nations on this subject. The Council also had for consideration the following oral report of the Human Resources Committee (HRC) thereon, presented by the Chairman of the Committee, (Representative of Egypt).

19. At its first meeting during the 210th Session of the Council, the Human Resources Committee (HRC) considered C-WP/14580, ICAO Policy on Secondment – Cooling-Off Period.

20. The HRC had recalled that when the Council approved the ICAO Policy on Secondment at its 14th meeting of its 208th Session, the existing six-month cooling-off period for seconded personnel had been maintained, on the understanding that this issue would be further reviewed at a future session to enable the HRC to conduct a holistic review of this issue and to present its final recommendation to the Council.

21. After having taken into account the information provided in C-WP/14580 on the background and rationale for the use of the cooling-off period in ICAO, as well as in several Organizations of the United Nations system, and the views previously expressed by Council Members on this subject, the majority of the HRC members had favoured maintaining the six-month cooling-off period.

22. Following consideration, the Council:

a) noted the information provided on the cooling-off period for seconded personnel; and

b) maintained the existing provision for a six-month cooling-off period for seconded personnel, as currently specified in the ICAO Policy on Secondment.

Subject No. 32.1: Headquarters premises

Report of RHCC — Progress achieved by the Committee on Relations with the Host Country

23. The Council considered this item on the basis of the following oral report of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (RHCC), presented by the Chairperson of the Committee (Representative of the Russian Federation).

24. The eleventh meeting of the Committee on Relations with the Host Country (RHCC) during the 210th Session of the Council on 26 January 2017, had been attended by the following delegation in support of the Host State: from the federal authorities – Ms. Sara Wiebe, Director General, Air Policy, Transport Canada; Ms. Wendy Drukier, Director General, International Organizations, Global

C-MIN 210/10 -214-

Affairs Canada; Ms. Mylène Goulet, Senior Analyst and Liaison Officer, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; and from the Ministère des Relations internationales et de la Francophonie du Québec – Mr. Éric Théroux, Sous-ministre adjoint aux Politiques et Affaires francophones et multilatérales; Mr. Daniel Lacroix, Directeur, Direction des politiques et des engagements internationaux; Ms. Marie-Josée Audet, Chef adjointe du Protocole et directrice p.i., Direction de la correspondance officielle, des privilèges et des immunités.

25. The committee had considered two working papers presented by the Secretariat: RHC-WP/7 Review of Pending Issues (see updated chart attached to the oral report) and RHC-WP/8 Review of Pending Issues – New Understanding with Quebec. The Secretariat recalled that the issuance of Canadian entry visas for national delegates to ICAO meetings, and for visiting family members and friends of representatives, as well as the Canadian labour market integration for family members of representatives (items Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the chart) had been decided to be kept on the list as ongoing. Regarding the latter item, reference had been made to the problems of the social insurance numbers starting with a code “9” which reflected temporary status, and the lack of recognition of foreign diplomats, as issues which had still to be addressed.

26. On the progress made regarding the new Understanding with Quebec, the Committee had been informed that additional exchanges between the negotiating teams allowed to narrow down the pending issues. A new draft text had been received from the Quebec side on 9 December 2016 and amended on 23 January 2017, reflecting further agreement relating to: tax and similar exemptions; health; tuition fees; work authorizations; and CD plates. Some last items were presently under final consideration by the Quebec authorities, more particularly as regards English education and the certificate of selection for immigration. The target date to submit a final draft text for approval had been set as mid-March 2017. The Chairperson of RHCC had suggested that, when the new Understanding was signed, the ICAO Yellow Book be amended accordingly.

27. Although specific reference to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was not included in the draft Understanding, since Canada was the party to this Convention (not the province of Quebec), the representatives of the Host State had underlined that Quebec fully respected all the international commitments of Canada as regards their implementation, hence all the said diplomatic privileges and immunities were fully reflected in both the existing and the draft new Understanding. However, Quebec would re-examine with the federal authorities to see if any reference could be made in the Understanding.

28. Regarding the request for tax exemption at the source in case of important purchases of delegations, it had been explained that there was no possibility to provide such, since the general administration of GST/HST changed in Canada and the procedure of related tax exemption was under the federal authorities, and considering also that the practical effect of such arrangement would present for Canada and Quebec an administrative burden impossible to bear, as all merchants and service providers should be involved. Nevertheless, the impossibility of exemption at the source did not contradict any obligations of the Host State in terms of tax exemption which was done by reimbursement.

29. On the traffic issue, the Host State had indicated that the Mayor of Montréal had recently initiated a review of the parking signs system to see if it could be made more user friendly. Moreover, Quebec authorities had organized workshops for the Montréal police to improve their dealings with the diplomatic community. Furthermore, it was had been recalled that the Host State would organize for the ICAO resident national delegations a briefing conducted by a representative of the Montréal municipal police (SPVM) (RHCC Oral Report, 209th Session refers).

-215- C-MIN 210/10

30. Concerning the situation with the newly introduced Canadian electronic travel authorization (eTA) which had caused difficulties for the ICAO diplomatic community while boarding international flights back to Canada, representatives of the Host State had announced that the problematic issues had been resolved. However, it was recommended that representatives (and accredited members of their household) travelling outside Canada still advised Protocol Ottawa about their itineraries through established channels (i.e. LEB). Furthermore, those delegates who were scheduled to come to Canada to participate in ICAO events/meetings should clearly indicate the purpose of travel while applying for an eTA.

31. The President of the Council welcomed the fact that the status list of RHCC issues (appendix to the oral report refers) was substantially shorter than previously, which he attributed to the positive collaboration with Canada as the host country. He expressed the hope that the list of outstanding issues would continue to be reduced.

32. Providing a progress report since the most recent meeting of the RHCC, which had taken place in January 2017, the Representative of Canada indicated that the New Understanding with the Province of Quebec had been further enhanced and that the Government of Quebec would be holding a meeting with the Secretariat to discuss the latest version so that it could be signed shortly. With respect to the concern regarding a lack of reference to the Vienna Convention and the privileges and immunities it bestowed in previous drafts, she informed the Council that the new Article 31 of the latest version of the entente read: “There is no provision of the present agreement can be interpreted as going against the provisions of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 1961”. The Representative confirmed that her delegation would continue to work with the Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) and the Sȗreté du Québec to organize a workshop for the Council to meet with both police forces. She assured the Council that, while the SPVM was currently facing a number of challenges, her delegation was endeavouring to receive confirmation of the date for that workshop. The Representative of Canada also offered the services of the Delegation of Canada to Member States and the Secretariat to help facilitate the resolution of any issues encountered.

33. In response to a query by the Representative of Brazil, the President of the Council agreed that the issues of recruitment of domestic support staff, driver’s licences and the annual fees for said licences, and the procedures for importing containers of personal property upon arrival in Canada could be considered by the RHCC. He also reminded the Council that any specific issues that arose could always be channelled directly to the Secretariat, who would then collaborate with the Representative of Canada to resolve the matters, thereby obviating the need to await a formal meeting of the RHCC to have issues addresed.

34. The Representative of Colombia voiced his support for the summary provided by the Chairperson of the RHCC and expressed his appreciation to the Representative of Canada for the efficient handling of issues raised.

35. Recalling that a number of diplomat parking spaces in the near vicinity of the ICAO Headquarters building in Montréal appeared to have been removed, the Representative of South Africa requested that parking, specifically parking signs and the increased availability of parking spaces in the downtown core, be added to the list of outstanding issues to be addressed by the RHCC.

36. The Chairperson of the RHCC (Representative of the Russian Federation) assured the Council that the RHCC would try to resolve every issue, including those raised by the Representative of South Africa, with the Delegation of Canada and as provided in the terms of reference of the RHCC. He invited all Representatives on Council to participate in meetings of the committee, at which time they

C-MIN 210/10 -216-

could pose their questions and receive appropriate responses that would be subject to the agreement of both parties. Indeed he noted that questions posed by national delegations could often be of interest to the entire international community.

37. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council welcomed the excellent progress that had been achieved on a number of the outstanding issues as outlined in the Appendix to the oral report. It was also noted that a number of additional issues, which were not currently the subject of consideration by the RHCC, such as the hiring of domestic support staff by representative s, the cost of annual driver licence fees, the lack of car parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the ICAO building in downtown Montreal, and the procedures for the transportation of personal belongings to Montreal from a representative ’s home country, would all be brought to the attention of the RHCC for due consideration and follow-up as appropriate.

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

Work Programme of the Council and its Committees for the 211th Session

38. The Council considered this item on the basis of C-WP/14581 , which presented the work programmes for the 211th Session of the Council and its Committees. The Council also had for consideration the following oral report of the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE) thereon, which was presented by the Chairperson of the WGGE (Representative of India).

39. At its second meeting of the 210th Session of the Council, the Working Group on Governance and Efficiency (WGGE) had considered C-WP/14581, Work Programme of the Council and its Committees for the 211th Session and the list of proposed Informal Briefings of the Council. For this review, the WGGE had met in its expanded form by inviting the Chairpersons and Secretaries of the Committees of the Council.

40. In response to a query on what could be expected on item 32 of Appendix A – Settlement of Differences: Brazil and the United States (2016), the Secretariat had explained that this would very much depend on material submitted by the parties at that time and the decisions to be taken by the Council. The counter-memorial of the respondent State was not yet due, and the parties could potentially submit additional pleadings in the intervening time. Nevertheless, the item had been included in the work programme of the Council for the 211th Session as a matter of prudence. The Secretariat had clarified that, even though the matter may not have progressed to a stage where the merits would be ready for consideration, the Council may be required to consider procedural steps to be taken.

41. The Secretariat had explained that the exact date for the 2017 Council Off-Site Strategy Meeting (COSM) had yet to be confirmed. In response to a request for clarification on how the State of the Industry informal briefing related to the COSM, the Secretariat had explained that, in keeping with previous practice, that briefing was expected to serve as an immediate prelude to the COSM. The Secretariat had further explained that it was in the process of working with the Office of the President on the briefing content and involvement of stakeholders, but would welcome proposals. The WGGE had noted that the date for the State of the Industry briefing should therefore be kept flexible pending confirmation of the 2017 COSM date.

42. The WGGE had not recommended any changes to the work programme of the Council and its Committees for the 211th Session as contained in C-WP/14581. The WGGE had further recommended that the Council adopt the list of Informal Briefings in the appendix to the oral report.

-217- C-MIN 210/10

43. The President of the Council recalled that changes to an approved work programme sometimes arose from discussions under Any Other Business; such amendments were usually left to the President to handle. He also mentioned that he had discussed with the President of the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) the possibility of having an informal, open discussion between the Council Members and the ANC sometime during the next session to enhance relations.

44. The Representative of South Africa recalled that he had been previously suggested that informal briefings be arranged on a number of the more challenging issues facing the Council, such as landing gear issues, health status of the pilots and the abstinence from alcohol guidelines. He reminded the Council that he had previously raised these subjects as issues that were requiring attention.

45. The President of the Council confirmed that, as most of the matters fell within the purview of the Air Navigation Bureau, he would discuss these issues directly with the Secretary General and the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) in order to ascertain the feasibility of providing briefings on these topics.

46. The Council noted that the WGGE had recommended that no changes were necessary to work programme contained in C-WP/14581, and accordingly, the Council approved the work programme of the Council and of its Committees for the 211th Session. It was understood that decisions taken in the course of the current (210th) Session that will affect the work programme for the 211th Session in terms of additional items, amendments to titles of items, or deferral of items, and which were not currently reflected in the work programme, would be incorporated in a revised version of C-WP/14581 that would be issued in due course.

47. In relation to the proposed informal briefings for the 211th Session, the Council agreed that these should occur during the Committee phase of the 211th Session, which was scheduled from 24 April to 12 May 2017. It was noted that a range of topics were currently under consideration for the purposes of holding informal briefings, including: CORSIA; ICAO Public Key Directory; Corporate Performance Management Framework (CPMF) Tool; and possibly the annual State of Industry briefing. It was understood that once the topics for the informal briefings had been finalized, the Council would be informed accordingly.

Any other business

Implementation of Council off-site strategy meeting (COSM) recommendations

48. The Council considered this item on the basis of an oral report from the Implementation, Strategy and Planning Group (ISPG), which was presented by the Chairperson of the ISPG (Representative of Australia).

49. The Chairperson of the ISPG reported that, at its first meeting of the 210th Session, the ISPG had reviewed the reports on the status of implementation of the outcomes and recommendations of the 2014 Council Retreat and the 2015 and 2016 Council Off-site Strategy Meetings (COSMs).

50. The Secretariat had explained to the ISPG that action items from the various outcomes and recommendations from the retreat and COSMs were to be progressively included in the operating plans of the responsible Bureau or Regional Office for the relevant year, as the use of such plans matured within the Organization. The Secretariat had further explained that status updates would ultimately be integrated with the Secretary General’s mid-term and sessional progress reports to the Council through the Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool (CPMFT).

C-MIN 210/10 -218-

51. The ISPG had agreed that, to ensure the traceability, each outcome and recommendation of the retreat and COSMs should be appropriately translated into actions or integrated into the relevant organizational plans. The group had further agreed that, in addition to simply tracking items to ensure completion, it was important to measure the impact of each through the collection of suitable data or indicators and that, where possible, reporting should be streamlined such that items that had been adequately addressed through the relevant plans could be closed off and dual reporting avoided.

52. In relation to the proposed COSM to take place during 2017, the ISPG Chairperson reported that preliminary work was underway to identify a suitable venue and that, in order to avoid the peak summer season in June, this year’s event would likely coincide with the Committee phase of the 212th Session, which was scheduled from 18 September to 6 October 2017.

53. The President of the Council stated that in coordination with the ISPG Chairperson and the Secretariat, he intended to determine within the coming days whether the COSM would be held in June or September, taking into account the availability of a suitable venue and that of the other participants, including industry representatives, as appropriate.

54. The Representative of Saudi Arabia requested that it be taken into consideration that this year Ramadan would fall during the month of June and therefore it would be difficult for some Representatives to participate in the meeting if it were to be scheduled at that time. This was noted.

55. The Representative of Spain expressed agreement with the oral report of the ISPG and with the approach voiced by the President with regard to participation by industry representatives in the COSM.

56. In concluding its consideration of this item, the Council noted that the action items from the various outcomes and recommendations from the COSMs would be progressively included in the operating plans of the responsible Bureau or Regional Office for the relevant year and that ultimately the status updates would be integrated with the Secretary General’s mid-term and sessional progress reports to the Council through the Corporate Performance Management Framework Tool (CPMFT).

Review of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties

57. The President of the Council recalled that, during the second meeting of the current session (C210/2), the Council had reviewed the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties and approved suggested amendments to the retitled ICAO Policy on Interactions with External Parties on the understanding that in one year’s time, at the 213th Session, the newly renamed Committee on Cooperation with External Parties (CCEP) would present a progress report on the implementation of the revised policy.

58. The President further recalled that, during the discussion, Representatives had been invited to submit to the President their suggestions for categories of arrangements with Member States and Member State entities that they wished to be exempted from the CCEP review process, following which the President, under delegated authority of the Council, had undertaken to review these in consultation with members of the Committee and the Ad Hoc Group. It was a result of this process that the President had undertaken to inform the Council at this meeting on the outcome of these consultations.

59. Accordingly, the Council was informed that Member States and State entities would be exempted from the review process undertaken by the CCEP. Nevertheless, it was understood that any such arrangements would continue to be subject to the policy and after review by the Secretariat, would

-219- C-MIN 210/10

be submitted directly to the President for approval, following which the President would decide whether such arrangements should be signed by himself or by the Secretary General and in exceptional cases, whether the proposed arrangement should be sent to the CCEP for its advice, particularly where there might be commercial implications.

60. The Representatives of Egypt and the Russian Federation supported the summary put forth by the President, as recommended by the CCEP.

61. While noting the proposal, the Representative of France recalled his earlier suggestion that proposed arrangements with entities of the United Nations system should follow the same procedure as with Member States and requested that the matter be revisited. The President took note of the comment and requested that, rather than reopen a new debate, this matter be delegated to him to resolve so that further consideration of the implications could be undertaken.

62. Following consideration, the Council agreed with the decision to exempt Member States and State entities from the review process undertaken by the CCEP as indicated above and requested that consequential amendments be made to the ICAO Policy on Interactions with External Parties in order to reflect this.

Structure of the ICAO Secretariat

63. The President of the Council recalled that, during the first meeting of the current session (C210/1), the Council had considered the proposed staffing arrangements and funding sources for the newly created Strategic Planning, Coordination and Partnerships (SPCP) Office. In this connection, the draft C-DEC 210/1, which was circulated to representatives on Monday, 6 March 2017, had noted that funding currently allocated for the vacant post of D-1 Deputy Director, Human Resources (DD/HR), was being used to create the new post of D-1, Head of SPCP. The draft C-DEC 210/1 had also indicated that the post of DD/HR would be retained. The President emphasized that the draft Council decision was in line with his summary of the discussions and had been supported by the Council, as evidenced by the transcript of the meeting.

64. In light of concerns that had been raised since the issuance of the draft C-DEC 210/1 however, the President of the Council and the Secretary General had further discussed the matter and agreed to amend draft C-DEC 210/1 to indicate that the P-5 and P-3 positions had been “noted”, rather than “approved”.

65. Furthermore, to allay the concerns expressed by a number of Representatives that the current draft text of C-DEC 210/1 implied that the Council had decided to create a new D-1 post in the Secretariat, the President suggested that, as an alternative, the Council agree that the DD/HR position be permanently transferred to the SPCP Office. To ensure traceability, the resultant Council decision would include a reference indicating that the new decision superseded a previous decision of the Council that had established the post, and which had been made on the basis of a recommendation of the External Auditor. He added that the decision could be revisited should the Organization later determine that additional resources were available.

66. Referring to the interventions of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Russian Federation on the matter, the Representative of Egypt acknowledged the concerns raised regarding the creation of a new D-1 post and voiced his support for the proposal to eliminate the D-1 DD/HR post in favour of the new Head of SPCP position. He also supported the proposal of the President to note, rather than approve, the P-5 and P-3 posts. The Representative was of the view that the SPCP Office would

C-MIN 210/10 -220-

generate sufficient resources to support the activities and the mission of the Organization and lead to the creation of new posts, which would further strengthen the efforts of the Organization to pursue its strategic objectives and increase efficiency.

67. The Representative of Colombia expressed his support for the summary as put forth by the President and voiced his confidence in the Secretariat to manage the new SPCP Office.

68. In light of the intent to reinstate the DD/HR position should the self-funding SPCP Office generate sufficient resources, the Representative of Mexico had understood that SPCP would be funding a temporary post. While sharing the concerns that had been raised by others, the Representative expressed his concurrence that the SPCP would be funding a temporary post with the consensus of the Council.

69. The President of the Council reiterated his position that, despite the contention of some Representatives that draft C-DEC 210/1 did not reflect the decision of the Council, it was consistent with the summary that he had provided and to which the Council had agreed. Turning to the intervention by the Representative Mexico, the President confirmed that the Representative’s understanding was consistent with the draft Council decision, the basis of which had been proposed by the Representative of Egypt. The implication that that approach effectively created another D-1 position, even though that position would be funded by revenue generation through resource mobilization, had caused concern in that it had implied an increase in the number of posts at the D-1 level. The President cautioned that there was no guarantee that sufficient resources would be generated to reinstate and sustain the DD/HR position.

70. Given the explanation provided, the Representative of the Russian Federation supported the approach proposed by the President.

71. Expressing his gratitude for the transparency with which the issue was being addressed, the Representative of Spain opposed the creation of an additional post at the D-1 level. While accepting of the summary put forth by the President insofar as it conferred traceability and contained a reference to the previous Council decision, the Representative requested that the comments of those Council Representatives who were of the view that the DD/HR position was essential to the Organization be reflected in the minutes of the meeting. The Representative further proposed that the situation be revised if warranted by circumstances in the coming months and that it be ensured that additional resources be generated.

72. The Representative of Singapore also lauded the President for his transparency and management of the traceability aspects of C-DEC 210/1. Echoing the comments by the Representative of Spain, he stated that his understanding was also that no new Deputy Director position would be created and that the Council decision currently being discussed, if agreed, would effectively override the earlier decision to create a DD/HR post.

73. The Representative of Egypt voiced his gratitude to the President for his clear approach, which the Representative considered to be reflective of the consensus of the Council. He clarified that his initial proposal that the D-1 Head of SPCP post be created with temporary funding (C 201/1 refers) was put forward with a view to a reaching a consensus so that the SPCP Office could start its work. While he considered the SPCP Office to be vital to the Organization, he was of the view that the DD/HR post was also essential.

-221- C-MIN 210/10

74. The Representative of India expressed his support for the comments of the Representatives of Spain and Singapore, as well as for the summary by the President that would form the basis of the Council decision.

75. The Representative of Nigeria expressed his delegation’s appreciation for the transparent manner in which the issue had been handled and the clarifications of the misunderstandings that had arisen as a result of draft C-DEC 210/1. He expressed his full support of the proposals put forward by the President.

76. The Representative of Turkey expressed his support for the proposal put forth by the President and supported the intervention by the Representative of Egypt.

77. The Representative of the United Kingdom voiced his support for the summary of the President, which was consistent with his own understanding of the Council’s previous discussions regarding the funding source for the D-1 Head of SPCP position. Viewing the proposal to eliminate the DD/HR position as a mechanism to achieve the same results, the Representative sought confirmation that the Secretary General would in due course revert to the Council with further proposals for the restructuring, dependent upon the success of the partnership work, etc. While he expected the leadership of Human Resources to be given further consideration at that time, the Representative expressed his agreement with the proposal put forth by the President that an additional D-1 post not be created at that juncture.

78. To address the point raised by the Representative of the United Kingdom, the President indicated that while a current decision of the Council would override a previous decision taken at a previous session of the Council, it did not preclude the possibility that the Council might wish to reinstate the DD/HR position at some point in the future.

79. The Representative of Saudi Arabia commended the intervention of the Representative of Egypt and supported the approach of the President.

80. In concluding consideration of this item, it was agreed that an amended C-DEC 210/1 would be issued to clarify that the post of DD/HR was being eliminated, notwithstanding previous recommendations of the External Auditor that had emphasized the need for this role and which had resulted in the original decision by the Council to create the DD/HR post (C-DEC 196/6 refers).

81. It was also agreed that the amended C-DEC 210/1 would indicate that the decision taken during the current session superseded the previous decision taken by the Council, as reflected in C-DEC 196/6, but that this did not preclude the possibility that the DD/HR post could again be re-established by the Council at some point in the future.

ICAO Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR)

82. Pursuant to the decision taken at the fifth meeting of the current session at which the subject of the ICAO Conflict Zone Information Registry (CZIR) was considered (C-DEC 210/5 refers), the Chairperson of the Repository Review Group (Representative of Saudi Arabia) updated the Council on the outcome of consultations between the RRG and the Secretariat relating to the modification of the ICAO CZIR into a library of links to States’ websites where such risk-based information would be made available.

C-MIN 210/10 -222-

83. In his oral report, the Chairperson of the RRG indicated that the review group had met on 6 March 2017 to set guidance for the Secretariat on designing the library of links. The Secretariat had presented its views on the library design and its way of functioning which mainly focused on providing the links to the Contracting States, validating that those links were designed to legitimate focal points and changing the language of the current disclaimer to be aligned with the new role of the library. While several members of the RRG had been in agreement with the Secretariat’s approach to the design and functioning of the library to facilitate the timely distribution of risk information for civil aviation operating into or near the conflict zone, others had raised concerns regarding enabling Member States to post information, even from a legitimate source. Some members had argued that the posted links must be only dedicated to the aeronautical information on the conflict zone, per the definition of same adopted by the Second High-level Safety Conference (Montréal, 2 to 5 February 2015), while others had expressed their desire to link all the inter-related disputes in one portfolio. The Secretariat had proposed that a State letter be issued to inform Contracting States that the repository had ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information and would be modified to a library of links to States’ websites that provide that information, and to encourage the Member States to post the links that related to the conflict zone information only. The proposal had garnered general acceptance among the RRG participants.

84. The President of the Council recognized that RRG-related issues were normally discussed in a restricted meeting; however, as the Council was not currently discussing any sensitive issues, he saw no reason for that restriction. As the proposal put forth by the Secretariat regarding the issuance of a State letter had garnered general acceptance by the RRG, the President suggested that the Secretariat continue with that work, in consultation with the RRG and the Office of the President, until such time as the library had been modified.

85. In closing its discussions on this item, the Council noted that the redesigned library would focus primarily on providing links to Member States, validating that the links were to legitimate focal points in the States, and changing the language of the current disclaimer in order that it be aligned with the modified role of the library. It was further noted that the proposed State letter (C-DEC 210/5, paragraph 5 e) refers) to be issued would inform Member States that the repository had ceased to function as an effective means to convey risk information and that it was being modified so as to provide links to websites of States that provided such information. It was understood that the State letter would encourage Member States to post the links that related to conflict zone information only.

Recent IT security incident

86. The Council considered this item on the basis of an oral report by the Secretary General to update the Council on the status of a recent information technology (IT) security incident. In doing so, it was recalled that the Secretary General had previously reported to the Council on the same matter on 13 January 2017.

87. The Secretary General reported that, since the incident first came to light at the end of November 2016, appropriate mitigating actions had been taken and no new incidents had occurred from similar cyberattacks found on ICAO systems. While ICAO continued to face risks associated with cyber- threats, as any other organization did, the recent major security incident at ICAO was considered closed.

88. Summarizing the actions taken by ICAO to date, the Secretary General stated that, from a recovery perspective, ICAO had rebuilt all affected applications and systems. Both Dell SecureWorks and the United Nations International Computing Centre (UN ICC) had confirmed that all identified malware had been removed. Furthermore, both Dell Secureworks and UN ICC had concluded their forensic analysis in their final reports to ICAO, which completed the recovery phase of the incident.

-223- C-MIN 210/10

89. From a detection perspective, in addition to Dell’s monitoring system (red cloak), ICAO had deployed Microsoft’s System Center in order to monitor all installed software on ICAO computers. The security log monitoring system within the Organization had recently been implemented in the production environment.

90. From a prevention perspective, the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Section had implemented an application firewall solution on critical systems and deployed an automatic scanning system to assess ICAO systems’ vulnerability on a continuous basis.

91. With respect to the remedial actions being planned, the Secretary General reported that, based on UN ICC’s final forensic investigation report and the recommendations received from the United Nations Chief Security Management Officer, Mr. Thomas Braun, ICAO was implementing the following short-term actions: a) carry out a review to further strengthen existing security functions and further enhance capacity; b) conduct further information security awareness sessions for IT staff in ICAO; c) carry out a comprehensive review of perimeter devices protecting ICAO infrastructure, including assessment of firewall rules and potential systems’ backdoors; d) implement a next-generation, behavior- based, antivirus system on all critical systems; e) implement a managed security service (a security log management and monitoring system) that would allow ICAO to better detect and remediate security risks in a timely manner; f) implement an intrusion detection and prevention system to protect the critical servers; g) ICT and the security officer to continue their review and implementation of “dual factor authentication” on ICAO systems as a means to further manage information; and h) ICT and the security officer to continue their ongoing assessment of the implementation of ICAO Email Sandbox (a technology actively scanning email attachments and links for malware).

92. The Secretary General further reported that, from a long-term perspective, ICAO would be providing enhanced training to staff on information security matters, ongoing security assessment and vulnerability management, as well as the implementation of effective information security governance. ICAO would also work on defining and implementing a comprehensive information security roadmap.

93. Concluding her report, the Secretary General informed the Council that, as a result of the immediate response by ICAO to the cyberattack once it was discovered, all ICAO computing systems could be considered operational and safe to use. In addition, with the onboard global expertise of Dell SecureWorks and UN ICC, ICAO systems were being continuously monitored for any possible repeat cyberattack. To date no new intrusions had been registered on any of the ICT systems of the Organization.

94. Recalling that at least one staff member had been a victim of identity theft as a result of the breach, the Representative of Mexico requested that a restricted report on the matter be prepared for the Council. He also suggested that, to ensure future protection and peace of mind, it would also be useful to have additional information regarding the cyberattack, such as its origin, the systems that were affected and the duration, the risks that were identified, the countermeasures that were taken by the Organization and their guarantees, the level of protection and the associated cost. The Representative was of the view that greater guarantees were required that the security measures in place to protect the web-based electronic mail system, which had been most affected by the breach, would obviate the compromise of personal data.

95. The Representative of the United Kingdom expressed his gratitude to the Secretary General for her oral report and requested that, given the abundance of information contained therein, the report be circulated in writing. Recalling that it was common practice in such circumstances to have a

C-MIN 210/10 -224-

lessons-learned exercise following the incident, the Representative queried whether such an exercise would take place and how the outcome would be communicated to the Council.

96. In response, the Director, Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) confirmed that the “hot wash”, whereby the situation was reviewed immediately after the handling of the incident, had been completed. With regard to the “cold wash”, whereby the handling of the incident was given a more general review to determine what did or did not go well, and what could be done differently in a similar situation in future, D/ADB indicated that a detailed operational short-, medium- and long-term plan was currently being finalized and would be applied in the future.

97. In this regard, the Secretary General added that the “hot wash” evaluation had resulted in the installation of Dell SecureWorks and the UN ICC investigation, as well as an invitation to an aviation security expert from the United Nations in New York to visit ICAO, analyse the incident and provide advice for the way forward. The Secretary General then confirmed that an audit was planned for the second half of 2017 and that the recently selected Chief, Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (C/EAO) had the necessary ICT audit experience and certification to conduct such an audit, ideally on an annual basis. She envisaged a further assessment of the ICT information security framework in 2018 to identify the progress as well as any weaknesses the Organization should address. The importance of awareness of the potential for cyber-threats and preparedness training, not only for ICT staff but for the Organization as a whole, was highlighted. The acquisition of a security monitoring system to enhance the ICAO system and to protect the Organization’s information and data, which would necessitate the allocation of additional resources to the ICT infrastructure, was in the planning stages. The Secretary General expressed her willingness to hold bilateral meetings with individual Representatives on Council to respond to any further questions. She would investigate the possibility of providing background information on the cyberattack and listing the actions taken and planned measures, as well as the associated cost of those measures and additional resources in another information paper.

98. Associating himself with the interventions of the Representatives of Mexico and the United Kingdom, the Representative of the United States further requested that the forensic investigation report on the incident also be shared with the Council. The Secretary General replied that she would consult within the relevant offices in the Secretariat before reverting to the Council in this regard.

99. The Representative of Canada expressed her appreciation for the update provided by the Secretary General and reiterated the comments of previous speakers regarding the availability to the Council of additional information on the forensic analysis. As Representative of the Host State, she offered her delegation’s assistance moving forward in this regard.

100. Observing that, in her update, the Secretary General had twice mentioned the need to raise awareness of potential cyber-threats, the Representative of the Russian Federation requested that the Secretariat prepare an information package for delegations outlining steps to be taken that would provide greater protection against such threats. He further requested that the Secretary General prepare a memorandum for the delegations indicating the measures that ICT had taken to protect the information stored on the Organization’s servers.

101. The Representative of Sweden recalled that the importance of information technology security within the Organization had been underscored at the informal briefing on cybersecurity. In light of the relative ease and low cost of achieving such security, as had been indicated during the briefing, the Representative was of the view that developments in this regard should be followed closely. She also associated herself with the interventions of the Representatives of Mexico, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada regarding the need for a more detailed report on the recent cyberattack. The

-225- C-MIN 210/10

President reiterated the statement of the Secretary General that the possibility of sharing the report of the forensic investigation with the Council, on a restricted basis, would be examined.

102. Drawing a correlation between cybersecurity and the credibility of the Organization, the Representative of Australia opined that it would not be possible for ICAO to lead in the global community if the recent issues were not effectively dealt with internally. He expressed surprise that some of the actions taken or to be taken pertained to the installation of monitoring and detection solutions and similar mechanisms, as he expected that protection to have been installed on the networks prior to the cyber-attack. The Representative joined a number of previous speakers in expressing an interest in having further information regarding the breach of cybersecurity. The Representative emphasized that his delegation considered it important that the Organization effectively investigate what went wrong to avoid a similar situation in the future.

103. The Representative of Brazil considered it imperative that the Council have access to the forensic report and that the awareness exercises be shared not only with ICAO staff but also with delegations to obviate a recurrence of the cyberattack situation. She queried whether, in light of the budgetary difficulties currently being experienced, the Secretary General could provide an estimate of the costs associated with the actions already taken to address the cyberattack and the implementation of planned measures in this regard to which she had alluded.

104. With respect to cybersecurity, the Representative of Japan requested the Secretary General to continue to exercise appropriate supervisory initiative for enhanced management and communication for preventive measures, as well as efforts for good governance within the Secretariat.

105. Observing that cyberattacks could be either politically or criminally motivated, the Representative of Colombia considered it crucial that the origin of the attacks be determined and beneficial that the ultimate goal of the hackers be identified, and hoped that more details in this regard would be forthcoming. Further observing that the potentially considerable financial resources required to recover from a cyberattack may not be available in the budget should such an attack recur, the Representative emphasized the need for a recovery plan and a business continuity plan so that safeguards would be in place if necessary. Finally, he requested that a report on the recent cyberattack be presented to the Council in a restricted session and expressed the view that, rather than turning to external parties, the ICAO servers should be protected internally, which would build trust within ICAO.

106. In closing its discussions on this item, the Council welcomed the confirmation provided that no new security incidents had since occurred and took note of the comprehensive range of actions taken by the Secretariat to rebuild affected systems and strengthen detection and prevention mechanisms. The Council also took note of the range of remedial actions that were being planned in order to strengthen existing security functions and enhance further capacity including implementing a next-generation behaviour-based antivirus system, implementing a managed security service, as well as enhanced training to staff on information security matters.

107. The Secretary General undertook to circulate her oral report to Council Representatives. In addition, it was agreed that any training provided to staff on information security, would also be extended to the staff of delegations. It was further agreed that the ongoing review of the IT security infrastructure would also encompass an assessment of the security risks associated with the recently installed telephone system, which was based on a voice-over internet protocol (VOIP).

C-MIN 210/10 -226-

Security incident at Kuala Lumpur International Airport

108. The Council considered this item on the basis of an oral statement by the Representative of the Republic of Korea. It pertained to a security incident that had occurred at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Malaysia on 13 February 2017, in which toxic chemicals had been deliberately used against an individual in breach of the Chemicals Weapons Convention and the related Montreal Protocol and which had resulted in the death of the individual.

Oral statement delivered by the Representative of the Republic of Korea

109. “This is regarding one tragic accident that happened on 13th February 2017 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

110. According to the primary analysis result by the Malayan authority, a person was assassinated by the toxic and poisonous substance named VX which is strongly forbidden by the Chemical Weapon Convention. This terror action was also identified to constitute an offence that could threaten safety and security in the international airports, according to the Montreal Protocol in 1971 and 1988.

111. The investigation by the Malayan authority is still going on, and, therefore, we had better wait for the final analysis report with patience. However, if it is eventually officially proven, that is going to be condemned because it could cause a serious threat to the safety and security in international airports.

112. We acknowledge the efforts for the identification of the terror crime and the request for delivery of the suspects by the Malayan authority. Furthermore, based on the Montreal Protocol stipulation, the signatory State has an obligation to deliver those suspects to the State concerned or to prosecute according to the domestic legal process.

113. With regard to this occasion, I would like you, Honourable Council members, to share the relevant information from now on, and to consider reflecting this occasion during ICAO’s landside security issue debate in the near future”.

114. The Representative of the United States, expressing reluctance to prejudge the outcome of any ongoing investigations, condemned the use of VX gas in a civilian airport and expressed the full expectation of his State that those responsible should be held accountable.

115. The Representative of Spain conveyed his gratitude to the Representative of the Republic of Korea for tabling this matter for the consideration of the Council and acknowledged that the outcome of the investigation could not be prejudged. Observing that the incident in question had many ramifications, including those related to civil aviation and landside security, the Representative agreed that the relevant information should be shared with the Council in due course.

116. Associating himself with the Representatives of the United States and Spain and noting the points raised, the Representative of Japan expressed his appreciation to the Representative of Korea for drawing attention to this matter.

117. The Representative of France voiced his State’s full support for the delegation of the Republic of Korea.

-227- C-MIN 210/10

118. The Representative of Malaysia expressed his appreciation for the concerns raised in the previous interventions regarding an issue which, in view of its relation to the safety and security of international civil aviation, he considered to be relevant to ICAO. He condemned the use of a toxic chemical in an international airport, which constituted an offence under the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and the 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation. Malaysia, as Party to the National Authority Chemical Weapons Convention, strongly condemned the use of such weapons. The Representative of Malaysia assured the Council that his State had complied with all obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and continued to cooperate with the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons regarding the events of 13 February 2017. He further assured that the internal investigation of the case was being conducted professionally, objectively, impartially and transparently in accordance to the legal system and laws of Malaysia and was based on all available evidence. The Representative stated that the Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in Kuala Lumpur had been informed regarding the investigation procedure and updated on the incident from the outset. Malaysia strongly urged any relevant party to carry out their obligation to extradite or prosecute any suspect in its territory as stipulated in the 1988 Montreal Convention. In closing, he reiterated the commitment of the Government of Malaysia to resolving and finding a closure to the unfortunate incident.

119. The Representative of Turkey voiced his appreciation to the Representative of the Republic of Korea for raising this issue and joined the previous speakers in expressing his support for the statement that had been delivered by the Representative.

120. The Representatives of Canada and the United Kingdom associated themselves with the remarks made in support of the statement by the Representative of Korea.

121. In closing the discussions on this topic, the Council noted the interventions and further noted that the matter would be revisited should an issue with respect to civil aviation and landside security arise.

Ballistic missile launches

122. The Council considered this item on the basis of a statement from the Representative of Japan regarding the security threat to international civil aviation that was posed by the recent launching of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Oral statement delivered by the Representative of Japan

123. “Allow me please to remind all honourable Council members for the benefit of the entire Organization. This is regarding the fact that the recent further ballistic missile launches which were conducted by North Korea on 12 February and 6 March and thus remain posing direct threat to safety of all international civil aviation aircraft and operations in the region. Those repeated actions were taken even without any prior notice prescribed in ICAO rules and creating serious concern about aviation safety and security. It is unfortunate that I have to draw your attention to such an impermissible situation and to underscore that it is of fundamental importance to the current and future work of this Organization for all its member States to faithfully adhere to its rules and practices, as well as the relevant Security Council resolutions as United Nations families”.

C-MIN 210/10 -228-

124. The Representative of France thanked the delegation of Japan for raising the matter and expressed his full support for the intervention. He recalled that the United Nations Security Council was meeting that morning to discuss the ballistic missile launches and to condemn those activities.

125. Observing that the ballistic missile issue could escalate and extend to regional and global security issues, the Representative of the Republic of Korea suggested that how the missile issue could affect the safety and security of international civil aviation be considered.

126. Associating himself with the interventions of the Representatives of Japan, France and Republic of Korea, the Representative of Spain expressed pleasure that the United Nations Security Council was taking action against the ballistic missile launches. Observing that the aviation-related component of the activities required that they be carried out in accordance with established international Standards that were binding on all ICAO Member States, he looked forward to learning what the response of the Organization would be in this regard.

127. The Representative of Turkey indicated that his State condemned the ballistic missile launches conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on 6 March 2017. He averred that that State must fully comply with the international obligations under the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and, as such, must stop all activities that threatened regional and international security and stability.

128. The Representative of the United Kingdom associated himself with the remarks made in support of the statement by the Representative of Japan regarding the missile launching. Recalling that the United Kingdom currently held the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, the Representative indicated that his State was working with international partners regarding the implication of the ballistic missile launches and hoped that ICAO would play its part vis-à-vis the related issues that affected civil aviation.

129. The Representatives of Canada and the United States associated themselves with the remarks of Japan and the previous speakers who had spoken on the importance of the issue.

130. The Representative of Mexico joined in condemning the ballistic missile launches and associated himself with the comments of the other Representatives on the matter.

131. In concluding its discussion of this item, the Council noted the comments regarding the ballistic missile launches. The Council further noted that the President, having received a number of letters regarding the matter, would inform the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of the concerns that had been expressed.

ICAO Council visit to Ecuador

132. The Representative of Ecuador provided an update on the proposed programme and related information pertaining to the forthcoming visit to Ecuador by the ICAO Council, which was scheduled to occur from 13 to 17 March 2017. He highlighted the importance of scheduled discussions and activities in support of, inter alia, the strategic objectives of the Organization and the No County Left Behind initiative. He anticipated that the direct contact between the Council, the aviation authorities in the region, the representatives of industry and operators would enhance the leadership role of the Organization, as well as the political and diplomatic relations required to fulfil its goals.

-229- C-MIN 210/10

133. The President of the Council thanked the Representative of Ecuador for his kind invitation and encouraged the Council Representatives to take the opportunity of the visit to not only learn something about Ecuador, but also to spend time together and share their perspectives.

Activities during recess

134. The Council noted that, following the visit to Ecuador, the President would be on mission in Ezulwini, Swaziland to participate in the RSOO Forum – Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs) for Global Aviation Safety (22 to 24 March 2017), followed by a State visit to Malawi. Thereafter, he would proceed to Accra, Ghana for the Second ICAO Meeting on the Sustainable Development of Air Transport in Africa (28 to 31 March 2017), followed by a State visit to Nigeria, the ICAO Cyber Summit and Exhibition – Making Sense of Cyber (4 to 6 April 2017) hosted by the United Arab Emirates, and the High Level Conference on the Improvement of Search and Rescue (SAR) Services in Africa (9 April 2017) in Lomé, Togo, followed by a few days of annual leave. It was understood that any information arising from the said missions would, as usual, be contained in the report on activities during the recess that was posted on the Council’s secure website.

135. The Council adjourned at 1235 hours.

-231-

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE 210TH SESSION

AFI SECFAL Plan the Council on aviation security (162) Report (49) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) Air navigation Appointment of new Observer (36, 162) Safety Week Presentation (82) Committee on Cooperation with Third Parties (CC3P) Air Navigation Commission (ANC) Appointment of Members (36) Review of procedures related to membership (129) Review of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Work Programme for the 205th Session (129) Parties (21, 218)

Air transport Committee on Relations with the Host Country (RHCC) Aviation security risk overview – 2016 (41) Appointment of Members and Alternates (36) Farewell to the former Deputy Director, Aviation Security Progress (213) and Facilitation (DD/ASF) (50) Voluntary Air Transport Fund (TRAF) (144) Condolences In memory of His Excellency, Mr. Vitaly Churkin, Air Transport Committee (ATC) the Permanent Representative of the Russian Appointment of Members and Alternates on the (35) Federation to the United Nations in New York (17)

Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR) Report (3) Report (91, 221)

Annex 1 ‒ Personnel Licensing Council Adoption of Amendment 174 (84) Activities during recess (229) Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices’ activities Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part I during 2016 and operating plans for 2017 (77) Adoption of Amendment 42 (84) Attendance of industry observer organizations at closed sessions of the Council (36) Annex 16 ‒ Environmental Protection, Volume I Commemorative stamp in honour of former Council Adoption of Amendment 12 (153) President Mr. Roberto Kobeh González (37) Council President Certificates (163) Annex 16 ‒ Environmental Protection, Volume II Informal briefing during the 211th Session (72) Adoption of Amendment 9 (154) IT security incident (222) Mechanism for high-level meetings to inform Assembly Annex 16 ‒ Environmental Protection, Volume III sessions (131) Adoption of the First Edition (154) Work Programme of the Council and its Committees for the 211th Session (216) Assembly, 39th Session Work Programmes of the Council for the 210th and 211th Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Sessions (72) Environmental protection (145) Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Policy Council off-site strategy meeting (COSM) and administrative subjects (140) Implementation of recommendations (217) Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Legal Report on recommendations (163) subjects (170) Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Council Representatives - new Safety and Air navigation capacity and efficiency (119) Drukier, W. (Canada) (3) Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Economic Shengjun Yang (China) (3) development of air transport (143) Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions – Security Ecuador and facilitation (45) ICAO Council visit (228)

Budget Environment Proposals on best practices (6) Convening of the ICAO Regional Seminars (37) Environmental Protection – Recent Developments (156) Business Plan 2017-2019 Update on work on a Global Market-based Measure Report (8) (GMBM) Scheme (157)

Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO) Ethics officer Requests to participate as Observers in closed meetings of Annual report (177)

-232-

Report entitled “Evaluation of mainstreaming of full and European Union (EU) productive employment and decent work by the United Request to participate as Observer (162) Nations system organizations – Summary Report” (163) Report entitled “Public information and communications Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) policies and practices in the United Nations system” Appointment of Members (203) (162) Consultation (37) Report entitled “Review of activities and resources devoted Review of the Terms of Reference (199) to address climate change in the United Nations system organizations” (163) Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) Report entitled “Review of the organizational Ombudsman Review (37, 190) service across the United Nations system” (196) 2016 report on the activities (182) Report entitled “Succession planning in the United Nations system organizations” (JIU/REP/2016/2) (163) Finance Establishment of the Resource Mobilization Fund (174) Joint Support Committee (JSC) Financing agreements reviewed during the 210th Session Appointment of Members and Alternates (36) (130) Recommendations related to items under the Danish Financial situation of the Organization and Level of and Icelandic Joint Financing Agreements (130) the Working Capital Fund (WCF) (162) ICAO Corporate Key Performance Indicators (7) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Proposal on Best Practices for the preparation of the Report (7) triennial budget (6) Korean peninsula Finance Committee (FIC) Ballistic missile launches (227) Appointment of Members and Alternates (36) Kuala Lumpur International Airport Global Aviation Training (GAT) Security incident (226) Review of issues relating to the ICAO Aviation Training Policy (167) Middle East and North Africa Regional Safety Oversight Organization (MENA RSOO) Human resources Hosting and support of operations by Saudi Arabia (37) Alignment of the ICAO Policy on Secondment and the ICAO Service Code (212) Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) Amendment to the ICAO Publications Regulations and Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs) (Doc 7231) (173) Recommendations to enhance participation by Member ICAO Policy on Secondment – Cooling-off period (213) States (85) Options to enhance succession planning in ICAO (206) Report on Access to top-selling publications (172) Public Key Directory (PKD) Board Membership (36) Human Resources Committee (HRC) Appointment of Members and Alternates (36) Resource Mobilization Fund Establishment (174) International Air Transport Association (IATA) Requests to participate as Observers in closed meetings Secretary General of the Council on aviation security (162) Mid-term report to the Council (52) Review of the structure and content of the sessional International Satellite System for Search and Rescue progress reports (60) (International Cospas Sarsat Programme) Structure of the ICAO Secretariat (10, 219) Request of the for inclusion in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable Technical Cooperation Bureau (TCB) ICAO Meetings (169) ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy (66) Operating Plan for the period 2017 2019 (137) International Women’s Day Report on the AOSC Accumulated Reserve Fund (138) Round-the-world flight (184) Statement by the Council (211) Technical Cooperation Programme Development Report (62) Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) Report entitled “Analysis of the evaluation function United Nations in the United Nations system” (195) Resolution 2309 (2016) on countering terrorist threats to Report entitled “Comprehensive review of United Nations civil aviation (50) system support for Small Island Developing States: Initial findings” (162)

-233-

Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USOAP CMA) Progress report (107)

Unlawful Interference Committee (UIC) Appointment of Members and Alternates (36)

Uruguay ICAO’s technical assistance (187)

Vendor Sanction Policy Draft proposal (66)

-235-

LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED

C-WP/14526 Revised (Revised Appendix – FR only) Review of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) (37, 190)

C/WP/14536 ICAO Corporate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) (7)

C-WP/14542 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions - Security and Facilitation (45)

C-WP/14543 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2309 on Countering Terrorist Threats to Civil Aviation (50)

C-WP/14544 Report on the Comprehensive Regional Implementation Plan for Aviation Security and Facilitation in Africa (AFI SECFAL PLAN) (49)

C-WP/14545 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions - Economic development of air transport (143)

C-WP/14546 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions - Environmental Protection (145)

C-WP/14547 Environmental Protection - Recent developments (158)

C-WP/14548 Update on work on a Global Market-based Measure (GMBM) Scheme (158)

C-WP/14549 Secretary General’s Mid-term Report to the Council (52)

C-WP/14550 Structure of the ICAO Secretariat (10, 219)

C-WP/14551 ICAO Business Plan for 2017-2019 (8)

C-WP/14552 Review of the ICAO Policy on Interactions with Third Parties (21, 218)

C-WP/14553 ICAO Vendor Sanction Policy (66)

C-WP/14554 Operating Plan for the Technical Cooperation Bureau for the period 2017-2019 (137)

-236-

C-WP/14555 Report on a feasibility study on the establishment of a ceiling for the AOSC accumulated reserve fund and the potential use of the accumulated surplus (138)

C-WP/14556 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions - Policy and administrative subjects (140)

C-WP/14558 Restricted Report on the Conflict Zone Information Repository (CZIR) (91, 221)

C-WP/14559 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions - Safety and Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency (119)

C-WP/14560 Adoption of Amendment 174 to Annex 1 (84)

C-WP/14561 Adoption of Amendment 42 to Annex 6, Part I (84)

C-WP/14562 Progress report on the implementation of the ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme Continuous Monitoring Approach (USOAP CMA) (109)

C-WP/14563 Recommendations to enhance participation by Member States in the Planning and Implementation Regional Groups (PIRGs) and Regional Aviation Safety Groups (RASGs) (85)

C-WP/14564 ANC Work Programme for the 205th Session (129)

C-WP/14565 Mechanism for high-level meetings to inform Assembly sessions and consequential amendments to applicable directives and rules of procedure (132)

C-WP/14566 Recommendations of the Joint Support Committee related to items under the Danish and Icelandic Joint Financing Agreements reviewed during the 210th Session (130)

C-WP/14567 Corrigendum (FR only) Adoption of Amendment 12 to Annex 16, Volume I (153)

C-WP/14568 Corrigendum (FR only) Adoption of Amendment 9 to Annex 16, Volume II (154)

C-WP/14569 Corrigendum (FR only) Adoption of the First Edition of Annex 16, Volume III (154)

C-WP/14570 Annual Report to Council on Regional Offices - activities during 2016 and Operating Plans for 2017 (77)

-237-

C-WP/14571 Request of the International Satellite System for Search and Rescue (International Cospas-Sarsat Programme) for inclusion in the List of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings (169)

C-WP/14572 Review of Assembly resolutions and decisions - Legal subjects (170)

C-WP/14573 Report on access to top-selling publications (172)

C-WP/14574 Amendment to the ICAO Publications Regulations (Document 7231) (173)

C-WP/14575 Revision No. 1 & No. 2 Annual Report of the Ethics Officer for 2016 (179)

C-WP/14576 Report on the evaluation of selected programme activities of the South American Regional Office: ICAO’s technical assistance to Uruguay (187)

C-WP/14577 2016 Report on the activities of the Evaluation and Internal Audit Office (EAO) (182)

C-WP/14578 Appointment process of the Evaluation and Audit Advisory Committee (EAAC) (203)

C-WP/14579 Options to enhance succession planning in ICAO (206)

C-WP/14580 ICAO Policy on Secondment - Cooling-off period (213)

C-WP/14581 Addendum & Corrigendum No. 1 Work Programmes of the Council and its Committees for the 211th Session (72)

C-WP/14582 Financial situation of the Organization and level of the Working Capital Fund (WCF) (162)

C-WP/14583 Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled ‘Review of the organizational ombudsman services across the United Nations system’ (196)

C-WP/14584 Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) entitled ‘Comprehensive review of United Nations system support for Small Island Developing States: Initial findings’ (162)

C-WP/14585 Report of the JIU entitled ‘Public information and communications policies and practices in the United Nations system’ (162)

-238-

C-WP/14586 Report of the JIU entitled ‘Review of activities and resources devoted to address climate change in the United Nations system organizations’ (163)

C-WP/14587 Report of the JIU entitled ‘Evaluation of mainstreaming of full and productive employment and decent work by the United Nations system organizations’ (163)

C-WP/14588 Report of the JIU entitled ‘Succession planning in the United Nations system organizations’ (163)

C-WP/14589 Report of the JIU entitled ‘Analysis of the evaluation function in the United Nations system’ (195)

C-WP/14590 Alignment of the ICAO Policy on Secondment and the ICAO Service Code (212)

C-WP/14591 Establishment of the Resource Mobilization Fund (174)

C-WP/14592 Proposal on Best Practices for the preparation of the triennial Budget (6)

— END —

NOT FOR SALE Printed in ICAO