RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTCA/M/16
16 July 2003
(03-3858)
Committee on Trade
in Civil Aircraft
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 4 JUNE 2003
Chairperson:  Mr. Didier Chambovey
1. The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
4 June 2003.
2. The representative of the United States informed the Committee that he would make a short
statement on inducements under "Other Business".
3. Before adopting the agenda, the Chairperson added one other item under Other Business
relating to  the report of the Committee to the General Council before the Fifth Ministerial Meeting in
Cancún.
4. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF THE 1979 AGREEMENT ON TRADE
IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT UNDER THE WTO....................................................................................... 1
B. "END-USE" CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................. 2
1. Updating information regarding civil/ military identification for customs
purposes ....................................................................................................................... .........2
2. Military vs. Non-military Definition ..................................................................................3
C. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................... ............. 4
1. United States – Statement regarding inducements ...........................................................4
2. Report by the Committee to the General Council as its input in the General
Council report to the Fifth Ministerial Conference..........................................................5
D. DATE OF NEXT RE GULAR MEETING.......................................................................................... 5
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF THE 1979 AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT
UNDER THE WTO
5. The Chairperson recalled that in April 1999 he had sent to Signatories a draft protocol
concerning technical rectifications needed to brin g the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft into the
WTO framework.  Since then, certain Signatories had remained unable to adopt this draft protocol buthad indicated the utility of continuing to revert to this item in the Committee.  The Chairperson thus
asked Signatories whether there had been any new developments.TCA/M/16
Page 2
6. The representative of Canada referred to the Chairperson' s comments and the minutes from
the last meeting in which it was recorded that  the European Communities was going to continue
discussions with the United States on this matter.  He wondered if the European Communities could
confirm whether such discussions had been held and, if so, what the substance of those discussions
had been.
7. The delegate of the European Communities informed the Committee that her delegation had
issued an invitation to discuss these matters but that so far no date for such a meeting had been fixed.
8. The delegate of Canada stated that his delegation remained concerned about the status of the
Agreement and would like to have it updated and rectified, as the United States had put it at the last
meeting. He wondered whether there could be any new initiatives that would enable the Committee to
do so and he sought the Chairperson's advice on this. He wondered for example whether the
Chairperson could prepare, with the assistance of the Secretariat, some different options in thisrespect.
9. The Chairperson stated that, although he was ready to offer his good services, as he had done
in the past, and while he considered that there certainly were a number of options that could be
explored, he indicated that he preferred to do so on the basis of a signal by Signatories that the
exercise would be worth undertaking.  He recalled that it was suggested that talks were going to takeplace shortly and he considered it preferable that Signatories discussed these issues among
themselves.  He confirmed that he stood ready to offer his good services and to put forward any
solution that could help break the deadlock on the basis of movement that would take place within the
framework of these discussions that Signatories were undertaking.
10. The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation, like Canada, felt that it was
important to update and rectify the Agreement under the WTO.  The United States still had concerns
regarding the later-in-time issue and the relationship between the rectified Agreement to the rest of the
WTO.  The delegate of the United States considered that those concerns could perhaps be addressed
in language similar to the language that was inserted in the Protocol 2001 amending the Annex to the
Agreement.  He added that his delegation looked forward to meeting with the European Communitiesand to finding out ways to address both delegations' concerns.
11. The Chairperson concluded that it seemed that there were going to be a number of
consultations between Signatories and that he would be extremely grateful if, as the Chairperson, he
could be debriefed on the outcome of such consultations, especially if those consultations would be
conducive to narrowing down the positions of Signator ies.  The Chairperson suggested that he would
undertake to put together the elements of a compromise solution on the basis of the report that he
would receive from Signatories on their consultati ons, which would put the Committee in a better
position to discuss this matter at its next meeting, if he received a clear signal from Signatories that it
was worth embarking on such an exercise.
12. The Committee so agreed.
B. "END-USE" CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION
1. Updating information regarding civil/military identification for customs purposes
13. The Chairperson noted that no new information had been received from Signatories since the
last regular meeting of the Committee.TCA/M/16
Page 3
2. Military vs. Non-military Definition
14. The Chairperson recalled that Canada had made a proposal concerning the definition of civil
aircraft for the purposes of the Agreement which was circulated in document TCA/W/4.  He recalled
that at the last meeting of the Committee, Canada had circulated as a room document a revised
wording of its proposal and that Signatories had agreed to revert to this item at the June meeting.
15. The delegate of Canada noted that his delegation did not consider the document it had
circulated at the last meeting to be a formal proposal, but rather something that would stimulate
thinking in the Committee about a new definition of civil aircraft.  He hoped that the paper explained
why his delegation had advanced this idea.  He noted that at the previous meeting several delegations
indicated at least an interest in the issue and stated that they would study the paper and offer
comments.
16. The representative of the European Communities stated that her delegation's first preliminary
and very general reaction was to welcome the paper and to see it as a positive input to the work of the
Committee, but that it still had some questions.  Her delegation agreed that there were difficulties with
the existing definition, as was demonstrated in various procurements.  She noted that there
nevertheless seemed to be a circularity in the proposed definition that a civil aircraft was one for
which there was or would be a civil type certificate. In her delegation's view, this begged the questionof military use and adaptation.  Her delegation would like to have some further clarification on this
and it was also interested to hear comments from Canada on how the proposal could be integrated into
the Agreement.
17. The delegate of the United States expressed his delegation's appreciation to Canada for its
non-paper.  His delegation had reviewed the proposal for a new definition for civil aircraft and had
some concerns related to the proposed changes.  Since Canada’s proposal was based on an aircraft’s
initial design, his delegation had found some examples of civil aircraft that would fall outside the
definition basis.  The delegate of the United Stat es indicated that, for example, the C130 US military
cargo plane received FAA certification a few years after it was initially designed as a military plane.
He further mentioned the B17 US military cargo plane which was also under consideration for FAA
certification and refered to press articles which reported that Airbus was interested in certifying the
A400M European military cargo plane after it would have gone into service.  There were probably
other examples as well.  He considered that the proposed definition could lead to an inclusion of
military aircraft because it was based on initial design rather than on final configuration of an aircraft
as it was delivered to the end user.  His delegation was of the view that Canada’s proposal could thus
inadvertently lead to the inclusion of military aircraft historically excluded from this and other WTO
Agreements.  The delegate of the United States further reminded Signatories that the Committee couldnot realistically consider this or other proposals for changes in the provisions of the Aircraft
Agreement until there was agreement on technical rectification of the current Agreement, and his
delegation therefore encouraged Signatories who had difficulties with the Chairman’s proposal to
clarify for the Committee their objections and more importantly to offer language that would, in their
view, resolve their problems.
18. The delegate of Japan also wished to thank the Canadian delegation for its contribution to this
problem.  While Japan considered the Canadian informal proposal to be a very interesting one, it
would like to get some clarification on certain points also raised by the delegate of the European
Communities concerning the relationship between the type certificate issued or validated and the
definition of a civil aircraft which could potentially lead to a problem of circularity.  The delegate ofJapan further considered that it in certain countries these kind of certificates could be implemented in
different ways, and he was wondering whether the de legate of Canada could clarify how Canada saw
this problem of potential different implementation of type certificates in the various countries.TCA/M/16
Page 4
19. The delegate of Canada expressed his appreciation to the three delegations that made
comments on the paper.  He was not sure whether he could answer all questions immediately, but
considered, as a general comment, that his delegation's paper indicated that, where the line between
civil and military was in a way blurred because it concerned, for example, a plane bought for military
purposes although it was a civil aircraft to start with, his delegation's paper did envision some kind ofsecurity provision that would exempt those planes.  He noted that his delegation was not trying to
capture all planes but certainly most of them and in any case more than were captured now. He further
agreed, by way of a general comment, with the delegate of the European Communities that the
question of the new definition was totally linked to the rectification and improvement of this
Agreement and that that was one of the reasons why his delegation was interested in updating the
Agreement.  He added that a revised definition was just one idea that his delegation had for improving
the Agreement and although he was sure that there were others, he realized that the Committee couldnot move forward with such an initiative in a se rious way until it was able to move forward on the
rectification issue.  His delegation completely agreed with what the delegate of the United States had
said in that respect.
20. The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed
 to revert to this matter at the
next meeting.
C. OTHER BUSINESS
1. United States – Statement regarding inducements
21. The delegate of the United States stated that the United States continued to be concerned
about allegations of inducements by governments to the sale of civil aircraft.  The United States had
noted reports of inducements in various press stories, and while it did not want to raise any specificaircraft competition this time, his delegation noted that the United States did not pressure foreign
governments or airlines with regard to aircraft purchases and did not make positive or negative
linkages to other United States government actions related to aircraft purchase decisions, consistent
with the United States' obligation under the Agreement.   The delegate of the United States expressed
the hope that all Signatories would do likewise and that governments or airlines purchasing aircraftwould resist any action inconsistent with Article 4 of the Agreement.  In order to avoid any future
misunderstandings, he suggested that at the next meeting the Committee would discuss ways to avoid
the appearance of actions inconsistent with Article 4 and ways to quickly resolve allegations that may
in fact be false.  He noted in this regard that provisions for making inquiries existed in the OECD
arrangement for the financing of large civil aircraft.
22. The delegate of the European Communities recalled that her delegation had also expressed
some concerns about reports of inducements at the last meeting, and she therefore welcomed this
suggestion to start discussing a sort of early warning system in order to try to avoid any appearance of
being not in conformity with the Agreement.  She indicated that her delegation clearly would need to
hear more about what could be done and she added that this could possibly be discussed in her
delegation's bilateral consultations with the United States.
23. The Chairperson suggested that it could be useful if the United States could provide
something in writing by the next meeting of the Co mmittee in order to structure the discussion in the
Committee on the United States' proposal.
24. The Committee took note of the statements made.TCA/M/16
Page 5
2. Report by the Committee to the General Council as its input in the General Council
report to the Fifth Ministerial Conference
25. The Chairperson recalled that the General Council would be meeting on 24 July 2003 and that
that was the last meeting normally scheduled before the Cancún Conference.  He noted that at that
meeting, the General Council would undertake the annual review of WTO Activities on the basis of
reports submitted by subsidiary bodies, including by this Committee.
26. He recalled that the Committee was not scheduled to meet again before the adoption of these
reports, and he suggested that the Chairperson of the Committee would send a letter to theChairperson of the General Council containing a factual report of the Committee's activities since its
most recent annual report.  He recalled that that had been the practice followed on earlier similar
occasions before the Geneva, Seattle and Doha Ministerial Conferences.  That letter would contain a
factual statement of the activities of the Committee since the adoption of the Committee's last annual
report in November 2002.  Essentially, the letter would report on the meeting the Committee was just
concluding, and copies of the letter would, of course, be made available to all Signatories.
27. The delegate of the United States explained that his delegation did not have any problem with
the procedure that the Chairperson outlined, but he proposed that the Secretariat circulate an advance
draft of the letter to the Signatories so that his delegation could look it over and make sure that it was
satisfied with the factual accuracy of it.  He added that in his view there would not be a need for a
meeting.
28. The Chairperson stated that this should be possible but he hoped that, since the letter would
report only on the meeting that the Committee was concluding, it should not raise any problem with
Signatories.  He further recalled that what he was proposing was just to send a letter on behalf of the
Chair, and not a negotiated document. He stated that, of course, he had nothing against circulating the
letter before it was sent but requested Signatories to bear in mind that he would be reporting to the
General Council on his behalf, and not on behalf of the Signatories.
29. The Committee so agreed.
D. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
30. The Chairperson proposed that the date of the next regular meeting was Wednesday,
12 November 2003.
31. The Committee so agreed.
32. The meeting was adjourned.
__________