Communication from the Commission - A European Community contribution to world aviation safety improvement

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

A European Community contribution to World Aviation Safety Improvement

1. Introduction

In the wake of the Puerto Plata accident, in January 1996, the Council called upon the Commission to devise proposals to ensure the safety of European citizens travelling in the air or living around airports. To do so, the Commission convened a high level group of aviation safety experts and elaborated, with their assistance, a Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy which was adopted and transmitted to the Council on 12 June 1996 [1].

[1] Doc SEC(96) 2083 final

That strategy was based on two main streams of actions. On one hand it was recommended to intensify work to maintain and further improve the safety of operations in Europe; this included in particular the creation of a European Aviation Safety Authority for which the Commission adopted on 27 September 2000 a Regulation establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation and creating a European Aviation Safety Agency [2].

[2] Com (2000) 595 final

The second group of actions was aiming at verifying that third countries actually apply internationally agreed aviation safety standards and at assisting them in doing so when necessary. To follow on this suggestion the Commission proposes to the European Parliament and the Council to adopt a Directive on the safety of third countries' aircraft using Community airports, so that appropriate information can be gathered and actions taken by the Community and its Member States to rectify dangerous situations. To complement that initiative the present communication identifies what such actions should be to ensure an effective global approach to aviation safety within the framework of the Chicago Convention on international civil aviation and using the available Community instruments.

2. Aviation Safety

2.1 Identification of the problem

1. One and a half billion passengers have been carried by the world's airlines up to 1999 and this is expected to double in the first decade of this century.

Although the current accident rate is low by comparison with many other human activities, the number of aviation accidents has been increasing and the number of passenger fatalities has only decreased slightly [3]. If accident rates were held constant, the projected traffic growth would lead to an unacceptably high accident frequency; accidents at the current rate would double the number of fatalities early in this century.

[3] Source Airclaims Limited.

« ...if the accident rate were to be held constant at the 1996 level, ... the projected growth in traffic could result in a serious accident every week by 2015 » [4].

[4] David Hinson, FAA Administrator.

It is necessary therefore to provide for the enhancement of aviation safety levels because, without confidence in safety, the aviation industry will not be able to develop to its full potential nor to make the appropriate contribution to economic and social development.

2. Another significant feature of the global accident picture is that accident rates vary considerably across different regions of the world. A summary of data for the 5-year period to the end of 1997 for world regions is shown in Annex 1.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these statistics:

* Airlines from Africa, Asia and South/Central America have accident rates at least twice as high as the world average, (in 1998 four times higher in the case of Africa and six times higher in China).

* North America has a rate much better than the world average.

* Western European countries, together with Australia, have the lowest accident rates.

* Eastern European countries including the CIS states, have a very high accident rate, nearly 50 times higher than in western Europe, and higher than in any other world region.

3. There is therefore a clear obligation for the aviation community to undertake a systematic approach to improving aviation safety world-wide, with a definite priority for those areas where the risk is highest. Aviation is a global industry and safety deficiencies in any part of the world have a wide impact. EU air operators and citizens fly world-wide and EU airports receive flights by non-EU air operators.

2.2 The Origin of the problem

4. The Chicago Convention and its Annexes allocate the responsibility for aviation safety to individual States. Each State bears responsibility for the safety design and continuing airworthiness of aircraft; for safe operations; and for safe air traffic flow within its own national airspace, including the necessary Air Traffic Management (ATM) and airport infrastructure. If these obligations are not fully respected by States, air safety deficiencies arise.

5. At the November 1997 conference of Directors General of Civil Aviation, ICAO highlighted their findings which pointed to a growing number of contracting States which had been found not to be applying, or to be misinterpreting, relevant ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). These standards are designed to ensure, inter alia, a minimum level of safety for international civil aviation.

6. Assessments carried out by ICAO have also revealed that many States are facing serious difficulties in fulfilling their safety obligations. The most common cause for these deficiencies is that States have not committed adequate resources to the task. The major deficiencies have been found to fall into four categories: primary aviation legislation; institutional structures; qualified personnel; and financial resources.

* Primary aviation legislation: many of the States assessed have not promulgated basic aviation law, or the existing aviation legislation is out of date and therefore fails to address essential considerations, for example, the provision of adequate enforcement powers.

* Institutional structures: in many States the organisation responsible for regulating and supervising aviation safety do not have the authority and independence to fulfil their regulatory tasks effectively.

* Qualified personnel: there are often not enough qualified experts available for the effective fulfilment of the safety responsibilities of States. Resources are often not available for necessary expert training. Even where resources are available for training, trained staff often leave for better-paid jobs in the aviation industry. As entities in charge of safety oversight or air traffic services are generally government departments, salaries are often fixed at low levels and cannot be changed without disrupting the whole governmental pay structure.

* Financial resources: many entities in charge of civil aviation safety are deprived of the necessary resources to carry out their obligations. The priority for improving air safety is not high on the political agenda when compared to other subjects such as health and poverty. Moreover, when a charging system has been put in place to recover costs from users, all too often resources are not allocated back to the functioning of these entities and cannot therefore contribute to improving aviation safety.

7. In conclusion, to properly implement ICAO SARPS, a sound legislative base, adequate staffing and sufficient funds are essential prerequisites.

2.3. Current means to address the problem

8. Expectations for continued high levels of safety from air passengers and residents living near airports have put pressure on several governments to establish audit and assessment programmes aimed at evaluating the capacity of other countries to fulfil their international aviation safety commitments. The aim of such programmes is usually to deny countries which fall short of ICAO compliance the rights they would normally enjoy under agreements based on the provisions of the Chicago Convention. A short description of example programmes appears as Annexes 2 and 3.

To do so States having structural difficulties have asked the international community to assist them through multilateral and bilateral co-operation programmes. The United Nations Programme for Development (UNDP) through the ICAO Technical Co-operation Bureau and several major developed countries have traditionally contributed to this assistance.

However, over the past decade, priorities in technical co-operation programmes have evolved and aviation is now low on the agenda, traditional donors considering that this activity could be self-sustained through commercial revenues and fees.

9. In response to the deficiencies identified by ICAO assessments, and listed under broad headings in paragraph 6 above, ICAO has launched its own voluntary Safety Oversight Programme (Annex 4) and used this opportunity to stimulate the activities of its Technical Co-operation Bureau in the field.

It is in this general environment that during the ICAO Safety Conference in November 1997, States unanimously endorsed a proposal to reinforce the ICAO Safety Oversight Programme. It was recognised that rather than relying on national solutions or on a voluntary assessment process, it would be preferable to expand the ICAO Programme to make it universal, mandatory and transparent. This initiative was confirmed by a formal resolution during the 32nd ICAO Assembly in September 1998 and the related budget provisions will have to be made in order to finance the new Universal Safety Oversight Assessment Programme (USOAP); further consideration shall be given in due time to include the assessment of ATM and airport infrastructure in the USOAP.

Accordingly ICAO is now entrusted with the role of auditing the level of compliance of States with ICAO SARPS.

Moreover ICAO enjoys a good level of confidence from most developing countries for its independence when assisting in the shaping and implementation of recovery actions. It benefits also from a recognised authority to propose and negotiate regional solutions that are often more efficient and less costly than individual action by States.

ICAO is therefore confirmed as the global reference for aviation safety matters, and has a pivotal role to play in any strategy to improve aviation safety world-wide.

3. Interest of the Community

10. In the face of these developments, there are a number of reasons why the Community cannot remain passive and must take the opportunity to defend its interests and the safety of its operators and citizens world-wide.

3.1. Safety considerations

11. Safety deficiencies world-wide and the failure by a number of countries to meet their international obligations concerning the implementation and enforcement of international safety standards has an unacceptable impact on the European Union. EU airlines operate globally and EU citizens travel widely all over the world and constitute an important percentage of passengers. The airports of the Community are also major destinations or stopovers for foreign carriers and aircraft. The safety of their operations is thus a matter of direct and immediate concern to the European Union, which is committed to ensure the safety of citizens living near airports and travelling to non-EU destinations or travelling on non-EU airlines.

12. For these very reasons the Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy proposed that the Community and its Member States take measures vis-à-vis third countries. It suggested in particular that collective action be undertaken at ICAO level to ensure that all countries fulfil their international obligations and that an appropriate co-operation policy be developed to assist States desiring to do so.

When examining the Commission Communication in June 1996, the Council encouraged the Commission to develop its suggestions and to make further proposals.

3.2. Aviation and Economic Development

13. Most economic experts agree that transportation drives and sustains economic development through its contribution to expansion and integration of global markets. There is a close relation between economic growth and the growth of air traffic. The growth of mass tourism from more economically developed regions has contributed to the development of local economies in many areas of the world that would otherwise have remained underdeveloped. The transport of high value or perishable goods by air has also contributed substantially to industrial development world-wide. It is therefore legitimate that the Community's policy of co-operation with third countries should integrate the provision of assistance in aviation.

14. The welfare of air transport is largely dependent on the confidence of the travelling public in the level of aviation safety in the countries concerned. It seems therefore crucial to concentrate first on this aspect when considering aviation co-operation projects with third countries. This is even more justified for some European countries when their level of safety raises serious concerns at a time when they are seeking membership of the Community and will soon be participating in the air transport international market thanks to the European Civil Aviation Area agreement (ECAA). Indeed there are already a number of co-operative aviation safety programmes in existence, which have been decided in the context of general Commission co-operation agreements.

3.3. Industrial and Economic Objectives

15. Air safety regulations, used at national level to enforce the minimum necessary ICAO SARPs, play an important part in the definition of the operating environment for aircraft, as well as for air traffic and airport services. The European aerospace industry recognises the commercial implications of the recognition of European regulatory requirements by third countries that constitute important current customers or potential customers. Exclusive use of rules from other exporting countries or regions can give a competitive edge to their manufacturers. It is therefore preferable that countries should be encouraged to establish a long-term partnership with Europe in matters of regulation of aviation safety, whereby they adopt systems recognising European standards, rules, practices, methods and organisations. Recovery co-operation activities following the findings of the FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessment Programme (IASA) as well as the "Safe Skies" initiative launched by the American Government indicate that the United States of America have already started to implement a similar strategy.

Additionally, long term co-operation can also facilitate the conclusion of agreements for the mutual recognition of measures linked to the regulation of aviation safety and therefore facilitate trade in goods and services with those states that are becoming major trading partners of the European Community.

16. The Commission's objective to support the European aviation industry can be well served by international safety improvement programmes, and a measure of the industry's interest is expressed by its willingness to contribute to such programmes (see Annex 5).

4. Community contribution to global aviation safety improvement

17. Accordingly the Community and its Member States should play an active role in the improvement of aviation safety world-wide. To do so, and besides the actions that they must take to address their own challenges as described in the communication on a Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy, they should follow two main avenues of action:

* consolidate and further strengthen the role of ICAO in the monitoring of the application of safety related SARPS by its contracting States.

* further develop and better co-ordinate their technical assistance activities aiming at assisting States in fulfilling their ICAO commitments in the field of aviation safety.

4.1. The role of ICAO

18. ICAO will intensify and broaden its activities to audit the level of implementation of SARPS. The decisions taken so far however fall short of setting an effective framework for ensuring that States really comply with their ICAO commitments in a uniform way.

Although ICAO is compelled to put in place a mandatory assessment of the way in which its contracting States apply the SARPs, as they are committed to do, it has no legal power to oblige them to accept the necessary audits and inspections. It therefore has to conclude bilateral agreements with each and everyone of them on a voluntary basis; accordingly the USOAP is still in a real sense a voluntary programme.

19. Certainly it is envisaged to expand the USOAP to cover all safety related SARPS, and in particular those related to ATM and airport services. But this is to be done only "at the appropriate time" and is subject to budgetary constraints. When it is considered, as recognised by ICAO itself, that the activities covered by the current programme [5] in countries where safety problems exist represent only 1% of the international aviation activities, while at the same time a significant part of the activities of European operators takes place in the territories of such countries, one can question the effectiveness of the current approach.

[5] The current Safety Oversight Programme is related only to ICAO Annexes 1, 6 and 8 which deal respectively with Personnel Licensing, Operation of Aircraft and Airworthiness of Aircraft.

20. If transparency and the threat of possible action by other contracting parties are a means to follow up on the USOAP to ensure the effective application of SARPS, it should not be the primary one in a multilateral framework where discipline must be enforced collectively and not individually or unilaterally. No reflection however has been undertaken to examine the use of the existing enforcement provisions in the ICAO Convention, nor their possible strengthening.

21. As was already mentioned in its Communication on a Community Aviation Safety Improvement Strategy, the Commission considers necessary that work continues to give to ICAO the legal means needed to fulfil its new role.

22. This may need more than just a new interpretation of some provisions of the Chicago Convention and could in a few cases necessitate amending that Convention. This is no reason however to wait and see. On the contrary, since such an exercise may take a long time, the Commission suggests that Community Member States, and in particular those represented in the ICAO Council, should take the lead with other like-minded countries, to put in place within ICAO the necessary working structure, to analyse detected shortcomings and examine with the countries concerned the various means to rectify them. The Commission on its side intends to initiate contacts with several third countries to seek their opinion on and support for such an initiative.

23. The restructuring of the ICAO regular budget to cover the costs related to the USOAP may take some time, in particular to finance its extension to all safety related SARPS. This therefore would slow down the necessary evolution. For this reason, the Commission could envisage to provide additional resources to ICAO to assist in and accelerate the transition. Such contribution would of course to have to be agreed with the audited States so that the Commission can receive in return the results of ICAO audits, in particular the derived action plans to serve as a basis for its own technical co-operation activities in the field. This would be the subject of a memorandum of co-operation between the two organisations within which both would establish priorities and agree on target countries with their ascent. Commission priorities would take into account relevant Community policies vis-à-vis third countries, as well as the results of the safety assessment activities undertaken in the framework of the SAFA programme.

24. Last but not least there is certainly a need to consider the special case of European countries. All EU Member States, and most other European countries, are or aim to become, full members of the Joint Aviation Authorities; ultimately they certainly will participate in the European Aviation Safety Agency, which the Community is currently considering. They are as such part of a regional aviation safety system, which comprises themselves and the JAA/EASA, conducting its own internal enforcement mechanisms. In order to avoid duplication of inspection, and also because the whole system is to be audited by ICAO, it would be advisable that the JAA develops the appropriate co-operation with ICAO to facilitate the audit of its own full and candidate members, as the Community will have to do when the EASA is in place.

The same reasoning would apply mutatis mutandis to EUROCONTROL members, when the USOAP is extended to ATM SARPs.

4.2. Technical assistance

25. Whilst the audit of States is a significant and positive first step, the design of recovery actions and their implementation remains the essential prerequisite for world-wide improvement in aviation safety. The return of States to full compliance with international standards is indeed a much more costly exercise than assessment, and international financial and technical assistance is almost always needed to reach that objective.

4.2.1. Action by ICAO

26. ICAO is currently investigating the establishment of an International Aeronautical Fund, known as The International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS). It is intended that this fund would be used to improve safety through recovery actions recommended as a result of ICAO's audits carried out under the USOAP programme, as well as to improve airport, air navigation, and develop CNS/ATM systems. Major beneficiaries would be the less developed nations of the world. The fund would be financed from either a passenger ticket safety levy or from contributions from ICAO contracting States.

27. Whilst such a fund would be a welcome addition to the global effort to improve air safety, it could not completely substitute for actions by individual interested parties such as the Community who would in many cases have their own priorities for recovery actions in specific regions. The Commission considers, therefore, that the Community and its Member States should themselves play a much more proactive role and use part of the significant resources they allocate to technical assistance to developing countries to support improvement in aviation safety.

4.2.2. Community action

28. The Community has a number of financial instruments that can be used to support aviation safety programmes. These instruments are grouped on a regional basis with different Directorates General having responsibility for different regions. Annex 5 provides a description of these funds and a list of currently supported safety actions.

29. Drawing lessons from the new role of ICAO in the safety oversight assessment of its contracting States, the Commission is envisaging a new approach to ensure that funds will be used efficiently to provide sustained improvement in aviation safety. This will, at the same time, facilitate complementarity of various actions with the same aim undertaken by all other interested parties:

* Any co-operation activity shall normally be the follow-up of an ICAO assessment conducted in the framework of the USOAP, unless an emergency action is identified as necessary before the ICAO assessment takes place for which some flexibility of approach will need to be maintained.

* Any project shall be based upon the ICAO Approved Action Plan established as a result of the audit.

* Each project shall be discussed and agreed between the Commission, the recipient country and ICAO to ensure that it provides an efficient answer to the difficulty identified by ICAO.

* European industry should be consulted on the projects envisaged and invited to contribute if they so wish.

* Recipient countries shall contribute themselves to the implementation of the projects and commit to taking the necessary measures to ensure their sustainable continuation.

* The terms of reference of the project shall be established with an appropriate technical support from aviation experts.

* The implementation of the project will have to be carried out in accordance with the rules of procedure applicable to the eligible fund; when a call for tender is required, the selection should be done using the necessary aviation expertise.

* The implementation also needs continuous monitoring by appropriate aviation experts.

* At the end of the implementation, there shall be another ICAO audit in order to check that the result meets the expectation and that the relevant part of the action plan is achieved.

30. This process requires in several steps an appropriate aviation expertise that, pending the creation of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), is not available in the Commission. Therefore, and because ICAO has already its own role to play in the process, the Commission envisages asking ICAO to provide, where possible, this expertise. This would not only ensure that the projects are fully consistent with the recovery action plans, but would also facilitate the design and implementation under ICAO leadership of regional solutions like the Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programmes (COSCAP) [6].

[6] The Commission has started suppoting financially, the South Asia COSCAP and the South East Asia COSCAP; it intends to do the same in other regions of the world.

Such support to the Commission services would become part of the memorandum of co-operation mentioned here above and be subject to appropriate Community funding.

31. However, for European countries, which as a consequence of their various affiliations to the Community, the JAA and EUROCONTROL, it must be recognised that ICAO may not be the most appropriate source of expertise to support the Commission's services. The same would apply to those third countries which want to develop privileged links with the Community and apply its safety standards. Pending the creation of EASA, the Commission envisages therefore in such cases to establish the necessary links with the JAA and EUROCONTROL to obtain their expertise.

4.2.3. Co-ordination of actions

32. As stressed here above, recovery will be costly and Community action will certainly not be sufficient to meet the challenges. Member States should therefore on their own side increase their support to improving world-wide aviation safety.

In order to ensure however that Member State actions and those of the Community complement each other, the Commission considers that Member States, like the Commission itself, should not finance projects that are not part of the ICAO approved recovery action plans.

33. Moreover, since a preference should be given to co-operative programmes at regional or sub-regional levels, the Commission considers that this first commitment will not suffice. It envisages therefore to create a co-ordinating committee to which Member States experts as well as industry representatives would be invited, so that information can be exchanged on technical assistance activities and appropriate joint programmes identified. Such a co-ordinating structure would not need to meet more than once a year to achieve its objectives.

4. Conclusion

34. There is a strong aspiration from European citizens for more safety in aviation at a time when the steady development of the activity, combined with the standstill of the accident rate, fuels a public perception of a decreasing level of safety. There is therefore an urgent need to improve global aviation safety, in particular, in certain regions of the world. The Community and its Member States have a leading role to play to achieve this objective and to assist third countries in applying the international safety standards.

35. The Commission intends to take the following initiatives:

* The conclusion of a Memorandum of Co-operation with ICAO. Such a Memorandum will have for objective both to assist ICAO in implementing and enlarging its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme, and to provide ICAO's assistance to the Commission in order to secure consistent and coherent Community intervention for recovery projects supported by current financial instruments. Such agreement which will be only about funding and exchange of information is fully within the remits of Commission's powers as specified by article (302) of the Treaty.

* The conclusion of similar arrangements with JAA and EUROCONTROL to assist future European Union members and some other third countries to conform to the Community's own requirements and ensure that JAA and EUROCONTROL standards are met in these States.

* The allocation of increased resources from the existing co-operation programmes, in accordance with their own respective rules of procedure, to finance recovery actions as identified in co-operation with ICAO, JAA and EUROCONTROL.

* The establishment of a co-ordination mechanism for recovery actions undertaken by the Community and its Member States through the creation of a committee composed of experts from the Commission, the Member States and European Industry, to be involved in the identification and financing of such actions.

* The definition of a Community position regarding the creation of the ICAO International Financial Facility for Aviation Safety in order to ensure complementarity with European Community and Member States instruments.

36. The Commission invites the Member States to complement Community action and take the following initiatives:

* Support ICAO in the implementation of the Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme by ensuring that ICAO is given the financial and legal means to conduct systematic and mandatory safety audits.

* Take initiative to make use and strengthen the enforcement provisions of the ICAO Convention so as to privilege multilateral, rather than unilateral action to convince states, when necessary, to fulfil their international obligations in aviation safety.

* Increase their own financial assistance for the implementation of recovery actions identified as a result of ICAO audit activities.

* Participate in the co-ordination structure set up by the Commission to ensure consistency and complementarily of recovery actions, as well as best use of available resources.

Annex 1

Five-year Figures (1994-1998): Summary [7]

[7] Source: Airclaims Limited: " Special Report for IAPA: Study of Fatal Accident Data, Passenger Flights for and Number of Flights, Five Year Rolling Average, Western-built Jet Aircraft 1989 to 1998", 4 February 1999. Source: Airclaims Limited: " Special Report for IAPA: Study of Fatal Accident Data, Passenger Flights for and Number of Flights, Five Year Rolling Average, Eastern-built Jet Aircraft 1989 to 1998", 4 February 1999.

>TABLE POSITION>

* not statistically reliable

Annex 2

The FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA)

The Programme was begun in 1992 and modified to include public disclosure of results in 1994. The Programme assesses whether a foreign civil aviation authority (CAA) complies with the minimum international standards for aviation safety oversight established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The FAA analyses collected information to determine whether the CAA complies with ICAO standards regarding the oversight provided to the air carriers under its authority. This determination is part of the basis for FAA recommended courses of action to the Department of Transportation on the initiation, continuation, or expansion of air service to the United States by the carriers overseen by that CAA. The IASA program applies to all foreign countries with air carriers proposing or having existing air service to the United States under an economic authority issued by the Department

The FAA is evaluating the safety oversight system of each country, not the safety of its individual airlines. It assesses only whether the oversight system is adequate to ensure that ICAO minimum standards are met, not the higher standards applicable in the US, the European Community and some other countries.

In May 2000,the FAA decided to use only use two categories in the future, i.e., Category 1 (in compliance with minimum international standards for aviation safety) and Category 2 (not in compliance with minimum international standards for aviation safety). Countries with Category 1 status (complying with minimum ICAO standards) will be allowed normal operations to the United States. Category 2 will consist of two groups of countries:

One group of countries that have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at the time of the assessment. While in Category 2 status, carriers from these countries will be permitted to continue operations at current levels under heightened FAA surveillance. Expansion or changes in services to the United States by such carriers are not permitted while in category 2.

The second group of countries that do not have air carriers with existing operations to the United States at the time of the assessment. Carriers from these countries will not be permitted to commence service to the United States while in Category 2 status.

Results of the Programme so far indicate that over 40% of countries evaluated lacked oversight sufficient to ensure that the minimum international standards are met.

Annex 3

The European Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) Programme

Established by ECAC and the JAA with support from the Commission, this Programme was established to provide European States with a surveillance tool so that they are made aware of proven deficiencies and can act in consequence. It is largely based on safety information gathered from all possible sources and on ramp-checks of foreign aircraft. The programme is applied to all foreign aircraft using an ECAC country's airports. Information and results of checks are held on a common database at JAA Headquarters, and are confidential.

It is not an assessment of a States oversight capability. It is considered however that, whilst certainly not replacing safety oversight assessments, it contributes upstream of such assessments by drawing attention to possible deficiencies in a country's oversight system.

The High Level Group which met in 1996, concluded that the Community should use its legal powers to make that programme mandatory for the EU Member States. The Commission has therefore drafted a proposal for a directive to be handled by the Community legislative process.

Annex 4

The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP)

At the ICAO Assembly in October 1995, Member States endorsed the implementation of the ICAO Aviation Safety Oversight Programme (SOP). The Programme aimed at ensuring the effective implementation by States of the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) included in ICAO Annexes 1 (personnel licensing), 6 (flight operations) and 8 (aircraft airworthiness).

The Programme incorporated as its core function safety oversight assessments of States by ICAO, on a voluntary basis, with the objective of offering follow-up advice and technical assistance as necessary to enable such States to implement ICAO SARPs and associated procedures.

The assessment is the safety audit of the country's actual level of compliance with international standards. This is carried out by assessing whether regulatory authorities have the legal means, the resources, the workforce and expertise to meet their international safety supervisory responsibilities.

There were a number of shortcomings with this Programme. It was limited by the need for voluntary contributions from Member States and by ICAO's own continuing funding problems. Being voluntary it could not always be applied where the need was greatest, an assessment being only carried out when requested by the State concerned.

Since November 1998 ICAO Contracting States have decided that the programme should apply to all of them in a systematic and regular way, with publication of results if after re-assessment a State has made no significant improvement. The Programme has been renamed The ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP).

In order to assist States to take the necessary recovery actions to redress the short comings identified by the Safety audit, ICAO, with the agreement and participation of the State concerned, proceeds to the establishment of an Approved Action Plan. This plan provides the basis for recovery to full compliance with the ICAO Annexes.

Annex 5

Community funds available for World Aviation Safety Improvement

(i) Economic Development Fund -EDF (Lome Countries)

The EDF budgets are decided in agreement with the recipient States. Despite the fact that most of these states have severely under-resourced civil aviation administrations and poor air safety records, air safety has not been a traditional beneficiary of CEC assistance with priorities such as health, education, poverty relief claiming most resources. However with the air transport sector being recognised as an important factor in future economic growth, more of these countries are requesting assistance with aviation problems and the Commission should respond favourably to such requests.

There is a possibility of the Commission co-sponsoring aviation projects with other donors. Traditionally the World Bank and the UNDP have been co-sponsors but their priorities have also been elsewhere in recent years. The European Aerospace industry has expressed interest in co-cosponsoring projects with the Commission and this possibility should be followed up.

(ii) Overseas Development and Economic Co-operation Budgets

The Development budget line is allocated in agreement with the recipient country, and here again aviation has not traditionally been a priority. For this reason the Economic Co-operation budget has been used to improve air safety through co-financing arrangements with EU industry. In view of the willingness of the EU industry to continue with such projects they should be expanded and their geographical coverage increased to regions which recent ICAO audits have shown to be in urgent need.

(iii) TACIS, PHARE and the Budget for Potential New EU Member States

There have been major budgets for co-operation with former CIS (TACIS) and with central and east European countries (PHARE) as well as with other potential EU Member States.

The air safety record in these regions is quite alarming and amongst the worst in the world. As a result of the break up of the former Soviet Union air safety in the region has often been neglected and Civil Aviation Authorities have been left under-resourced or even non-existant. Urgent new ATM programmes are also required in the region,

TACIS has only addressed aviation safety issues to a limited extent. Actions are now being taken to improve aviation safety in Central Asia and the Caucasus region. This assistance may be extended in time and financially.

PHARE has undertaken substantial projects through its multi-country transport programme over the last seven years to ensure that the EUROCONTROL network is spread through central Europe. EUROCONTROL implemented the project on PHARE's behalf and the recently completed project has been a considerable success.

Potential new Member States must, as part of the acquis communitaire, conform to the JAA standards for airworthiness and air safety. Some allocation of funds has been made to support air safety and ATM improvement. The funds allocated do not however seem sufficient given the scale of the problem, although TAIEX has begun limited support to work in candidate countries aimed at introducing JARs, EU quality assurance systems, standards, and supplier and maintenance organisation approval schemes. However if major problems are to be averted more attention must be devoted to the area of aviation safety.

Annex 5 (Continued)

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AECMA The European Association of Aerospace Industries

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATM Air Traffic Management

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries

COSCAP Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programmes (of ICAO)

ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference

FAA Federal Aviation Administration (USA)

IASA FAA International Aviation Safety Assessment

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

JAA Joint Aviation Authority (of Europe)

JAR Joint Aviation Requirements (of JAA)

SAFA Safety of Foreign Aircraft

SARP Standards and Recommended Practices (of ICAO)

USOAP Universal Safety Oversight Assessment Programme (ICAO)