COUNCIL — 176TH SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Tags: TPP, International, Airports, Travel, Airlines

OPEN MEETING

President of the Council: Dr. Assad Kotaite

Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General

Welcome to a new Representative on the Council

1. The President of the Council extended a warm welcome to Dr. Nasim Zaidi, who was attending a meeting of the Council for the first time in his capacity as Representative of India.

Subject №6.3: Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council Appointment of an Alternate and a Member on the Air Navigation Commission (ANC)

2. The Council appointed Mr. Richard Macfarlane (nominated by Australia) as Alternate to Mr. R.W. Graff on the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) with effect from 22 November 2005. It also appointed Mr. Macfarlane as a Member of the ANC to succeed Mr. Graff with effect from 1 January 2006. The nomination was presented in C-WP/12585.

Avian influenza and human pandemic influenza

3. Pursuant to a request made previously (176/2) by the Representative of Australia, and further to the Secretary General’s memorandum SG 1862/05 dated 18 November 2005 on the above subject, Dr. Evans, Chief, Aviation Medicine Section (C/MED) gave an updated oral report on avian influenza and human pandemic influenza. In recalling that he had attended an international meeting in Geneva from 7 to 9 November 2005 on that subject, Dr. Evans indicated that it had been co-hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank (WB), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This marked the first time that those four organizations had co-hosted a meeting and he noted that it signaled the intention of the United Nations (UN) agencies to work together in order to provide a global preparedness plan. While it was not possible to predict exactly when, or even if, a global human outbreak (pandemic) might occur, the best scientific advice was that at some point such an outbreak was likely.

4. In then elaborating on the various phases of the WHO’s Global Influenza Preparedness Plan, Dr. Evans, C/MED noted that the phases ranged from Phase 1, which was associated with a minimal risk, to Phase 6, which was a full pandemic. The current phase was Phase 3, meaning that there had been some animal-to-human spread but very little, if any, proven human-to-human spread. At the moment, the WHO did not recommend any travel restrictions to the areas of the world where there was a Phase 3 risk. However, travellers were advised not to go near farms or bird markets as there was a risk that they could contract influenza from infected birds, particularly chickens. It was the role of the Director General of the WHO to increase, if necessary, the preparedness phase to Phase 4 and above. It was recommended for Phases 4 to 6 that nonessential travel to affected States should be avoided.

Subject №52.1: Universal Security Audit Programme

Evolution of the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP)

1. The Council considered the above subject on the basis of C-WP/12534, presented by Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA, and reports thereon by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) and the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) (C-WP/12549 and C-WP/12562, respectively). C-WP/12534 discussed the evolution of the USAP once all States were expected to have undergone an initial ICAO aviation security audit. A number of principles were advanced which would provide a conceptual basis to guide the conduct of future USAP audits. Ms. Zuzak also addressed the possible administrative integration of the USAP and the Organization’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP) into an ICAO audit entity outside the existing Air Transport and Air Navigation Bureaux (ATB and ANB) and reported on the progressive integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget during the current triennium.

2. Referring to the progressive integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget of ICAO, the Representative of the United Kingdom queried whether the matter should be referred to the Finance Committee (FIC) for consideration. While he welcomed, in general terms, the direction in which the Secretary General was proceeding with regard to the said integration, he noted that, of the proposed additional US $2.28 million to be used to achieve the integration, some US $2.06 million (US $1.0 million of the excess Miscellaneous Income and US $1.06 million from the incentive scheme for long-outstanding arrears) comprised funds which happened to be available at the present time and which might not necessarily be available in the future.

3. Referring to the frequency of audits, the Representative of Ethiopia noted that paragraph 2.2 of the paper indicated that it was possible that “a more effective use of resources could be achieved by developing an appropriate scheduling/frequency model that would help determine the priority of the audits and frequency of visits to States”. He queried how the said approach would be developed and implemented while retaining those characteristics of the USAP audits. He also inquired as to what safeguards would be put in place to avoid, or at least minimize, subjective influences in the implementation of the said approach. In reply, Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA, emphasized that the universal, mandatory, systematic and harmonized nature of the USAP audits would be maintained. Under such a model, some States could be audited more than once during an audit cycle, depending upon the USAP audit findings and the ability of the audited States to successfully implement their corrective action plans.

4. D/ATB noted that once the six principles had been approved by the Council, proposals would be developed for their implementation, with efforts being made to ensure that no subjective influences affected their implementation. A report setting forth those proposals would be presented for Council’s consideration through the UIC and the ANC.

5. Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA further noted that objective criteria, appropriately weighted, would be used in establishing the scheduling/frequency model. The latter would be based on the model developed by the ANC and presented to the Council for the conduct of USOAP audits and amended to reflect the fact that it was to be applied to security audits. She observed that some of the possible criteria that could be used were: the level of aviation activity; historical trends of non-compliance with security-related SARPs; regional balance; the time which had elapsed since the initial USAP audit; and the existence of an organizational structure which could provide oversight. Ms. Zuzak affirmed that the principle of universality would be maintained with all States undergoing at least one USAP audit within a given cycle.

6. With respect to a question raised by the Representative of Cameroon regarding audits of the European region, Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA, explained that if the universality of the programme was to be maintained without sending an ICAO audit team to each EU Member State, then at a minimum ICAO would need to conduct a very careful examination of the EC inspection system to ensure that it adequately covered all relevant ICAO security-related SARPs. She envisaged that that would need to be coupled with an arrangement whereby ICAO would access the EC inspection results so that the Organization would continue to have uniform data on levels of compliance with its security-related SARPs which could also be used in its database. This would be subject to further discussion with the EC and EU Member States.

7. The Representative of Canada agreed with the comments expressed by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Ethiopia, insofar as the kind of changes which would need to be made within the organizational structure to satisfy the needs of States. With regard to the conclusion of regional co-operative arrangements in order to reduce the audit burden on States, the Representative of Canada welcomed the clarifications provided by Ms. Zuzak, C/ASA. He averred that it was in the interests of all States to have a centralized oversight body which was legally mandated to provide an oversight function. Careful consideration should be given to the establishment of partnerships and co-operative arrangements between ICAO and such regional entities, as well as to the approach and the criteria to be utilized in initiating such arrangements.

8. The Representative of France agreed with the principles presented, subject to the following observations: he endorsed the ANC’s long-standing view as expressed in paragraph 2.5 of its report that “audits are only a tool to be used as a starting point”. Averring that that also held true for ICAO’s SARPs, he emphasized that what was of paramount importance was the implementation process. While aware that the Organization was still conducting the first cycle of USAP audits, the Representative of France indicated that the need to draw practical and effective results from the audits should always be borne in mind.

9. The Representative of China indicated that he had no difficulty agreeing, in principle, to the paper presented, subject to the clarification given in paragraph 2.4 of the UIC report that only relevant “security-related” provisions of Annex 9 would be included in future USAP audits. In expressing support for the overall USAP, he emphasized the need to take into account the time and effort required to coordinate the actions of various governmental departments in implementing audited States’ corrective action plans. Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA confirmed this to be the case, with ICAO technical assistance and cooperation functions to be actively involved where necessary in the implementation of action plans.

10. The Representative of Austria also supported the principles presented. In endorsing the comments made by the Representative of the United Kingdom regarding the integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget, she emphasized that, while the funding proposals were welcome, they did not constitute the long-term funding required for the programme’s full integration into the Programme Budget. To a query by the Representative, Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA clarified that approximately 35 security-related provisions contained in Annex 9 related to issues such as travel documentation and the prevention of fraud; mishandled baggage; and customs control of air cargo. Ms. Zuzak advised that the Secretariat would develop a specific methodology to determine the usefulness of including said provisions in the audits.

11. The Representative of Spain endorsed the views expressed by the UIC and the ANC in their reports regarding the said six principles. In strongly supporting the comments made by the Representative of Ethiopia, he underscored the need to streamline ICAO’s audit functions as much as possible and reduce the bureaucracy to a minimum rather than inflate it, as expected and requested by ICAO’s Contracting States.

12. While supporting the principles, the Representative of Singapore shared the concerns expressed by the Representatives of Ethiopia and Canada regarding the frequency of audits. He welcomed the clarifications provided by Ms Zuzak and underscored that any decision to audit a given State more than once during an audit cycle should be made on an objective, equitable and transparent basis and not on a discriminatory basis.

13. The Representative of the United States endorsed the comments made by the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, Canada and others on some of the points raised regarding the Secretary General’s paper. She strongly supported the comments made on the need for functional independence of the USAP and the USOAP.

14. The Representative of Japan welcomed the administrative integration of the USAP and the USOAP as a step in the right direction. The said integration should be appropriately designed and should result in the streamlining of ICAO’s audit functions. He believed that the administrative integration would show Contracting States ICAO’s competent efforts for streamlining in situations where the proposed financial integration might bring about an increase of assessment. The Government of Japan also welcomed the integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget.

15. The Representative of Colombia congratulated the Secretary General on his efforts to enhance the functionality, efficiency and economy of the USAP so that audits were carried out in all States in a timely manner. He emphasized the usefulness of incorporating the security-related provisions of Annex 9 into the USAP, as well as of administratively and financially integrating the USAP and the USOAP while maintaining the functional independence of the two programmes. He also spoke in favour of integrating the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget.

16. In voicing support for the Secretary General’s paper, the Representative of Australia underscored that its guiding policy principles would serve as a foundation for the Organization’s future work. He supported the streamlining of ICAO’s audit functions particularly in light of the organizational separation which it would provide between the development of Standards, the auditing of their implementation and the provision of remedial assistance. Such organizational separation was in line with other organizations’ “best practices”.

17. In underscoring the importance of the administrative integration of the USAP and the USOAP to the future of aviation, the Representative of Argentina emphasized that its implementation should not be conditional upon realizing economies. While his State would welcome any savings which might result from the said integration, it considered that the new organizational structure should be implemented even if it were more expensive to operate as it would lead to greater efficiency in the long term.

18. Complimenting the Organization on the establishment of the USAP, the Representative of India noted that his State and the international airport in Delhi had been subject to an audit in January 2005 which he had been able to observe from close quarters. In conveying his Government’s appreciation for that audit, he observed that it had led to the introduction of a number of new security measures.

19. Responding to questions then raised by the Representative of South Africa, Catherine Zuzak, C/ASA, noted that Annex 17 — Security provided the global framework for security and set forth the basic minimum Standards with which all States had to comply. It was always possible for a State or a group of States to apply more stringent security measures than those contained in Annex 17 on the basis of national risk assessments. Regulation (EC) №2320/2002, which had been in force since 19 January 2003, established common basic standards for civil aviation security measures in European Union (EU) Member States. While that regulation was based on Annex 17, it was more prescriptive than the latter in a number of areas. With reference to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between ICAO and the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) on the conduct of joint ICAO/ECAC audits, Ms. Zuzak indicated that a number of such audits had already been performed; such audits constituted an ICAO audit in the sense that the level of States’ implementation of Annex 17 SARPs was evaluated but, at the same time, the level of States’ implementation of the relevant provisions of ECAC Document 30 could also be evaluated, if States so wished.

20. The Representative of Lebanon supported the comments made and the justification offered therefor in the Secretary General’s paper. He also supported the comments of the UIC and the ANC thereon. The Representative of Lebanon emphasized the importance of including the relevant security-related provisions of Annex 9 in the USAP and of verifying whether States’ implementation of such provisions was harmonized with their implementation of facilitation measures.

21. The Representative of Egypt likewise supported the paper presented. Underscoring the importance of obtaining the views of the FIC regarding the financial implications of the administrative integration of the USAP and the USOAP and the integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget, as well as regarding the continuation of voluntary contributions to the USAP, he noted that they would assist the Council in its consideration of the budget for the upcoming triennium.

22. The Representative of the Russian Federation shared the concerns expressed by the Representatives of Ethiopia and Spain, and stressed that the integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget should not be done to the detriment of other programmes of the Organization’s Work Programme. He concurred with the comment made by the Representative of India regarding the need for ICAO to build the capability of States to conduct their own security oversight programmes.

23. In summarizing the discussion, the President of the Council observed that the Council supported the principles set forth in C-WP/12534. It recognized that that paper by the Secretary General was a step forward in the progressive integration of the USAP into the Regular Programme Budget. The Council noted that, in proposing the administrative integration of ICAO’s USAP and USOAP audit functions, the Secretary General was not proposing that those two programmes be merged. The said two programmes were clearly different in nature and would continue to be functionally independent. Administrative integration involved the streamlining of bureaucracy and, in principle, should lead to efficiencies and economies and not to any increase in the costs of the two programmes. Any action taken by the Secretary General regarding the evolution of the USAP should not have a negative effect on the implementation of the Organization’s Work Programme for the current triennium as approved by the 35th Session of the Assembly. The present discussion would serve as a good basis for the Secretariat’s future work. The Council supported the comments of the ANC and the UIC on C-WP/12534 as contained in their respective reports, with the proviso that Principle 4 would be amended to refer to “relevant security-related provisions of Annex 9 — Facilitation” pursuant to paragraph 2.4 of the UIC’s report and the comment thereon by the Representative of the United Kingdom.

24. The Council accepted the above summary as part of its decision.

25. With regard to the principles for the conduct of future aviation security audits following the initial cycle of USAP audits at the end of 2007, the Council took the action proposed in paragraph 8.1 of C-WP/12534, as amended by the President in light of the discussion, and:

a) agreed that the USAP should always preserve the principle of universality, while recognizing that not all States needed to be audited at the same frequency (cf. paragraph 2 of C-WP/12534);

b) agreed that, in order to move toward the goal of security oversight audits, a flexible “two-tier approach” should be adopted for the conduct of future USAP audits, whereby the scope of the audits would be adjusted to the oversight situation in each audited State, as described in paragraph 3.5 of C-WP/12534, and requested that Principle 2 be amended to clarify that a security oversight audit would not be exclusively focused on a State’s oversight capability and would include a verification of the implementation of Annex 17 provisions through spot checks at the airport level;

c) requested that the Secretary General further explore co-operative arrangements and the most effective use of resources in regions where mandatory regional governmental audit programmes existed (cf. paragraph 4 of C-WP/12534); and

d) agreed that future audits under the USAP should be expanded to include relevant security-related provisions of Annex 9 — Facilitation (cf. paragraph 5 of C-WP/12534).

26. It was understood that the Secretary General would undertake a study on a new organizational structure for the administrative integration of the USAP and the USOAP and, depending on the outcome, would report to the Council under Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559/6), as appropriate.