International Civil Aviation Organization: Council - 186Th Session

Doc 9928-C/1162
C-Min. 186/1–12
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization
COUNCIL — 186TH SESSION
Montréal, 20 January – 18 March 2009
SUMMARY MINUTES
WITH SUBJECT INDEX
2009
Montréal Canada
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING (CLOSED) ......................................................... 1
Appointments and promotions to senior level (P-4 and above) posts at ICAO ............................... 2
Other business ................................................................................................................................ 5
Decisions taken during the recess ...................................................................................... 5
Appointments on Committees ............................................................................................. 5
Third Meeting of the Group on International Aviation and Climate
Change (GIACC/3) ........................................................................................................... 6
Informal closed meeting of the Council to conduct interviews for the post of
Secretary General .............................................................................................................. 6
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING (CLOSED) ......................................................... 7

Report on acts of unlawful interference........................................................................................... 8
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING (OPEN) ....................................................... 9

Schedule for consideration of items during the 186th Session of the Council .............................. 10
Report on activities during the recess ............................................................................................ 10
Report on action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 185th Session ... 10
Night curfews and slot allocation ................................................................................................. 11
Proposed Terms of Reference of the Secretariat/Council Group on Regional Bodies .................. 12
Convening of an International Conference on Aviation Security ................................................. 14
Other business .............................................................................................................................. 18
Farewell to Mr. Gil-sou Shin, Representative of the Republic of Korea ......................... 18
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING ........................................................................ 19

Diplomatic Conference on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties
Arising from Acts of Unlawful Interference or from General Risks
(Montréal, 20 April – 2 May 2009) ................................................................................. 20
International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment) ................................................. 20
Convening of the 34th Session of the Legal Committee .............................................................. 21
Report on the processes for delegation of financial authority ....................................................... 22
Report on review of Financial Regulations 7.8 and 9.5 ................................................................ 23
Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and
possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems .............................. 24
Other business .............................................................................................................................. 24
Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented during
the third quarter – 1 July to 30 September 2008 ................................................ 24
Status report on the audit of the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) .............. 25
Report on the implementation of Assembly Resolution A36-19: Threat to civil aviation
posed by man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) ................................. 25
Programme of Meetings for 2009 .................................................................................... 25
Processing of credentials of Representatives and Alternates on the Council ................... 25
(i)
Page
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING .................................................................... 27

Appointment of the Secretary General ......................................................................................... 29
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING ......................................................................... 33

Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 169 to Annex 1 ...................................................... 34
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 33 to Annex 6, Part I ............................................. 36
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 14 to Annex 6, Part III ........................................... 37
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 28 to Annex 6, Part II ............................................ 38
Other business .............................................................................................................................. 39
Report on the Implementation Support and Development (ISD) — Aviation safety
and security activities for 2008 — Progress report on ICAO audit activities:
USOAP and USAP ............................................................................................ 39
Financial situation of the Organization ........................................................................... 39
the fourth quarter — 1 October to 31 December 2008 ....................................... 39
Seating arrangements in the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) ................................... 39
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING ........................................................................ 41

Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendments 10 and 4 to Annex 14,
Volumes 1 and II, respectively ........................................................................................ 42
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 101 to Annex 8 ........................................................ 44
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 42 to Annex 2 .......................................................... 45
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 55 to Annex 4 .......................................................... 45
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 35 to Annex 15 ........................................................ 46
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Volume I ....................................... 46
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING ................................................................... 49

Welcome to a new Representative on the Council ....................................................................... 50
Statement by the President of the Council — International Women’s Day 2009 ......................... 50
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Volume I ..................................... 50
Interim report on the outcome of the Special Africa-Indian Ocean Regional Air Navigation
(SP AFI/08 RAN) Meeting (Durban, South Africa, 24-29 November 2008) .................. 53
Disclosure to the Council of States referred to the Audit Results Review Board (ARRB) .......... 57
Other business .............................................................................................................................. 63
Addition of a new item to the work programme for the 186th Session ............................. 63
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING ..................................................................... 65

Statement by Dr. José Rafael Espada, Vice-President of Guatemala ........................................... 67
Appointment of an Alternate on the Air Navigation Commission ............................................... 67
Appointment of an Alternate and a Member on the Air Navigation Commission ......................... 67
Report of ANC — Work Programme of ANC for the 181st Session ........................................... 67
Request of the International Committee for Airspace Standards and Calibration (ICASC)
for inclusion in the list of international organizations that may be invited
to attend suitable ICAO meetings .................................................................................... 68
(ii)
Page
Report of ATC – Amendment 21 to Annex 9 – Facilitation ........................................................ 68

Financial Year 2008 – Report on the carry forward ..................................................................... 68
Progress report on issues relating to protecting the purchasing power of the ICAO budget
(split assessment) ............................................................................................................. 73
Other business .............................................................................................................................. 74
Statement by Representative of the Republic of Korea ................................................... 74
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING (CLOSED) .................................................... 75

Report of the External Auditor on audit activities in 2008 — Update on investigations .............. 76
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING (OPEN) ......................................................... 79

Report of ANC — Proposed amendment to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport
of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) with respect to mixtures of
dangerous goods and classification of Division 1.4S explosives ..................................... 80
Technical Co-operation Programme Development ....................................................................... 80
Report of HRC — Progress report on the work of the Human Resources Committee ................. 88
Other business .............................................................................................................................. 90
ICAO Regional Seminar on MRTDs, Biometrics and Security Standards
(Abuja, Nigeria, 6 to 8 April 2009) .................................................................... 90
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING (CLOSED) ................................................... 91

Review of the net base salaries of the President of the Council and the Secretary General .......... 92
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING (OPEN) ........................................................ 93

Progress Report on the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) ............ 94
Environmental Protection – Recent developments in other United Nations bodies ..................... 99
Convening of the High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change ................ 99
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING ............................................................. 103

United Nations (UN) Climate Neutral Initiative ......................................................................... 104
Review of the ICAO Procurement Code (Doc 9761) ................................................................. 105
Report of FIC — Review of exceptional remuneration made to seconded staff ......................... 106
Financial Year 2008 — Report on the carry-forward ................................................................. 106
Report on the work methods of the External Auditor ................................................................. 113
Other business ............................................................................................................................ 115
Review of the composition of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP) ........................ 115
Report on the results of the ITU World Radiocommunication
Conference (2007) (WRC-07) .......................................................................... 115
Appointment of an Alternate on the Air Transport Committee,
the Joint Support Committee, the Finance Committee and
the Committee on Unlawful Interference ......................................................... 116
Elimination of the unnecessary translation of certain documents .................................. 116
(iii)
Page
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING ............................................................... 117

Financial Year 2008 – Report on the Carry Forward ................................................................. 118
Performance Assessment Report of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit,
and Management Review (EAO) .................................................................................. 119
Work Programme of the Council for the 187th Session ............................................................. 120
Appointments and promotions to senior level (P-4 and above) posts at ICAO .......................... 122
SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES

OF THE 186TH SESSION ........................................................................................................ 123
LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 127
(iv)
-1- C-MIN 186/1 (Closed)
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TUESDAY, 20 JANUARY 2009, AT 1430 HOURS)
CLOSED MEETING
President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González
Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General
PRESENT:
Argentina — Mr. A.M. Singh Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora
Australia — Mr. P.K. Evans Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu
Brazil — Mr. R.S. Magno Republic of Korea — Mr. Shin, G.-S.
Cameroon — Mr. E. Zoa Etundi Romania — Mr. C. Cotrut
Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov
China — Mr. Tao Ma Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
Dominican Republic — Mr. C. A. Veras Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong
Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Lascano Spain — Mr. J. Herrero (Alt.)
Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier
El Salvador — Mr. J.A. Aparicio Borjas Tunisia — Mr. I. Sassi
France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Uganda — Mr. J. Twijuke
Germany — Mr. J. Mendel United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)
Iceland — Mr. H. Sigurdsson Uruguay — Mr. J.L. Vilardo
Italy — Mr. F.P. Venier Venezuela — Mr. D. Blanco Carrero
Japan — Mr. S. Baba
Malaysia — Mr. S.-C. Kok
ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT:

Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB
Mr. L.M. Coelho de Souza (Alt.) Brazil Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil
Mr. A. de Lima (Alt.) Brazil
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada
Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) France
Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) Iceland
Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Italy
Mr. W. Yoshioka (Alt.) Japan
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico
Mr. Seo, W.-S (Alt.) Republic of Korea
Mr. Yoo, H.-J. (Alt.) Republic of Korea
Mr. M. Baatour (Alt.) Tunisia
Mr. P. Fleming (Alt.) United Kingdom
Mr. S. Creamer (Alt.) United States
C-MIN 186/1 (Closed) -2-
Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel
Appointments and promotions to senior level (P-4 and above) posts at ICAO
1. The Council considered the above subject on the basis of a proposal which the
Representative of Canada had addressed to the President of the Council in a letter dated 16 December 2008,
and which the President had circulated to all Council Delegations by electronic mail dated
17 December 2008.
2. The above-mentioned letter was supplemented by updated information provided orally by

the Representative of Canada, who recalled that during the period 28 November through 15 December 2008
he had made attempts to contact the Secretary General to discuss with him two crucial matters: one
pertaining to a delicate Headquarters matter and the other to discuss with him the best approach to take for
senior level appointments during an orderly transition. A letter dated 16 December 2008 had been sent in
accordance with a request of numerous Representatives who wished to see an orderly transition between the
two administrations; that letter had aimed at capturing the concept raised in C-DEC 177/1, paragraph 17, and
introduced a wider reflection on other related topics.
3. Over the course of the end-of-the-year recess, Council Members had exchanged views on
the proposed initiative. This collective reflection had transformed the original proposal, which requested a
freeze on hiring, appointments and promotions, into a process of transition without imposing a freeze on such
appointments. On 14 January 2009, the Representative of Canada had invited all available Council Members
to discuss common objectives. During that meeting, Council Members had added that the transition
measures which were the object of the 16 December 2008 initiative should instead become permanent
measures based on Resolution A1-8 of the Assembly. Furthermore, the permanent nature of these measures
indicated that they were taken by Council regardless of who was in the position of Secretary General.
4. Addressing the level of officials to be included in this measure, the Representative of

Canada had indicated that Secretary General Philippe Rochat and then Council President Assad Kotaite had
pleaded with Canada in 1994 to include P-4 officers in senior levels of employees. In 1994, Canada' s initial
preference had been to include only P-5 in this category. Canada had yielded to the representations of ICAO
and had thus included P-4 employees in the category of senior employees, thus granting them corresponding
diplomatic status with privileges and immunities. These conditions now represented the benefits package
enjoyed by such P-4 senior employees. To exclude them from this category today would not be fair to them
and would expose them to a review by Canada, in its capacity as host country, of their status should the
Council now decide, 15 years after the fact, to only recognize P-5 as senior employees. Therefore, Canada
recommended that the Organization continue to keep the P-4 formula and include these employees in the
senior staff category.
5. Proposals had been made for modus operandi regarding the transition in specific terms:
Council Members had expressed the wish that a formula be developed between the current Secretary General
and the Secretary General designate in order to facilitate such transition.
6. The proposal supported by a large number of Council Members was the following:
a) as of 20 January 2009, the Council would require the approval of the Council
President for any hiring, appointment and promotion of P4 employees and above;
b) these measures would be permanent as of the date of 20 January 2009;
c) the Council would take further steps and instruct its Human Resources Committee
to review procedures and make appropriate recommendations in order to faithfully
reflect the Council'
s wishes in sub-paragraphs a) and b) above.
7. The President of the Council indicated that he had received a request from the
Representative of Saudi Arabia to invite the Director of the Legal Bureau to provide the Council with a legal
analysis of this proposal. D/LEB indicated that he did not have the text of the latest phase of the proposal
made, but that subject to a further in-depth consideration of the proposed text, he could give the following
information. Article 54, (Mandatory functions of Council), sub-paragraph h) of the Chicago Convention
provided that the Council “appoint a chief executive officer who shall be called the Secretary General, and
make provision for the appointment of such other personnel as may be necessary, in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter XI [of the Convention]”. Chapter 11 (Personnel) was made of three Articles,
i.e. 58 (Appointment of Personnel), 59 (International character of personnel), and 60 (Immunities and
privileges of personnel).- Article 58 provided that “subject to any rules laid down by the Assembly and to the
provisions of [the] Convention, the Council shall determine the method of appointment and of termination
of appointment, the training, and the salaries, allowances and conditions of service of the Secretary General
and other personnel of the Organization, and may employ or make use of the services of nationals of any
Contracting State.”
8. D/LEB indicated that in his view, nothing in the above provisions or in the Assembly
Resolutions or Decisions constituted a legal obstacle to a decision by the Council to the effect that certain
appointments would be submitted to procedures other than those provided for by the Service Code for a
certain period of time. Moreover, Assembly Resolution A1-8 (Appointments and promotions in ICAO)
provided that “appointments and promotions to such senior positions on the staff as the Council may
determine shall be subject to the approval of the President of the Council.” Assembly Resolution A1-8
referred in its preamble to Article 58 of the Chicago Convention. The provision of that Assembly Resolution
had been implemented already in the past. Before it was amended in 2006, the ICAO Service Code had
provided in Regulation 4.8 that appointments to the position of Directors and POs, now called D1s, were
done subject to approval by the President of the Council. In 2003, it had been decided that appointments to
certain positions would be done following consultations conducted by the President of the Council. It was
therefore D/LEB’s view that it was for the Council to decide as a matter of policy whether or not it wished to
impose restrictions to the appointment authority of the Secretary General, or whether certain conditions of
procedure, such as approval by the President of the Council, be added.
9. The Representative of Mexico thanked the Representative of Canada for drawing the
Council’s attention to this issue. His Delegation believed that the concerns regarding the post of the Secretary
General were very serious and that the proposal would greatly enhance the good management of the
Organization. He therefore fully supported the proposal made by the Representative of Canada. As regards
the question of including P-4 level posts, the explanations of the Representative of Canada provided the basis
for doing so.
10. The Representative of Nigeria believed that the Council’s action on this subject should
include an instruction to the Human Resources Committee to take the necessary steps to amend the Service
Code in order to be compatible with Assembly Resolution A1-8 and ensure that it became a permanent
measure. On the issue of what constituted senior staff positions, he noted that only Director-level positions
had been filled under the former COPAD procedure, and that a revision to the Service Code in 2006 had
expanded that to include Principal Officer level positions. The Council was now considering the inclusion
of P-4 and P-5 level positions. What was important was to remain consistent, and if the Council took a
decision on the subject at this time, it would have to be a permanent decision that the future Secretaries
General of ICAO would be subject to.
11. The Representative of Saudi Arabia questioned the need for the measure now being
considered, and sought clarification as to its objective. Resolution A1-8 organized and governed this matter,
and the appropriate Rules of Procedure decided on the appointment process for professional posts. These
rules had all been approved by the Council and had to be observed by the Secretary General. ICAO had to
deal with institutional manners using long-term objectives, and not just to satisfy certain immediate interests
by some parties. The Delegation of Saudi Arabia therefore objected to the proposal.
12. The Representative of the Russian Federation indicated that his Delegation had supported
the proposal from the outset, and would go along with any further amendments as proposed by the
Representative of Canada. He wished that the Executive Committee at the time of the next Assembly
examine this issue. The Russian Federation whole-heartedly endorsed the need for including P-4 level
professionals among the senior officials of the Secretariat for the application this procedure. .
13. The Representative of France also supported the proposal of the Representative of Canada.
The Council, according to the Convention, not only had the ability and the capacity to adopt the appointment
procedures that would best meet the needs of the Organization, but also to decide when it was appropriate to
amend the rules and regulations that had been set in place at a certain point in time and no longer met the
needs of the Organization. It would therefore be necessary to instruct the Human Resources Committee to
review all rules and procedures to make sure they were in complete harmony and meet current needs. The
Representative of France believed that the Council action should stipulate the need for the written approval
of the President of the Council. His suggestion was supported by the Representative of the United Kingdom.
14. Further to queries raised by the Representatives of Uganda, Brazil and Nigeria in connection
with the status of Resolution A1-8, the Representative of Canada indicated that in the hierarchy of laws, an
Assembly Resolution which had not been amended by a later Assembly Resolution was still in force.
Therefore Resolution A1-8 of 1947 remained in force. When amending the Service Code in 2006, the
Council had, by oversight, not taken into account the provisions of Resolution A1-8. In this instance,
however, the resolution formed the basis for the action which the Council would take.
15. Commenting briefly, the Representatives of Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Japan and the
Republic of Korea added their support to the proposal of the Representative of Canada.
16. The proposal for Council action on the subject was amended in accordance with some
suggestions put forward, and the Council accordingly:
a) keeping in mind Resolution A1-8 (Appointments and promotions at ICAO),

decided that as of 20 January 2009, it would require the written approval of the
President of the Council for any hiring, appointment and promotion of
P-4 employees and above;
b) decided that these measures would be permanent as of the date of 20 January 2009;
and
c) instructed its Human Resources Committee to review procedures and propose

amendments to the Service Code in order to faithfully reflect the Council’s
decisions in sub-paragraphs a) and b) above.
Other business
Decisions taken during the recess
17. For the record, the President of the Council recalled the following decisions made during the
recess:
18. Further to his electronic mail dated 26 November 2008, the President of the Council had
informed the Government of China that the Council had agreed to appoint Mr. Sun Xiaowu as the eleventh
PKD Board Member. With respect to Mr. Li Dongsheng, however, and since there were no provisions in
Attachment C of the PKD MoU for alternate members, the President had informed China that
Mr. Li Dongsheng may only attend the meetings of the PKD Board as observer.
19. Further to his electronic mail dated 5 December 2008, the Programme of Meetings for 2009
had been revised to reflect the following:
• the 22nd meeting of the Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP/22) was being scheduled from
5 to 16 October 2009;
• the Tenth Session of the Statistics Divisional Meeting (STA/10), initially scheduled from
13 to 16 October, had been postponed to 23 to 27 November 2009; and
• the ICAO/World Health Organization Symposium (ICAO/WHO), initially scheduled from
23 to 25 November, had been postponed to a later date.
20. The Council had agreed to inviting the international organizations listed in his electronic
mail dated 20 November 2008 to participate in the ICAO Workshop on Aviation and Alternative Fuels to be
held from 10 to 12 February 2009.
21. The Council had also agreed to inviting the international organizations listed in his
electronic mail dated 17 December 2008 to participate in the Fourteenth Meeting of the Statistics Panel
(STAP) to be held from 23 to 27 March 2009.
22. Further to his memorandum PRES RK/1621 dated 15 December 2008, the President had
appointed Dr. Yousef A. Basodan, Vice–President of the Civil Aviation Authority for Administrative and
Financial Affairs of Saudi Arabia, as a Member of the Advisory Group on Evaluation and Audit (AGEA).
Appointments on Committees
23. Pending the arrival of the new Representative of the United States on the Council, the
Council appointed Ms. Laura Faux-Gable to succeed Ambassador Bliss as a Member of the Air Transport,
Joint Support, Finance, Unlawful Interference and Technical Co-operation Committees and on the Working
Group on Efficiency, and Mr. Stephen Creamer as her Alternate on all these Committees and the Human
Resources Committee. Ms. Dal Asher would continue to serve as alternate on the Joint Support Committee.
Third Meeting of the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC/3)
24. The President of the Council indicated that he had approved the suggestion of the Chairs of
the GIACC Working Groups to have a three-day meeting preceded by a one-day coordination meeting for the
Working Groups. The Coordination Meeting would be held on Monday, 16 February 2009 followed by
GIACC/3 from 17 to 19 February 2009.
Informal closed meeting of the Council to conduct interviews for the post of Secretary General
25. The Council declined a request which had been put forward by D/ANB, asking that the
Directors of the five Bureaux attend, as observers, the interviews which would take place on Friday,
23 January 2009 for the post of Secretary General.
26. The Representative of Australia, speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Human
Resources Committee, proposed that the Chairmen of the different Committees each prepare one question
which would be addressed to the candidates on 23 January 2009 as part of the interview process. It was
understood that the questions would, if possible, be circulated before the meeting of 23 January 2009 to
Representatives as well as to the two candidates.
27. The meeting adjourned at 1700 hours.

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1640 HOURS)
CLOSED MEETING
PRESENT:
Argentina — Mr. A.M. Singh Namibia — Mr. B.T. Mujetenga
Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Lascano South Africa — Mr. T. Peege
Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado
France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier
Germany — Mr. J. Mendel Tunisia — Mr. I. Sassi
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa Uganda — Mr. J. Twijuke
Iceland — Mr. H. Sigurdsson United Arab Emirates — Mr. J. Haidar
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Japan — Mr. S. Baba United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)
Malaysia — Mr. S.-C. Kok Uruguay — Mr. J.L. Vilardo
Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora Venezuela — Mr. D. Blanco Carrero

Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina Mrs. F.A. Odutola — D/ATB
Mr. L.M. Coelho de Souza (Alt.) Brazil Mr. S. Berti — C/SFP
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mrs. H. Biernacki — TO/SFP
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mrs. C. Rideout — CSO
Mr. J. Zamhari (Alt.) Malaysia
Mr. M. Fernando (Alt.) Singapore
Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.) United Arab Emirates
Mr. H. Dávila (Alt.) Uruguay
Subject No. 52: Unlawful interference with international civil aviation and its facilities
Report on acts of unlawful interference
1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13269 Restricted (Blue rider Arabic, Chinese,
French & Spanish only), in which the Secretary General presented a report on acts of unlawful interference
with civil aviation which had occurred in 2008, and a report thereon presented by the Committee on
Unlawful Interference in C-WP/13331 Restricted.
2. The Representative of Canada indicated that taking into consideration that only 33 percent
of the incidents described in the 2008 summary were based on official reports, Canada considered it would
be useful and helpful if, for those incidents, States could confirm whether or not a breach of an ICAO
Standard had occurred.
3. In taking action on the basis of the recommendation of the UIC in C-WP/13331 Restricted,
as amended in accordance with a suggestion put forward, the Council:
a) noted the annual report on acts of unlawful interference for 2008;
b) agreed that the statistical data, together with the analysis, observations and
recommendations contained in C-WP/13269 Restricted as amended by the
Committee, be officially communicated to the appropriate security authorities of
Contracting States on a confidential basis, with a request that States confirm
whether or not a breach of an ICAO Standard, leading to each incident, had
occurred; and
c) urged the appropriate security authorities of Contracting States to take action on the
recommendations in C-WP/13331 Restricted and to provide ICAO with all
pertinent information concerning the security aspects of acts of unlawful
interference.
4. The meeting reconvened in open session at 1700 hours to consider other business.
-9- C-MIN 186/2 (Open)
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1430 HOURS)
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Argentina — Mr. A.M. Singh Namibia —*Mr. B.T. Mujetenga
Italy —*Mr. F.P. Venier United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell

Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina Ms. N. Graham — D/ANB
Mr. L.M. Coelho de Souza (Alt.) Brazil Mr. R.J. Heighes-Thiessen — D/TCB
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mrs. F.A. Odutola — D/ATB
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. S.A.A. Espinola — DD/LEB
Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) France Mr. M. Elamiri — C/SSA
Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) Iceland Mr. A.R. Diallo — A/D/ADB
Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Italy Mr. J. Begin — C/CRC
Mr. J. Zamhari (Alt.) Malaysia Mr. R. Bhalla — C/FIN
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico Mr. W. Amaro — C/JF
Mr. Seo, W.-S (Alt.) Republic of Korea Mr. A. Pchelnikov — A/DD/TCB
Mr. Yoo, H.-J. (Alt.) Republic of Korea Mr. T. Aberyratne — A/DD/ATB
Mr. M. Fernando (Alt.) — Singapore Dr. A. Evans — C/MED
Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.) — United Arab Emirates Mr. S. Berti — C/SFP
Mr. P. Fleming (Alt.) United Kingdom Mr. E. MacBurnie — TO/SFP
Mr. H. Dávila (Alt.) — Uruguay Mrs. H. Biernacki — TO/SFP
Mr. Y. Wang — TO/EPM
Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
* Part-time
C-MIN 186/2 (Open) - 10 -
Subject No. 13: Work programmes of Council and its subsidiary bodies
Schedule for consideration of items during the 186th Session of the Council
1. The Council noted the meeting schedule for the 186th Session presented in the President’s
memorandum PRES RK/1618 Revised dated 15 December 2008 and the postponement of the joint TCC/FIC
meeting, scheduled for 24 February, to the next (187th) Session. A meeting of the FIC would instead be
convened on the afternoon of 24 February.
2. The Council then noted the schedule for consideration of items during the 186th Session as
set out in the President’s memorandum PRES RK/1636 dated 6 February 2009, subject to the following:
Week of 23 to 27 February
It was noted that the item entitled “Appointment of the Secretary General” would be
considered on Friday, 27 February.
Week of 9 to 13 March
With respect to the item entitled “Report of the External Auditor on activities in 2008 –
Update on investigations”, it was noted that the company KPMG would present its forensic and investigative
report on Wednesday, 11 March.
The item entitled “Preliminary report on the results of the pilot study for the development
of a harmonized policy on cost recovery for indirect costs” was deferred to the 187th Session of the Council
to allow sufficient time for the KPMG interim report to be finalized.
3. Some additional points already explained in Addendum No. 4 & Corrigendum to

C-WP/13261 (Work Programme for the 186th Session of the Council) were also noted.
4. It was also noted that the first ever Safety/Efficiency Week would be held during the second
week of the Session and would focus attention on all matters relating to these two critical subjects. During
that week, the Council would review ANC reports on important amendment proposals covering ten Annexes
as well as reports on related topics from the ANC and from others.
Subject No. 19.1: Reports by the President of the Council
Report on activities during the recess
5. The Council noted the information contained in the President’s report (C-WP/13266) on
developments that had taken place during the recess.
Report on action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 185th Session
6. The Council noted the action taken to implement the decisions which it had taken during the
185th Session, set forth in C-WP/13267 presented by the Secretary General.
- 11 - C-MIN 186/2 (Open)
Subject No. 15.2: Regulation of international air transport services
Night curfews and slot allocation
7. The above subject was considered by the Council on the basis of a paper presented by the
Secretary General (C-WP/13271) and an oral report presented by the Chairman of the Air Transport
Committee.
8. At the first meeting of the 186th Session, the ATC had considered this item on the basis of
C-WP/13271 referred to it by the Council. There had been a general recognition that international air
transport was a global system, where actions taken in a State or region in order to address a local problem
such as slot allocation at capacity-constrained airports or night curfews, could have an impact or an adverse
effect on other States of the region. It was considered timely for the Council to address these issues, over
which some States had voiced concerns.
9. There had been considerable discussion on possible actions to be taken by ICAO in

addressing these problems. While some Members had considered the proposed actions by the Secretariat in
the paper to be realistic and adequate at this stage, others had believed that ICAO should be proactive and do
more, such as providing more data on the effects of night curfews on others and technology advancements
on alleviating aircraft noise, strengthening existing ICAO policies and guidance, and studying and
developing further guidance.
10. With respect to the issue of night curfews, it had been recognized that this was a complex
issue involving manufacturers, including political, social, economic and environmental. While there was
support that this issue had global implications and needed to be properly addressed, the Committee had felt
that the issue was currently being studied by the CAEP. It would be desirable to wait until the results of this
study became available so as to be in a better position to address this issue.
11. Based on this above discussion, the Committee had agreed to recommend to the Council to
approve the proposed action as set out in the paper.
12. The Representative of Canada indicated his State co-chaired the CAEP WG/2 task group
where night curfews were currently being discussed. Although the task group’s work was already underway,
the Council could urge interested States to participate in the task group as it would greatly benefit the
production of a balanced final product.
13. The Representative of Singapore believed that slot allocation should be viewed as an
operational issue to be resolved between airlines and airports directly. There were already existing guidelines
as serviced by IATA with regard to the process of the allocation of slots. Resolving this issue through the
bilateral framework would only add more complexity to the issue. Countries should take the view that
negotiation over traffic rights should be on the basis of equal opportunity rather than equal outcome. Tying
traffic rights directly to slot allocation outcomes and airport incapacity issues might constrain the ability of
aeronautical authorities to liberalize the air services framework.
14. The Representative of Switzerland indicated that in addition to what the Representative of
Singapore had just mentioned, he wished to draw the Council’s attention to the fact that the 124th IATA
C-MIN 186/2 (Open) - 12 -
Scheduled Conference would be held in Montreal from 18 to 21 June 2009, and would be a good occasion
to learn more about how the industry managed the subject. of slot allocation.
15. The Representative of Nigeria observed that the subject had been discussed at length in the
Air Transport Committee, of which all Members of the Council were Members. His Delegation had not been
happy with the outcome of the decision taken in the ATC, but could join the consensus in order to save time
and enhance efficiency. He therefore felt uncomfortable with reopening the same discussion in this forum.
The Representative of Nigeria requested that the Council accept the report of the Chairman of the Air
Transport Committee at this time.
16. The Representative of South Africa shared the sentiments echoed by the Representatives of
Nigeria and Singapore. In terms of operational issues on airlines, he observed that airlines that operated from
the Equator were all affected by night curfews, and urged Representatives whose countries were close to or
on the Equator to check with their airlines as to whether night curfews resulted in operational restrictions.
17. The Representative of Namibia echoed the sentiments of Nigeria, South Africa and
Singapore, and supported the recommendations in C-WP/13271.
18. In taking action on the basis of the proposal in C-WP/13271, as amended in accordance with
a suggestion put forward, the Council:
a) requested the Secretary General to remind States of the existing ICAO policies and
guidance, and urged them to follow these policies and guidance;
b) requested the Secretary General to review the ICAO Bilateral Template Air
Services Agreement to explore if any model clauses on slot allocation could be
developed; and to keep under review the issue of night curfews within the context
of ICAO’s work on environmental protection;
c) requested the Secretary General to continue to monitor the situation on night

curfews and slot allocation, and to report to the Council should there be significant
developments that warrant attention; and
d) requested the CAEP to accept, as observers, those States that are interested in the
subject of night curfews and slot allocation, and to invite them to participate in the
discussions of the CAEP Working Group 2 (WG2) Task Group 1 (TG1), which has
been tasked with estimating the environmental impact of curfews on destination
countries with a case study for a major airport.
Subject No. 15: Subjects relating to air transport
Proposed Terms of Reference of the Secretariat/Council Group on Regional Bodies
19. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13272, in which the Secretary General presented
proposed terms of reference of the Secretariat/Council Group on Regional Bodies. It was recalled that during
the previous session (185/4), the Council had discussed the outcome of the ICAO/EC Air Transport
Symposium held in April 2008 and had agreed to establish a multidisciplinary group to make
recommendations to the Council with regard to further action by ICAO on the conclusions of the Symposium.
- 13 - C-MIN 186/2 (Open)
C-WP/13272 discussed the establishment of such a group, suggested its Terms of Reference, and offered
some guidance material.
20. Some clarifications were provided regarding the Secretariat representation on the group, in
particular the member suggested from the Air Navigation Bureau, who would be serving in the capacity of
an ANB senior manager referring issues, when necessary, to the appropriate ANB officers, and the member
from the Legal Affairs and External Relations Bureau, who would, among other things, review any further
agreements which ICAO may conclude with regional bodies.
21. The Representative of Spain observed that the terms of reference of the group appeared to
be very extensive. He suggested that the terms of reference be amended in order to avoid words such as
“explore” and “examine”, and to focus on paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Appendix A to C-WP/13272. The
Representative of the United Kingdom concurred that the terms of reference would need to be more focussed
and structured, identifying three types of work – i.e. information gathering, analysis, and recommendations
– that were required. A proper project management approach would make it clear, not only to the
participants but also to the Council, what the process and deliverables were, and what could be expected as
an outcome.
22. The Representative of Nigeria suggested that instead of attempting to incorporate changes
in the terms of reference at this time, the Council approve them provisionally, on the understanding that the
group would review them further in order to determine whether any amendments were necessary.
23. The Representative of Ecuador suggested that the participation of regional organizations in
the work of the group be made possible. The Representative of Brazil sought assurances that Members of the
Council who were not members of the group would be able to attend its meetings as observers.
24. Further to a query raised by the Representative of Venezuela, D/ATB confirmed that the
necessary resources were available for the group to meet and develop recommendations. No resources had
been provided at this time for implementation of the recommendations which the group may offer.
25. The Council took the following action on the subject on the basis of a suggestion put
forward by the President in light of the discussion.
26. The Council approved the composition of the multidisciplinary group as listed in
paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of C-WP/13272.
27. The Council requested that at its first meeting, the multidisciplinary group examine its draft
Terms of Reference, taking into account the comments offered regarding the need to produce
recommendations focusing in particular on paragraphs 4, 5, 7 and 10 of Appendix A to C-WP/13272.
28. It was understood that Representatives on the Council who are not members of the
multidisciplinary group, as well as regional organizations, could attend its meetings as observers.
29. The group was requested to present a progress report on its work during the next (187th)
session.
C-MIN 186/2 (Open) - 14 -
Convening of an International Conference on Aviation Security
30. The Council considered the above subject on the basis of a paper presented by the Secretary
General (C-WP/13268) and an oral report presented by the Chairman of the Committee on Unlawful
Interference.
31. During the Committee’s discussion, some Committee members had requested that the
conference be designated a high-level conference, and that this designation be highlighted in the title as well
as in the notes under the agenda. It had been observed that, should high-level participation be requested, the
duration of the conference, which was proposed to be five days, would need to be reduced. Some Committee
members had observed that the reference to technology in the title could give the wrong impression with
regard to the nature of the conference, and did not express their support. The Committee had agreed that this
reference should be deleted from the title.
32. With regard to the draft agenda for the conference, some Committee members had
expressed their concern with the lack of consultation with Contracting States in the development of the
content of the agenda. In this context, the President of the Council had suggested that subject to the Council’s
agreement, a State letter could be sent requesting States to provide input on the draft agenda. This letter
would also serve as advance information for States regarding this conference. The final agenda,
incorporating contributions from States, would be circulated to the Council for its approval and thereafter
distributed to States as the final agenda. The Committee had examined the draft agenda presented in the
Appendix to the working paper and had expressed its concern with the wording of the notes under some
agenda items. The Committee had suggested adding an item to the agenda highlighting the need for balance
between security requirements and facilitation. In this context, the Secretariat had been requested to amend
the proposed draft agenda, taking into account comments expressed by the Committee.
33. The Committee recommended that the Council take action as contained in the Executive
Summary of C-WP/13268, and approve the proposed agenda as amended by the Committee, which had been
distributed together with the Chairman’s oral report to Council.
34. The Chairman of the UIC, now speaking in his capacity as Representative of Germany,
wished to add a few remarks beyond the report that had been distributed before the meeting. The
Representative of Germany believed that the Council should seek the views of the AVSEC Panel when it
came to the agenda. The Panel would meet in about one month’s time and it would be useful to hear the
opinion of the Panel. When reviewing the AVSEC Panel’s report during the next (187th) Session, the
Council could send out a State letter incorporating any changes proposed by the Panel.
35. When discussing this possibility in the UIC, the Committee had been told by the Secretariat
that there was not sufficient time to wait for the Panel to react. The Representative of Germany therefore
wondered if it was really necessary to have a conference this year. The Council could consider postponing
it to 2010, in order to allow more time to properly prepare the agenda which was, in the opinion of some UIC
Members, still too lean in the sense that the outcome and objective of the conference was not very clear. This
would in turn make it easier to attract the high-level participation that was being sought. On the other hand,
there would be a regular session of the Assembly in 2010, and perhaps instead of convening the conference
it could be arranged for the Assembly to have its main focus on security.
- 15 - C-MIN 186/2 (Open)
36. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates endorsed the suggestion of the
Representative of Germany to possibly postpone the conference until 2010. This should allow the AVSEC
Panel and other Contracting States to contribute more constructively to the shaping of the agenda. The
Representative of the Republic of Korea also supported the suggestion of the Representative of Germany.
37. The Representative of Spain indicated that he had been about to ask the Secretariat what
type of results they were expecting under each of the individual agenda items. As had been observed by the
Representative of Germany, the agenda had been drafted in rather vague terms, using such words as “review”
and “examine”. In only one item was there concrete action, where it was indicated that the conference would
establish aviation security priorities for the five to ten years. If the Secretariat’s expectations were not
sufficiently mature, perhaps the Council should reflect on whether or not to defer the meeting to the
following year.
38. The Representative of the United Kingdom agreed that there was merit in postponing the
conference if the Council could not be clear about what the conference was supposed to achieve. High level
conferences took decisions which would shape the way that ICAO worked towards resolving particular
policy issues over the years to come. Participants at such a conference would certainly not wish to simply
take stock of developments since the last meeting; they would want to be in a position where they were
setting the programme for the future. Also, if the Council were to postpone the high-level conference, it
might help resolve another problem, in that it would leave a slot between 19 and 21 October free for a
civil-military conference that was being planned. The Representative of the United Kingdom did not think
that it would be possible to have security as the main focus of the Assembly in 2010, since there would be
other issues to debate.
39. The Representative of Mexico wished to know if the proposal of the Representative of
Germany for deferring the conference would in any way compromise the implementation an Assembly
Resolution, it being understood that at the next Assembly it would be quite relevant to have aviation security
properly documented with a firm recommendation to that Assembly. Perhaps a special meeting could be
convened just before the 2010 Assembly with that objective.
40. Responding to the question raised by the Representative of Mexico, C/SFP indicated that in
the Assembly, as part of the discussion in the Executive Committee on the terms of reference of the Aviation
Security Panel, it had simply been suggested that special aviation security assemblies or aviation security
divisional meetings could be held to address security challenges in a more comprehensive manner. As a
result, the proposal had been put forward in mid-2008 to the UIC and Council, and it had been agreed that
a conference would be held although no funds had been set aside to do so, and it would be done on a
cost-recovery basis.
41. The Representative of France observed from the clarification just provided by C/SFP that
while it was true that the point of departure was guidance from the Assembly, the recommendation was
somewhat vague. Although the question of postponing the conference had never been discussed in the UIC,
it would appear that some of the Representatives had consulted with their Governments and there were some
doubts as regards the expectations of this conference. It would appear that if the conference were to take
place in October, there would not be sufficient time to have an in-depth understanding or consultation with
either the States or the AVSEC Panel. If one were to refer to the conferences which had been convened on
security in 2002 and on safety in 2006, on those two occasions there had been an element of urgency with
new expectations and specific objectives to be attained. This was not the same situation, and the suggestion
C-MIN 186/2 (Open) - 16 -
of the Representative of Mexico for a specific meeting prior to the Assembly might be preferable to referring
the subject as a priority item to the Assembly, which would have other files on its table.
42. The Representative of Canada sympathized with the views offered by the Representative of
Germany, and believed that the Council could perhaps consider a short postponement, of a maximum of two
to four months, to address the points raised by Mexico, France and the United Kingdom.
43. The Representative of Saudi Arabia believed that if it was possible to maintain the current
dates and confirm certain points on the agenda, it would be possible to have a clear-cut idea of the threats to
aviation security, and the Directors General of Civil Aviation participating at the conference would be in a
position to take decisions on the threats discussed at the conference. The Representative of Saudi Arabia felt
it was important to hold the meeting either on the dates envisaged or a month or two later, depending upon
the availability of Secretariat support services.
44. The Representative of Nigeria recalled that the decision to convene a conference dated back
to the previous triennium, when the Council had considered the possibility of converting the Aviation
Security Panel into an Aviation Security Commission. At that time, it had been argued that there were
important issues that were not appropriate for a panel to handle. Since the AVSEC Panel had not been
expanded, it had been decided that a conference should be convened to address those issues. That idea had
filtered through the Council, gone to the Assembly, and the Assembly had also expressed similar views back
to the Council. If a decision was now taken to elevate the status of the conference to a high level meeting, the
Council would have to address the preoccupations expressed by Germany and United Arab Emirates.
However, if the Council returned to the original idea of having a conference which would look at general
issues that had impact, the conference should proceed The confusion now was that the UIC had decided
there would a high-level meeting and the Council was now wondering what the results should be. The
preference of his Delegation was to have a security conference as originally envisaged.
45. The Representative of Brazil cautioned against taking a hasty decision on such an important
and sensitive subject. Perhaps at the level of the Secretariat and UIC more work could be done on the agenda,
as had been suggested by the Representative of Spain. States could be consulted and, if necessary, the
Conference could be postponed for one or two months.
46. The Representative of Romania had the impression that the Council was going ahead with
plans for a security conference simply because it had been mentioned at the Assembly, without questioning
whether such a conference should in fact take place. More thought would have to be given to the outcome
of such a conference. The Representative of Romania asked the Secretariat what the expectations were of the
conference, and what human resources would be put in place to work for it. It would then be possible to
determine whether it was worth convening the conference either this year or next. Contracting States would
not wish to see the Council simply agree to it automatically without further analysis.
47. Some further clarifications were provided by C/SFP, who observed that the Assembly’s
fairly general reference had been translated into a Council decision. Given the fact that he had only one
AVSEC officer to assist with preparations for the conference, he would appreciate more time as well as more
resources to do this work. The Secretariat had had some meetings, and a workshop had been held to which
all of the sections of ICAO which dealt with security had attended. The exchange of ideas that had taken
place had, in his view, resulted in some reasonable proposals which could be viewed as a skeleton which
could be fleshed out. This had been seen as a way to work together with States in order to include whatever
topics were felt appropriate at the conference. This would, among other things, be a good opportunity to
- 17 - C-MIN 186/2 (Open)
review the current AVSEC plan of action which had been in place since 2002 and which had to a great extent
finished running its course. Most of the items of that plan of action had been achieved, and this seemed to
be an opportunity to look at the way forward for the next six years. It was against that background that the
agenda items were somewhat vague. The topics listed were appropriate in terms of reviewing the threats, the
Council measures to address those threats, and the potential use of technology as the only viable solution.
Also, since it was necessary to hold the event on a cost-recovery basis, the addition of the word “technology”
would be appropriate to attract potential sponsors. The Secretariat had produced the agenda for further
development by colleagues in the AVSEC Panel who had been very helpful in the past, and States who
would then submit working papers as they saw fit. This work in partnership between the ICAO Secretariat
and the States as well as the panel experts could formulate a more meaningful agenda than that put forward
at this time.
48. The Representative of the United States believed that there was not such a great division of
views. As had been indicated by C/SFP, the six agenda items were very broad, and perhaps the Council
could task the AVSEC Panel, that would be meeting very shortly, to work quickly on trying to refine the
agenda in such a way that it identified the kind of outcomes that were going to be most useful and most
important to the States in the coming years. It was important that whenever a conference was held, it had
value for the States, and was not just a series of presentations but rather a real deep thinking of what needed
to be done differently or better with respect to aviation security by States, industry and ICAO. The
Representative of the United States suggested that the upcoming AVSEC Panel take on this task. It may be
that there would be a need to defer the conference for a couple of months.
49. The Representative of Ecuador shared the concerns which had been expressed by previous
speakers regarding the question of whether it was appropriate to hold a security conference at the time
proposed, simply on the basis of a suggestion which had been put forward during the last Assembly. Instead
of referring the matter to the AVSEC Panel, the Representative of Ecuador would prefer to ask the
Secretariat for guidance as to what would be the final objectives of this conference and what expectations it
would have.
50. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates observed that there were many
developments at this time in aviation security, and that these were driven by several factors, mainly threat
levels, technological changes, geopolitical changes, and the evolution of the USAP programme which
happened to be an ICAO success story, as well as internal ICAO developments. ICAO would, at the same
time, be facing many other challenges. While not suggesting that aviation security was not a top priority, the
Representative of the United Arab Emirates was not sure about highlighting it as the next Assembly’s theme
in 2010, at a time when the aviation industry around the world was facing a potential meltdown, with airlines
and airports failing and thousands of people being laid off. It would be wise to have the AVSEC Panel
review the matter. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates urged the Council to consider
postponing the conference not only because of time considerations but to really have a better product that
States could benefit from.
51. The Council agreed to postpone the Conference on Aviation Security, and referred the
matter to the Aviation Security Panel, requesting it to report to the Council, through the Committee on
Unlawful Interference, with a recommendation as to how to proceed. The Council would thus await the
report of the Aviation Security Panel before taking a decision on the convening of the Conference.
52. The Council considered the next item on its order of business in closed session, returning to
open session at 1730 hours to consider other business.
C-MIN 186/2 (Open) - 18 -
Other business
Farewell to Mr. Gil-sou Shin, Representative of the Republic of Korea
53. The Council bade farewell to Mr. Gil-sou Shin, the Representative of Korea on the Council.
- 19 - C-MIN 186/3
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1000 HOURS)
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Australia — Mr. P.K. Evans Namibia — Mr. B.T. Mujetenga
Brazil — Mr. R.S. Magno Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu
China — Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
Dominican Republic — Mr. C.A. Veras Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong
El Salvador — Mr. J.A. Aparicio Borjas Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier
France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Tunisia — Mr. I. Sassi
Germany — Mr. J. Mendel Uganda — Mr. J. Twijuke
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa United Arab Emirates — Mr. R. Al Kaabi (Alt.)
Iceland — Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
India — Dr. N. Zaidi United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Uruguay — Mr. J.L. Vilardo
Japan — Mr. S. Baba Venezuela — Mr. D. Blanco Carrero

Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. D. Wibaux — D/LEB
Mr. A. Labarang (Alt.) — Cameroon Mr. S.A.A. Espinola — PLO
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. R. Bhalla — C/FIN
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico Mr. J. Huang — LO/LEB
Mr. A.A. Alharthy (Alt.) — Saudi Arabia Mr. D. de Andrade Filho— Acting IRIS Project
Manager, ATB
Ms. M. Weinstein — Consultant, LEB
Miss S. Black Précis-writer
C-MIN 186/3 - 20 -
Subject No. 16.3: International air law conventions
Diplomatic Conference on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft

to Third Parties Arising from Acts of Unlawful Interference or from General Risks
(Montréal, 20 April – 2 May 2009)
1. In presenting an oral report on responses to State letter 08/61 dated 7 November 2008 on the
convening of the Diplomatic Conference on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties
Arising from Acts of Unlawful Interference or from General Risks (Montréal, 20 April – 2 May 2009)
pursuant to the Council’s earlier request (185/12), the Director of the Legal Bureau (D/LEB) recalled that the
said State letter had requested States and Observer Organizations to indicate, as early as possible, if they
intended to participate and, if so, the composition of their delegations. Thus far, six States had indicated their
intention to participate. Five of those States had indicated the composition of their delegations. Three
Organizations had indicated their attendance. Two of those Organizations had indicated the composition of
their delegations. One additional organization, although not formally advising of its participation or
delegation, had already submitted a working paper. Apart from the working paper from the observer
Organization, no other working paper had thus far been received. D/LEB emphasized that past experience in
ICAO indicated that the number of responses at this stage, two months before the opening of the Diplomatic
Conference, did not provide guidance on the eventual number of delegations and participants in the
Diplomatic Conference. He indicated that Council Representatives might wish to encourage their States to
participate and to inform the Organization of their attendance and the composition of their delegations.
2. The Representative of Ecuador noted that the Latin American region had held meetings, and
was planning further meetings, to address the issue of compensation for damage by aircraft to third parties
arising from acts of unlawful interference or from general risks, reach a consensus and devise policies. In
particular, the Executive Committee of the Latin American Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC) would be
meeting in Easter Island, Chile, from 5 to 6 April 2009 to discuss the issue. The President of the Council
expressed the hope that LACAC would encourage more States in the Latin American region to inform ICAO
of their participation in the Diplomatic Conference and the composition of their delegations.
3. The Council noted the above oral report, on the understanding that, as requested by the
Representative of Switzerland, updated information regarding participation in the Diplomatic Conference
would be circulated electronically to Representatives by the end of the current Council session.
Subject No. 16: Legal work of the Organization
International interests in mobile equipment (aircraft equipment)
4. The Council next considered C-WP/13273, in which the Secretary General reported on the
outcome of the Third Meeting of the Commission of Experts of the Supervisory Authority of the
International Registry (CESAIR) (Montréal, 1-2 December 2008) and proposed, inter alia, changes to the
Regulations and Procedures for the International Registry (Doc 9864). Appendix E to the paper was
updated to reflect that China, Cuba and the United Republic of Tanzania, having now ratified the Cape Town
Convention and Protocol, were to be listed as Contracting States and not Signatory States and that Singapore,
having adhered to the said Convention and Protocol, was also to be listed as a Contracting State.
5. The Representative of the United Kingdom observed that if all Members of CESAIR were
appointed for a three-year term, then there would be no continuity from one term to the next. He queried
- 21 - C-MIN 186/3
whether there was either the possibility of, or merit in, appointing some Members for three years and some
for two years so that there would be a rolling membership and no bulk renewal point. In also enquiring
whether there was any limit as to the number of times a Member could be re-appointed, he indicated that
these two issues, while not matters of great import as the CESAIR was a technical body and not a political
one, needed to be addressed.
6. The Principal Legal Officer (PLO) clarified that Rule 2 c) of the Rules of Procedure for the
CESAIR (Doc 9893) stipulated that Members may be reappointed for subsequent three-year terms without
limit. He noted that, although a three-year term had been established in order to ensure rotation among the
Members, States were free to re-nominate their Members.
7. In then taking the action proposed in the executive summary of C-WP/13273, the Council
noted the information provided in the paper and:
a) approved the changes to the Regulations and Procedures for the International Registry
(Doc 9864) as described in paragraphs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the paper and indicated in
Appendix C thereto;
b) approved the initiation of the process to appoint Members to CESAIR for a three-year
term commencing 12 June 2009 and, in accordance with the procedure outlined in
paragraph 3.2 of the paper, requested the President of the Council to appoint the
members on the basis of nominations received in response to a State letter to be sent by
the Secretary General to Signatory States and Contracting States to the Cape Town
Convention and Protocol on the subject;
c) delegated authority to the Secretariat for certain day-to-day and other specific tasks
associated with the discharge of the Council’s function as the Supervisory Authority of
the International Registry and the functioning of the International Registry as follows
(cf. paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the paper):
i) consideration of operational complaints made to the Supervisory Authority;

ii)provision of guidance to the Registrar;
iii)
any action necessary to ensure that the International Registry operates efficiently;
iv)the ability to determine the dates of effectiveness of amendments to the Regulations
and Procedures for the International Registry (Doc 9864), as required; and
v) approval of the Registrar’s subcontractors.
Subject No. 12.5: Plans for legal meetings

Subject No. 16: Legal work of the Organization
Subject No. 16.3: International air law conventions
Convening of the 34th Session of the Legal Committee
8. Tabled next for the Council’s consideration was C-WP/13275 [with Blue rider (English
only)] presented by the Secretary General on this subject. It was recalled that the Council had previously
agreed (184/6) to convene the 34th Session of the Legal Committee in the second half of 2009.
C-MIN 186/3 - 22 -
9. As a Representative from the Central American region, the Representative of Ecuador

requested that the Central American Corporation for Air Navigation Services (COCESNA) be invited to
attend the Legal Committee as an observer. The Representative of Nigeria indicated that it would be
beneficial to also invite the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO), as well as the regional
civil aviation commissions, namely, the Arab Civil Aviation Commission (ACAC), the African Civil
Aviation Commission (AFCAC), the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) and the Latin American
Civil Aviation Commission (LACAC).
10. In taking the action proposed in the executive summary of C-WP/13275, as amended by the
President of the Council in light of the discussion, the Council:
a) agreed to convene the 34th Session of the Legal Committee in Montréal from 9 to
17 September 2009 for the purpose of considering draft instruments addressing new
and emerging threats;
b) approved the Provisional Agenda for the 34th Session of the Legal Committee as set out
in Appendix A to the paper; and
c) agreed that invitations to attend the 34th Session of the Legal Committee be extended to
all Contracting States and all non-Contracting States, as well as the international
organizations set out in Appendix B to the paper, subject to the addition of CANSO,
COCESNA and the regional civil aviation commissions (ACAC, AFCAC, ECAC and
LACAC).
11. It was understood that the President of the Council would report to the Council on any
requests received in the future from international or regional organizations to participate in the 34th Session
of the Legal Committee as observers.
Subject No. 18.14: Other finance matters for consideration by Council
Report on the processes for delegation of financial authority
12. The Council then considered C-WP/13306 presented by the Secretary General, which
reported on the current financial delegation of authority within the ICAO Secretariat and identified areas
where delegation had been authorized to, or by, the Secretary General; and C-WP/13307, a report thereon by
the Finance Committee (FIC).
13. Referring to paragraph 2.3 of the FIC report, the Representative of France enquired as to
when the treasury guidelines and investment rules currently being prepared would be completed and
communicated to Committee Members. Affirming the importance of such guidelines and rules, he noted that,
as had been seen in the present financial crisis, certain investment policies could have negative consequences
on public and private institutions and other entities. Observing that ICAO had always had a very prudent
financial policy, the Representative of France underscored that, while he did not consider the Organization
to be at risk, one could never be too careful. In then drawing attention to paragraph 2.4, he emphasized that
if ex gratia payments had to be made “in the interest of the Organization”, then there should be a very strict
procedure for determining that interest.
- 23 - C-MIN 186/3
14. The Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) clarified that ICAO did not make investments; it
only made cash and term deposits. Agreeing that the Organization had a very conservative financial policy,
he stressed that it was not being proposed to change that policy. What FIN was doing was establishing
guidelines as to which banking institutions to favour with ICAO’s cash and term deposits. As those
guidelines were expected to be finalized by the end of March 2009, FIN would be in a position to
communicate them to the FIC by the next (187th) session. In noting that under Financial Regulation 11.3
there was a $500 limit on ex gratia payments authorized by the Secretary General and that payments above
that amount required the authorization of the FIC, C/FIN indicated that it might be excessive to have an
additional procedure for such payments.
15. To a question raised by the Representative of Malaysia regarding paragraph 3.1, C/FIN
noted that if The ICAO Financial Regulations (Doc 7515) were not followed, then it would be reflected in
the staff member’s Performance and Competency Enhancement (PACE) report. It would then be for the
Secretary General, as Chief Executive Officer, to take appropriate action.
16. The Representative of Canada indicated that he disliked the concept of ex gratia payments
and would have difficulty explaining to his national administration why it had been necessary “in the interest
of the Organization” to make any $500 ex gratia payment.
17. The Representative of India endorsed these comments, as well as those made by the
Representative of France.
18. The Council, bearing in mind the comments made by the FIC in C-WP/13307, took the
action recommended by the Committee and noted the current financial delegation of authority as shown in
the Appendix to C-WP/13306. It also noted the intention of the Secretariat to undertake further reviews, on
the basis of the said Appendix, of the existing financial delegations of authority that would need to be
streamlined to increase efficiency and effectiveness and to identify areas where financial delegation of
authority was required but where neither policy nor practice was currently in place.
Subject No. 18.9: Suspension or amendment of the Financial Regulations
Report on review of Financial Regulations 7.8 and 9.5
19. The Council next considered C-WP/13310 [with Corrigendum No. 1 (French only)], in
which the Secretary General proposed amendments to Financial Regulations 7.8 and 9.5 of The ICAO
Financial Regulations (Doc 7515); and an oral report thereon by the Finance Committee (FIC). Under the
proposed amendment to Financial Regulation 7.8, all transactions relating to after service health insurance
(ASHI) benefits would be recorded in the Revolving Fund following the application of the International
Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), as was the case for other unfunded liabilities and deficits
mentioned in sub-paragraph b) of that Financial Regulation, for which adoption was planned in 2010. In
addition, sub-paragraphs a) and b) of Financial Regulation 7.8 would be merged so that all of the liabilities
would be recorded in the Revolving Fund at the same time in 2010. Under the proposed amendment to
Financial Regulation 9.5, any adjustments to the Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC)
budget estimates for the year exceeding a 5 per cent increase over the amount approved by the Assembly, or
previously approved by the Council, would be reported to the Council rather than submitted to the Council
for its approval.
C-MIN 186/3 - 24 -
20. The FIC agreed with the proposed amendment to Financial Regulation 7.8 as presented in
the Appendix to C-WP/13310, subject to the French text thereof being reviewed to ensure that it was aligned
with the other language versions, and recommended its approval by the Council. The Committee found,
however, that the proposed amendment to Financial Regulation 9.5 was unacceptable. It recommended that
Financial Regulation 9.5 instead be amended to indicate that any adjustments in cost to the AOSC budget
exceeding 5 per cent but less than 10 per cent over the amount approved by the Assembly, or previously
approved by the Council, would be reported to the Council and that an increase in excess of 10 per cent
would be subject to prior approval by the Council. The FIC was of the view that its proposed amendment to
Financial Regulation 9.5 would help maintain adequate oversight and control over AOSC budget
expenditures.
21. The Council took the above action recommended by the FIC in its oral report.
Report on the use of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and
possible means of financing the modernization of financial systems
22. The Council then heard an oral report by the Acting IRIS Project Manager on the
implementation of Phases I and II of the new financial system, Agresso, and on the latter’s implementation
and deployment to the Regional and Field Offices.
23. Responding to a query by the Representative of the United States, the Acting IRIS Project
Manager noted that one of the activities of the pre-planning team was to establish an estimate as to how much
the deployment of the Agresso financial system to the Regional Offices would cost. On the basis of the
experience gained in implementing Phases I and II at ICAO Headquarters, it was considered that it would
cost some $1.5 million. To a further question raised by the Representative of Nigeria, the Acting IRIS Project
Manager indicated that the Technical Co-operation Bureau (TCB) would work with the pre-planning team to
identify which Field Offices should be considered for the deployment of the Agresso financial system. It was
expected that those Field Offices responsible for major technical co-operation projects would be good
candidates.
24. The Council noted the oral report on the new Agresso financial system.
Other business
Subject No. 10.1: Reports on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented

the third quarter – 1 July to 30 September 2008
25. As no request had been received by close of business on 30 January 2009 to have
C-WP/13274 on this subject tabled for discussion in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1630 dated
19 January 2009, the President of the Council indicated that he considered that the Council had noted the
information contained therein.
- 25 - C-MIN 186/3
Status report on the audit of the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF)
26. As no request had been received by close of business on 4 February 2009 to have
C-WP/13305 on the above subject tabled for discussion in response to his memorandum PRES RK/1633
dated 21 January 2009, the President of the Council indicated that he considered that the Council had noted
the information contained therein.
Report on the implementation of Assembly Resolution A36-19: Threat to civil aviation posed by
man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS)
27. As no request had been received by close of business on 13 February 2009 to have
C-WP/13270 Restricted (with Addendum No. 1) on this subject tabled for discussion in response to his
memorandum PRES RK/1641 dated 30 January 2009, the President of the Council indicated that he
considered that the Council had noted the information contained therein.
Subject No. 12: Programme of ICAO meetings
Programme of Meetings for 2009
28. The President of the Council noted that, further to his e-mail dated 5 February 2009, the
Programme of Meetings for 2009 approved by the Council (C-WP/13248; 185/8) had been revised to reflect
that:
a) the third meeting of the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change
(GIACC/3) was held from 17 to 19 February 2009 instead of from 16 to 18 February
2009;
b) the meeting of the Technical Advisory Group on Machine Readable Travel Documents
(TAG-MRTD), initially scheduled for 25 to 28 May 2009, had been postponed to 7 to
9 December 2009;
c) the Global Air Traffic Management Forum on Civil/Military Cooperation

(GATM-CIV/MIL), initially scheduled from 3 to 5 June 2009, had been postponed to
a later date; and
d) the International Conference on Aviation Security would be held from 19 to 23 October

2009 instead of from 19 to 22 October 2009.
----------
Processing of credentials of Representatives and Alternates on the Council
29. In an effort to accelerate the processing of credentials of Representatives and Alternates on

the Council, the President of the Council suggested that the memorandum reporting on such credentials no
C-MIN 186/3 - 26 -
longer be translated. In accordance with Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559),
credentials would continue to be examined by the President, one of the Vice-Presidents and the Secretary
General, who would report to the Council under cover of a memorandum which would be posted on the
ICAO-Net in the English language only. The Council agreed to this proposal.

- 27 - C-MIN 186/4
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1000 HOURS)
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Cameroon — Mr. E. Zoa Etundi Republic of Korea — Mr. Kim, C.-H.
Canada — Mr. L.A. Dupuis Romania — Mr. C. Cotrut
China — Mr. Tao Ma Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov
Dominican Republic — Mr. C. A. Veras Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Lascano Singapore — Mr. K.P. Bong
Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab South Africa — Mr. T. Peege
El Salvador — Mr. J.A. Aparicio Borjas Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado
India — Dr. N. Zaidi United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Italy — Mr. F.P. Venier United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)
Japan — Mr. S. Baba Uruguay — Mr. J.L. Vilardo
Malaysia — Mr. S.-C. Kok Venezuela — Mr. D. Blanco Carrero

Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina Mr. D. Wibaux D/LEB
Mr. G.I. Tagino (Alt.) Argentina Ms. N. Graham D/ANB
Mr. E.J. Van Der Wal (Alt.) — Australia Mrs. D. Mauri PA/PRES
Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China
Mr. E.N. Mendez (Alt.) Dominican Republic
Mr. W. Yoshioka (Alt.) Japan
C-MIN 186/4 - 28 -
ALSO PRESENT: (CONTINUED)

Mr. A.A. Korsakov (Alt.) Russian Federation
Mr. A.A. Alharthy (Alt.) Saudi Arabia
Mr. J. Herrero (Alt.) Spain
Mr. M.A. De Jong (Alt) Switzerland
Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.) — United Arab Emirates
Mr. S. Creamer (Alt.) — United States
- 29 - C-MIN 186/4
Subject No. 4: Appointment of the Secretary General
Appointment of the Secretary General
1. The above subject was documented in C-WP/13265 and Addendum No. 1, presented by the
President of the Council. The President indicated that in accordance with C-DEC 185/8, paragraph 9, and
following the deadline of 1 December 2008 for the receipt of nominations for the post of Secretary General
of ICAO, the nomination of Mr. Raymond Benjamin had been presented by France and the nomination of
Mr. Vladimir Zubkov had been presented by the Russian Federation. Also, the nomination of Dr.
Charles Mgana had been presented by the United Republic of Tanzania and had since been withdrawn.
2. The curricula vitae of Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Zubkov were reproduced in C-WP/13265.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix C of the Rules of Procedure for the Council (Doc 7559/8) , an informal
closed meeting of the Council had been held on Friday, 23 January 2009, to interview the two candidates.
The summary minutes of the interviews had been circulated to Representatives on the Council under cover
of PRES RK/1643 dated 6 February 2009.
3. Pursuant to Article 54 (h) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and in

accordance with Appendix C of the Rules of Procedure for the Council, the Council proceeded, by secret
ballot, to the appointment of the Secretary General). As indicated in paragraphs 5 to 7 of Appendix C, the
appointment of the Secretary General would require a majority of the Members of the Council. If no
candidate received a majority on the first ballot a second and, if necessary, subsequent ballots would be held
on the two candidates who received the largest number of votes in the preceding ballot. The election would
take place by secret ballot, unless waived by unanimous decision of the Members represented at the meeting.
All ballots would be secret. On all ballots, each Representative would not vote for more than one name.
Should both candidates be marked on a ballot, the ballot would be considered invalid. Blank ballots would
be recorded as such in the minutes of the meeting. A majority of 19 votes, that is to say the majority of the
Council Members, would be needed by a candidate in order to be appointed Secretary General.
4. The result of the ballot was as follows:
Mr. Raymond Benjamin (France) - 27 votes

Mr. Vladimir Zubkov (Russian Federation) - 9 votes
5. Mr. R. Benjamin was therefore declared appointed as Secretary General, his term of office
to be, as previously decided (184/1), three years beginning on 1 August 2009 and continuing until
31 July 2012.
6. The President of the Council thanked the three Vice-Presidents – i.e. the Representatives of
South Africa, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates -- who had acted as tellers, and on behalf of the
Council expressed to the Governments of France and the Russian Federation his sincere appreciation for
having presented excellent candidates for the post of Secretary General who could serve the Organization
and its 190 Contracting States with competence, ability, integrity and objectivity. The President also
congratulated Mr. Raymond Benjamin on his appointment.
7. The Representative of France wished to first address Mr. Zubkov; his interest in this election
had allowed the Council to discuss the future orientation of the work of the Organization Mr. Zubkov had
made a great contribution and had rendered yet a new service to ICAO in allowing the Council to have this
C-MIN 186/4 - 30 -
discussion. He also thanked the Council for having lent a majority of votes to the French candidate,
supported by the 44 States of the European Civil Aviation Conference. The preparation for this election had
allowed for numerous contacts and discussions among States which would enrich the life of the Organization.
Everyone present was aware of the challenges which faced the Organization; they were considerable in all
fields and within an international economic situation which was also difficult. An open dialogue between the
Council and the Secretary General would allow ICAO to meet these challenges. Mr. Benjamin now belonged
to the Organization and would no doubt make his utmost effort to serve it in an efficient and effective way.
8. The Representative of India congratulated the Secretary General-elect, Mr. Raymond

Benjamin, and thanked Mr. Zubkov for having brought a great deal of competition in the election process.
The Representative of India observed that the term of the Secretary General-elect would start on
1 August 2009 and that the Council therefore had approximately five months as the transition period. While
recognizing that the present incumbent had full authority until the end of his mandate on 31 July 2009, in
order to make the best use of the time available between now and the commencement of the period of the next
incumbent, he encouraged the present Secretary General to endeavour to communicate to his successor all
the relevant information which he would deem necessary to prepare him for the commencement of his term,
including the perusal of some records. The Representative of India also suggested that the present Secretary
General help in preparing the Secretary General-elect for the commencement of his term by facilitating
contacts with the staff of ICAO. His proposal was intended to make the best use of the transition time and to
also ensure that the scarce resources of the Organization were put to the best use from day one and that the
Secretary General-elect did not spend his time in office on the learning curve.
9. The Representative of Ecuador could not but express his Delegation’s gratitude to the
contenders in this democratic process and to congratulate the one who had been elected, Mr. Benjamin, as the
future Secretary General of the Organization as of 1 August 2009. The Representative of Ecuador endorsed
the motion by India since he believed it was very timely. The Council had, in the past, discussed the matter
of the transition period. The proposal of the Representative of India should, in his view, be reflected as a
Council decision in the light of the fact that the new Secretary General should have the necessary support.
10. The Representative of the Russian Federation wished to join in the congratulations to the
Secretary General-elect, Mr. Raymond Benjamin, and wished him every success in his work. The Secretary
General would have to adhere to the principles underlying this United Nations Organization The Delegation
of the Russian Federation joined with the proposals made by the Representative of India, and gave
assurances of its intention to cooperate with the Secretary General-elect for the good of the Organization.
11. The Representative of El Salvador congratulated both the Governments of France as well as
the Russian Federation on having presented such excellent candidates. International civil aviation had
benefited from this situation because it had been possible to ascertain that the Council had elected an
individual who would be able to head the Organization as Secretary General. The Representative of El
Salvador endorsed the proposal made by the Representative of India, since he believed it was correct that in
the transition period the tasks should be shared, and that this period should be used to share the experience
of the current Secretary General so that when Mr. Benjamin assumed his office he would be up-to-date. This
would be beneficial to all Contracting States.
12. The President of the Council wished to provide some comments regarding the suggestion of
the Representative of India. It was important to bear in mind that Secretary General Chérif was the Secretary
General of the Organization until 31 July 2009. The Secretary General would of course cooperate in a
- 31 - C-MIN 186/4
transition with the Secretary General-elect. This was a decision of the Secretary General, and was part of the
cooperation of Dr. Chérif with Mr. Benjamin for the transition period.
13. The Secretary General congratulated Mr. Benjamin for this outstanding victory. It was, of
course, normal practice for the current and future Secretaries General to coordinate. It was important for
there to be continuity of work in optimum conditions, with the sole objective of best serving the interests of
the Organization in the short-, medium-, and long-term. The Secretary General would cooperate fully in
order to facilitate this transition and to allow a new kick-off for the Organization. The President of the
Council gave assurances that he would also participate in this transition to the best of his capacity.
14. The Representative of South Africa congratulated France and the Russian Federation for
having submitted their candidatures for consideration to the post of Secretary General of ICAO. The two
candidates, in his view, were both brilliant, excellent and very credible and in a race there was always a
winner. He therefore congratulated France and Mr. Benjamin for having won the race. He was also
encouraged to hear from the French Delegation that it was delivering Mr. Benjamin to ICAO as an
international civil servant, and looked forward to working with him. As to what had been said by the
Secretary General, the Representative of South Africa fully supported and endorsed it; for continuity
purposes this had to be the modus operandi.

- 33 - C-MIN 186/5
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 2 MARCH 2009, AT 1430 HOURS)
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Dominican Republic — Mr. C.A. Veras Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
Italy — Mr. F.P. Venier United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Japan — Mr. S. Baba United States — Mr. S.P. Creamer (Alt.)
Venezuela — Mr. D. Blanco Carrero

Mr. O.R. Nundu President, ANC Ms. N. Graham — D/ANB
Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) — Australia Mr. M. Elamiri — C/SSA
Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil Mr. P. Lamy — DD/ANB
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. M. Fox — C/FLS
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. V.P. Galotti — C/ATM
Mrs. M. Deshaies (Alt.) Canada Mr. M. Costa — C/AIG
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China Dr. A.D.B. Evans — C/MED
Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) France Mr. D. Maurino — C/ISM
Mr. A.A. Alharthy (Alt.) — United Arab Emirates Mr. J.D. Monaco — TO/FLS
Mr. T. Thormodsson — TO/AIG
Mr. A.L. De Kock — TO/ISM
C-MIN 186/5 - 34 -
1. Observing that it was Safety Efficiency Week, the President of the Council noted that the
Council would be considering reports by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) proposing amendments to
ten Annexes to the Chicago Convention. The Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) then briefed
the Council on safety and efficiency strategies, after which the President of the ANC presented an overview
of the said Annex amendment proposals. The texts of the briefing and presentation had been circulated in
advance to Representatives.
Subject No. 14.1.1: International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs)
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 169 to Annex 1
2. Then the Council considered 13280, in which the Air Navigation Commission (ANC)
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing.
3. Under general comments, the Representative of Singapore noted that his State supported the
proposed amendment to address aeromedical risks to flight safety as it would align the medical licensing
Standard and Recommended Practice (SARP) with contemporary medical practices and could be expected
to lower costs in the aviation industry given lower attrition rates of pilots due to health reasons. In then
drawing attention to the amendment to the harmonization provision relating to safety management, which
was repeated in the Annex amendment proposals for four other Annexes included in the order of business
(Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft; Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services; Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and
Incident Investigation; and Annex 14 — Aerodromes), he observed that the amendment’s objective seemed
innocuous, which might explain the low reply rate from States to the Annex 1 amendment proposal: only 63
replies had been received, representing only 33 per cent of ICAO Contracting States. Noting that the Annex
amendment would become effective on 19 November 2009 and applicable on 18 November 2010, the
Representative of Singapore emphasized that that meant that States would have only one year in which to
implement the two new proposed frameworks, one for the implementation and maintenance of a State Safety
Programme (SSP) and the other for the implementation and maintenance of a service provider’s Safety
Management System (SMS). He underscored that the eight States which had significant safety concerns and
the 37 States that were on the watch list of the Audit Results Review Board (ARRB) which were already
struggling to keep up with the existing ten thousand SARPs would now have to contend with the introduction
of the two new frameworks which were to be implemented in 12 months.
4. The Representative of Singapore considered that the Safety Management Manual

(Doc 9859) and the harmonized SSP framework were insufficient to assist States in implementing the SSP,
as evidenced during the conduct of the first SSP implementation course held the previous week. He stressed
that, in order to achieve widespread implementation, it was imperative that top priority be given to
developing a comprehensive guideline manual on the SSP considering that SSP implementation would be a
fundamental component of the proposed new continuous monitoring approach to be introduced in 2011.
5. The President of the ANC emphasized that the new Appendix 4 [Framework for Safety
Management Systems (SMS)] and new Attachment C [Framework for the State Safety Programme (SSP)] to
Annex 1 were intended to assist States in implementing the SMS and SSP. The Chief of the Integrated Safety
Management Section (C/ISM) indicated that a third edition of the Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859)
would be developed using feedback from the SSP training courses. Noting that the new edition would
comprise a first part on the general concept, a second part on the SSP and a third part on the SMS, he
affirmed that it would meet the needs of States.
- 35 - C-MIN 186/5
6. While supporting the Annex amendment proposal, the Representative of France questioned
the distribution of the material among various documents having different legal status. He noted, in this
regard, that whereas the provisions relating to SMS to be implemented by the service providers were
contained in the Annex and Appendix 4, and thus had the status of SARPs, the provisions relating to the SSP
to be implemented by States, which were direct interlocutors with ICAO, were contained only in
Attachment C and in the Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859), and therefore only had the status of
guidance. In questioning the legal coherence of this distribution, the Representative of France indicated that
the same was true of the other said Annex amendment proposals.
7. Noting that the difference in status was intentional for the time being, C/ISM emphasized
that while the SMS framework was proven, the SSP framework was still in an evolutionary stage. It had been
considered that the prudent way to proceed would be to first propose the latter in an Attachment to Annex 1,
as guidance material. When feedback from the SSP training courses was received, the status of the SSP
framework could be reconsidered, as circumstances dictated.
8. The Representative of the Russian Federation indicated that, while he also could adopt the
proposed Annex 1 amendment proposal, his State, along with some others, had, in its reply to State
letter 08/33 dated 5 May 2008, expressed disagreement regarding the inclusion of text whereby applicants
with depression, being treated with antidepressant medication, and applicants who were seropositive for
human immunodeficiency (HIV) would be assessed as fit to fly if the medical assessor considered that the
condition was unlikely to interfere with the safe exercise of the applicant’s licence and rating privileges. He
noted, in this regard, that depression was defined as an emotional state involving feelings of helplessness,
hopelessness, sadness, self-criticism and listlessness which would affect physical activity, regardless of the
amount of sleep or physical state of the person. It could also lead to physical weakness. The Russian
Federation could accept the Annex amendment proposal on the understanding that the said text relating to
depression remained a Recommended Practice and was not upgraded to a Standard.
9. The Chief of the Aviation Medicine Section (C/MED) concurred that individuals with
depression should not fly. It was, however, a question of balancing the risk to flight safety. He recalled, from
a study done by the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), that a number of pilots, when informed of the
position of the United States and other States not to allow pilots to fly while taking anti-depressants, had
decided not to declare that they had been given a diagnosis of depression to their designated medical
examiner and to fly without taking their medication. C/MED noted that the majority of States represented on
the Medical Provisions Study Group (MPSG) considered that it would pose less risk to allow individuals to
fly if they had been properly assessed and were undergoing a treatment approved by the designated authority.
He further indicated that the Secretariat’s psychiatric opinion was that individuals would not suffer from
significant side-effects from modern anti-depressants. Observing that the provisions relating to depression
were in the form of Recommended Practices, C/MED noted that that was deliberate as not all States were
ready at the present stage to accept that an individual being treated with anti-depressants could fly. As the
proposals were relatively new for some States and completely new for others, it had been decided not to
require States to do anything different from what they were currently doing.
10. With regard to individuals diagnosed as being HIV seropositive, C/MED noted that the
MPSG considered that, as HIV had a long latent phase and the antiretroviral drugs had very few side-effects,
individuals could fly for many years without any problems.
11. Responding to a query by the Representative of the United Kingdom, C/MED noted that the
Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984) was being completely revised. The draft English version was
C-MIN 186/5 - 36 -
available on the ICAO public website. Once the new Annex provisions had been adopted, extra guidance
material would be added to Doc 8984. The new edition of the Manual would be translated into all of ICAO’s
working languages as soon as resources permitted.
12. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates affirmed that issuing licenses to individuals
who were being treated with anti-depressants was a positive development. Furthermore, it would encourage
other individuals in the aviation community to come forward and be treated. Noting that aviation was a very
high pressure environment, whether in flight or on the ground, he indicated that the Council should support
the Annex amendment proposal.
13. Agreeing, the Representative of Australia voiced strong support for the Secretariat’s
position and the Annex amendment proposal. He noted that his State considered that awareness and
supervision of depression and HIV provided a better and a safer outcome for licence holders than leaving
individuals in a position where they might need to hide their condition to continue their careers.
14. The Representative of Canada also supported the Annex amendment proposal, especially in
light of the reasonable explanations provided by C/MED. Underscoring that with medical advances it was
now possible for patients under treatment to function normally in society, he averred that if the Council did
not approve the said provisions relating to depression and HIV it would be discriminatory to the aviation
sector.
15. The Representative of Nigeria likewise endorsed the Annex amendment proposal for the
reasons cited by C/MED.
16. The Council then reviewed the Annex amendment material set forth in Appendix A to
C-WP/13280. Responding to a query by the Representative of Namibia regarding the definition of the term
“medical assessor”, C/MED clarified that it did not exclude a part-time official who was undertaking the
functions of a medical assessor. To further points raised by the Representative, C/MED noted that the
proposed provisions relating to depression and HIV, under which an individual was considered to be unfit
unless he could demonstrate that he had an acceptable aeromedical risk, were in line with other medical
SARPs. He further indicated that guidance on acceptable treatment for HIV was contained in the Manual of
Civil Aviation Medicine (Doc 8984).
17. The Council, by 35 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, then adopted, as
Amendment 169 to Annex 1, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs) as contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13280. As part of the said amendment, the Council approved
the amendment to Notes and attachments as contained in Appendix A to that paper and the amendment to the
Foreword to Annex 1 as contained in Appendix C. The Council also approved the Resolution of Adoption
at Appendix B to the paper.
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 33 to Annex 6, Part I
18. The Council considered C-WP/13281, in which the Air Navigation Commission (ANC)
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part I — International
Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes.
19. During the review of the Annex amendment material set forth in Appendix A to the paper,
the Representative of Spain drew attention to the categories of precision approach and landing operations
- 37 - C-MIN 186/5
given in Chapter 1 (Definitions) and enquired as to the reasons for the reductions of the runway visual ranges
for Category II and Category III operations. The Chief of the Flight Safety Section (C/FLS) clarified that the
said reductions were the result of practices already followed in Europe and North America. They were also
reflective of current technology, such as heads-up display and auto-land, which were in wide use. He
emphasized that they were minimum runway visual range values and that States could choose which value to
use for Category II and Category III precision approaches and landing operations.
20. Referring to the proposed amendment to paragraph 2.2.1 of Attachment A (Guidance

material for development of prescriptive fatigue management regulations) on flight duty periods, the
Representative of Nigeria noted that originally the flight duty period covered the time from when crew
members reported for duty to the time when their duty was completed. It was now being proposed that the
flight duty period would cover the time from reporting for duty to when the engines were shut down.
Averring that the amendment did not take into account that it was possible for crew members to be given
additional duties in their place of employment after the engines were shut down, the Representative of
Nigeria queried whether that did not leave a loophole for employers.
21. C/FLS noted that it was the intent of the Operations Panel (OPSP), in the formulation of new
fatigue management provisions, to cover that eventuality under the duty period. He indicated that the duty
period covered the time between reporting for duty and leaving the place of employment and could
encompass a flight duty period.
22. To queries by the Representatives of South Africa and Venezuela regarding paragraph 2.1
of Attachment B (Medical supplies), C/MED clarified that the number of first-aid kits had been reduced in
light of operators’ experience. He noted that the medical adviser to the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) had been part of the MPSG and therefore had been closely involved in the development
of all of the medical proposals.
23. The Council, by 35 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions, adopted, as
Amendment 33 to Annex 6, Part I, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARPs) as contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13281. As part of the said amendment, the Council
approved the amendment to Notes and attachments as contained in Appendix A to that paper and the
amendment to the Foreword to Annex 6, Part I, as contained in Appendix C. The Council also approved the
Resolution of Adoption at Appendix B to the paper.
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 14 to Annex 6, Part III
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part III — International
Operations — Helicopters.
Amendment 14 to Annex 6, Part III, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended
amendment to the Foreword to Annex 6, Part III, as contained in Appendix C. The Council also approved the
C-MIN 186/5 - 38 -
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 28 to Annex 6, Part II
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part II — International
General Aviation — Aeroplanes.
Amendment 28 to Annex 6, Part II, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended
approved the amendment to Notes as contained in Appendix A to that paper and the amendment to the
Foreword to Annex 6, Part II, as contained in Appendix C. The Council also approved the Resolution of
Adoption at Appendix B to the paper.
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services.
29. In the course of the review of the Annex material contained in Appendix A to the paper, the
Representative of Nigeria drew attention to Attachment C (Material relating to contingency planning),
paragraph 4.2 b), and proposed that the term “public health emergencies” be amended to read “public and
other national health emergencies” so as to be all-encompassing. The Representatives of the United Arab
Emirates, Italy and the United States favoured retaining the existing text. The Chief of the Air Traffic
Management Section (C/ATM) suggested, and it was agreed, that the concerns expressed by the
Representative of Nigeria regarding Attachment C, paragraph 4.2 b), would be taken into consideration in
preparing a future amendment of Annex 11.
30. Subject to the above, the Council, by 35 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions,
adopted, as Amendment 47 to Annex 11, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended
amendment to the Foreword to Annex 11 as contained in Appendix C. The Council also approved the
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation.
Amendment 12 to Annex 13, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs) as contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13285. As part of the said amendment, the Council approved
the amendment to Notes and attachments as contained in Appendix A to that paper and the amendment to the
Foreword to Annex 13 as contained in Appendix C. The Council also approved the Resolution of Adoption
at Appendix B to the paper.
- 39 - C-MIN 186/5
Other business
Subject No. 14.5: Safety oversight

Subject No. 52.1: Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP)
Report on the Implementation Support and Development (ISD) — Aviation safety and
security activities for 2008
Progress report on ICAO audit activities: USOAP and USAP
33. As no request had been received by 26 February 2009 to have C-WPs/13292 and /13298 on
the above subjects tabled for discussion in response to memorandum PRES RK/1646 dated
12 February 2009, it was considered that the Council had noted the information contained therein.
Financial situation of the Organization
34. As no request had been received by 26 February 2009 to have C-WP/13279 on this subject
tabled for discussion in response to memorandum PRES RK/1648 dated 12 February 2009, it was
Subject No. 10.1: Reports on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented
Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented during the
fourth quarter — 1 October to 31 December 2008
35. As no request had been received by 2 March 2009 to have C-WP/13299 on the above
subject tabled for discussion in response to memorandum PRES RK/1651 dated 16 February 2009, it was
----------
Seating arrangements in the Air Navigation Commission (ANC)
36. The President of the Council noted that, over the last few years, the number of requests to
sit as an observer in the ANC had increased dramatically; however, there was simply not enough room in the
ANC Chamber to provide assigned seating for everyone who had requested observer status. To handle the
situation in the most equitable and efficient way, and taking into account the fact that not all observers
attended each meeting of the ANC, the President of the ANC had informed the Commission that effective
immediately there would be open seating for observers in the ANC Chamber with places available on a first
come, first served basis. For each meeting, observers would retrieve their name plates from the table at the
entrance of the ANC Chamber before taking any available seat. The Council noted this information.

- 41 - C-MIN 186/6
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 4 MARCH 2009, AT 1000 HOURS)
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Canada —*Mr. L.A. Dupuis Romania — Mr. C. Cotrut
China —*Mr. Tao Ma Russian Federation — Mr. A.A. Novgorodov
France —*Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa United Arab Emirates — Mr. J. Haidar
Iceland — Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) United States — Mr. S.P. Creamer (Alt.)

Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina Mr. M. Fox — C/FLS
Mrs. S.A. González (Alt.) Argentina Mr. V.P. Galotti — C/ATM
Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) — Australia Mr. J. Nagle — C/CNS/AIRS
Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil Dr. A.D.B. Evans — C/MED
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. Y. Wang — C/AGA
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. D. Lewtas — C/AINF
Mme M. Deshaies (Alt.) Canada Mr. J.D. Monaco — C/ISM
Mr. Feng Tai (Alt.) China Mr. A. Capretti — TO/CNS/AIRS
Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) France Mr. D. Maurino — TO/FLS
Mr. J. Zamhari (Alt.) Malaysia Mr. S. Da Silva — TO/ATM
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
Mr. A.A. Korsakov (Alt.) Russian Federation
Mr. J. Herrero (Alt.) Spain
*Part-time
C-MIN 186/6 - 42 -
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendments 10 and 4 to Annex 14, Volumes 1 and II, respectively
1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13286, in which the Air Navigation Commission
presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design and
Operations and Volume II — Heliports.
2. Chapter 9, paragraph 9.1.2, Note 2 of the amendment material at Appendix A to

C-WP/13286, which gave examples of public health emergencies, was amended, in accordance with a
suggestion put forward by the Representative of Germany, to make reference to (new word shown in
bold)“…severe outbreak of a communicable disease potentially affecting a large proportion of aerodrome
staff”. Further to comments offered by the Representative of Nigeria, the Secretariat was requested to review,
in due course, the issue of national emergencies, as opposed to the public health emergencies described in
Note 2 to paragraph 9.1.2.
3. Referring to the proposed reduction, in the Definitions section of the amendment material,
of runway visual range minima, the Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that he had raised the
same point at the last (186/5) meeting and continued to have some concerns, notwithstanding the
clarifications which had been provided by the Secretariat at that time. The Secretariat had explained that
reduced visual ranges were now possible because new aircraft had heads up displays and other features that
helped pilots. There were, however, aircraft that did not have these new displays; the ‘legacy’ aircraft, for
example, were not so well equipped. The Representative of the United Kingdom requested a further
assessment by the Secretariat on the examination that they had carried out on the safety risks, and sought
some reassurance that they had examined the safety implications of this change.
4. Responding to the concerns of the Representative of the United Kingdom, C/FLS gave
assurances that the Secretariat, through the OPS Panel, had looked at the safety implications of the proposals
very carefully. The decision to use lower minima was based upon the experience of States in North America
and Europe that were already using the lower minima. The technologies to execute a Category 2 or
Category 3 approach had not changed much over the years; they had only been enhanced. A Category 3
approach required auto-land capability with dual channel; the aeroplanes so equipped were capable of doing
the lower minima approach, as had been satisfactorily demonstrated through years of experience both in
Europe and in North America. The Category 2 minima required a high level of automation -- normally dual
auto pilots -- and this once again had been demonstrated to be satisfactory minima. C/FLS wished to
highlight that it was the States which set the minima for the approaches used at their aerodromes; if a State
decided that it did not have enough experience using the lower minima, then it set the higher minima.
5. The Representative of China observed that in Standard 9.4, it was being proposed that the
word “bird” be replaced by “wildlife” where it described strike hazards. The word “wildlife” would also
replace “bird” where reference was made, in paragraph 9.4.2, to the ICAO Bird Strike Information System
(IBIS) database. No change was being proposed to the name of that database, notwithstanding the fact that
with the development of aviation environment protection, it was not only birds that struck aircraft; other
animals, such as goats or bulls, could also do so.
6. C/AGA indicated that the term “wildlife” had been brought into Annex 14 through this
amendment in order to capture a wider range of strike hazards to aircraft. However, it was important to know
that the vast majority of the strikes were bird-related. ICAO had been maintaining the database known as
- 43 - C-MIN 186/6
IBIS since 1979, and the term was very well known to the aviation community. It might be beneficial to keep
the name without change for the data base, recognizing that ground strikes involving other wildlife could also
be reported to the IBIS. To change the name to WBIS could cause confusion and would also dilute the main
purpose of the IBIS system. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates understood the concern raised
by the Representative of China, but having experienced such situations in airport operations, supported the
view of the Secretariat in favour of keeping the name of the IBIS without change. .
7. Referring to the proposed new section 6.4 (Wind turbines), the Representative of the United
Kingdom wished to know if the Secretariat had investigated whether or not ICAO had the authority to
introduce recommendations for the marking or lighting of wind turbines, particularly if it was to affect all
wind turbines rather than those which were just around airports. C/AGA indicated that the proposed
recommendation was similar to other Annex 14 specifications for lighting and marking of obstacles outside
of the limitation surfaces. There were, for example, requirements for lighting or marking tall buildings and
other high structures which could be located as far as a hundred miles away from the airport. The
recommendation was related to the markings, rather than to the wind turbines themselves, in the context of
their being obstacles; Turbines constituted a potential hazard to flight operations, and to specify what kind
of visual aids should be used to warn pilots of such a hazard would be beneficial for safety. It was pointed
out by the Representative of Australia in this connection that the Australian regulator had no jurisdiction for
off-airport markings. Some Standards which had been introduced to this effect had had to be withdrawn.
8. Referring to the recommendations, in Section 9.2 (Rescue and fire fighting), for response
times, the Representative of Australia was concerned that whereas in other ICAO provisions, there was a
requirement of 90 seconds for evacuation of aeroplanes, a minimum response time of three minutes was
required in Annex 14 for other parts of the movement area of an airport. The Representative of Australia
wished to know if it would be possible to initiate a study on a total risk package for airport operations that
would take into account the design of the aircraft and the modern technologies available. His request was
supported by the Representative of the United Arab Emirates, who recommended that the Secretariat
cooperate closely in such a study with the manufacturers of new high technology aircraft, especially
super-wide bodies, and airport groups such as Airports Council International and the American Association
of Airport Executives, since they had conducted a great deal of research in this area.
9. Referring to the guidance material proposed in Attachment A, Section 17.5 (Facilities) for
direct communication between the rescue and fire fighting service and the flight crew of an aircraft in
emergency, the Representative of Australia wished to know if it was envisaged that there would be a
language requirement for fire services as a consequence, given that it was an international operation. C/AGA
recalled that there had been a lengthy discussion on this subject in the Air Navigation Commission. It was
a valid point, from a safety point of view, to have direct communication between fire-fighting staff and the
flight crew. However, there were different circumstances in different States where English was not their first
language. The ANC’s discussions had concluded with the establishment of guidance material rather than a
Standard in an Annex; the guidance material in the green pages of Annex 14, Volume I helped to convey a
message from ICAO as to the importance of such a safety-related issue.
Amendments 10 and 4 to Annex 14, Volumes I and II, respectively, the amendments to the definitions and
to the Standards and Recommended Practices as contained in Appendices A and B to C-WP/13286. The
Council approved, as part of the said amendments, the amendments to Notes, Appendices and supplementary
guidance material to the Annex as contained in Appendices A and B to the paper and approved the
Resolutions of Adoption in Appendices C and D to the paper. As part of the said amendments, the Council
C-MIN 186/6 - 44 -
approved the amendments to the Forewords of Annex 14, Volumes I and II, as contained in Appendices E
and F, respectively, to C-WP/13286.
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 101 to Annex 8
11. The Council considered C-WP/13284, which presented a proposal of the Air Navigation
Commission for Amendment 101 to Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft.
12. Referring to paragraph 3.2.4 of the paper, where it was indicated that some States had
questioned the status of the ICAO State safety programme (SSP), the Representative of the Republic of
Korea noted that whereas a safety management system (SMS) was to be prescribed in the SARPs, the SSP
would be included in an Attachment that was not binding. Since it was his understanding that the SSP could
be deemed to have precedence over the SMS, he wished to know how the Secretariat would address this
awkward status of the SSP in the future. TO/FLS indicated that the question of the status of the SSP as an
Attachment had been mentioned in the Air Navigation Commission. The reason the SSP was still an
Attachment was because the framework in terms of components and elements did not have the level of
maturity that the SMS framework had. The Commission intended to review the status of the SSP framework
at the earliest opportunity in order to resolve this apparent inconsistency between the two frameworks.
13. To a request from the Representative of the United Kingdom for more information on the
timescale for this work, on the scale of work to be done, and on the cost impact, TO/FLS indicated that in
terms of timescale, the Secretariat should be in a position to report to the Air Navigation Commission
towards the end of 2009 as experience on the robustness of the SSP framework was gained through the
upcoming programme of SSP training courses. As regards the scale of work, it was not anticipated that
substantial changes would be required, although validation was an essential step. As to the cost-benefit
analysis, the Secretariat had made a point of enquiring about elements that would allow it to provide
something more concrete than a generic statement to both the Commission and the Council in the State letter;
regrettably, it had not received the information that it would have expected. It was therefore not possible to
go beyond simply proposing that the general consensus of opinion was that the safety benefit would
outweigh potential investments. D/ANB added that many States were proceeding with programmes similar
to the SSP, and that ICAO’s role would simply be a question of working to prevent differences in the way
that many States were considering proceeding with their State Safety Programmes, or confusion with the
Safety Management Systems.
14. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates understood the challenges the Secretariat
was facing, but believed that this was an issue that should be dealt with effectively and as soon as possible.
To slow down a requirement for a State Safety Programme would increase a widening gap which was evident
in many regions around the world between the operators and the regulators. To have the requirement on the
industry side to have a Safety Management System without a policy protective shield or umbrella like a State
Safety Programme would make a State safety system vulnerable.
15. The Representative of Nigeria also requested the Secretariat to emphasize work in this area.
He noted that paragraph 5.2 made reference to the acceptable level of safety, and that the note to that
Standard referred to the guidance in the Safety Management Manual (Doc 9859). Since that manual was
currently being revised, the Representative of Nigeria wished to know if the new edition would be available
before July 2009 when this amendment would come into effect. If the complete revision of the Manual and
incorporation of the SSP were not ready by that time, would it possible to circulate the information through
a State letter?
- 45 - C-MIN 186/6
16. TO/FLS indicated that with regard to the acceptable level of safety, the Secretariat was
working on the development of the concept based on the feedback it had received from a recent in-house
training course. The material will be ready for the Safety Management Manual well ahead of July 2009; it
was expected that by the end of March 2009 a new version of all material regarding acceptable level of safety
would be incorporated in the draft version on the internet. C/FLS wished to clarify that the fact the Secretariat
was proposing the SSP framework as an Attachment did not in any way mean that the requirement for the
SSP programme was not a Standard. There existed a Standard that required that States implement an SSP in
order to ensure safety in civil aviation. The only thing that was not yet a Standard was the framework to
support that Standard. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates wished to highlight his support and
appreciation for the excellent work being carried out in this field, but clarified that his concern was related to
the absence of a framework, which could result in miscommunications between the industry and the
regulators.
17. Further to comments offered by the Representative of Nigeria, it was understood that the
Safety Management Manual would clarify that where reference was made to organizations responsible for
the type design or manufacture of aircraft, that concept also covered manufacturers of aircraft component
parts.
Amendment 101 to Annex 8, the amendment to definitions and to the Standards as contained in Appendix A
to C-WP/13284. The Council approved, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to Notes and
attachments as contained in Appendix A to the paper; the Resolution of Adoption in Appendix B; and the
amendment to the Foreword of Annex 8 as contained in Appendix C to C-WP/13284.
19. The Council reviewed C-WP/13288, which presented a proposal of the Air Navigation
Commission for Amendment 42 to Annex 2 – Rules of the Air.
20. Some comments regarding the descriptions of the hand signals in the amendment material
at Appendix A to C-WP/13288 were noted by the Secretariat for verification.
21. The Secretariat was requested to prepare, for the Council’s consideration, a draft working
paper for the 37th Session of the Assembly on the subject of units of measurement and the related provisions
of Resolution A36-13 (Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and associated practices related
specifically to air navigation).
Amendment 42 to Annex 2, the amendment to the Standards as contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13288.
The Council approved, as part of the said amendment, the amendment to the Note as contained in
Appendix A to the paper; the Resolution of Adoption in Appendix B; and the amendment to the Foreword
of Annex 2 as contained in Appendix C to C-WP/13288.
23. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13289, which presented a proposal of the Air
Navigation Commission for Amendment 55 to Annex 4 – Aeronautical Charts.
C-MIN 186/6 - 46 -
24. During the Council’s consideration of the Definitions in Appendix A to C-WP/13289, it

was understood that the full wording, i.e. “required navigation performance” and “area navigation”, would
be inserted before the acronyms “RNP” and “RNAV” in the sub-paragraphs appearing under “Navigation
specification” Where the definitions for “Required navigation performance (RNP)” and “RNP type” were
being proposed for deletion, it was understood that Notes explaining the reason for these deletions would be
added. The Secretariat was requested to make corresponding adjustments, where appropriate, to the
Definitions in the Annex amendments which the Council had adopted at the previous (186/5) meeting.
adopted, as Amendment 55 to Annex 4, the amendment to Definitions and to the Standards and
Recommended Practices as contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13289. The Council approved, as part of the
said amendment, the amendment to Notes as contained in Appendix A to the paper; the Resolution of
Adoption in Appendix B; and the amendment to the Foreword of Annex 4 as contained in Appendix C to
C-WP/13289.
26. The Council reviewed C-WP/13290, in which the Air Navigation Commission presented a
proposal for Amendment 35 to Annex 15 – Aeronautical Information Services.
27. As a consequence of the modifications agreed to in connection with the Council’s

consideration, recorded above, of Amendment 55 to Annex 4, it was understood that in the Definitions in
Appendix A to C-WP/13290, the full wording, i.e. “required navigation performance” and “area navigation”,
would be inserted before the acronyms “RNP” and “RNAV” in the sub-paragraphs appearing under
“Navigation specification”.
adopted, as Amendment 35 to Annex 15, the amendment to Definitions and to the Standards and
Recommended Practices as contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13290. The Council approved, as part of the
said amendment, the amendment to Notes as contained in Appendix A to the paper; the Resolution of
Adoption in Appendix B; and the amendment to the Foreword in Appendix C to C-WP/13290.
Report of ANC – Adoption of Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Volume I
29. The Council commenced its review of C-WP/13291, in which the Air Navigation
Commission presented a proposal for Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Aeronautical Telecommunications,
Volume I.
30. Under general comments, the Representative of Australia was concerned that the Council,
a non-technical body, was expected to review such a voluminous, highly technical document which seemed
to consist more of technical instructions rather than material appropriate to Annex provisions. While not
intending to oppose the amendment, he believed it was time to request that some Annex documentation be
rationalized down into something much smaller, and orient Annexes around performance Standards rather
than detailed technical instructions for electronic technology. The language, at least in the English version,
was sometimes quite strained and archaic, and much of the material would be better suited to a manual. The
Representative of Australia also noted that the amendment material contained references to external
documents over which the Organization had no control. ICAO was enshrining in its Annexes references to
- 47 - C-MIN 186/6
external documents which could be amended separately, thus requiring a further amendment process. The
Representative of Nigeria shared the views expressed by the Representative of Australia, as did the
Representative of the Russian Federation, who believed that the issue should be reviewed by the Assembly
within the framework of the Executive Committee.
31. The Representative of Namibia observed that the financial implications of the proposed
amendment were indicated in C-WP/13291 as minimal, and wished to point out in this respect that there
could very well be a cost impact to some States which would have to upgrade their calibration testing
equipment on board aircraft. His comments were supported by the Representative of Romania, who believed
that all navigational aid calibration equipment would have to be modified, calling for an effort on the part of
both States and industry. He wished to know if the Secretariat had taken this element into consideration.
32. The Representative of Spain had the understanding that the issue of including references to
the documents of other organizations had been a source of concern for a long time. It was quite true that very
often it was useful to build on what had been done by other organizations, but it was difficult for ICAO to
validate those documents developed by other organizations. The Representative of Spain wished to know
what the ANC’s deliberations had concluded in this respect.
33. The Representative of Argentina endorsed what had been said by previous speakers with
respect to the difficulties which arose when an ICAO Annex incorporated cross-references to the provisions
of other organizations. Those standards developed by external bodies could change and ICAO would not
have the necessary time to review those changes and ascertain what impact they would have on States from
the regulatory point of view. Cross-references could better be included in the related guidance material. Also,
while references to the documents of other international organizations such as the ITU were appropriate,
references to those of EuroK, for example, could cause problems because not all State signatories of ICAO
were member States of EuroK and would therefore not have access to that highly technical documentation.
It would therefore have to be up to ICAO to facilitate access to that information.
34. The Representative of Mexico observed that Annex 10 was highly technical and dealt with
a great number of items directly related to industry, and that only 55 replies had been received from
States, 17 of them being Members of the Council. The Representative of Mexico wished to know what
discussion had taken place in the ANC, and if the Commission had taken into account the comments of States
when it had conducted its deliberations. This report to Council should, in his view, have been accompanied
by an analysis of all the States’ replies.
35. The President of the Council clarified that references to other international organizations
such as the ITU had existed in Annex 10 for many years, whereas references to, for example, EuroK, were
new. Annex 10 had been examined in depth by the Secretariat and the ANC, and when the Council had
reviewed the structure of this Annex, there had been a great deal of discussion since the Secretariat had
wanted to remove a substantial amount of information and this had received some complaints. Annex 10
was one of the most controversial and lengthy annexes.
36. D/ANB concurred that she would love to do nothing more than a complete overhaul of
Annex 10, which was anything but a performance-oriented document. When the issue had last been
discussed in Council and she had indicated her intention, a number of Representatives had objected. The
Secretariat could perhaps offer a briefing to the Council which would help to clarify that a streamlined Annex
10 would actually provide more latitude for States and not less. The amendments being proposed at this time
were minimal, but the next round would involve big changes that would have a dramatic effect on Annex 10.
C-MIN 186/6 - 48 -
The Secretariat had undertaken agreements with the other Standards bodies and was working with them since
it did not have the resources to completely do this itself. D/ANB appealed to the Council to remember, when
developing the budget for the next triennium, that an overhaul of Annex 10 was not a small undertaking and
could not be done with the staff on board.
37. Some additional clarifications were provided by C/CNS/AIRS, who indicated that the
amendments being proposed involved no equipment changes associated with the infrastructure which they
were involved with. The actual cost of maintaining, and ensuring the performance of the equipment itself,
would fall within administrative costs.
38. The Representative of the Russian Federation wished to advocate maintaining the current
structure of Annex 10. Although it did have very detailed information, all of that information consisted of
Standards. He therefore asked the Council to exercise utmost caution in changing that annex.
39. The President of the Council asked the Secretariat if there was an arrangement to make the
information provided by the ITU and EuroK available to States. D/ANB indicated that the documentation
was available for sale, and that this was a source of concern for most of the Council Members. Until recently
that information had been available for sale to ICAO, which had recently entered into an agreement with the
organizations mentioned in Annex 10 for a mutual exchange of information. ICAO thus had access to the
documents in question, whereas States would have to purchase them.
40. The President of the Council did not think it was acceptable to have an ICAO Standard that
would obligate States to pay for information, and asked the Secretariat if it would be possible to delete the
Note associated with Standard 2.2.1. The President of the ANC indicated that he would leave it to the
Secretariat to determine if there were any consequential problems, but could agree to deleting the provision.
41. The Representative of Spain agreed with the views of the President of the Council on
the unacceptability of including provisions that would require States to buy documents published
by other organizations. He suggested that the negotiations of the Secretariat with these organizations was
clearly indicative of the fact that it was in the interests of the organizations to have these references included
in ICAO Recommendations. It should therefore be possible to arrive at some form of agreement enabling
States to have free access to the information.
42. The Representative of the United States supported the amendment as proposed, with the
understanding that if it was deemed necessary to clarify the status of the external Standards, that could
perhaps be covered in a Note. The principal concern that the Council should have over the long term would
be to protect and clarify the need for spectrum, and to manage spectrum effectively so that State regulations
interacted with the ITU and WRC effectively. Technical standards were contained in the documents
published by industry; no one built such equipment on the basis of an ICAO manual, they based themselves
on technical standards that were updated more frequently elsewhere. But for States to be able to regulate
effectively, they needed clear Standards within the Annexes. A careful review of Annex 10 to clarify its
intent and purpose was clearly important and the United States would support that activity.
43. Further consideration of the proposal in C-WP/13291 was deferred to the next meeting.

- 49 - C-MIN 186/7
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, FRIDAY, 6 MARCH 2009, AT 1000 HOURS)
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Dominican Republic — Mr. C.A. Veras Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
El Salvador — Mr. J.A. Aparicio Borjas Spain — Mr. J. Herrero (Alt.)
Iceland — Mr. H. Sigurdsson United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) United States — Mr. S.P. Creamer (Alt.)

Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil Mr. M. Elamiri — C/SSA
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. M. Fox — C/FLS
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. V.P. Galotti — C/ATM
Mrs. M. Deshaies (Alt.) Canada Mr. J. Nagle — C/CNS/AIRS
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China Mr. A. Capretti — TO/CNS/AIRS
Mr. B. Thebault (Alt.) France Mr. B. Bagstad — ANB
Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) — Iceland Mr. V. Maiolla — TO/CNS/AIRS
Mr. W. Yoshioka (Alt.) — Japan Miss S. Black Précis-writer
Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.) — United States
C-MIN 186/7 - 50 -
Welcome to a new Representative on the Council
1. The President of the Council extended a warm welcome to Mr. Chong-hoon Kim, the newly
appointed Representative of the Republic of Korea.
Statement by the President of the Council — International Women’s Day 2009
2. The President of the Council then pronounced the following statement on the occasion of
International Women’s Day on 8 March 2009:
“Sunday marks the 35th edition of International Women’s Day. It is a day when women are
recognized worldwide for their achievements — without regard to divisions, whether national, ethnic,
linguistic, cultural, economic or political. It is also an occasion for looking back on past struggles and
accomplishments, and more importantly, for looking ahead to the untapped potential and opportunities that
await future generations of women.
“The theme chosen by the United Nations (UN) this year is Women and men united to end violence
against women and girls.
“At ICAO, celebrations for International Women’s Day will be held in an informal setting, outside
the Assembly Hall on the 4th floor, on Friday, 6 March 2009, from 1400 to 1530 hours. On this occasion,
Ms. Nancy Graham, as Chair of the Advisory Body to the Secretary General on Gender Equality and Gender
Mainstreaming, will review progress in this area at ICAO, under the leadership of Dr. Taïeb Chérif during
his two terms as Secretary General. The day will be made even more meaningful with the presence of our
guest of honour, Ms. Angela Gittens, Director General of the Airports Council International (ACI).
“I take this opportunity to invite all Council Members to join the Secretariat in celebrating
International Women’s Day 2009.”
Report of ANC — Adoption of Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Volume I
3. The Council resumed (186/6) and completed its consideration of C-WP/13291, in which the
Air Navigation Commission (ANC) presented a proposal for the amendment of Annex 10 — Aeronautical
Telecommunications, Volume I — Radio Navigation Aids.
4. Responding to some of the questions raised and concerns expressed during the Council’s
previous discussion of the Annex amendment proposal, the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB)
emphasized that the latter was based on the conventional navigation aids (NAVAIDS), in particular,
instrument landing system (ILS), very high frequency (VHF) omnidirectional radio range (VOR),
non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and distance measuring equipment (DME). With regard to ILS, she
underscored that the amendment related to stable, concise, performance-based Standards for which there
were no industry alternatives. D/ANB noted that the documents of the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics of the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (RTCA/EUROCAE) which had
triggered the comments related to the avionics component, which was not covered by Annex 10. Observing
that the references thereto were made in a Note in the green pages to Annex 10, D/ANB stressed that there
was no obligation for States to purchase the said documents and that the latter were not necessary for the
- 51 - C-MIN 186/7
implementation of the Standards. The said references were solely for information purposes. The Secretariat
did not wish to appear to be concealing that information from Annex 10 users.
5. In agreeing that Annex 10 required further work, D/ANB indicated that the Secretariat was
developing a hierarchy of Standards for the future particularly oriented around NextGen and SESAR.
6. Recalling an earlier comment by D/ANB that there was discordant guidance from
Representatives regarding the restructuring of Annex 10, the Representative of Nigeria underscored that,
although the Council could request the ANC and the Secretariat to review that Annex, that technical work
would be futile unless there were a convergence of Representatives’ political and policy views. He noted that
Annex 10 was one of the reasons for the adoption of Assembly Resolution A36-13 (Consolidated statement
of continuing ICAO policies and associated practices related specifically to air navigation), Appendix A
[Formulation of Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air Navigation
Services (PANS)], which called for the simplification of the contents of the various Annexes. The
Representative of Nigeria suggested that an informal briefing be given on the updating of Annex 10 in order
to achieve some political and policy convergence on the matter.
7. The Representative of the Russian Federation observed that Operative Clause 4 of

Appendix A of Assembly Resolution A36-13 stipulated that “in the development of SARPs, procedures and
guidance material, ICAO should utilize, to the maximum extent appropriate and subject to the adequacy of
a verification and validation process, the work of other recognized standards-making organizations. Material
developed by these other standards-making organizations may be deemed appropriate by the Council as
meeting ICAO requirements; in this case such material should be referenced in ICAO documentation;”. He
emphasized that any cross-references to the Standards of other organizations in the ICAO documents should
be done only on the basis of bilateral agreements (between ICAO and the standards-making organizations)
to provide free access by the ICAO Secretariat and Contracting States to the mentioned standards published
by those standards-making organizations. The Representative of the Russian Federation further underscored
that such agreements should be concluded, inter alia, with the RTCA and EUROCAE regarding the
inclusion of cross-references to their Standards relating to, respectively, the NextGen and SESAR
programmes. He suggested that when an updated version of Assembly Resolution A36-13 was prepared for
approval by the next Assembly, Appendix A be amended to reflect that such bilateral agreements with other
relevant Standards-making organizations were to be concluded.
8. The Representative of the Russian Federation then referred to Assembly Resolution A24-21
(Publication and distribution of documentation), which, in Preambular Clause 4, recognized that, for
publications and documentation, “the agreed working languages are of equal importance in all fields and
aspects of the life of the Organization” and, in Operative Clause 1, adopted “simultaneous distribution in all
the working languages of ICAO as a principle of policy for the publications and documentation of the
Organization according to the conditions determined by the Assembly and the Council;”. While aware that
there was a paucity of resources, he stressed the need to implement that Resolution. The Representative of
the Russian Federation underscored, in this regard, that there were many ICAO publications and documents
which were still not available in the Russian language particularly but not exclusively.
9. During the review of the Annex amendment material contained in Appendix A to

C-WP/13291, the Representative of the United Kingdom drew attention to paragraph 3.6.5.1 of
Attachment C [Information and material for guidance in the application of the Standards and
Recommended Practices for ILS, VOR, PAR, 75 MHz marker beacons (en route), NDB and DME] to
Annex 10, which indicated that “Additional information can be found in ITU Recommendation
C-MIN 186/7 - 52 -
ITU-R SM. 1140, Test procedures for measuring receiver characteristics used for determining compatibility
between the sound-broadcasting service in the band of about 87-108 MHz and the aeronautical services in
the band 108-118 MHz.”. Using that paragraph as an illustration, he emphasized the need for the ANC and
the Secretariat, in examining the structure and content of Annex 10, to consider how, in making
cross-references to non-ICAO material in Annexes, to include an indication of the date of that material and
of the date of any subsequent amendments. While the Representative of the United Kingdom had no
objection to other Standard-setting organizations, he stressed the importance of not automatically changing
ICAO’s SARPs solely because another standards-making organization had done so. It was necessary to have
a clear trail indicating when the change had been made, that ICAO had recognized that change and what the
new provision was.
10. The Representatives of the Russian Federation and France supported this important
comment regarding references to the work of other standards-making organizations which evolved at a
different pace than ICAO’s.
11. In then referring to the proposal by the Representative of Nigeria for an informal briefing,
the Representative of the United Kingdom suggested that the Council also specifically task the ANC with
examining the structure and content of Annex 10 and present a proposal to the Council for its consideration
during the 189th Session.
12. While indicating that the Commission would have no difficulty in carrying out that task, the
President of the ANC emphasized that it was dependent upon the resources available within the Secretariat.
13. The Representative of France noted that although he was always in favour of reviewing
matters, in the present case the Council was assuming that there was a specific problem with Annex 10 when
in fact it was the Annex which had the fewest notifications of differences. While it was the most voluminous
Annex, it presented the least number of problems in terms of implementation. He therefore considered that
before the proposed examination of its structure and content was undertaken, work that would require
resources that might not be available, it should be determined if it were a priority task vis-à-vis other ANC
tasks in the fields of safety and efficiency. The Representative of Mexico was of the same opinion.
14. The Representative of the United Kingdom affirmed that the ANC was well capable of
tackling the said task given the considerable expertise within the Commission. While the ANC should be
supported by the Secretariat, the latter should not be expected to do all the work. Observing that other
organizations would have to be consulted regarding the structure and content of Annex 10, he underscored
that it was an opportunity for, if not a formal study group, then an informal one that would be able to address
the task in a much broader way. The Representative of the United Kingdom therefore laid down the
challenge to the ANC, as a stretch objective, to take the said task forward with perhaps limited support from
the Secretariat.
15. Noting that his first concern would be resource allocation, the Representative of the United
States indicated that that had been addressed adequately by the Representatives of France and Mexico. He
supported their request for a careful prioritization of the proposed work. The Representative of the United
States considered that the alternative suggested by the Representative of the United Kingdom made some
sense if the Council were also involved in the discussion, as ultimately the issues associated with addressing
Standards integration were not technical issues as much as they were legal issues. Emphasizing that the
addition of other Standards and collaboration with other Standards-making organizations required careful
consideration of the legal framework within which that was to be done, he underscored that some
- 53 - C-MIN 186/7
participation by the Council would be warranted if the latter were requesting extra efforts by the Delegations
and the Commission.
16. Although agreeing that Annex 10 caused the least amount of problems, the Representative
of Cameroon stressed the need to be very careful as technology was evolving and ICAO would reach the
point when it could no longer keep up with developments. In also concurring on the need to go into greater
depth to solve the long-standing problem of non-ICAO Standards, he underscored that many small countries
did not know where to find such Standards referred to in Annex 10. The Representative of Cameroon agreed
on the need to put in place a procedure detailing how ICAO should proceed if the non-ICAO Standards
referred to in the Annex and other Annexes were subsequently amended by the organization concerned. He
noted that another option would be to incorporate the non-ICAO Standards into Annex 10, which was
already voluminous, and the other Annexes. The Representative of Cameroon underscored, in this context,
the problem that arose when other Standard-setting organizations did not translate their Standards into all of
the working languages of ICAO.
17. The Representative of the Russian Federation fully supported the proposal for an informal
briefing. While agreeing on the need to consider the said legal issues, he averred that it would be unrealistic
to assign the ANC the task of examining the structure and content of Annex 10 given the considerable
amount of resources it would require. The Representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the ANC
had already reviewed Annex 10 on more than one occasion without, however, substantially changing its
SARPs. He underscored that the structure of Annex 10 should be reviewed when NextGen and SESAR were
introduced.
18. The President of the Council did not recommend any action by the Council that was not
feasible with the available resources. He suggested that that the Council request that an informal briefing on
the updating of Annex 10 be given during the 188th Session, after which the Council could consider how to
proceed in the future in light of NextGen, Sesar and other advances in air navigation-related technology. The
President of the Council noted, in this regard, that as pointed out by the Representative of France and several
other Representatives, Annex 10 itself did not pose any problems for States. ICAO was, however, moving
towards performance-based Standards and perhaps the Annex should be amended accordingly.
Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Volume I, the amendment to definitions and to Standards and Recommended
amendments to the Forewords to Annex 10, Volumes I, II, III, IV and V as contained in Appendix C. The
Council also approved the Resolution of Adoption at Appendix B to the paper. In addition, the Council
requested that an informal briefing be given during the 188th Session on the updating of Annex 10, in
particular, on the move to performance-based Standards and the development of a hierarchy of provisions.
Subject No. 14.4.2: Regional air navigation meetings
Interim report on the outcome of the Special Africa-Indian Ocean Regional Air
Navigation (SP AFI/08 RAN) Meeting (Durban, South Africa, 24-29 November 2008)
20. The Council then heard an oral interim report on the outcome of the Special AFI RAN
Meeting held in Durban, South Africa from 24-29 November 2008 presented by the Secretary General and
the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB). It was understood that the Report of
C-MIN 186/7 - 54 -
the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting, together with a Report by the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) on the
results of its review of that Report, would be presented to the Council for consideration during the next
(187th) Session.
21. The Secretary General wished to convey his gratitude to the Government of South Africa,
through the Representative of South Africa on the Council, for all its outstanding assistance, organization
and hospitality in hosting the event and ensuring its smooth functioning. As he had personally attended the
meeting, he could attest that it had indeed been a success. The Secretary General expressed confidence that
the Council would affirm that the meeting had met the objectives it had established for strengthening
region-wide commitments toward improving safety and efficiency in Africa.
22. The Secretary General noted that the meeting had brought together States at senior
decision-making and technical levels, service providers and airspace users to realize the ultimate objective
of enhanced aviation safety and efficiency in Africa. The outcome of the meeting was a comprehensive
report which contained a set of proposed work programmes intended to improve safety and optimize
operational performance in the region. Those work programmes contained performance objectives with
measurable outcomes and metrics. The work programmes were linked to the Global Air Navigation Plan
(GANP) and the Global Aviation Safety Plan (GASP) and contained proposed timelines and responsibilities
and thus would facilitate regional and global management, technical and financial assistance and provide a
comprehensive and documented set of needs and requirements for the region.
23. The Secretary General noted that D/ANB, the AFI Regional Directors, the Chief of the AFI
Comprehensive Implementation Programme (C/ACIP) and he had seized the opportunity, over the course of
several days during the meeting, to meet individually with certain States in the region to address serious
concerns and particular difficulties as a result of ICAO Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme
(USOAP) audits. He had been encouraged by the results of those meetings and the commitments of the States
to meet their obligations. The Secretary General would continue to follow-up on those discussions and report
back to the Council in due course.
24. D/ANB then provided a more detailed presentation of the results of the SP AFI/08 RAN
Meeting. In noting that that meeting had been very different from past meetings, she indicated that it had
dealt extensively with flight safety, both in the meeting itself and in the margins of the meeting, and with
efficiency. A review and amendment of the Air Navigation Plan had not been undertaken. Seventy-four
recommendations had been adopted, which D/ANB considered would serve as a comprehensive work
programme for the AFI region for the next ten years and as the basis for any major initiatives or projects that
any entity might wish to embark upon.
25. In stressing the importance of the adoption of a performance framework for the AFI region,
D/ANB noted that the Secretariat had been placing great emphasis on the implementation of a performance
framework for all of its work at ICAO, from top to bottom. Observing that the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting
Report depicted how the performance framework manifested itself at the regional level, she recalled that the
Secretariat had been urging each region to identify performance objectives and then to develop work
programmes around those, on the basis of the GANP and the GASP. The meeting had provided a unique
opportunity to capture the complete notion of a performance framework in one holistic document. Noting
that performance framework forms were contained in the Appendices to the Report itself, D/ANB indicated
that they would guide the work of the AFI region in meeting its objectives. States and sub-regions would be
requested to develop national action plans based on the performance framework forms. Those plans would
find their way into the ICAO Knowledge Sharing Network (IKSN).
- 55 - C-MIN 186/7
26. In then referring to the Agenda for the meeting, D/ANB indicated that as Agenda Item 1
(Adoption of the draft Agenda) and Agenda Item 2 (Outline of the working methods of the meeting)
addressed administrative issues, she would not cover them in her presentation. She recalled that under
Agenda Item 3, the meeting had agreed to use the GANP, the GASP and the Comprehensive Regional
Implementation Plan for Aviation Safety in Africa (the AFI Plan). The meeting had also agreed to the said
performance framework and, very significantly, to a set of metrics. The latter was important as the foundation
of any performance-based effort rested on the ability to measure success or, in some cases, the lack thereof.
Adjustments could then be made to redirect resources, re-establish objectives and ensure that the right issues
were being addressed in the right way.
27. Under Agenda Item 4, the meeting had reviewed the current status of aviation safety and
related activities in the AFI region, including accident statistics and a compilation of safety oversight audit
reports. The meeting had reviewed trends identified in the accident data and the deficiencies, as well as
occurrence reporting levels of the States within the region, and had made specific recommendations to
address those trends. Two of the major outcomes under Agenda Item 4 were: a recommendation that States
establish Regional Accident Investigation Organizations (RAIOs) as a means to fulfilling their accident
investigation obligations; and a recommendation that States in the AFI region that did not belong to a
Co-operative Development of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) or
a Regional Safety Oversight Organization (RSOO) be encouraged to join one of those groupings.
28. Under Agenda Item 5, the meeting had discussed the challenges faced by the majority of
States in the region to establish and maintain an effective and sustainable safety oversight system and to
effectively address and resolve deficiencies identified by the ICAO USOAP. One of the major outcomes was
the development of an overarching work programme with timelines, based on achieving the Global Safety
Initiatives of the GASP. The said performance framework forms were used to document the overarching
plan for the region and were contained in the Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 5. The plan was
considered to be complementary to the more detailed work programme established by the AFI ACIP Steering
Committee (ACIP-SC). Recalling that the intent of the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting, as established by the
Council, was to serve as a checkpoint on the progress of the AFI Plan implementation, D/ANB noted that
under this Agenda Item the meeting had reviewed the progress made to date on the ACIP work programme
and on efforts being made on the part of ICAO and all stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation
of that work programme. The meeting had also recommended a means to support the follow-up actions and
the co-ordination necessary to achieve the goals of the AFI Plan in an effective and sustainable manner.
29. Under Agenda Item 6, the meeting had solidified its initial efforts towards implementation
of performance-based navigation and had agreed to an action plan to support an implementation programme.
The meeting had put in place a mechanism to continue to build on the safety effort leading to implementation
of reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) through the establishment of a Tactical Action Group
(TAG) which would review actual reports of difficulties and then address them immediately. The World
Geodetic System (WGS-84), meteorology issues, aerodrome certification, communication, navigation,
surveillance, search and rescue and pandemic preparedness had also been addressed and recommendations
made.
30. Recalling that on 24 February 2009 the Air Navigation Commission (ANC) had been
presented with the Report of the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting, D/ANB indicated that it had noted the
comprehensive report with satisfaction and commended the Secretariat for its excellent work in preparing,
organizing and conducting the meeting. The Commission had also expressed its satisfaction with the
C-MIN 186/7 - 56 -
outcome of the meeting. Furthermore, the ANC had noted the recommendations directed to itself and to the
Council and that the Council would be given an interim oral report on the meeting by the Secretariat. In an
effort to ensure a comprehensive review and report by the ANC to the Council, the Commission had decided
to conduct a thorough review of the report of the meeting, which would require a little more time. It was
expected that the Commission’s report to the Council would be presented during the next (187th) session.
31. In then providing information on efforts to continue with the work of the SP AFI/08 RAN
Meeting, D/ANB noted that the ICAO Regional Directors, the Chief of the ACIP (C/ACIP), she and others
within the Secretariat were working to plan a conference of Directors General of Civil Aviation (DGCAs) to
carry on and implement the meeting’s recommendations. The Togolese authorities had offered to host such
a DGCA conference either later in 2009 or early in 2010. They were in the process of confirming the
convening of the meeting through their Ministry and identifying funds therefor.
32. Underscoring that the ICAO Regional Directors, C/ACIP and the Secretariat were
continuing to work very diligently to assist and support and, in some cases, to strongly encourage the use of
RSOOs, D/ANB indicated that the President of the African and Malagasy Authorities for Civil Aviation
(AAMAC) had convened an important meeting in Chad later in March 2009 to lay down a foundation for a
Regional Safety Agency that would span seventeen African States, including the Economic and Monetary
Union of Western Africa (UEMOA) and the Central African Economic and Monetary Community (CEMAC)
COSCAPS as currently structured. That was in accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Ministers
of the Agency for Air Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar (ASECNA) during its annual meeting in
Equatorial Guinea. Observing that the terms of reference for a new treaty would be discussed at the
upcoming meeting in March 2009, D/ANB indicated that, while that was seen as an important initiative, it
could, in fact, interfere with the way in which the COSCAPs were now organized today, in which case they
would need to be realigned.
33. Noting that ICAO continued to support, and work with, the East African Community (EAC)
in eastern Africa and their activities in its RSOO, D/ANB indicated that the Member States had decided to
develop a strategy for the continuing evolution of the RSOO and had employed the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) as a consultant. The EAC was working towards finalizing that strategy with
timelines for the implementation to actually make the RSOO widely effective. While Burundi and Rwanda
had joined the EAC, they could not ratify the protocol until all three existing States, the United Republic of
Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya, had done so. The United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda had ratified and
Kenya planned to do so. It was expected that a Transport Ministerial meeting would be held later in the year.
A representative from ICAO might attend that meeting and assist in pushing the RSOO forward.
34. In concluding, D/ANB indicated that the Council would be provided with an update on this
subject in the next (187th) session, when there would be more fulsome plans to share with Representatives.
35. The Representative of Nigeria, who was also the Chairman of the ACIP-SC, noted that the
Steering Committee would be meeting before the start of the next Council session and requested that it be
provided with the report of the ANC on its review of the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting Report prior to its
presentation to the Council. In commending the Secretariat for its excellent work for the SP AFI/08 RAN
Meeting and the Government of South Africa for hosting that event, he expressed the hope that stakeholders
would continue with the same level of enthusiasm and carry the meeting’s recommendations to their logical
conclusions.
- 57 - C-MIN 186/7
36. In also thanking the host country for holding the meeting and all those who had actively
participated in it, the Representative of France enquired as to how the results and follow-up of
the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting would be co-ordinated with actions to implement the AFI Plan. D/ANB
clarified that a good number of the meeting’s recommendations would be folded under the AFI Plan.
37. Underscoring that COSCAPs were only intended to serve as a transition to RSOOs, the
Representative of Uganda noted that that end product was not emphasized in relevant ICAO documentation.
He recalled, in this context, that while there had been a working paper on COSCAPs presented to
the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting, very little mention had been made of RSOOs, which had many advantages
over COSCAPs. In stressing the need to emphasize that COSCAPs were only the first stage of the journey
and that the final goal was the establishment of RSOOs, the Representative of Uganda suggested that the
Secretariat develop a timeframe for the transition from COSCAPs to RSOOs.
38. D/ANB observed that most States would consider it very presumptuous on the part of ICAO
to prepare such a timeframe as the establishment of RSOOs was a voluntary activity. Noting that the
Secretariat was working with individual groupings of States, she indicated that, with the exception of the
Banjul COSCAP, which had a very specific timeline to transition to a RSOO, the other COSCAPs were
focussed on the immediacy of the training needs and the provision of shared resources in the area of
inspection. The political moves necessary to transition to RSOOs were not currently within the framework
of the technical specialists who worked on the COSCAPs, with the exception of the Banjul Accord Group
(BAG) and EAC COSCAPs, which were well-ahead. It would therefore be necessary to augment the
COSCAPs with that kind of support and the right level of expertise and support from the States concerned.
D/ANB emphasized that the COSCAPs would benefit from a compendium of the best practices of the
various models of RSOOs around the world from which the States concerned could choose.
39. The Representative of Nigeria recalled that the SP AFI/08 RAN Meeting had set a timeline
for ACIP work to move States to RSOOs that was based on a realistic assessment of the situation on the
ground. He also noted that there would be two workshops for African States to bring them up to speed with
the provisions of ICAO documentation and guidance material on that subject. Furthermore, efforts were
being made with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to organize another event to which existing
RSOOs such as the Agency on Aeronautical Safety for Central America (ACSA), the Pacific Aviation Safety
Office (PASO) and the EAC Civil Aviation Safety and Security Oversight Agency (CASSOA) would be
invited. The Government of Zambia would be hosting the event, which would take place in May/June 2009
and would address not only the technical issues but also the political, economic and legal issues. The
experiences of those States involved in RSOOs would also be discussed. The Representative of Nigeria
indicated that he would be very glad to provide additional information thereon to any interested
Representatives.
40. The Council then noted the oral interim report on the outcome of the Special AFI RAN
Meeting (Durban, South Africa, 24-29 November 2008).
Subject No. 14.5: Safety oversight
Disclosure to the Council of States referred to the Audit Results Review Board (ARRB)
41. The Council considered C-WP/13295 presented by the Secretary General, which set forth
three options for the disclosure of the names of the States referred to the ARRB under the Universal Safety
Oversight Audit Programme (USOAP): full disclosure of the names of such States in an open meeting of the
C-MIN 186/7 - 58 -
Council; presentation of the names of such States orally and in a closed meeting of the Council; and
maintenance of the status quo, whereby names of such States were not revealed to the Council.
42. The Representative of Mexico agreed that increased transparency to the Council regarding
the States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP would enable it to provide better guidance to the
Secretariat and would increase efficiency in terms of the allocation of funds for the provision of assistance to
such States through the various mechanisms. In therefore favouring the full disclosure of the names of such
States, he emphasized that the USOAP audit reports conducted under the comprehensive systems approach
were already available to all States on the Safety Oversight Audit Section (SOA) secure website and that the
Secretariat would not be providing the Council with new information, as indicated in paragraph 3.2 of the
paper. The Representative of Mexico averred that the third option, maintaining the status quo, would limit
the ability of the Organization to provide assistance to States as the Council could not act without specific
information. He then drew attention to paragraph 3.4 of the paper, which stated that “if Council decides to
approve that the names of specific States referred to the ARRB by USOAP may be revealed, certain
procedures should be followed in order to ensure that a minimum level of confidentiality is retained.
Consequently, the names of these States would be presented to the Council either in restricted working
papers, or orally, during closed meetings only. Furthermore, exceptional care would be taken to ensure that
the names of States referred to the ARRB by USAP are not revealed”. Taking into account that paragraph,
the Representative of Mexico proposed that the Council agree to the first option, with the following
amendment: full disclosure of the names of States referred to the ARRB by the USOAP by means of a
restricted working paper which would be considered by the Council in a closed meeting. He further
suggested that the Council instruct the Secretariat to take the necessary measures to ensure that the names of
States referred to the ARRB by the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) not be disclosed.
43. The Representative of Switzerland endorsed the proposed amendment.
44. While recognizing the benefit of having the ARRB reveal to the Council the names of States
referred to it by the USOAP, the Representative of Singapore feared that, if the names were disclosed in an
open Council meeting, the information might be disseminated and misused by parties to target the States
unfairly and prematurely while they were still in the process of rectifying their safety-related deficiencies.
Those States might, as a result, respond negatively to further efforts by ICAO to rehabilitate their safety
programmes and/or safety systems. The Representative of Singapore therefore supported Option 2, partial
disclosure, whereby the names of such States would be provided orally to the Council in a closed meeting.
He indicated that the progress update by ARRB could be in writing, while care must be exercised not to
reveal the identities of the referred States in the report. The Representative of Singapore underscored that the
ARRB should reveal to the Council the names of the States referred to it under the USOAP only after
proposals for assistance were nearly exhausted and the said States had not shown sufficient progress in
rectifying their deficiencies. The Council could then step in to deliberate on the next best course of action.
He thus endorsed Option 2, on the understanding that the ARRB would continue to strengthen its internal
processes and develop clear guidelines on when the referred States’ identities should be revealed as part of
ARRB’s regular progress update to the Council.
45. The Representative of Brazil considered that Option 3, the maintenance of the status quo,
was not suitable. In his view, it was the duty of the Council to have an overview of not only the positive
developments in civil aviation but also the problems being encountered. The Representative of Brazil
therefore preferred Option 1 so that the Council could work effectively. He did not like having the Council
Representatives being the only ones who were not informed about one of the subjects with which the
Organization was dealing.
- 59 - C-MIN 186/7
46. The Representative of Uganda emphasized that, as the governing body of ICAO, the
Council needed to have information regarding the names of those States referred to the ARRB under the
USOAP so that it could make correct and effective decisions. However, it was necessary to be careful as it
was a new procedure and the Secretariat did not know how it was viewed by States. He therefore considered
that the Council should adopt the second option, partial disclosure, for the time being and review the matter
in the coming sessions in light of experience gained. To a question raised by the Representative regarding
paragraph 4.3 of the paper, the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau (D/ANB) clarified that under Option 2
the said information would be provided to the Council orally in a closed meeting. Thus only the Council
would have access to the information; no other States that were observers would have any knowledge of the
States that needed a particular type of assistance to rectify their safety-related deficiencies or of the States that
wished to work with other States in a partnership to provide assistance.
47. The Representative of the Russian Federation recalled that Operative Clause 6 of Assembly
Resolution A36-2 (Unified strategy to resolve safety-related deficiencies) directed the Council “to apply and
review, as necessary, the procedures to inform Contracting States, within the scope of Article 54 j) of the
Chicago Convention, in the case of a State having significant shortcomings with respect to ICAO
safety-related SARPs in order for other Contracting States to take action in an adequate and timely manner;”.
He further noted that in Operative Clause 1 a) of the Declaration adopted by the Directors General of Civil
Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety (DGCA/06) on 22 March 2006 the DGCAs
committed to reinforcing the global aviation safety framework by “sharing as soon as possible appropriate
safety-related information among States, all other aviation stakeholders and the public, including the
disclosure of information on the results of their safety oversight audit as soon as possible and, in any case,
not later than 23 March 2008;”. While recognizing that in providing the Council with the names of those
States which had been referred to the ARRB by the USOAP the Secretariat would not be distributing new
information, the Representative of the Russian Federation stressed that such information should not be used
as a blacklist, for the purpose of discrimination against the said States. The purpose of disclosing such
information was to ensure the timely provision of assistance to the said States in rectifying their safety-related
deficiencies. He noted, in this context, that his State donated $120 000 per year to the International Financial
Facility for Aviation Safety (IFFAS) and wished its contribution to be used as efficiently as possible. The
Representative of the Russian Federation thus supported Option 2.
48. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates underscored that the risks to aviation safety
were growing everywhere and that the list of States referred to the ARRB by the USOAP in 2009, which had
already grown from the 2008 list, would likewise grow by the time the Council next discussed this subject.
He emphasized that shying away from addressing the problem head-on was counter-productive and in fact
undermined the credibility of the USOAP. Stressing that the Council was responsible for ensuring that
aviation remained safe all over the world, the Representative of the United Arab Emirates indicated that he
had no difficulty in accepting either Option 1 or Option 2 as the action was necessary. He fully endorsed the
comment made by the Representative of the Russian Federation that the names of States referred to the
ARRB under the USOAP should not be considered as a blacklist. The Representative of the United Arab
Emirates did not think that it would be and did not think that it was the intention of the Secretariat to do so.
He suggested that any action taken by the Council, whether the acceptance of Option 1 or Option 2, should
be closely co-ordinated with the regional aviation bodies that had representatives to ICAO, with the States
concerned and with potential donor States.
49. While embracing the notion of transparency, the Representative of Namibia averred that it
was necessary to carefully study the safety, economic and political implications of the various options
C-MIN 186/7 - 60 -
proposed in the paper before reaching a decision. Underscoring that Option 1, full disclosure, represented a
quantum leap over hurdles, he stressed that the adoption of that option without full knowledge of its possible
advantages and disadvantages for the development of civil aviation in the developing world would be
counter-productive and might also lead to economic sanctions for some of the airlines of the States referred
to the ARRB under the USOAP. Referring to the third option, maintenance of the status quo, the
Representative of Namibia emphasized that he did not believe in doing nothing as the situation would only
degenerate. He therefore fully supported Option 2, partial disclosure, as that would enable the Council to do
its work, to progress and to learn on the basis of trial and error, which would pave the way to full disclosure
once the Council knew what the associated benefits would be. The Representative of Namibia endorsed the
comments made by the Representative of the Russian Federation that the list of the names of States referred
to the ARRB by the USOAP should not end up being used as an economic instrument against smaller States.
50. Having listened to the explanations provided by previous speakers, the Representative of
Cameroon considered that there was an urgent need to introduce partial disclosure which would evolve over
time into full disclosure. He therefore supported Option 2. The Representative of Cameroon averred that
Option 3, the maintenance of the status quo, did not meet the terms of Assembly Resolution A36-2.
51. Observing that most Representatives who had taken the floor had expressed a preference for
Option 2, the Representative of Nigeria noted that it was the Representative of Singapore who had captured
the essence of the issue. He underscored that the USOAP audits only provided a snapshot of a State’s safety
situation and that the latter changed. The Representative of Nigeria also emphasized that the referral of States
to the ARRB under the Article 54 j) procedure was not the level at which the Council took a decision; rather
it was only when every effort had been made to assist the State concerned and the latter still did not
demonstrate the political will to rectify its identified deficiencies that the matter came before the Council.
The Council was now only considering the referral of States to the ARRB. The Representative of Nigeria
recalled that, during its discussion of a previous progress report of the ARRB (185/3), the Council had
requested a paper proposing rules for the presentation of future ARRB activity reports taking into account the
views expressed, in particular, that the names of those States which had been referred to the ARRB under the
USOAP should be provided orally in a closed meeting of the Council. The Council had thus actually given
guidance to the Secretariat that it wished Option 2. While the Representative of Nigeria understood, from the
comments made by D/ANB in introducing C-WP/13295, that she favoured full disclosure (Option 1), the
Council had discussed the matter in great detail and preferred partial disclosure (Option 2).
52. Referring to the comments made regarding the co-ordination of assistance, the
Representative of Nigeria noted that the AFI Comprehensive Implementation Programme (ACIP) gap
analysis determined the safety situation in a given State. The projects developed to rectify identified
deficiencies were incorporated into the ICAO Database of Assistance Projects (IDAP). There was thus an
avenue for States to co-ordinate the provision of assistance under the USOAP. The Representative of Nigeria
emphasized the importance of balancing the need for transparency with the need to protect the information
regarding the names of States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP from being used for purposes other
than the provision of assistance.
53. The Representative of Saudi Arabia recalled that his State had endorsed the principle of full
transparency at DGCA/06. He nonetheless agreed with the Representative of Singapore on the need for clear
guidelines on when the referred States’ identities should be revealed as part of ARRB’s regular progress
update to the Council and suggested that the Secretariat report to the Council in a year’s time on the
implementation of the chosen option.
- 61 - C-MIN 186/7
54. The Representative of France underscored that the criterion that should guide the Council in
making its selection was which option would provide the best solution for enhancing aviation safety
throughout the world. He noted that for many years the Organization had considered that transparency would
be the best solution. DGCA/06 had considered that the publication of USOAP audit results was the best
solution. Furthermore, Operative Clause 6 of Assembly Resolution A36-2 directed the Council to apply the
procedures to inform Contracting States, within the scope of Article 54 j) of the Chicago Convention, in the
case of a State having significant shortcomings with regard to ICAO safety-related SARPs so that all of the
other Contracting States, and not only those represented on the Council, could take action in an adequate and
timely manner. The Representative of France thus considered that Option 1, full disclosure, would be the
best option.
55. The Representative of the United Kingdom also favoured Option 1. He recalled that when
the Council had previously discussed this issue, it had been considered that there was a risk that a State
referred to the ARRB under the USOAP would be stigmatized. The Secretariat had since developed
sufficient expertise to ensure that only those States with significant safety concerns were referred to the
ARRB. He underscored that the Council was not seeking an economic instrument that could be used against
those States but one that could be used in their favour as their identification would enable the world at large
to see which States needed assistance in rectifying their safety-related deficiencies and to provide that
assistance in the best possible way. The Representative of the United Kingdom therefore considered that
Option 1 was the option that the Council should adopt as it was the only one which would assist the States
referred to the ARRB.
56. In light of the need to improve transparency and efficiency in the allocation of funds, the
Representative of Japan supported Option 1, as recommended by D/ANB. However, given the sensitive
nature of disclosing the names of those States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP, he endorsed the
proposals made by the Representative of Mexico for full disclosure of the names of States referred to the
ARRB by the USOAP by means of a restricted working paper which would be considered by the Council in
a closed meeting and the non-disclosure of the names of States referred to the ARRB by the USAP.
57. The Representative of Romania supported Option 1, not only because he had represented
Romania at the DGCA/06 but also because he considered that States did not have anything to hide. He could,
however, for the sake of consensus, also support Option 2, subject to donor States and international
organizations being provided with information on States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP needing
assistance in rectifying their safety-related deficiencies.
58. The Representative of Egypt considered that the Council should begin with Option 2,
whereby the names of States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP would be disclosed orally in a closed
meeting of the Council, as a preliminary measure. The Council could later review its choice and determine
if the desired objective had been achieved, if the Council had been assisted in its decision-making and if there
had been any adverse impacts on the States referred to the ARRB. It could then decide whether or not to
adopt Option 1.
59. In speaking in favour of Option 2, the Representative of Ecuador endorsed the comments
made by the Representatives of Singapore and the Russian Federation. He underscored that, as indicated in
paragraph 3.4 of the paper, certain procedures should be put in place to ensure that a minimum level of
confidentiality was retained in the event that the Council agreed to the disclosure of the names of States
referred to the ARRB under the USOAP. Noting that stigmatizing such States would not assist them in the
development of their civil aviation sector, the Representative of Ecuador stressed the need to ensure that such
C-MIN 186/7 - 62 -
States were not discriminated against. He agreed with the Representative of Romania that donor States and
international organizations should be provided with information on such States requiring assistance in
rectifying their safety-related deficiencies.
60. While in favour of transparency, the Representative of Venezuela expressed concern that
the names of those States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP could be used inappropriately. He would
support Option 2 as long as the procedures referred to in paragraph 3.4 of the paper were implemented so as
to forestall any negative impacts on the said States.
61. The Representative of China indicated that he could accept either Option 1 or Option 2. He
emphasized the need to take into account in the Council’s decision that disclosure of the names of States
referred to the ARRB under the USOAP should only be used for the purpose of improving aviation safety,
the same purpose for which the results of accident investigations were disclosed, and that it should not be
used as an instrument against the States concerned.
62. Noting that his State believed in transparency, the Representative of Australia indicated that
he supported Option 1 but could accept Option 2.
63. Sharing this view, the Representative of Italy stressed that if Option 2 were adopted, then a
procedure should be developed to allow ICAO to provide potential donor States and international
organizations, including the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the
World Bank (WB), with information on States needing assistance in rectifying their safety-related
deficiencies.
64. In supporting Option 1, the Representative of Iceland indicated that he found it strange that
information that was already available to all States on the SOA secure website could not be fully disclosed to
the Council as the governing body of ICAO.
65. Endorsing the comments made by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Iceland,
the Representative of Germany also spoke in favour of Option 1.
66. The Representative of South Africa noted that although he supported the DGCA/06
Declaration on transparency and disclosure, the subsequent blacklisting by European Union (EU) Member
States of some African and Asian airlines had led him to believe that it was necessary to adopt a careful and
strategic approach so as to prevent a recurrence. He thus considered that Option 2 was the right way forward.
67. The Representative of Nigeria emphasized that there was a need for the Secretariat to
provide an informal briefing on the benefits which States referred to the ARRB under the USOAP would
derive from the disclosure of their names to the Council so that the latter could assess whether or not it was
worthwhile. He agreed with the Representative of Italy on the need for clear procedures for handling
information regarding the names of such States. The Representative of Nigeria further underscored that there
was a need for Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) to be concluded between ICAO and donor States and
international organizations to ensure that such information would not be misused. The Representatives of
Namibia, the Russian Federation and Uganda also considered that MOUs should be signed with potential
donors.
- 63 - C-MIN 186/7
68. Stressing that the information that would be made available to potential donors was already
available on the SOA secure website, D/ANB maintained that MOUs would be unnecessary. The
Representative of the United Arab Emirates was of the same view.
69. In then taking the action suggested by the President of the Council in light of the discussion,
the Council:
a) agreed to Option 2, whereby the names of States referred to the ARRB under the
USOAP would be presented to the Council orally and in a closed session; and
b) agreed that the Secretariat could provide donor States and international
organizations with information on States needing assistance, on the understanding
that such information would only be used for the purpose of improving safety.
Other business
Addition of a new item to the work programme for the 186th Session
70. The President of the Council indicated that, as requested by twenty-three Representatives in
a letter dated 26 February 2009, the item “Review of the External Auditor’s Work Programme and Calendar
of Audits” had been included as a supplementary item in the Council’s work programme for the
current (186th) Session (C-WP/13261). Further to a query by the Representative of Saudi Arabia, the
Representative of France provided clarification regarding the mandate of the External Auditor, Cour des
Comptes of France, under Financial Regulation 13.5 of The ICAO Financial Regulations (Doc 7515), to
conduct performance audits in the context of an upcoming audit of the Technical Co-operation
Bureau (TCB).

- 65 - C-MIN 186/8
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Canada —*Mr. L.A. Dupuis Romania —*Mr. C. Cotrut
El Salvador — Mr. J.A. Aparicio Borjas Spain — Mr. J. Herrero (Alt.)
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa United Arab Emirates —*Mr. J. Haidar
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)

*Dr. Rafael Espada, Vice President, Guatemala Ms. N. Graham — D/ANB
*Mr. O.R. Nundu, President, ANC *Mr. R.J. Heighes-Theissen D/TCB
Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina *Mrs. F.A. Odutola D/ATB
Mr. R. Macfarlane (Alt.) Australia *Dr. Fang Liu D/ADB
Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil *Mr. A.R. Diallo C/HRB
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil *Mr. R. Bhalla C/FIN
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada *Mr. M. Fox — C/FLS
*Mme M. Deshaies (Alt.) Canada *Mr. V.P. Galotti — C/ATM
Mr. Feng Tai (Alt.) China *Mr. Berti C/SFP
Mr. E.N. Mendez (Alt.) Dominican Republic *Mr. L. Koukoui C/ISEC
*Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) France *Mr. Y. Fattah — ANPO
*Mr. B. Thebault (Alt.) France *Dr. K. Rooney TO/FLS
*Part-time
C-MIN 186/8 - 66 -
ALSO PRESENT: (CONTINUED) SECRETARIAT:

Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) — Iceland *Mr. C.M. Dalton TO/ATM
Mr. W. Yoshioka (Alt.) — Japan Mr. J.S. Thacker C/SFP
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico Ms. L. Lim Budget officer
Mr. Seo, W.-S (Alt.) Republic of Korea Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.) United Arab Emirates
*Part-time
- 67 - C-MIN 186/8
Statement by Dr. José Rafael Espada, Vice-President of Guatemala
1. The Council heard a statement pronounced by Dr. José Rafael Espada, the Vice President
of Guatemala.
Subject No. 6.3: Election of chairmen and members of subsidiary bodies of the Council
Appointment of an Alternate on the Air Navigation Commission
2. The Council appointed Mr. Christian Schleifer (nominated by the Government of

Switzerland on behalf of the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland) as Alternate to Mr. M. de Jong on the ANC with effect from
1 April 2009. The nomination was presented in C-WP/13334.
Appointment of an Alternate and a Member on the Air Navigation Commission
3. The Council appointed Mr. Rolf Monning (nominated by the Government of Germany) as
Alternate to Mr. T. Burlage on the Air Navigation Commission with effect from 9 March 2009. The Council
appointed Mr. Monning to succeed Mr. Burlage as a Member of the Air Navigation Commission with effect
from 20 April 2009, and appointed Mr. Burlage as his Alternate until further notice. The nominations were
presented in C-WP/13335.
4. The Representative of Australia noted with interest that the two nominations to the
Commission under the preceding agenda items both had engineering backgrounds, and wondered whether
the Commission gave consideration to the make-up of the ANC and the possibility of adopting a process to
ensure that one specialization was not overrepresented. The Representative of Australia suggested that the
Council consider the possibility of establishing a small working group which could review the matter and
make some recommendations.
Report of ANC — Work Programme of ANC for the 181st Session
5. The Council approved the work programme for the 181st Session of the Air Navigation
Commission, documented in a report of the ANC (C-WP/13297).
6. Under general comments, the Representative of South Africa noted a proposal to establish
a Wake Turbulence Study Group, and suggested that the ANC seek data from three airlines in particular, i.e.
Qantas, Emirates and Singapore Airlines, which flew Airbus A380, the aircraft which was having some
difficulty with wake turbulence. The ANC could also seek information from the appropriate airports.
D/ANB confirmed that the Organization had working arrangements with the three airlines referred to by the
Representative of South Africa, although the ANC had yet to review the information which had been
provided by those airlines. A number of groups had worked on different aspects of wake turbulence, but a
request had been received from one State in particular which wanted to be included in that activity. It was
also clear that the scope of work on the subject would have to be broadened beyond the Airbus A380, and
look at wake turbulence in a more holistic way.
C-MIN 186/8 - 68 -
Subject No. 10: ICAO Relations with the United Nations, the specialized agencies and other
international organizations
Request of the International Committee for Airspace Standards and Calibration (ICASC)
for inclusion in the list of international organizations that may be invited
to attend suitable ICAO meetings
7. Following a review of C-WP/13328 on the above subject, presented by the President of the
Council, the Council agreed that the International Committee for Airspace Standards and
Calibration (ICASC) should be included in the list of international organizations that may be invited to
attend suitable ICAO meetings as observers (cf. Attachment to Memorandum SG 1946/07 dated
20 June 2007). It was noted that a revised list reflecting this change would be issued under cover of a
Secretary General’s memorandum.
Subject No. 15.4: Facilitation
Report of ATC – Amendment 21 to Annex 9 – Facilitation
8. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13300, in which the Air Transport Committee
presented proposals for new and amended Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for Annex 9 –
Facilitation.
9. During the Council’s review of the amendment material at Appendix A to C-WP/13300, it

was understood, in light of comments offered by the Representative of Romania and endorsed by a number
of speakers, as well as a drafting suggestion put forward by the Representative of China, that Note 1 to the
definition for “Aviation safety inspector”, which offered some examples of safety inspections, would be
amended to make it clear that these examples were not exhaustive and that other types of inspections were
covered by the definition. Note 2 to the same definition was deleted.
10. A linguistic point raised by the Representative of Saudi Arabia with respect to the Arabic
translation of the word “penalties” in the Recommended Practice at paragraph 6.9.1 was referred to the
Secretariat for verification.
Amendment 21 to Annex 9, the amendments contained in Appendix A to C-WP/13300. Subject to the
modifications recorded above, the Council approved the Notes in Appendix A as part of Amendment 21; and
approved the Draft Resolution of Adoption in Appendix B to C-WP/13300.
Subject No. 18.1: Annual budget

Subject No. 18.2: Transfers from one Major Programme of the budget to another
Financial Year 2008 – Report on the carry forward
12. The Council reviewed C-WP/13329, in which the Secretary General provided the status of
authorized appropriation of the Regular Budget for the financial year 2008, together with an oral report
presented by the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Based on the estimated expenditures for the year,
transfers of appropriations between Strategic Objectives and Supporting Implementation Strategies were
- 69 - C-MIN 186/8
proposed for Council approval, pursuant to relevant Financial Regulations. In addition, a proposal for carry
forward of appropriation was presented for the approval of the Council.
13. Presenting the report of the Finance Committee, its Chairman indicated that the following
should be noted as a consequence of the discussion.
14. Some Committee Members had noted that budgetary savings in the form of carry-over
belonged to Member States and should be returned to them. However, as a pragmatic matter, Member States
allowed ICAO to use the carry-over during the current triennium.
15. The necessity of funding of the ICAO Security Section (ISEC) had been questioned by some
Members. The Secretariat had provided justification, and the need to strengthen the Security Section had
been confirmed by one Committee Member.
16. The Committee had noted that almost $2.1 million of the total carry over of $2.4 million was
being proposed to be used for Supporting Implementation Strategies. Some Members had been of the view
that this was contrary to the spirit of the triennial budget which placed more emphasis on funding the
Strategic Objectives. However, the Secretariat had reiterated that these initiatives were either mandatory or
mission-critical activities and required additional funding.
17. There had been a suggestion by one Committee Member to request the Evaluation and Audit
Office (EAO) to perform an audit of the IRIS project.
18. The Representative of the United Kingdom indicated that he had been one of the Committee
Members who had had a problem with the ISEC proposal, which involved a sum of $352,000. This was the
first time that the Council and, through the Council, the Committee had seen this figure, and there had been
a considerable discussion in the Finance Committee. It was the view of the United Kingdom that the
Secretariat had not thought this through sufficiently and that this funding could be used in a much better way,
for example – and first and foremost – through delivering the Strategic Objectives. The Council had heard
earlier in the week about the chronic shortage of funding for aviation security, which must surely rank much
more highly than the ISEC proposal. In the spirit of compromise, the Representative of the United Kingdom
would accept that the Council keep a figure of $2,000 against the item as a place-marker, until the Secretariat
was able to make a full justification. He would not accept that $352,000 be reserved on the assumption that
the Secretariat would provide some justification at a later date.
19. The Representative of the United Kingdom also had some concerns about the financial
position of the Organization in a wider sense. This was a report on the status of the Regular Programme
Budget, but there were other budgets within the Organization, notably the Aviation Security Budget, the
ARGF, etc. It would be helpful to have a full picture of where the Organization’s finances sat, rather than just
this partial picture.
20. Responding to the first question raised by the Representative of the United Kingdom, the
Secretary General cautioned against not placing sufficient importance on being prepared for security
incidents. At two meetings of the Chief Executive Board, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had specified
that all of the UN Agencies were being targeted and all necessary security measures would have to be taken.
ICAO was considered the leading UN Organization in Montreal, and was also responsible for security at UN
agencies in Vancouver and Toronto, as well as the Regional Offices. The Secretary General read some
excerpts from a UN document on safety and security, in which certain directives were addressed to the
C-MIN 186/8 - 70 -
agencies, including ICAO. The responsibility to provide for safety and security lay with the host country, but
it was necessary for ICAO to also adopt the necessary security measures. There were many security issues
that Representatives were not, and should not, be aware of, with the exception of the Representative of the
host country.
21. The Representative of the United Kingdom thanked the Secretary General for having
provided an overview of the UN guidelines which could perhaps form the foundation of a paper which would
be presented to the Council together with a exposition of what was being done for security at the moment,
and what more would be achieved if the additional resources were provided. Throwing money at a problem
was not a solution, and it would be helpful if the Secretariat were to consider the options and come back to
Council with a proper explanation of what was being done at present, and what could be done more
effectively throughout the Secretariat as a whole. Council Members had a part to play, because they were all
part of the general security requirements. It would also be useful to have a better understanding of what was
required in terms of internal security, and what were the responsibilities of the host government and the
RCMP. There was also a need for clarification on ICAO’s responsibilities vis-à-vis the Regional Offices,
since it had earlier been asserted that the latter fell under the jurisdiction of their host countries. The
Secretary General concurred that security at the Regional Offices located in Paris and Nairobi fell within the
responsibility of other organizations; ICAO was responsible for security at the Regional Offices where there
were no leading organizations which could ensure security.
22. The Representative of France did not doubt that nobody present would wish to neglect
security issues, but believed that a few points would have to be borne in mind, the first being the scope of the
threat. The Secretary General had just told Representatives that they had and would continue to be kept in
darkness, so they were not aware of the scope of the threat. There was also a need to clarify the
responsibilities among the various stakeholders, i.e. the Organization itself, the host country and the RCMP.
As regards the United Nations, the Representative of France was not sure that these activities were related to
the agreement between ICAO and the UN. While he would be prepared to accept expenses for cameras and
detectors for the Headquarters garage, the proposal under consideration concerned strengthening the ISEC
Office, and not all Representatives were fully convinced as to how this would function. The Representative
of France therefore shared the concerns and endorsed the comments of the Representative of United
Kingdom.
23. The Representative of Germany indicated that it was the firm position of his Government
that carry-over monies which had not been spent during the previous year money had to be returned to the
Member States. When discussing, in the Finance Committee, the possibility of doing something else with
this money, he had a very limited discretion and was not at all in a position to approve an amount of $352,000
which was simply described as ‘additional resources’ for ISEC. He therefore fully agreed with the United
Kingdom on the need for a detailed paper identifying the uses for the funds, and the role of the RCMP, since
he did not think that security in the ICAO building would be compromised if administrative staff was not
assigned to ISEC.
24. The Representative of Mexico indicated that he had also been one of the Members of the
Committee who had objected to the approval of additional funding for the ISEC, and therefore supported all
that had been said by those who had spoken before him. The ISEC proposal did not concern infrastructure
but rather staff, so more information would be needed on the risk assessment and the measures which were
being contemplated to strengthen security. Members of the Council, the Governing Body of the
Organization, should be fully informed of all details related to any security threat, and should not be kept in
the dark as had been the case thus far. For these reasons, his Delegation was not in a position to approve the
- 71 - C-MIN 186/8
additional funding of $352,000, not on a point of principle but rather due to a lack of information. He would
therefore not be in favour of the solution proposed by the United Kingdom.
25. The Representative of the United States thanked the Secretary General for his comments
and clarifications, and for having quoted from the UN-wide efforts to improve the security of buildings and
UN personnel around the world. She recognized that this was a serious concern, and that it was important to
ensure security for buildings and personnel, and to prepare in advance for such circumstances.
The United States had specialised security personnel who had come to Montreal and consulted with C/ISEC.
The United States recognised that there were security concerns and threats, and that it was not totally
appropriate for every detail to be disseminated broadly among Council Members. Nevertheless, when
looking at the carry-over funds, it was necessary to make sure that they were well used. In that context, it
was important to have a better understanding of how the Secretariat considered that hiring additional
personnel would lead to an improvement in the security posture of ICAO and the other UN entities in Canada.
There may very well be alternative expenditures of that money that could truly enhance the security posture.
26. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates sympathized with the concerns expressed
by other Representatives, but was aware, on the basis of his own experience as an aviation security specialist,
that security matters were highly sensitive and crucial. The Organization would, for example, be convening
a Diplomatic Conference that would be attended by very senior officials from all the Contracting States of
ICAO. He would therefore support the Secretary General’s proposal.
27. The Representative of Brazil observed that the administration was responsible not only for
security at ICAO Headquarters, but for the security of other buildings of UN agencies in Canada. In the best
of worlds, the Organization would be able to spend all of its resources on the Strategic Objectives; it was,
however, necessary to live with current-day realities, and it might be advisable to seek more information from
the Secretariat on which sectors of security would be the best for investing this money. The Council would
not want to be responsible for not having taken a pro-active position to prevent any security incidents.
28. The Representative of Nigeria, speaking in his capacity as a Representative as well as that
of Chairman of the Finance Committee, recalled that in the forum of the Committee some detailed
explanations had been provided, in particular by the Representative of Canada who had more insight into this
issue. Whereas he had been comfortable with the answers provided, three Members of the Finance
Committee had had the opportunity to express their concerns. It was clear that those same Representatives
still wanted additional information.
29. The Representative of South Africa requested clarification on arrangements for a possible
move for the Regional Office in Mexico City, and wished to know if there was a memorandum of
understanding on the subject. It was his understanding that in the case of the Regional Office in Dakar, for
example, the Senegalese Government would be facilitating the move at its own expense. Was the Mexican
Government not paying for that Office? The Representative of Mexico supported the request put forward by
the Representative of South Africa for more information on how the proposed amount of $300,000 would be
spent.
30. The Representative of Iceland indicated that like many other speakers, he could not accept
a proposal for using $352,000 for the ISEC Sections, and would need more information. He did not agree
with the proposal of the United Kingdom for retaining the item with a nominal sum until such further
information was received. The Representative of Saudi Arabia also indicated that he would need to be
provided with a plan indicating what the funds would be used for before agreeing to the proposal.
C-MIN 186/8 - 72 -
31. The Representative of the United States observed, in the interest of reaching a pragmatic
compromise, that all Representatives recognised that there was an importance to focus on preventive
measures for the security of buildings and personnel but that it would be useful, when the Secretariat
provided this additional information, to look at a cost-benefit analysis and compare how hiring additional
personnel would necessarily improve the security posture of UN buildings in Canada versus how spending
that money for something else might do better in terms of improving the security posture. The Representative
of Italy supported the statement of the United States Representative.
32. Referring to the oral report of the Chairman of the Finance Committee, the Representative
of France indicated that he had been the Committee Member who had requested the Evaluation and audit
Office (EAO) to perform an audit of the IRIS project. He recognized that IT projects always took longer and
cost more than expected, but had noted that on a regular basis, the Secretariat came to the Council with
requests for new appropriations for the IRIS project. He therefore proposed that the Council request an EAO
audit on this project to verify how it was designed and conducted.
33. The Chairman of the Finance Committee indicated that it had been the Representative of
France who had requested an audit of the IRIS project, but that his request had received no support from
other Members and had simply been mentioned for the purpose of the record.
34. The Representative of the United States recalled that the Secretariat had provided some
good background information on progress being made on computer upgrades; there was always an
expectation that the costs would run over, and some additional requirements had been introduced. She
would therefore not favour an EAO audit. The Representative of South Africa endorsed the position of the
Representative of the United States.
35. In light of the discussion, the Council excluded the item entitled “ISEC – Additional
resources” and the corresponding amount of CAD 352,000 from its approval of the proposals in
C-WP/13329. The Secretary General was requested to provide further information on that item during the
current (186th) Session.
36. In taking action on the basis of the proposals in C-WP/13329, as modified, the Council:
a) pursuant to Financial Regulation 5.6, approved the roll over of CAD 4 263 000 in
appropriations for elements/activities which span the entire triennium;
b) pursuant to Financial Regulation 5.6, approved the carry-over of CAD 2 411 000 minus
CAD 352 000 related to the “ISEC – Additional resources” item referred to above to
2009 for mandatory and other mission-critical activities not originally budgeted for;
c) pursuant to Financial Regulation 5.9, approved the transfer of appropriations from all
Strategic Objectives and Supporting Implementation Strategy – Programme Support
that exceed the 10 per cent threshold:
-Strategic Objective F: Rule of Law – of CAD 360 000

-Supporting Implementation Strategy – Management and Administration of
CAD 2 374 000;
- 73 - C-MIN 186/8
d) noted other adjustments approved by the Secretary General pursuant to Financial

Regulation 5.6 that are within the 10 per cent threshold; and
e) subject to the exception of the “ISEC – Additional resources” item referred to at

sub-paragraph b) above, authorized the Secretary General to make adjustment in the
approved carry-over amounts to 2009 that may be required by actual final expenditure
at the end of the financial year 2008.
37. It was noted that the Secretary General’s next sessional report on the financial situation of
the Organization, to be presented during the 187th Session, would provide an update on other funds. A
request for information on the staffing situation in the Finance Branch was also noted.
Progress report on issues relating to protecting the purchasing power

of the ICAO budget (split assessment)
38. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in a paper presented by
the Secretary General (C-WP/13308) and a report of the Finance Committee (C-WP/13309).
39. The Representative of Egypt wished to know if it was at all possible for a country to pay its
assessment in a different currency, if that payment was equivalent to the required amount in either Canadian
or United States dollars. C/FIN indicated that according to the regulations, States had to pay their
assessments in the currency in which they had been assessed. If a State wished to pay in another currency,
the Organization’s ability to accept that currency was contingent upon its ability to spend in that currency.
In theory therefore, it was not possible.
40. The Representative of Namibia recalled that during a previous discussion on split
assessments, his Delegation had pointed out that Namibia would have difficulty paying its assessment in
Canadian dollars because they were not in circulation in some States. States in the region which he
represented were encountering delays in payments for this reason. The Representative of Namibia proposed
that States be allowed to pay in United States dollars only, and not be required to cover currency fluctuations
between the Canadian and United States dollars. The Representative of South Africa supported the
comments offered by the Representative of Namibia. The Chairman of the Finance Committee indicated that
in the forum of the FIC, the Secretariat had clarified that the total contribution of States assessed at the
minimum contribution was only 0.8 percent. The administrative burden associated with paying that
minimum contribution was much more than the amount of money that was being contributed by some of
those States. For this reason, States could be asked to pay in one currency, with any shortfall in exchange
fluctuation passed to those States. This would remove any problems associated with processing payments in
two currencies.
41. The Representative of Germany believed that if a country had access to United States dollars,
it should not be so difficult to change them on the market into Canadian dollars. He was surprised that this
issue was being raised at this time and not in June of 2008 when the Council had decided (184/3) to go ahead
with the split assessment. The Representative of Japan concurred with the views expressed by the
Representative of Germany.
C-MIN 186/8 - 74 -
42. The Representative of Mexico had the understanding that when the Council had decided to
approve the move to the split assessment arrangement (184/3), it had been on the understanding that States
which pay the minimum contribution could do so only in United States dollars. This last point was
confirmed by the President of the Council, who indicated that Article 6.6 of the Financial Regulation
provided the necessary flexibility.
43. In taking action on the basis of the proposals in C-WP/13308 and 13309, the Council noted
the progress which had been made in respect to deploying split assessment on 1 January 2010. Due to further
concerns raised with the implementation of a split assessment system, the Secretariat would re-examine the
risk of split assessment and survey other UN agencies to determine what measures they had in place to
promote on-time payment from Member States. The proposed amendments to the Financial Regulations
would not be approved until a firm policy on the measures to be taken for delays in payments was made.
44. The Council recognized the difficulties which the split assessment caused some States with
a different financial year from that of ICAO.
Other business
Statement by Representative of the Republic of Korea
45. A statement presented by the Representative of the Republic of Korea in connection with an
announcement which had been made on 9 March 2009 by authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea to the effect that “safety cannot be guaranteed for the Republic of Korea’s civilian airplanes flying
the airspace and its vicinity” was supported by Representatives on the Council.
46. The ICAO Council, expressing its serious concerns regarding threats to the safety and
security of international civil aviation, further called upon the Government of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea to take no action that might jeopardize the safety of persons or property and reaffirmed
that air traffic safety is of paramount importance.
47. The Council requested its President to convey its great concerns to the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, requesting that it withdraw its declaration and abide by the Chicago Convention.
- 75 - C-MIN 186/9 (Closed)
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING
CLOSED MEETING
PRESENT:
Brazil — Mr. R.S. Magno Republic of Korea — Mr. Kim, C.-H.
El Salvador — Mrs. V.P. Pichinte Chacón (Alt.) Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier
Mexico — Mr. D. Méndez Mayora

Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. J. Begin — C/CRC
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China Mr. P. O’Hare — C/ICT
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. L. Koukoui — C/ISEC
Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) France Mr. D. de Andrade — ATB
Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Italy Miss S. Black — Précis-writer
Mr. Seo, W.-S. (Alt.) Republic of Korea
Mr. S. Drolet and team KPMG
C-MIN 186/9 (Closed) - 76 -
Subject No. 18.8: Financial statements and Reports of the External Auditor
Report of the External Auditor on audit activities in 2008 — Update on investigations
1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13330 Restricted, in which the Secretary General
reported on the outcome of consultations with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and on the
forensic audit and investigation carried out by the company KPMG into the activities of two individuals
working for ICAO, Mr. J. Renaud and Mr. F. Souka. KPMG’s final report had been delivered to the
Secretary General on 19 January 2009. Extracts thereof, namely the “Executive Summary” and “Our Key
Findings and Observations”, were appended to the paper.
2. A team from KPMG led by Mr. S. Drolet, the partner in charge of KPMG’s forensic practice
in Montréal and of ICAO’s forensic audit and investigation, presented KPMG’s final report. In summarizing
the results, Mr. Drolet indicated that, after completing the in-depth forensic technology work and the data
analytics on ICAO’s payroll and procurement systems, KPMG had not found any evidence linking the
individuals under review to potentially fraudulent or wrongful activities targeting ICAO or third parties
conducting business with ICAO.
3. Responding to a question raised by the Representative of Canada regarding paragraph 5.2.1

of the report, KPMG noted that the e-mails between Mr. Renaud’s ICAO account and his Hotmail account,
many of which contained Microsoft Excel files as attachments, was not a normal procedure for employees to
follow. However, as the said files were returned to Mr. Renaud’s ICAO account, it appeared that their
transfer to his Hotmail account was not malfeasance but rather to assist Mr. Renaud in working at home. Had
it been malfeasance, it would not have been expected that the files would have been returned to Mr. Renaud’s
ICAO account. KPMG noted that ICAO had confirmed that all of the said files appeared to be related to
Mr. Renaud’s job responsibilities. To a point raised by the Representative of Namibia, KPMG indicated that,
as it had not been part of its mandate to interview any of the individuals under review, it had not questioned
Mr. Renaud regarding the transfer of ICAO Microsoft Excel files to his Hotmail account. The Secretary
General underscored that as Mr. Renaud and Mr. Souka had by that time been arrested, it would not have
been possible for KPMG to interview them.
4. To a further query by the Representative of France regarding future financial transactions,

KPMG indicated that as no evidence whatsoever had been found in the analysis of the computer hard drives,
e-mails and payroll and procurement systems of any fraudulent or wrongful activities targeting ICAO or third
parties conducting business with the Organization, it had been considered that the probability of future
financial transactions having been affected was extremely low. It had therefore been decided not to obtain the
scripts for the banking systems to verify if there had been any modification in the migration from the legacy
financial system to the new system.
5. The Representative of France observed that the extracts of KPMG’s report appended to
C-WP/13330 Restricted referred only to Mr. Renaud, whereas there had been even greater concerns
regarding Mr. Souka since the latter had had access to all of the Organization’s information technology
applications. KPMG clarified that Mr. Souka’s activities, as well as those of two other ICAO employees, had
been investigated and that the results were reflected in the full text of the report.
6. In noting that the investigation had been carried out in close cooperation with ICAO, with
the latter having, inter alia, approved the file type criteria for the filtering of e-mail and loose files and the
key words used in searching those documents, the Representative of France sought further information on
- 77 - C-MIN 186/9 (Closed)
KPMG’s working methodology. He also requested clarification regarding paragraph 5.2.2 of the report,
which indicated that KPMG had provided ICAO with a CD containing loose file data from Mr. Renaud’s
personal computer that “could not be reviewed by KPMG for professional reasons unrelated to the ICAO
investigation”. Recalling, from the presentation of KPMG’ report, that some sensitive information had been
contained in the Microsoft Excel files transferred between Mr. Renaud’s ICAO account and his Hotmail
account, the Representative of France underscored that all ICAO employees, including any seconded
personnel, were bound by an oath of confidentiality. In questioning how Mr. Renaud had been able to
transfer such sensitive ICAO documents to his personal computer, he enquired as to what action could be
taken to prevent a recurrence of such action.
7. Indicating that his greatest concern related to the key payroll and procurement findings set
forth in paragraphs 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of the report, the Representative of France queried how three ICAO
employees could have similar address information as compared to the individuals under review and how
forty-four vendor addresses/postal codes could be identical to those of current employees. While noting that
KPMG considered that those findings were “not necessarily the result of fraud or misconduct and could be
the result of human/system errors, or simply data that is unusual in nature”, he considered that there was a
problem and requested additional information.
8. In sharing the same concern, the Representative of Venezuela enquired whether the
keywords used in the searching of the e-mails and loose files were one hundred per cent reliable. In affirming
that they were, KPMG noted that the list of keywords had been developed on the basis of its past experience
in conducting investigations and on the functions of the individuals under review. The keywords were
focussed on a larger scale than the investigation so as to ensure that any misconduct would be revealed.
KPMG was very confident that if any wrongful activities had taken place, they would have been highlighted
by the keyword searching of the e-mails and loose files.
9. Replying to the other questions raised, KPMG noted that, in any investigation of this nature,
KPMG and any consultants working on the case would have a limited understanding of the customer’s work.
Its investigations were thus always conducted in close cooperation with the customer. ICAO personnel from
the Information and Communication Technology Section (ICT) had been involved in the investigation in
order to provide KPMG with information on the roles of the individuals under review, their daily activities
and the kinds of documents that they regularly worked on. With reference to paragraph 5.2.2 of the report,
KPMG clarified that as KPMG itself was involved in a lawsuit against the Norbourg Financial Group, it had
not been in a position to review the said loose file data from Mr. Renaud’s personal computer and had
therefore turned the files over to ICAO’s ICT security personnel for review.
10. With respect to paragraphs 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of the report, KPMG noted that some current
ICAO employees were hired by the Organization to do outsourced translation. Consequently, they were set
up in the vendor master file as vendors. KPMG had turned over its payroll and procurement findings to
ICAO to perform a detailed follow-up.
11. Recalling that the forensic audit and investigation had been requested by ICAO precisely
because the said individuals had been involved in the Norbourg Financial Group fraud case, the
Representative of France emphasized that it was a conflict of interest for KPMG to be involved in a lawsuit
against the Norbourg Financial Group. He averred that KPMG should not have bid to conduct the forensic
audit and investigation and that ICAO should not have hired that company.
C-MIN 186/9 (Closed) - 78 -
12. In sharing this concern, the Representative of Canada enquired whether KPMG’s
pre-existing involvement in litigation with the Norbourg Financial Group had been declared before it
accepted the assignment from ICAO.
13. The Secretary General recalled that when he had requested the RCMP for assistance in
conducting an investigation of ICAO information systems of possible fraudulent wrongdoings by
Mr. Renaud and Mr. Souka following their arrest for their involvement in the Norbourg Financial Group
fraud case, the RCMP had indicated that it could only undertake an investigation if criminal wrongdoing
were to be uncovered as a result of a forensic audit. The RCMP had actually recommended KPMG to
conduct such an audit. A call for tenders had subsequently been issued and KPMG had been selected.
14. KPMG confirmed that its involvement in litigation with the Norbourg Financial Group had
been declared prior to its acceptance of ICAO’s assignment.
15. Having completed its deliberations, the Council noted C-WP/13330 Restricted. The
President of the Council expressed appreciation to the KPMG team for having presented its forensic and
investigative report and for having taken part in the discussion.
16. The Secretary General then informed the Council that, as requested by the latter in its earlier
decision on this subject (C-DEC 185/5), he had received on Friday, 20 February 2009, together with the
President of the Council, Mr. J. Houde, Vice-Minister of Finance of the Government of Québec. Pursuant to
the Council’s decision, the Secretary General had explained to the Vice-Minister of Finance that the reason
for his request for a meeting was in response to the Council’s decision that the Council had “expressed its
deep concern and disappointment that an individual had been offered to ICAO for secondment, with strong
endorsement as to his capabilities, when it was known he was under investigation for finance-related issues,
and that this information was not passed to the Secretary General.” (cf. C-DEC 185/5, paragraph 6). The
Vice-Minister of Finance had apologized for all inconveniences caused to the Organization as a result of
Mr. Renaud working at ICAO. However, the Vice-Minister of Finance had maintained that the Ministry had
had no prior knowledge that Mr. Renaud was under criminal investigation when his services had been
offered to ICAO.
17. The Secretary General had further informed the Vice-Minister of Finance of the Council’s
request to meet with the individual’s permanent employer to discuss issues relating to current and future
secondment of staff (cf. C-DEC 185/5, paragraph 7). On this subject, he had informed the Vice-Minister of
Finance that the Organization would not be renewing the Memorandum of Understanding related to the
secondee from the Government of Québec who was currently working in the Revenue-Generating Activities
Unit, which was expiring at the end of March 2009. In the spirit of continued cooperation, the Vice-Minister
of Finance had informed that the Government of Québec was prepared to offer assistance to ICAO with the
secondment of another expert. To this offer, the Secretary General had advised that in accordance with the
revised policy for the secondment of personnel and Memorandum of Understanding, which was currently
under review by the Human Resources Committee and the Council, ICAO would be pleased to consider an
offer for the future secondment of staff from the Government of Québec.
18. The Council noted the above statement by the Secretary General, on the understanding that
the text thereof would be distributed to Representatives.
19. The Council went into open session at 1100 hours to consider the remaining items on its
order of business.
- 79 - C-MIN 186/9 (Open)
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
El Salvador — Mrs. V. Pichinte Chacón (Alt.) Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier

Mr. O.R. Nundu, President, ANC Ms. N. Graham — D/ANB
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. R.J. Heighes-Theissen — D/TCB
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Dr. Fang Liu — D/ADB
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China Mr. J. Begin — C/CRC
Mr. B. Thébault (Alt.) France Mr. M. Fox — C/FLS
Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Italy Mr. S.N. Ahmad — C/SER
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico Dr. K. Rooney — TO/FLS
Mr. Seo, W.-S (Alt.) Republic of Korea Mrs. L. Comeau-Stuart — CO/REC/EST
Mr. Yoo, H.-J. (Alt.) Republic of Korea Miss S. Black — Précis-writer
C-MIN 186/9 (Open) - 80 -
Subject No. 14.4.3: Panels
Report of ANC — Proposed amendment to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport
of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) with respect to mixtures of dangerous goods and
classification of Division 1.4S explosives
1. The Council considered C-WP/13332 (with Corrigendum), in which the Air Navigation
Commission (ANC) presented a proposal to amend the 2009-2010 edition of the Technical Instructions for
the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) with respect to mixtures of dangerous goods and
classification of Division 1.4S explosives. The Corrigendum to the paper contained a replacement to the
proposed new Special Provision A165 set forth in Appendix B to C-WP/13332 which reflected a transitional
period before that requirement became mandatory. A linguistic point raised by the Representative of Ecuador
regarding the Spanish version of the Technical Instructions was noted for verification and appropriate action.
2. The Representatives of Ecuador and Nigeria expressed support for the proposed
amendments to the Technical Instructions. In so doing, the Representative of Nigeria queried whether the
methodology of removing detailed technical specifications from Annex 18 (The Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air) and placing them in a separate document, the Technical Instructions for the Safe
Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284), could be used in restructuring Annex 10 (Aeronautical
Telecommunications). Observing that it was a creative alternative, the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau
(D/ANB) indicated that it would be taken into consideration during the review of that Annex.
3. In then taking the action recommended by the ANC in the executive summary of
C-WP/13332, the Council approved, as an addendum to the 2009-2010 edition of the Technical Instructions
for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284), the amendments presented in Appendix A
and Appendix B, as modified in the Corrigendum to the paper.
Subject No. 42: Technical co-operation
Technical Co-operation Programme Development
4. The Council considered this subject on the basis of C-WP/13301 presented by the Secretary
General and C-WP/13302, a report thereon by the Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC).
5. Noting, from the action proposed in paragraph b) of the executive summary of C-WP/13301,
that during the first half of 2009 TCB would carry out a review of its structure, staffing and operating costs,
with the objective of improving its efficiency and effectiveness, the Representative of the United Kingdom
emphasized that it would be better to have an external assessment, perhaps in co-operation with TCB, so that
fresh ideas and new ways of thinking could be introduced into the way that the Bureau worked. He averred
that there was too much risk with an internal TCB assessment that the conclusion would be reached that TCB
was doing everything very well. The Representative of the United Kingdom underscored that a much more
critical external assessment was required.
6. The Director of the Technical Co-operation Bureau (D/TCB) indicated that although the
internal assessment had already begun, TCB was open to new ways of thinking and a more critical
assessment.
- 81 - C-MIN 186/9 (Open)
7. Drawing attention to paragraph 2.2.4 of C-WP/13301, which indicated that TCB had
benefited from the forward purchase of Canadian dollars (CAD), the Representative of France queried to
what extent that mechanism had applied to TCB. He recalled, in this regard, that until the end of 2007, the
Regular Programme Budget and the Administrative and Operational Services Cost (AOSC) Fund had been
approved in United States dollars and a large proportion of expenditure had been represented by CAD
disbursements. While it was true that TCB, as well as the Regular Programme, were paying their Montréal
employees in CAD, such disbursement in CAD was less important for TCB than for the Regular Programme.
Noting that until 2007 the results of TCB had been characterized by a quasi-balance, with a slight surplus of
between $70 000 and $80 000 per year, the Representative of France averred that the gains realized through
the forward purchase of CAD masked an AOSC budget deficit. He sought confirmation that his analysis was
correct. The Representative of France reiterated his concern that the difficult implementation of the IRIS
project and the questionable performance of the new Agresso financial system were causing serious
inconveniences for TCB and for the Organization as a whole.
8. D/TCB observed that, while TCB had benefited from the forward purchase of CAD
until 2007, it had incurred a loss of almost $1 million in 2008 as a result of such forward purchasing.
9. Referring to paragraph 2.2.3 of C-WP/13301 on costing methodology, the Representative

of Mexico emphasized the need to bear in mind the impact of a split assessment on the Regular Programme
Budget and the AOSC Fund. He also underscored the need to recognize the contribution of TCB to the
Regular Programme in implementing the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and to
await the completion of the KPMG cost recovery pilot project which would enable a more equitable
apportionment of costs between the Organization and the States which paid for the Technical Co-operation
Programme (TCP).
10. Drawing attention to paragraph 2.3.1, which referred to “the significant increase of AOSC
costs” in the past ten years, the Representative of Mexico enquired as to the meaning of the word
“significant”. In then referring to paragraph 3.3.1 on the transition from Co-operative Development of
Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness Programme (COSCAP) projects to Regional Safety
Oversight Organizations (RSOOs), he stressed the need to await the report of the Secretariat/Council Group
on Regional Bodies as in his opinion there had been a substantial increase in the number of COSCAP
projects.
11. With reference to the TCC’s Report, the Representative of Mexico requested that the Ad hoc
Working Group on Technical Co-operation Programme Development take into account the programme of
TCB activities for the various regions in making its recommendations on the format and contents of future
TCP development reports so that the latter would give a more precise overview of the progress being made
in the TCP.
12. Responding to the point raised regarding paragraph 2.2.3 of C-WP/13301, D/TCB noted
that the maximum administrative overhead rate charged for Management Service Agreement (MSA) projects
was 10 per cent and that the administrative overhead rate charged for Civil Aviation Purchasing Service
(CAPS) projects varied between 3 and 6 per cent, depending on their complexity. He emphasized that the
results of the KPMG cost recovery pilot project would be applied to the new costing methodology for MSA
and CAPS projects. Recalling that IPSAS had started to be implemented in 2008, D/TCB underscored that
it had had an impact on the AOSC Fund.
C-MIN 186/9 (Open) - 82 -
13. In confirming that there had been a significant increase in AOSC costs, D/TCB indicated
that over the last eight years TCB’s operating costs had increased by some 200 per cent as there had been an
increase in the implementation of projects and it had been necessary to recruit additional staff on a temporary
basis to handle the new projects. However, what had most affected the AOSC costs had been the 800 per cent
increase in the costs paid to the Regular Programme Budget for support services. D/TCB noted that the
salaries of all TCB staff members, with the exception of the 25 staff members whose posts were funded by
the Regular Programme Budget, were paid from the administrative overhead charges levied on TCP projects.
There were currently some 110 States using the TCP for the execution of some 300 projects.
14. The Representative of the United States emphasized the importance of awaiting the outcome
of the KPMG cost recovery pilot project so that there would be a clear understanding of exactly how much
the Regular Programme Budget was supporting the TCB and how much the latter was reimbursing the
Regular Programme Budget for the support services which it received from the Bureau of Administration
and Services (ADB) and other Bureaux. She underscored that it was also important that cross-subsidization,
if it was occurring, be appropriately balanced. The Representative of the United States averred that it was
premature to refer to an 800 per cent increase in the costs paid to the Regular Programme Budget for support
services pending the results of the said pilot project. To a query by the Representative regarding paragraph b)
of the executive summary of C-WP/13301, D/TCB observed that TCB was one of many extra-budgetary
activities in ICAO which were being considered in the KPMG cost recovery pilot project. He noted that TCB
was participating in the Steering Committee that had been established to evaluate the latter’s results. D/TCB
agreed on the need to have a correct balance between the services provided by the Regular Programme to all
of the extra-budgetary activities and the amount reimbursed.
15. In endorsing the comments made by the Representative of the United States, the
Representative of Germany reiterated that there should be a fair balance in the apportionment of costs
between the Regular Programme Budget and the AOSC Fund. TCB should not be overcharged for the
support services provided by the Regular Programme and the latter should not subsidize TCB projects. He
looked forward to the report on the KPMG cost recovery pilot project.
16. Observing that TCB project activity was growing, the Representative of the United States
expressed concern that too much emphasis was being placed on its raising additional revenue. She
underscored that serious consideration should be given to whether there needed to be equal attention paid to
the quality of the projects which TCB delivered in the field given that ICAO’s name was attached to them
and the associated risk to the Organization’s image. TCB’s revenue generating focus should be scaled back
and more efforts should be made to ensure that TCB did its work in a way that truly provided solid, quality
support for the safety and security objectives of the Organization.
17. While recognizing that TCB faced challenges, the Representative of Uganda, offering a
word of encouragement, stressed that TCB’s impact on ICAO Contracting States was definitely well-felt. In
emphasizing that the ongoing internal assessment was a very good step forward, he noted that it would
address the said challenges. The Representative of Uganda affirmed that that internal review, together with
the KPMG cost recovery pilot project, would establish a rational balance and enhance TCB’s efficiency and
effectiveness. Referring to the comments made by the Representative of the United States, he underscored
that TCB played a crucial role in assisting States to resolve their safety- and security-related deficiencies.
Thus any action taken that would lead to an improvement in the way that TCB worked would go a long way
to giving satisfaction to ICAO’s Contracting States. The Representative of Uganda voiced support for
the TCP.
- 83 - C-MIN 186/9 (Open)
18. The Representative of Namibia endorsed these comments. Referring to paragraph 2.3.1 of
C-WP/13301, he noted that an in-depth study of the TCB had already been carried out in the early 1990’s by
the Assistant Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Joint
Inspection Unit (JIU) and enquired if there had been any financial implications. Observing that any new
Director carried out a review of his Bureau, he indicated that D/TCB should be given the opportunity to do
an internal assessment of TCB’s processes before resorting to an external assessment that might incur costs
for the Organization. The Representative of Namibia underscored, in this regard, that he would not support
any external review unless it were done by the UNDP.
19. Noting that TCB reported to the Council on a regular basis, the Representative of Namibia
indicated that if it could demonstrate clearly that it was giving substantive reports that were useful and that
gave the Council confidence that it was upholding ICAO’s name, then he would be prepared to scale-back
the reporting frequency initially to bi-annually and later to annually, the reporting frequency used ten years
ago.
20. The Representative of Canada noted that he had very serious reservations regarding
C-WP/13301, for two or three main reasons. First of all, he considered that the paper was premature, given
that the External Auditor was conducting an important performance audit of TCB, the findings of which
would be relevant for the Council’s review of C-WP/13301. Secondly, while it was stated in paragraph b) of
the executive summary of the paper that TCB would carry out a review of its structure in the first half of 2009,
the sovereign Members of the Council had indicated that they would prefer to begin to decide themselves on
what the structure of TCB should be rather than be told by the latter what structure they should adopt. The
Representative of Canada emphasized that the important problem of TCB’s structure should be examined by
the sovereign Members of the Council who had been elected by the Assembly. He underscored, in this
context, that the 36 Council Members were the trustees of the 190 Contracting States of ICAO — an
important role that should not be forgotten. Council Members represented not only their own States but also
the total membership of ICAO. Lastly, during the interviews of candidates for the post of Secretary General
on 23 January 2009, the now Secretary General-designate had very clearly indicated that he was also
concerned about ICAO’s label on TCB’s documents, a matter over which the Council had no control. It was
a problem of constitutional and institutional coherence and consistency. The Representative of Canada thus
had instructions not to adopt the action proposed in C-WP/13301, at least not for the present time. He
reserved the right to raise this subject again in the Council during its Fall session in October/November 2009.
21. The Representative of Spain observed that the Representative of the United States had
raised a number of crucial issues, including that of scaling back on TCB’s focus on revenue generation and
ensuring that it provided quality support. He noted, in this regard, that it was often difficult to gauge the
quality of the impact of TCB projects in the field. Recalling that a number of Representatives had mentioned
TCB’s label and the associated risk to ICAO’s image, the Representative of Spain underscored that it was the
responsibility of the Council to ensure that those issues were well-managed. Noting that risks were inevitably
a part of all projects, he emphasized that they needed to be identified and mitigated. The Representative of
Spain reiterated that it was a problem of governance: how could the Council verify or ensure that all TCB
projects and processes were of good quality and that any associated risks to the Organization’s image were
eliminated? Observing that all Council Representatives were convinced that TCB’s projects were good and
appropriate for those States which required them, he indicated that it was an essential to identify the role of
the TCC in terms of governance and the role of the Council once the TCC had intervened. The
Representative of Spain noted that paragraph a) of the executive summary of C-WP/13301 sought to identify
how the Secretariat and the TCB would report to the Council on issues of interest relating to such governance.
Affirming that the establishment of the said Ad hoc Working Group on Technical Co-operation Programme
C-MIN 186/9 (Open) - 84 -
Development was essential, he indicated that it should be reflected in paragraph a). With regard to
paragraph b), the Representative of Spain indicated that the results of TCB’s internal assessment of its
structure should be referred to the TCC for consideration during the Fall session in October/November 2009.
He agreed with the Representative of the United Kingdom that impartial external assistance might help the
Council in considering in greater depth how to structure TCB.
22. The Representative of Nigeria noted that the concerns expressed regarding TCB were not
very clear to many Representatives. Affirming that TCB was an important arm of ICAO which assisted
States in rectifying their deficiencies, he underscored that the States that were availing themselves of TCB’s
services seemed to be satisfied with the assistance provided. Observing that some concerns had been voiced
regarding the quality of TCB’s work, the Representative of Nigeria emphasized that if the Council wished to
know how TCB was doing, then it should ask those States that were using its services. Noting that in many
States TCB was the ambassador for ICAO and that those States only knew the Organization through TCB,
he indicated that there was confusion within the Council as to what the problem was with TCB. The Council
should therefore discuss the matter and leave the Secretariat to do its work.
23. With reference to paragraph b) of the executive summary of C-WP/13301, the

Representative of Nigeria stressed that it was a positive development that D/TCB wished to carry out an
internal assessment of his Bureau and that it should be encouraged. He also underscored that TCB was not
the only Bureau that was undergoing an audit by the External Auditor. In querying who would pay for an
external assessment of TCB, the Representative of Nigeria averred that those States that were using TCB’s
services and were satisfied therewith would not wish to pay extra money for an assessment that they might
not consider necessary. Observing that he found it strange that it would be necessary to scale back TCB’s
revenue generating focus in order to enhance the quality of its services, he affirmed that it was possible to
both have quality services and address the needs of States: they were complementary. In supporting the
TCC’s report, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that the said Ad hoc Working Group should be
established to review the details of future reports on TCP development. If there were additional issues to be
addressed, they should be dealt with in the Council. The Secretariat should not be involved.
24. In sharing the views expressed by the Representatives of Uganda and Namibia, the
Representative of Venezuela emphasized the importance of surveying those States which availed themselves
of TCB’s services to determine their level of satisfaction therewith and the impact of TCB’s projects. He also
supported the action proposed in paragraphs a) and b) of C-WP/13301.
25. The Representative of Saudi Arabia noted that it was the Representatives of developed
countries who were expressing concern regarding the quality of TCB’s services, whereas TCB was a Bureau
for developing countries whose purpose was to assist the latter in bringing their standards to at least the
minimum required by ICAO. He underscored that during the six years that he had been Representative,
excellent letters had been received from States thanking ICAO and TCB for the assistance which they had
provided. In enquiring whether the Council believed that developing countries were wasting the money they
paid to have ICAO/TCB execute their technical co-operation projects and were giving thanks for nothing, the
Representative of Saudi Arabia emphasized that it was because the developing countries appreciated the
services provided. He fully supported that action recommended by the TCC in its report.
26. In affirming the importance and usefulness of the TCP, the Representative of Argentina
recalled that there were several Assembly resolutions which highlighted the need of ICAO and its
Contracting States for that programme. Their vision of TCP was a programme that was efficient and that
provided the services needed by States. Underscoring the importance of the comments made by the
- 85 - C-MIN 186/9 (Open)
Representative of the United States, the Representative of Argentina indicated that it was necessary to
complete the KPMG cost recovery pilot project and to end any cross-subsidization between the Regular
Programme Budget and the AOSC Fund. In agreeing with the Representative of Canada that ideally
C-WP/13301 should only have been presented for consideration after the issuance of KPMG’s report on the
cost recovery pilot project, he indicated that it would be important to return to this subject during the Fall
session in October/November 2009 when that report would be available.
27. Observing that the Representative of Spain had drawn a good conclusion when he had stated
that the governance of TCB needed to be clarified, the Representative of Argentina underscored that as TCB
provided services in a different manner from the other Bureaux, it required a different type of administration.
He suggested that TCB could be audited in a different way from the other Bureaux. Noting that the
Representative of Nigeria had made an excellent analysis, the Representative of Argentina queried how the
Council could determine whether or not TCB was working well if they did not ask States if they were
satisfied with the services provided by that Bureau. He suggested that the following three issues that were not
addressed in C-WP/13301 be referred to the TCC and the Ad hoc Working Group for consideration: analysis
of the findings of the KPMG cost recovery pilot project; governance of the TCB; and analysis of the outcome
of the internal assessment of TCB.
28. In voicing support for the action proposed in the executive summary of C-WP/13301, the
Representative of Ecuador underscored, with regard to paragraph b), that the comments made by
Representatives should be taken into account by the Ad hoc Working Group. He emphasized, in this context,
the need to ensure that TCB served developing countries effectively. The Representative of Ecuador agreed
with the Representative of Venezuela that developing countries had full confidence in TCB and its technical
co-operation activities. He also concurred with the comments made by the Representatives of Uganda,
Namibia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. The Representative of Ecuador underscored that if, as was
the case in many Bureaux, some improvements had to be made to TCB, then they should be made. The
continued growth of the TCP should not be hindered, however. Furthermore, the confidence of States in the
TCB should be maintained. Recalling how, in the short time he had been a Representative, a number of
high-level Government officials had addressed the Council and endorsed the technical co-operation projects
in their States in the fields of, inter alia, aviation safety, aviation security and airport infrastructure, the
Representative of Ecuador emphasized that the Council owed it to them to give its utmost support to TCB.
29. The Representative of Egypt fully recognized the importance of the TCP for States,
particularly developing countries. He agreed with the Representative of Nigeria that the States which availed
themselves of TCB’s services were the ones that were best able to assess the quality of those services and to
inform ICAO thereof. In supporting C-WP/13301, the Representative of Egypt emphasized that there should
be a stronger relationship between the Council, the TCB and the TCC. He suggested that that could be
achieved through informal briefings with D/TCB and his staff members during which Representatives could
express their concerns and indicate what was needed from the TCP.
30. The Representative of the Russian Federation endorsed the comments made by the
Representatives of Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, inter alia. While sharing the view expressed by the
Representative of Canada, he was prepared to support the action proposed in C-WP/13301 and
C-WP/13302.
31. The Representative of Cameroon associated himself with the comments made by the
Representatives of Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Observing that the main question facing the Council
was why States needed technical co-operation, he underscored that it was to resolve deficiencies identified
C-MIN 186/9 (Open) - 86 -
during audits carried out by ICAO or other bodies. Noting that the lack of qualified personnel was often
identified during audits of developing countries, the Representative of Cameroon emphasized that it was for
that reason that the Council should continue with the TCP. Referring to paragraph b) of the executive
summary of C-WP/13301, he indicated that, although he understood the concerns expressed by the
Representative of Canada, which were not negligible, he considered that the internal assessment of the
structure of TCB was necessary before any external assistance was solicited. The Representative of
Cameroon thus supported both papers.
32. The Representative of the United Kingdom emphasized that the Council was not attempting
to abolish TCB; rather, it was trying to determine how to make TCB’s good work even better. Observing that
comments in that regard had already been made by the Representatives of the United States, Spain and
particularly Argentina, he reiterated the need to analyze the findings of the KPMG cost recovery pilot project
and the outcome of the internal assessment of TCB, to consider the governance of the TCB and, as indicated
by the Representative of Canada, to take into account the results of the External Auditor’s performance audit
of TCB.
33. Responding to a question raised by the Representative of South Africa regarding his earlier
comment on having an external assessment of TCB, the Representative of the United Kingdom noted that it
was possible to employ professional job inspectors whose task would be not to determine how TCB staff
members were doing their work but rather to determine if they were doing the right work. He emphasized the
need for TCB to focus on ensuring that, in an ever-changing world, its staff members had the right skill sets,
including the important ability to manage large programmes and projects. He underscored that the concern
was that if TCB projects, which carried the ICAO label, were not properly managed — and there were such
projects — then it would reflect badly on the Organization. It was necessary to ensure that TCB projects
reflected well on ICAO.
34. The Representative of the United Kingdom stressed the need for the Council to have a
policy debate on whether TCB should be integrated into the Regular Programme of ICAO, in which case it
would require full governance oversight from the Council, or whether it should be kept at arm’s length as an
agency, in which case it would be able to exercise a degree of discretion in its work and would establish its
own governance structure, which ultimately would be responsible to the Secretary General. He tended to
agree with the Representatives of Canada, Argentina and others that the Council should have that debate
when the results of the various studies were available.
35. The Representative of South Africa endorsed the comments made by the Representatives of
Uganda, Namibia, Egypt and others, particularly the Representative of Saudi Arabia. In observing that for
the last six years four developed countries represented on the Council had been continuously criticizing TCB
while developing countries that had been using TCB’s services had been expressing nothing but appreciation,
he indicated that the issue needed to be considered. Recalling the comment made by the Representative of
Canada that TCB should have awaited the results of the External Auditor’s report on his performance audit
of TCB before preparing C-WP/13301, the Representative of South Africa enquired when TCB had been
informed that the audit would be conducted. He averred that, as the work programme of the External Auditor
was not known, it had not been possible to arrange for the production of the said paper accordingly.
36. In underscoring the need to consider everything in the proper context, the Representative of
Mexico emphasized that the majority of those States receiving assistance were satisfied with the services
provided by TCB. He nonetheless considered that the Council should reinforce the mechanisms for ensuring
quality, risk management, integrity, transparency and efficiency within TCB. With regard to additional
- 87 - C-MIN 186/9 (Open)
revenue generation, the Representative of Mexico noted that the Secretary General had not placed a ceiling
on the number of technical co-operation projects. If the Council were not satisfied with the current situation,
then it should instruct the Secretary General accordingly. He himself was not in favour of having TCB
involved in additional revenue generating activities. Referring to paragraph b) of the executive summary of
C-WP/13301, the Representative of Mexico indicated that TCB should first carry out its internal assessment.
If the results were unsatisfactory to the Council, then the latter could take other action, such as requesting the
External Auditor to carry out an assessment of TCB’s structure. He supported the action recommended by
the TCC in C-WP/13302.
37. In concurring that this subject had been discussed in the Council for many years, the
President of the Council indicated the reason why the TCC had decided to establish the Ad hoc Working
Group on Technical Co-operation Programme Development was to facilitate the work of the Council, the
TCC and the Finance Committee (FIC). Referring to the comments made on the level of State satisfaction
with TCB’s services, he noted that whenever he went on mission to States which had technical co-operation
projects being executed by ICAO, he always asked the officials their opinion of the projects and whether or
not they were satisfied with them. He asked the same question of officials visiting his Office. The President
of the Council emphasized that the large majority of States were highly satisfied with TCB’s services. Some
States, however, were not satisfied. He noted that whenever he received complaints, he requested the
officials concerned to speak with D/TCB and explain what had happened with their technical co-operation
projects. He also requested D/TCB to resolve any problems. D/TCB had assured him that he always did so.
Observing that there were sometimes difficult situations to work through, he cited the case of the technical
co-operation project in Guatemala relating to the design and structure of its international airport referred to
by the Vice-President of Guatemala, Dr. José Rafael Espada, in his address to the Council on 9 March 2009
(186/8). The Vice-President had indicated that, although there had been some misunderstandings, they had
been addressed and his Government was satisfied with the project’s implementation.
38. The President of the Council noted that, as the governing body of ICAO, the Council had
certain duties and responsibilities, as set forth in Article 54 (Mandatory functions of Council) of the Chicago
Convention. Recalling the comment made by the Representative of Spain on the issue of governance, he
agreed that the Council required information in order to make decisions, manage risk, etc. He noted that the
TCC had assigned the said Ad hoc Working Group the task of identifying all of the information that should
be provided in future reports on TCP development that would be useful to the Council in exercising its
function of governing body.
39. Referring to the comments made that the Council should await the results of the KPMG cost
recovery pilot project before reviewing TCB’s administrative overhead charges, the President of the Council
affirmed that that would be very prudent and indicated that the Council should proceed in that manner.
Recalling the comments made regarding the External Auditor’s performance audit of TCB, he indicated that
the latter was not related to the papers under consideration and would discussed in a future Council session.
40. With reference to the suggestion that there be a closer relationship between the Council, the
TCB and the TCC, the President of the Council underscored that that applied to all Bureaux and Committees.
He emphasized that that would be very appropriate and healthy as it would enable to the Council to directly
receive clear explanations which would avoid any subsequent confusion and disagreement.
C-MIN 186/9 (Open) - 88 -
41. In then taking the action recommended by the TCC in the executive summary of
C-WP/13302, as amended by the President of the Council in light of the discussion, the Council:
a) noted that, during the first half of 2009, TCB would carry out a review of the structure
of that Bureau, its staffing and operating costs, including the core staff concept and
project management issues, with the objective of improving TCB’s efficiency and
effectiveness while ensuring adequate monitoring mechanisms and quality control, and
that the Secretary General would report to the Council, through the TCC, on the results
of that review in due course; and
b) noted the establishment of a TCC Ad Hoc Working Group on Technical Co-operation

Programme Development with the mandate to define the requirements for the format
and contents of future reports on TCP development and that the TCC would report to
the Council on its deliberations regarding the Ad Hoc Working Group’s
recommendations during the next (187th) Session.
42. With reference to sub-paragraph a) above, the President of the Council indicated that the
Secretary General and the Secretariat had noted the concerns expressed regarding an external assessment of
TCB. If such an external assessment were considered necessary, a decision thereon would be taken at the
level of the Secretary General. The President of the Council further indicated that no change would be made
to the administrative overhead rates charged to States for their technical co-operation projects before the
Council considered the report by KPMG on the results of its pilot project for the development of a
harmonized policy on cost recovery for indirect costs. A preliminary report thereon would be presented to the
Council for consideration during the next (187th) Session.
Report of HRC — Progress report on the work of the Human Resources Committee
43. The Council considered C-WP/13315, in which the Human Resources Committee (HRC)
reported on the work it had undertaken during the three meetings held during the Committee phase of the
current Council session. Further to a point raised by the Representative of Nigeria, the last sentence of
paragraph 2.1.2 of the paper was amended to refer to financial and policy responsibility” (new text appears
in bold).
44. While supporting the action recommended by the HRC, the Representative of Mexico
underscored the importance of having managers more directly involved in the recruitment process. Affirming
that that was a very healthy practice that was followed by other United Nations (UN) Specialized Agencies,
he emphasized that it should be developed more in ICAO. With regard to the recruitment process, the
Representative of Mexico stressed the need to take into account the integrity of candidates applying for
ICAO posts. He averred that the Organization should not consider applications for Professional or General
Service category posts from candidates who had, in the past, violated its ethics or policies.
45. The Representative of Nigeria also endorsed the recommended action.
46. Drawing attention to paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the paper, the Representative of Spain
noted that there were discrepancies between the English and Spanish texts. Whereas the last sentence of the
English version of paragraph 2.1.2 indicated that gratis and seconded personnel should not be given major
- 89 - C-MIN 186/9 (Open)
financial responsibility, the Spanish version did not contain the qualifier “major”. Similarly, whereas the
second sentence of the English version of paragraph 2.1.3 stated that gratis and seconded personnel should
normally not be placed in management or policy positions, the Spanish version did not contain the qualifier
“normally”. He queried why the English texts had a greater degree of flexibility than the Spanish texts.
47. Observing that minor financial responsibilities were inevitable in almost any Professional
category post, the Chairman of the HRC noted that the qualifier “major” had been used in the last sentence
of paragraph 2.1.2 to indicate that gratis and seconded personnel should not be given responsibility for the
management of budgets of whole Branches within the Organization. With regard to the second sentence of
paragraph 2.1.3, he underscored that there was continuing discussion within the HRC regarding the levels
and the duration for which secondments should be approved. The qualifier “normally” had been used to give
management some discretion in placing gratis and seconded personnel in management or policy positions
rather than outright banning such action. The Chairman of the HRC noted, in this context, that there were
times when short notice requests had been made for more senior posts for a short period of time and for which
secondment had been approved.
48. The Representative of Namibia observed that, although the explanation provided in
paragraph 2.1.2 regarding additional payments to gratis and seconded personnel was very clear, the action
recommended in the executive summary of the paper was not. While aware that the report of the Finance
Committee (FIC) on its review of exceptional remuneration made to seconded staff (C-WP/13312) had not
yet been considered by the Council, he suggested that the action recommended in the HRC’s report be
harmonized with that recommended in the FIC’s report.
49. While noting, from paragraph 2.1.1 of the paper, that more work needed to be done by the
HRC and the Secretariat regarding the Organization’s recruitment policy and processes for gratis and
seconded personnel, the Representative of Cameroon underscored that States experiencing difficulties in the
field of human resources management should be encouraged to provide gratis and seconded personnel to
ICAO so that they could gain experience.
50. Responding to a question by the Representative of the Russian Federation regarding

paragraph 2.3 of the paper, the Director of the Bureau of Administration and Services (D/ADB) noted that
the Secretariat had made some recommendations to the HRC regarding the motivation of ICAO staff
members, their career development and mobility. It was now determining if there were sufficient financial
resources with which to recruit some consultants to develop a set of documents thereon according to the
Council’s guidelines and decisions and to align ICAO’s practices with the best practices of the UN common
system.
51. In taking the action indicated in the executive summary of C-WP/13315, the Council noted
the HRC’s report and endorsed the recommendations and proposed actions with regard to the recruitment
policy and process for gratis and seconded staff as set forth in paragraph 2.1 of the paper and amended in
paragraph 43 above and the delegation of authority in Human Resources Management (HRM) as set forth in
paragraph 2.4 thereof.
C-MIN 186/9 (Open) - 90 -
Other business
52. The Representative of Canada invited those Representatives encountering difficulties in

receiving reimbursement from Revenue Québec for some of their purchases to provide his Delegation and/or
the Australian Delegation with relevant information so that he could raise the issue with the Government of
Québec. He would report thereon to the Council in due course.
----------
Subject No. 15.4: Facilitation

ICAO Regional Seminar on MRTDs, Biometrics and Security Standards

(Abuja, Nigeria, 6 to 8 April 2009)
53. The Representative of Nigeria invited those Representatives planning to attend the above
ICAO Regional Seminar to liaise with his Delegation so that their travel could be facilitated.

- 91 - C-MIN 186/10 (Closed)
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING
CLOSED MEETING
First Vice-President of the Council: Mr. Tshepo Peege (South Africa)
Acting Secretary: Dr. Fang Liu, Director, Bureau of Administration and Services
PRESENT:
Brazil — Mr. R.S. Magno Republic of Korea — Mr. Seo, W.-S. (Alt.)
China — Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
Ecuador — Mr. I. Arellano Lascano Spain — Mr. V.M. Aguado
Egypt — Mr. S. Elazab Switzerland — Mr. D. Ruhier
El Salvador — Mrs. V. Pichinte Chacón (Alt.) Tunisia — Mr. I. Sassi
France — Mr. J.-C. Chouvet Uganda — Mr. J. Twijuke
Germany — Mr. J. Mendel United Arab Emirates — Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.)
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Iceland — Mr. H. Sigurdsson United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)
Italy — Mr. F.P. Venier Uruguay — Mr. J.L. Vilardo
Japan — Mr. S. Baba Venezuela — Mr. D. Blanco Carrero

Mr. L.M. Coelho de Souza (Alt.) Brazil Mr. A.R. Diallo C/HRB
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mr. R. Bhalla C/FIN
Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil Mr. S.N. Ahmad C/SER
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
Mr. E.N. Mendez (Alt.) Dominican Republic
C-MIN 186/10 (Closed) - 92 -
Subject No. 7.4: Conditions of service
Review of the net base salaries of the President of the Council and the Secretary General
1. The above subject was documented in C-WP/13333 Restricted, presented by the Chief of
the Human Resources Branch, and an oral report presented by the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
2. The Council approved the adjustment of the net base salaries of the President of the Council
and the Secretary General as indicated in the Executive Summary of C-WP/13333 Restricted, effective
1 January 2009.
3. The meeting reconvened in open session at 10:10 hours to consider the remaining items on
the order of business.
- 93 - C-MIN 186/10 (Open)
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Brazil — Mr. R.S. Magno Republic of Korea —*Mr. Kim, C.-H.
China —*Mr. Tao Ma Saudi Arabia — Mr. S. Hashem
Ghana — Mr. K. Kwakwa United Arab Emirates — Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.)

Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil Mrs. F.A. Odutola D/ATB
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Dr. Fang Liu D/ADB
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China Mr. J. Begin C/CRC
Mr. E.N. Mendez (Alt.) Dominican Republic Mr. R. Bhalla C/FIN
Mr. P. Pape (Alt.) France Mr. M. Blanch C/COS
Mr. T. Burlage (Alt.) Germany Mrs. J. Hupe C/ENV
Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) — Iceland *Mr. L. Koukoui C/ISEC
Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) Italy Ms. B. Ferrier JPO/ENV
Mr. J. Zamhari (Alt.) Malaysia Mr. L. Gavilli JPO/ENV
Mrs. D. Jiménez Hernández (Alt.) Mexico *Ms. M. Lee-Fung RMS
Mr. Seo, W.-S (Alt.) Republic of Korea Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
*Part-time
C-MIN 186/10 (Open) - 94 -
Subject No. 50.3: Aircraft engine emissions
Progress Report on the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC)
1. The Council noted C-WP/13319 (and Blue rider and Corrigendum No. 1), an Information
Paper in which the Secretary General summarized the results of the third meeting of the Group on
International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC). A timeline for convening the GIACC/4 meeting from
25 to 27 May 2009 and for preparation of the GIACC/4 report for discussion by the Council during the last
week of the 187th Session was circulated separately during the meeting.
2. Further to comments offered by the Representative of Italy, it was understood that Appendix
A to the paper would be updated to reflect, under “In-Kind Contributions”, Italy’s secondment of a Junior
Professional Officer to the Environmental Programme.
3. The Representative of Singapore wished to take this opportunity to congratulate the good
work of GIACC as well as the successful conduct of the ICAO Workshop on Aviation and Alternative Fuels
which had taken place the week before GIACC/3. He encouraged GIACC to press on with this good work
and target to complete its work in time for the high-level meeting before the Conference of the Parties,
Copenhagen (Denmark) 7-18 December 2009 (COP/15). If necessary, the President might wish to consider
visiting member States to help motivate the coordination process so as to achieve the best possible outcome.
4. The Representative of Canada indicated that he was honoured to have with him at this
meeting the Canadian representative on GIACC, Ms. Brigita Gravitis-Beck, the Director General for Air
Policy at Transport Canada.
5. The Representative of Canada recalled that the Assembly, at its last session, had taken a
collective leap of faith and established this new body, the Group on International Aviation and Climate
Change. Underlying this action was the recognition that the excellent technical work of ICAO was not
enough and that this work needed to be complemented by a policy discussion that would provide strategic
direction and a greater over-arching coherence to ICAO’s existing work in the domain of aviation emissions.
While this approach was not entirely new in the United Nations System, to take on a policy dialogue in this
forum was a new challenge for ICAO. The expectation was already in the public domain to the effect that
ICAO was and would continue to respond to the task assigned to it under the Kyoto Protocol to demonstrate
global leadership on aviation emissions. The expectation was great indeed.
6. Canada was pleased to participate in the work of the Group on International Aviation and
Climate Change, and was also proud to have been one of the first to commit its full share of resources to this
important work based on the ICAO allocation assessment. Over the course of three meetings and several
intercessional working groups, GIACC had made much progress toward the development of an aggressive
programme of action to address aviation and climate change as mandated by the 36th Session of the
Assembly. At its third meeting, held in Montreal 16-19 February 2009, agreement had been reached on a
number of issues, including a short-term goal of a two per cent annual fuel efficiency improvement
from 1990 until 2012; a basket of measures recommended to States for reducing emissions; and also an
annual reporting and monitoring requirement. Members had also agreed on a fuel efficiency metric and had
agreed that the International Civil Aviation Organization and the United Nations Framework Convention
Secretariat should work to align their timelines and reporting requirements. The Representative of Canada
noted that these items were not referenced in the working paper before the Council.
- 95 - C-MIN 186/10 (Open)
7. At the same time, Resolution A36-22 directed GIACC to develop aspirational goals;
GIACC discussion had interpreted this to mean that ICAO member States would agree collectively to
achieve the goals that were proposed in the programme of action without attribution of targets to individual
States. This important perspective was also missing in the working paper now under consideration. GIACC
had spent considerable time to consider the needs of developing countries and this work was continuing to
identify a response that would be appropriate in the ICAO context.
8. The Representative of Canada hoped that GIACC Members would think broadly and show
vision in the development of the programme of action. ICAO had been asked for an aggressive programme
of action by the Assembly. In this context, it would be particularly important for GIACC and ICAO to
identify medium- and long-term goals that were acceptable in the context of the larger international climate
change negotiations taking place at Conferences of the Parties. The next such meeting was COP/15, which
would take place in Copenhagen in December 2009. There was still a lot of critical work ahead for the
Working Groups on Goals and Market-Based Measures and for GIACC/4.
9. Canada was looking to Members of GIACC and ICAO to push for real results that would
stand up to public expectations and demonstrate the commitment of international aviation to the broader
climate change effort. This was an opportunity to showcase ICAO’s substantial work to date and expertise in
this domain. At the same time, ICAO must demonstrate that it appreciated the challenges that lay ahead in
areas where it was necessary to make improvements, such as data collection. Leadership did not mean resting
on one’s laurels.
10. The Representative of France indicated that in spite of the considerable praiseworthy efforts
on the part of GIACC itself and the Secretariat, the outcome of the GIACC/3 had, in his view, been rather
disappointing. The only tangible deliverable of improving fuel efficiency at an indicative level of 2% per
year through to 2012 was not anything new. A number of GIACC members had pointed out repeatedly that
GIACC was somewhat behind the aeronautical sector in terms of the way forward and carbon neutral growth
for the aviation sector through to 2050, and this was paradoxical. A decision had been taken to ask ICAO to
consider the issue of emissions reductions for aviation because ICAO was thought to better understand the
needs of the sector and be in close dialogue with the sector. It would appear that ICAO was lagging behind
industry on this score, and that was quite regrettable.
11. The Representative of France believed that the Council would have to address what had
happened at the third GIACC meeting. Two GIACC members, with the support of others, had sought to
block the process with the sole aim of defending the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities
(CBDR). This attitude had impaired GIACC’s work and had kept if from making potential proposals to
COP/15. ICAO might not be able to make a contribution, and one solution might be for aviation emissions
to go back into the framework of the post-Kyoto Framework Convention. Everybody had talked about
ICAO’s leadership problem but no steps had been taken to ensure that ICAO could carry out its rightful role.
The Representative of France endorsed Canada’s statement; for ICAO to be in a position to propose a
solution, it would be necessary to act and reach a consensus on a range of measures that rose to the challenge.
12. The Representative of South Africa thanked the GIACC Secretariat for an in-depth and very
interesting report, and also thanked the President of the Council for establishing and steering GIACC to
where it was today. The Organization had, in his view, achieved a milestone. The Representative of South
Africa wished to know if the there was an appropriate balance in the participants of the Working Groups on
Goals Development and Market-Based Measures. DD/ATB emphasized that participation in the two groups
was a self-nomination process, but that a very satisfactory balance had been achieved geographically, as well
C-MIN 186/10 (Open) - 96 -
as in terms of developed vs. developing countries and large aviation States vs. smaller aviation States. The
self-nominated participants had a personal commitment to the success of the work of the working groups.
13. The Representative of Australia supported the statement made by the Representative of
Canada. The point had been made in GIACC discussions that one area where aviation as an industry, and
perhaps ICAO itself, had fallen short was in effective presentation of the achievements and the positives
about aviation and emissions. The GIACC report, ICAO’s presentation at COP/15, and any public
statements would have to continue to actively promote the advances that had been made. Such reports would,
however, have to be accurate and realistic, and ensure that ICAO did not get tied into industry spin. There
were plenty around who would identify attempts to dress up what for the industry had been a business
imperative to improve fuel efficiency as if it had been solely driven by environmental responsibility. The
GIACC report would need to be as clear as possible and aggressive as it reasonably could be about the
proposed ICAO approach. The Council would then have to determine how best to present ICAO’s position
to the States, to COP/15, and more broadly to the public.
14. Australia would be more concerned if the efforts to develop a presentation detracted from
the continued attention to the substance and achievements of real progress. The stakes were high, and
industry expectation was high. The Director-General of IATA, in the 9 March 2009 edition of Aviation
Week and Space Technology, had stated that “ICAO, through the work of GIACC, has to be fast and
effective and arrive by September with an action plan that can be taken to Copenhagen. Logically, if ICAO
is not able to deliver it by then, it would be a failure for ICAO and for the international community of aviation.
But I am convinced that people will understand that this is what is needed and produce effective results.”
Australia agreed with the Canadian proposition to continue to press for a more ambitious approach involving
all States, but again it was necessary to be realistic about the fact that many developing States were likely to
be more focussed on COP/15 at present and unable to make any commitment to the ICAO processes which
might conceivably limit their negotiating position in the broader arena. A compromise would have to be
found.
15. The Representative of Japan also supported the points touched upon in the statement made
by the Representative of Canada, but wished to clarify his Delegation’s position regarding the use of the
word ‘aggressive’ in Canada’s statement. Japan understood that this word implied that ICAO should work
aggressively by encouraging every stakeholder, and that everyone should strive to establish goals as
aggressively as possible as long as these goals were practical.
16. The Representative of the United States indicated that while there were many specific
aspects of the United States policy that had not yet been finalised, senior members of the Obama
Administration have given clear indications of the direction that the United States’ overall policy would take,
recognizing that all nations, including the United States, bore responsibility and would have to work hard to
find global solutions to the global challenge of climate change. In the years ahead, all emitters would have to
make major changes in the way that they used energy, including in the aviation sector; since aviation was a
global sector it required a global solution. The United States strongly supported ICAO’s effort to identify
solutions that were truly workable. The United States believed that the GIACC had made significant
constructive progress and already there was a broad consensus on a menu of measures that were possible for
States to take, and also a basic agreement on ensuring information that could be provided on measures taken.
The GIACC discussions had been very good, they had been difficult, they had addressed short, medium and
long-term goals, and while there was not yet an agreement, there was considerable progress and the United
States was committed to supporting the continued GIACC effort. It was clearly evident from the comments
at this meeting and from several years of work that it would be a difficult struggle to find a way to ensure that
- 97 - C-MIN 186/10 (Open)
the work of ICAO showed leadership and was organised in a manner that was consistent with the efforts that
were ongoing in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process and leading up to
COP/15 in Copenhagen in December. This tension was going to be quite strong and it would be a difficult
effort as ICAO tried to finalise recommendations for international aviation emissions. All the parties needed
to be strongly committed to that effort and the United States was very much committed to doing so.
17. The Representative of Germany strongly supported the statement of Canada, and entirely
shared the views that had been presented regarding the need for GIACC and ICAO to press hard to achieve
results that met public expectations and bring environment protection and preservation forward. Aspirational
goals should not be limited to carbon neutral growth and fuel efficiency, but go beyond and show vision.
18. The Representative of Spain observed from the views offered at this meeting that there were
diverse points of view. The results had been excellent; however, by the same token, the Representative of
France had said that the results were quite limited and that this really was a limited success as far as the
measures adopted were concerned. His Delegation would therefore endorse the views expressed by Canada
to the effect that it was necessary to identify the medium- and long-term objectives and come up with real
results.
19. The Representative of Mexico indicated that he was among those who felt that the work of
GIACC was successful. He had been present at the deliberations of some of the working groups and could
attest to the fact that they had made a great deal of effort. Very often, however, a lack of consensus meant
that it was not as successful as everyone would have wished. The Representative of Mexico fully endorsed
the statement of the Representative of Canada, in particular with respect to the need to urge GIACC member
States to the importance of COP/15 and the short- and medium-term objectives, as well as to remind GIACC
member States that they had to adhere to the A36-22 provisions.
20. The Representative of Nigeria thanked the Secretariat for presenting details on the work that
had been done, together with a very clear programme forward which his Delegation could support. Nigeria
had commented on the success of the GIACC process and the leadership of ICAO in addressing the impact
of aviation emissions. To this extent, Nigeria shared the sentiments expressed by Canada, Australia and
Japan. Nigeria recognised also the need for States to continue to seek ways to harmonize their national
policies in seeking consensus with ICAO and the UNFCCC.
21. The Representative of Brazil noted with pleasure that the principles of Kyoto had been
included in the negotiations of GIACC; for this reason, his State had been able to offer some creative
contributions. He was glad that the results of the third GIACC meeting had been positive, and, contrary to
what other Representatives believed, were going in a good direction.
22. DD/ATB understood from the views expressed at this meeting that time was short, there was
still much work to do, there were still big expectations both within the Council and even external to the
aviation community that were well understood by the parties of interest in the GIACC process. While
remaining optimistic, DD/ATB was also a realist. The schedule put before the Council was aggressive and
required almost flawless execution. Resources continued to be an issue. He thanked those States who had
contributed in whichever way that they could, but it was incumbent on him to make sure that the Council
understood that ICAO could well run out of resources before it ran of work. Contributions would assist in
continuing to work over the next several months and up to and through the high-level meeting. Commenting
on the relationship between ICAO and industry, DD/ATB observed that industry had been quite outspoken
with their vision – the “four pillars strategy” – with respect to addressing aviation. At the third meeting of
C-MIN 186/10 (Open) - 98 -
GIACC, industry had expressed a much stronger commitment to and expectation of a role of bio-fuels as part
of the solution, and had reported on significant progress. The Secretariat had also received a report and an
information paper from the United States that also indicated that there was significant progress being made,
with some commercial aircraft having flown using blends of conventional jet fuel and bio-fuel. There was
a commitment to continue that development.
23. One of the other outcomes of the GIACC/3 meeting was that some of the solutions that the
Secretariat hoped to find were beginning to appear to be more tangible. The GIACC, like the ICAO and the
UNFCCC, was an instrument of the will of the States. The challenge in a process that moved forward on the
basis of consensus was to find that common ground and to encourage that will of the State to work
collaboratively to move forward.
24. The Representative of China agreed with those Representatives who had commented on the
fact that ICAO was facing limited resources in dealing with the environment. The list of contributing States
did not at this time include China; he would, however, make a commitment that China would without any
further delay make contributions to the Environment Programme. China actively supported ICAO playing an
active leadership role in environment issues. The Representative of China did not believe that common but
differentiated responsibilities had affected the work of GIACC. The principle of CBDR was enshrined in the
Kyoto Protocol, and should be taken into account in order to reach a consensus which would include
developing countries. China paid great attention to the work of GIACC, and would actively participate in its
work while also according great importance to COP/15.
25. The Representative of Namibia thanked those States who had contributed so generously
towards the Organization’s environmental work programme and encouraged those that had not to do so. In
order to improve the contributions, he requested that the Secretariat provide an overview of how this
programme had come about. Council Members could relate that information to their States in order to
improve contributions.
26. The Representative of Argentina supported the proposal of the Representative of Canada
and approved the timeline attached to the working paper under consideration. It was difficult to arrive at a
consensus when many States did not have clear policies described; in fact, there were policies in other States
that were not consistent with those of ICAO. The Council should, at this time, agree on the objectives and
goals. Some progress had been made and important steps taken, but the challenge to achieve these medium-
and long-term objectives would be very difficult.
27. The President of the Council observed that Canada’s statement had sparked considerable
discussion. The Organization and its Contracting States had a mandate given to them by the Assembly in
accordance with Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol, which made reference to providing a mandate to States to
work through ICAO. ICAO was fully prepared to work hand-in-hand with States, and had been prepared to
do this as of 1981 when Annex 16 Standards had come into being. The President gave assurances that the
Secretariat, the Secretary General and he had applied all efforts and energy to arrive at a consensus according
to the terms of the Convention. Everyone present was no doubt aware of the difficulties inherent in achieving
a consensus in discussions on such a highly complex subject as the one the Council was dealing with today.
He hoped that the Council would continue to be optimistic and support the process while applying Assembly
Resolution A36-22 which spoke of a consensus, of fuel efficiency goals, of market-based measures by
mutual consent, of voluntary contributions, and of a number of other actions. The Organization would have
to work on the basis of these principles, that was its mandate, it had not received any other mandate from any
other organization and it was very clear what the Assembly had mandated it. The comments offered at this
- 99 - C-MIN 186/10 (Open)
meeting would be very useful to the Secretariat as well as to the GIACC Members, to whom the President
expressed his thanks. Very often, the Members of the GIACC expressed points of view which were difficult
to conciliate but they were all worthy of respect because they were all GIACC Member States.
Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment
Environmental Protection – Recent developments in other United Nations bodies
28. The Council noted C-WP/13317, an Information Paper in which the Secretary General
reported on important environmental related meetings of UN agencies which had taken place since last
reported to Council in the 185th Session, and which could have implications on ICAO’s work on aviation
and environmental protection.
29. The Representative of Spain believed it was very important for ICAO to take part in other
United Nations activities in order to have the big picture and share its own vision. He had asked for the
Council to discuss this item before considering the high-level meeting on international aviation and climate
change because this document’s conclusions were important. Three of those conclusions indicated that
“ICAO continues to be perceived by some parties within this process as not delivering the necessary action
to address international aviation emissions reductions”; “it is paramount that States working with ICAO
towards finding a global approach to address aviation emissions…”; and “it is imperative that ICAO
intensify its work during 2009 on GHG related activities, while informing the UNFCCC process of any
decisions and developments regarding aviation emissions reductions including the results of the CAEP and
GIACC activities…”. In light of these conclusions, it was absolutely imperative that ICAO call a high-level
meeting before the Conference of the Parties, (Copenhagen 7-18 December 2009 (COP/15)). The
Representative of Spain also wished to emphasize the importance of having ICAO participate in the Geneva
Climate Change Conference for Industry.
Subject No. 50.3: Aircraft engine emissions
Convening of the High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change
30. The above subject was documented for the Council’s consideration in C-WP/13316 and
Addendum No. 1, presented by the Secretary General. The paper proposed, pursuant to Resolution A36-22,
Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection, the
convening of a high-level meeting on international aviation and climate change and presented a draft agenda
and proposed administrative arrangements for the meeting.
31. The Representative of Malaysia believed that the high-level meeting should be held before
COP/15, either in September or October 2009 depending on the outcome of GIACC/4. The Council should
send a very strong and clear message to GIACC/4 to the effect that it should produce sufficient deliverables
for deliberation at the high-level meeting, and ICAO would have to maintain and continue its leadership in
all aviation climate change matters. The Delegation of Malaysia strongly endorsed the remarks offered
earlier in the meeting by Canada and others on the leadership issue.
32. The Representative of Canada strongly supported holding the high-level meeting in the fall
of 2009, and believed that this timing was important to endorse the outcomes of the GIACC process,
whatever those outcomes may be. Even if they did not go as far as some would like, it would be important for
high-level decision-makers to validate ICAO’s policy discussions to-date and provide guidance for the way
C-MIN 186/10 (Open) - 100 -
ahead. Perhaps this high-level guidance would be even more important when there was uncertainty or
differences of views. Whether COP/15 was as definitive an event as some would hope, Canada believed that
a high-level meeting in the fall would be helpful to assess what ICAO had achieved in the important domain
of international aviation and climate change, and what it still needed to do. A September or October timeline
would be acceptable to the Canadian Delegation, which believed that the level of invitation should be to
Ministers; in order to attract this level of participation, it would be important for invitations to go out soon.
The focus of the high-level meeting would have to be placed on the urgency of addressing aviation emissions
and how ICAO could respond to this rising priority.
33. The Representative of Canada noted that a tentative outline for an agenda for the high- level
meeting had been proposed in the working paper. If time allowed, it might be useful to task GIACC/4 with
contributing to the development of a more detailed programme for consideration by the next (187th) Council
session. While the focus would have to be on action and progress, it would be important to consider how to
communicate ICAO’s message publicly and in the context of the UNFCCC debate. Should ICAO consider
a separate and discrete communications plan apart from the proposed high-level statement? The successful
delivery of an aggressive programme of action was vital to ICAO’s credibility and retention of its role in the
management of climate change objectives as they affect the international aviation industry. ICAO must
demonstrate its ability to respond to the challenge of climate change with a feasible and credible action plan.
The Representative of Venezuela wished to be associated with the views expressed by the Representative of
Canada, and advocated convening the high-level meeting before the COP/15.
34. The Representative of Switzerland supported the proposals made by previous speakers
regarding timing of the high-level meeting; many comments on this question had already been made when
considering earlier items and the reference to an aggressive programme was made in Resolution A36-22, as
well as in the conclusions of C-WP/13317. The Representative of Switzerland wished to add three reasons
for convening the high-level meeting COP/15 as soon as possible. Firstly, why should the Council wait for
delivery of the report of GIACC/4 if its fourth meeting would be the last one and no further work would be
done by this Group? Secondly, if ICAO was running out of funds for completing its mandate from the
Assembly, the high-level meeting should be scheduled as quickly as possible in order to also address funding
questions for future activities, otherwise the high-level meeting would probably never happen because of a
lack of funds. Thirdly, what were the objectives of the high-level meeting, and what was the expected
outcome? The objective, and therefore the agenda, of that meeting would certainly be different, depending
upon whether it took place before or after COP/15. It could even been stated that there was no way of
knowing what the mandate and the agenda would be for the high-level Meeting if it was held only after
COP/15.
35. The Representative of Australia believed that it would be important to convene the
high-level meeting in advance of COP/15. Resolution A36-22 called for a meeting prior to COP/15 without
specifying in detail the form of that meeting. The issue that the Council needed to resolve was the level of
representation at that meeting. His position was similar to that stated by the Representative of Canada. The
Representative of Australia observed that while a number of States had been involved in deliberations on this
issue since the Assembly, either through GIACC or through the Council, the majority of ICAO States had not
been involved. His Administration believed it was important that all States have the opportunity to gain the
benefit of at least a full briefing on the GIACC outcomes and have a chance to discuss them before going to
COP/15. As had been pointed out repeatedly in GIACC discussions, the States that would be represented at
COP/15 were the same that would be represented at an ICAO high-level meeting; in the absence of some
reasonable briefing, advice, or session on GIACC outcomes there was potential for misinformation on
aviation-related issues influencing State positions at COP/15. The agenda for the meeting should be oriented
- 101 - C-MIN 186/10 (Open)
around understanding the issues behind the GIACC outcomes and should seek to provide guidance to the
Council on how ICAO’s case might be best presented to COP/15.
36. The Representative of the United Kingdom observed that the interventions of the
Representative of Canada had been extremely helpful in setting the scene for the Council’s discussions at this
meeting, and would also support the additional comments by Malaysia, Romania and Australia. It was
essential to bear in mind the purpose of the high-level meeting, i.e. to prepare ICAO and the world for the
Organization’s position at COP/15. To that end, ICAO needed to be absolutely clear about the outcome. The
focus would have to be on what ICAO would be able to deliver in terms of goals and implementation options.
It would need to have that focus, as the Secretariat had said, since ICAO would only have about five minutes
to present its position at the Conference of Parties. The Representative of the United Kingdom proposed that
the high-level meeting be held in September, notwithstanding the difficulties that may be encountered in
preparing papers in time for discussion by the high-level group. Given that there was only a short time for
ICAO to make its point in the COP/15, it would need sufficient time to develop a communication strategy as
a result of that high-level meeting
37. In taking action on the basis of the Executive Summary in C-WP/13316, amended in light
of the discussion, the Council:
a) approved the convening of a high-level meeting on international aviation and climate

change at ICAO Headquarters in Montreal;
b) decided that the meeting would take place from 7 to 9 October 2009;
c) agreed that the draft agenda for the meeting (paragraph 2.1 of C-WP/13316) would be
redrafted by the Secretariat, taking into consideration a proposal which had been put
forward by the Representative of Romania and the comments received in the Council,
and would be circulated by the President to Representatives for final approval;
d) agreed that invitations to the meeting be issued in accordance with paragraph 4.1 of
C-WP/13316 and the Appendix to the paper; and
e) approved the administrative arrangements for the Meeting as described in paragraphs 5,

6 and 7 of C-WP/13316 and paragraphs 2 and 3 of Addendum No. 1.

- 103 - C-MIN 186/11
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Argentina — Mr. A.M. Singh Nigeria — Dr. O.B. Aliu
Australia — Mr. P.K. Evans Republic of Korea — Mr. Kim, C.-H.
Brazil — Mr. R.S. Magno Romania — Mr. C. Cotrut
Iceland — Mr. H. Sigurdsson United Arab Emirates — Mr. R.A. Al Kaabi (Alt.)
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) United Kingdom — Mr. M. Rossell
Namibia — Mr. B.T. Mujetenga

Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil *Mrs. F.A. Odutola D/ATB
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada *Mr. A.R. Diallo C/HRB
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China *Mr. J. Begin C/CRC
Mr. Seo, W.-S (Alt.) Republic of Korea *Mr. R. Bhalla C/FIN
Mr. Yoo, H.-J. (Alt.) Republic of Korea *Mr. A.E. Eussner C/EAO
Mr. A.A. Alharthy (Alt.) Saudi Arabia *Mrs. H. Biernacki TO/SFP
*Mr. L. Koukoui C/ISEC
*Mr. L. Gavilli JPO/ENV
*Mr. E. Jahangir TO/ENV
*Part-time
C-MIN 186/11 - 104 -
Subject No. 50: Questions relating to the environment
United Nations (UN) Climate Neutral Initiative
1. The Council had for consideration C-WP/13318, in which the Secretary General reported
on the United Nations (UN) Climate Neutral Initiative, outlined an initial approach for ICAO’s participation
therein and described steps that would be necessary for implementation.
2. The Representative of the United States underscored that her State was fully committed to
engaging in the work to identify and promote measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It fully
endorsed the commitment of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the UN Agencies to address climate
change and to reduce the UN carbon footprint. The United States believed that UN Agencies could
effectively reduce their footprint through conservation measures and by becoming more energy efficient. As
was mentioned in the paper, travel reductions, video conferencing and physical plant improvement were all
steps that could produce immediate and tangible results. The United States enthusiastically supported such
steps towards carbon neutrality by the UN common system.
3. The Representative of the United States noted that, while her State was currently reviewing
its policy regarding global carbon credit offset systems, it did have some very important concerns about the
UN Carbon Neutral Initiative. Among them was the purchase of carbon offsets by UN Agencies, which
would have budgetary implications and therefore should be explicitly authorized by each Agency’s
governing body, in ICAO’s case, the Council. As the paper suggested, it might be premature for UN
Agencies to be able to ensure that the carbon offsets that might be purchased would go towards supporting
projects that truly met high standards of additionality, transparency and verification. The United States also
felt that most UN Agencies did not yet have the resources to engage in adequate verification. So as this
initiative evolved, particularly relating to the purchase of carbon offsets, many UN Agencies might, in effect,
be funding activities that fell outside their particular mandates. The United States had informed the Secretary
General of ICAO last summer about these concerns. The Obama administration continued to take the
position that Regular Programme Budget funds should not be used for this initiative; alternative sources of
funding could certainly be applied, for example, voluntary funding. What was important was that in working
towards achieving carbon neutrality objectives, the achievement of the primary objective of each UN Agency,
in ICAO’s case, its aviation-related objectives, should not be impeded.
4. The Representative of Japan welcomed the position of the United States to support the
carbon neutrality of UN Agencies. While his State also supported the UN Climate Neutral Initiative, it shared
the same concern as the United States that the purchase of carbon offsets would have budgetary implications
and agreed that it must therefore be explicitly approved by each Agency’s governing body.
5. The Representative of Saudi Arabia noted that his State had the same concerns as the United
States and Japan.
6. The Representative of Spain agreed with the Representative of the United States that it
should be for each UN Agency to decide whether or not to authorize the purchase of carbon offsets.
Underscoring that it would be necessary to quantify the amount of carbon offsets required and the associated
cost, he enquired whether there was an estimate thereof.
7. Responding to the concerns expressed regarding carbon offsetting, the Director of the Air
Transport Bureau (D/ATB) stressed that it was the option of last resort. The first step was to take an inventory
- 105 - C-MIN 186/11
of the carbon footprint and then determine if there was any avenue for carbon reductions. It was only when
it was not possible to reduce the carbon footprint to the extent required that the carbon offset option would
be considered. To a point raised by the Representative of the United Kingdom, she noted that ICAO’s Action
Plan for Climate Neutrality would set forth the various options for achieving carbon neutrality, including
carbon offsetting. It would also identify possible sources of carbon credits.
8. In endorsing the positions expressed by the Representatives of the United States, Japan and
Saudi Arabia, the Representative of the Russian Federation agreed with D/ATB that the purchase of carbon
offsets was an option of last resort to achieve full carbon neutrality.
9. The Council then noted C-WP/13318 on the UN Climate Neutral Initiative.
Review of the ICAO Procurement Code (Doc 9761)
10. The Council considered this subject on the basis of C-WP/13311 (with Blue rider), in which
the Secretary General reported on the outcome of a review of the ICAO Procurement Code (Doc 9761) and
the procurement procedures for the delivery of services to ICAO Headquarters and Regional Offices,
undertaken pursuant to the Council’s earlier decision (185/5); and an oral report thereon by the Finance
Committee (FIC).
11. Drawing attention to paragraph 3.3 of the paper on the terms and conditions of the
contractual agreements issued by ICAO, the Representative of Malaysia noted that it was easy to verify the
professional qualifications and technical competence of an individual and prove that that individual had not
violated any law by insisting on a statutory declaration to that effect. He queried, however, how ICAO was
to ensure that a contractor had discharged his responsibility by engaging an individual who was of high moral
standards, averring that that could not be easily proved or disproved until it was too late.
12. The Representative of Venezuela enquired as to how ICAO could prevent discrimination
against an individual or a company in the awarding of its procurement contracts.
13. Responding to the points raised, the Chief of the Finance Branch (C/FIN) underscored that
the treatment of individuals under the ICAO Procurement Code (Doc 9761) was consistent with the
treatment of ICAO employees under The ICAO Service Code (Doc 7350). A declaration was also required
of ICAO employees that there were no legal issues that would affect their employment. Acknowledging that
there was a certain amount of honour involved in making such a declaration, he indicated that he did not
know of any other way of ascertaining that an individual had not violated any law other than requiring police
verification, which might be too cumbersome. In noting that discriminatory treatment was an issue, C/FIN
indicated that there were laws, including in Québec, that would prevent such background information from
being sought from the police.
14. In taking the action recommended by the FIC in its report, the Council:
a) requested that, under the ICAO Procurement Code (Doc 9761), documentation attesting
to the absence of violation of any law, pending criminal proceedings or regulatory
investigations for staff assigned to ICAO projects be solicited from any potential
supplier and that procedures for its processing and evaluation be established in ICAO;
C-MIN 186/11 - 106 -
b) requested that appropriate language be introduced in the ICAO Procurement Code

(Doc 9761) to reflect that, in the absence of a specific provision, the relevant provision
of the United Nations (UN) Procurement Code would apply, it being understood that, in
the event that the UN Procurement Code were invoked, the ICAO Procurement Code
(Doc 9761) would be suitably updated; and
c) requested that the indemnification clause in the standard contract be amended to reflect
that contracting suppliers would assume both financial and judicial responsibility.
Report of FIC — Review of exceptional remuneration made to seconded staff
15. The Council considered C-WP/13312, in which the Finance Committee (FIC) reported on
the outcome of its review of exceptional remuneration made to seconded staff, undertaken pursuant to the
Council’s earlier decision (185/5).
16. In taking the action recommended by the FIC in the executive summary of C-WP/13312, as
amended by the President of the Council in light of the discussion, the Council decided that exceptional
remuneration should not be made to seconded staff under any circumstances and requested that The ICAO
Service Code (Doc 7350) be amended accordingly.
Subject No. 18.1: Annual Budget

Subject No. 18.2: Transfers from one Major Programme of the Budget to another
Financial Year 2008 — Report on the carry-forward
17. The Council resumed (186/8) its consideration of this subject, documented in C-WP/13329
presented by the Secretary General. It was recalled that, when reviewing Table 3 (Requests for carry-over of
2008 appropriations — new activities), the Council had excluded the item entitled “ISEC — Additional
resources” and the corresponding amount of CAD 352 000 from its approval of the proposals contained in
C-WP/13329 pending further information thereon from the Secretary General. Such information had been
provided to Representatives in an e-mail from the Secretary General dated 11 March 2009.
18. In elaborating on ISEC’s request for extra funding from the carry-over of 2008
appropriations, the Secretary General noted that, as indicated in his e-mail, ISEC was responsible for
“developing security policies, standards and procedures and providing advice on all matters related to
security at ICAO Headquarters, Regional Offices and the UN Agencies in Canada; liaising with the Host
State and building management on matters relating to the security and safety of the ICAO staff, Headquarters
building and its premises; overseeing the development and implementation of procedures for fire prevention
and for the security and safety of the staff, building, its facilities, and premises; preparing threat and risk
assessments as well as contingency measures management in case of major disasters; and co-ordinating
meetings of the local Security Management Team (SMT)”. Recalling, from the Council’s previous
discussion, that a Representative had indicated that there was a sufficient number of security guards, he
emphasized that that was correct if it was only a question of building security. However, that was not the case.
As the Secretary General had explained, the responsibility of ISEC extended far beyond ICAO Headquarters;
it also encompassed the ICAO Regional Offices and UN Agencies in Canada. The Secretary General noted,
in this context, that he had sent C/ISEC to the Dakar Office in July 2008 at the request of the UN Department
of Safety and Security (UNDSS) in New York. C/ISEC had also had to contact the RCMP in Ottawa at the
request of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) as the Chief Executive’s apartment
- 107 - C-MIN 186/11
had been broken into. He therefore proposed that the contract of the ISEC G-5 Secretary be extended to the
end of the current triennium and that a P-2 Associate Security Officer be recruited, also to the end of the
current triennium.
19. In supporting the Secretary General’ proposal, the Representative of Saudi Arabia observed
that ISEC’s responsibility was clearly not limited to the ICAO premises and that it fell within the Secretary
General’s purview to ensure safety and security,
20. While thanking the Secretary General for having provided the additional information, the
Representative of Germany noted that it had not answered his questions of how spending CAD 352 000
would improve the security of the ICAO premises and what the role and responsibilities of the RCMP were
with regard to the security of those premises. He further observed that when he had read the draft job
description for the P-2 Associate Security Officer attached to the said e-mail he had queried what the
remaining duties of C/ISEC would be and whether he would be sufficiently occupied. The Representative of
Germany underscored that the described duties and responsibilities did not have to be performed on a daily
basis and that the security of the ICAO premises would not be compromised if C/ISEC were on mission or
on vacation. In emphasizing that he was not opposed to security and recognized that the latter cost money,
he underscored that he simply did not agree to hiring additional personnel for that purpose. The
Representative of Germany stressed that if the Secretary General considered that a P-2 Associate Security
Officer for ISEC was essential, then he was free to recruit such an Officer, but not with money from the
carry-over of 2008 appropriations. He therefore did not approve the spending of CAD 352 000 from the said
carry-over for ISEC.
21. Underscoring the need for the Council to prioritize the Organization’s Strategic Objectives
against its work programme, the Representative of Singapore indicated that in his view aviation security and
environmental protection were important Strategic Objectives. Recalling that the Council had decided
(186/10) to convene a High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change (HLM-ENV/09) in
Montréal from 7 to 9 October 2009 and to participate in the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the
Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15) in Copenhagen in
December 2009, he noted that the President of the Council and the Environment Section (ENV) could be
expected to take part in numerous initiatives and co-ordinating meetings overseas prior to COP15. The
Representative of Singapore recalled that the Council had been informed that there were insufficient funds
to pay for the cost of the environmental programme: ICAO had budgeted for the latter on the assumption that
US $2 million in voluntary contributions would be received, whereas only US $300 000 had thus far been
received. In order for the environmental programme to be carried out unhindered, it was imperative for it to
be given urgent consideration for access to funds. Thus under the circumstances, the Representative of
Singapore considered that the carry-over of 2008 appropriations, which should normally be returned to
States, should instead be allocated to the environmental programme as a matter of priority. Any remaining
balance could then be allocated to ISEC needs as the President of the Council and the Secretary General
deemed fit.
22. The Representative of Egypt supported the Secretary General’s proposal as it was in
keeping with the United Nations (UN) objectives and the recommendation of the UN Secretary-General,
Ban Ki-moon, that ICAO be responsible for the security of its Regional Offices, as well as of UN Agencies
in Canada.
23. The Representatives of Japan and Iceland shared the views expressed by the
Representatives of Germany and Singapore.
C-MIN 186/11 - 108 -
24. In agreeing with the comments made by the Representative of Germany, the Representative
of the United Kingdom emphasized that while security was an important issue, it was not a new one; it was
an issue which should have been budgeted for throughout the triennium in the Regular Programme budget
rather than being the subject of a request for additional funds from the carry-over of 2008 appropriations. On
the other hand, the HLM-ENV/09 and the preparations by ICAO for COP15 were new activities for which
use of the said carry-over funds would be justified. The Representative of the United Kingdom strongly
believed that the Council should approve the use of the said funds for that purpose. He differed from the
Representative of Singapore in that he considered that any unspent balance of the carry-over funds should be
spent not on ISEC but on aviation security in light of the envisaged international conference on aviation
security.
25. In observing that all Representatives were in favour of aviation security, the Secretary
General indicated that it was a question of differentiating between two types of security. The emerging
threats against international civil aviation, whether aircraft and their passengers and crews, airports and
infrastructure, also threatened the security of the UN Agencies and their personnel. A distinction could not
be made between the lives of passengers and crews and those of UN Agency personnel.
26. The Secretary General noted that the information regarding threats to security had only been
received in 2008, whereas the budget had been prepared in 2007. What he was now trying to do was to find
the means to ensure that the requisite security measures were implemented in ICAO Regional Offices, as
well as in UN Agencies in Canada.
27. The Representative of the United Arab Emirates indicated that, although his State strongly
supported a safe and secure working environment for all occupants of ICAO Headquarters and endorsed the
Secretary General’s efforts to make the premises secure, it would not approve the use of the carry-over of
2008 appropriations for ISEC.
28. The Representative of the Russian Federation, while sharing the concerns expressed by the
Secretary General regarding ISEC, found it hard not to agree with the comments made by the Representatives
of Germany and the United Kingdom. In recalling that the Representative of Singapore had underscored that
there were other activities which required additional funding, he enquired as to the differences between the
two scenarios for the ISEC budget for 2009 and 2010 set forth in the said e-mail from the Secretary General.
29. C/ISEC clarified that under Scenario 1, missions to three Regional Offices (Bangkok, Cairo
and Nairobi) would be conducted in 2009 and missions to two Regional Offices (Lima and Mexico) would
be conducted in 2010 to perform security assessments. Under Scenario 2, no such missions would be carried
out.
30. Expressing surprise at the high salary for the P-2 Associate Security Officer, the
Representative of the Russian Federation reiterated that there were other areas where funds were needed. In
citing, as an example, translation services, he recalled that in December 2008 the Secretary General had
issued a letter requesting States to provide support for the translation of ICAO documents into the various
working languages of the Organization. While his State was prepared to assist the Secretary General in any
capacity and had even provided support for the translation of the paper under discussion, the lack of
sufficient funds for translation services had led to the current dire situation, which was having very serious
impacts. While not saying that the carry-over of 2008 appropriations should be used to fund translation
services, the Representative of the Russian Federation emphasized that a reasonable compromise must be
reached. Although it was obvious that funds should be allocated to address security issues, it was necessary
- 109 - C-MIN 186/11
to maintain a balance. He therefore considered that another scenario for the ISEC budget for 2009 and 2010
should be prepared, one that was between Scenarios 1 and 2.
31. In affirming that the importance of managing security could not be over-emphasized, the
Representative of Uganda noted that the Secretary General had elaborately presented the measures that he
was planning to put in place in order to ensure an appropriate level of security management. He concurred
with the Secretary General that the only difference between aviation security and ISEC was that they
happened in different environments. In both cases, people were the target. The Representative of Uganda
underscored that no lessons seemed to have been learned from previous incidents where there had been some
indications that something was going to happen but appropriate measures had not been taken as it had been
considered that there was no reason to worry. Recalling that the UN had carried out a threat assessment and
come to the conclusion that UN Agencies were now targets, he indicated that the question was now whether
to maintain the status quo or take appropriate measures. For ICAO, it was a question of either facilitating the
work of ISEC or abolishing that section.
32. Observing that ISEC was currently staffed with one Professional, C/ISEC, the
Representative of Uganda emphasized that the latter would go on annual leave as part of his terms and
conditions of service. Furthermore, he might fall sick. Moreover, C/ISEC had to verify the security of UN
Agencies in Canada. He also had to go on mission to the Regional Offices of ICAO. Thus for approximately
a third of his time C/ISEC would be out of his office. The Representative of Uganda averred that by refusing
to provide him with appropriate support, the Council was in effect restricting C/ISEC’s ability to address
situations when they arose. In view of the importance and sensitivity of security issues, he supported the
Secretary General very strongly. The Representative of Uganda also supported allocating appropriate funds
for ISEC in the Regular Programme budget for the next triennium.
33. The Representative of France observed that he was still waiting for a clear table defining, in
legal and practical terms, how the responsibilities for the security of ICAO Headquarters and the Regional
Offices were shared between ICAO and the Host State, Canada, and what the security responsibilities of the
lead UN Agency were. Indicating that there were texts relating to the division of such responsibilities, he
averred that there should at least be references to those texts and to specific clauses thereof as the Council
could not discuss the very serious security issues without having precise information.
34. In then referring to the incident involving the UNHCR cited by the Secretary General, in
which a pane of glass of the Chief Executive Officer’s apartment window had been broken, the
Representative of France contended that children playing ball in the street below might have broken the
window, in which case the local police should have been called. No intervention on the part of ISEC had
been necessary. With respect to the comments made regarding Al-Qaeda, he emphasized that if the latter
were preparing to attack ICAO, then the recruitment of a P-2 Associate Security Officer would not change
that reality. The Representative of France questioned, if that were not the case, whether there was a need to
use the carry-over of 2008 appropriations for ISEC. He underscored that, in the absence of hard, documented
facts, he could not approve the Secretary General’s proposal in that regard. The Secretary General
underscored that it was the UN Secretary-General himself, Ban Ki-moon, who had informed the UN System
Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination (CEB) that the UN Agencies were a target of Al-Qaeda.
35. The Representative of Venezuela shared the concerns expressed by the Representative of
France regarding the sharing of the said security responsibilities. While recognizing the priority accorded to
security, he considered that it was necessary to achieve a balance between the latter and environmental
protection. The Representative of Venezuela therefore supported the proposal made by the Representative
C-MIN 186/11 - 110 -
of Singapore that the carry-over of 2008 appropriations be allocated to the environmental programme as a
matter of priority, with any remaining balance being allocated to ISEC needs. He was, nevertheless, prepared
to support the proposed extension of the G-5 Secretary of ISEC and the recruitment of the P-2 Associate
Security Officer.
36. In recalling that the Secretary General had provided Representatives with additional
information, including details about threats that might be growing, the Representative of the United States
indicated that they did not need to see some of that information. As had been mentioned the last time this
issue had been discussed in the Council and when it had been discussed in the Finance Committee (FIC),
some of that threat information was so sensitive that it did not have to be fully distributed. Observing that the
Secretary General had also given more information on the job requirements and duties of the new
P-2 Associate Security Officer, the Representative of the United States, echoing the Representative of
Germany, enquired as to what tasks would remain to be performed by C/ISEC. Representatives were being
told different things at different times. While it had been indicated that, in some cases, C/ISEC needed to
travel to the ICAO Regional Offices outside of Canada, it had also been indicated that the other UN Agencies
in the cities where the latter were located were responsible for the security of ICAO facilities.
37. The Representative of the United States further noted that Representatives had not received
an answer to the question posed previously regarding how the use of the carry-over of 2008 appropriations
would make a difference to ICAO’s security. She stressed that no one was questioning the importance of
having good preventive measures and good preventive planning against security threats for all of the UN
Agencies in Canada, for all of the UN buildings in Montréal and for Representatives, whether officially or
at their residences, were they to be so targeted. The Representative of the United States emphasized that the
Secretary General could fund improvements to ISEC from the Regular Programme budget by transferring
resources.
38. With regard to the carry-over of 2008 appropriations, the Representative of the United
States noted that those were funds that belonged to Contracting States, including ones that were not
represented on the Council. Those were States that, at the Assembly, had indicated their interest in the
importance of finding a global solution for the environment. In that respect, the Representative of the United
States strongly supported the suggestion made by the Representative of Singapore that the Council allot
funds from the carry-over of 2008 appropriations to the environmental programme. While not refusing to
approve spending of the said carry-over on ISEC, she reiterated that the Secretary General did have the
discretionary power to use funds from the Regular Programme budget for ISEC.
39. The Secretary General clarified that, in accordance with the Headquarters Agreement
concluded between ICAO and the Government of Canada, it was the responsibility of the Host State, Canada,
to make sure that ICAO took all necessary measures to render its premises secure. With regard to ICAO
Regional Offices, it was for the Organization to make sure that the latter had adopted all necessary security
measures. In the case where an ICAO Regional Office was located in the same city as a lead UN Agency, the
lead UN Agency was not obliged to provide equipment to the ICAO Regional Office. It was, however,
required to make sure that the latter had taken the necessary security measures. He cited, as an example, the
case of the Paris Office, where the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) was the lead UN Agency.
40. Referring to the proposal that he transfer resources from the Regular Programme budget to
ISEC, the Secretary General recalled that when the draft budget for 2008, 2009 and 2010 had been reviewed
by the Council, posts had been cut from all Bureaux. In emphasizing that there was absolutely no possibility
- 111 - C-MIN 186/11
of finding other funds for ISEC, he underscored that even for environmental protection, a Strategic Objective
of ICAO, not all of the requested voluntary contributions had been received. While the Secretary General had
issued a letter several months ago to Representatives asking them to fulfill their obligations, not many had
replied. As the Secretariat could not come up with other funds for ISEC, the Secretary General was proposing
that the carry-over of 2008 appropriations be used.
41. The Representative of Nigeria agreed with previous speakers that the Secretary General’s
proposal was an important one that needed to be supported. Noting that the response to, and improvement
of, security, whether for personnel or for passengers and crews, had always been a reactive one, he recalled
that all of the aviation security instruments had been adopted as a reaction to incidents that had occurred. In
light of the sensitive nature of some of the security-related information that had been provided, the
Representative of Nigeria suggested that in future the Secretariat and the President of the Council should
decide whether such information should be provided in a closed meeting of the Council.
42. The Representative of Nigeria indicated that it was clear that in order to address the
Organization’s security responsibilities, many policies and procedures had to be put in place and ISEC had
to be strengthened. However, it was also clear, after the discussion in the FIC and the Council, that a number
of Representatives did not want to support the Secretary General’s proposal. Thus although the
Representative of Nigeria could accept the proposal, he suggested a third scenario, as a basic minimum: that
CAD 98 500 be transferred to ISEC (CAD 79 500 for the extension of the G-5 Secretary from July 2009 to
December 2010 and CAD 19 000 for security kits for Regional Offices and training for the use of
defibrillators). He averred that without such a basic minimum the Council would be sending the wrong
message to the UN. The Representative of Nigeria further suggested that the Council request the Secretariat
to determine whether there were any internal resources that could be used to address the issue of the
P-2 Associate Security Officer and whether the responsibilities of some existing staff members could be
expanded to provide support in order to develop the said policies and procedures and to replace C/ISEC in
his absence.
43. The Representative of Spain underscored that no one doubted the importance of the physical
security of the ICAO Headquarters or that of any other UN Agencies in Canada. However, it was being
proposed that an exceptional financial measure, namely, the carry-over of 2008 appropriations, be used to
fund a current and ongoing requirement, namely, a permanent position in ICAO, that of a P-2 Associate
Security Officer. Observing that the Council was not prepared, at this stage, to approve the use of the said
carry-over for ISEC, the Representative of Spain recalled the suggestion made by the Representative of
Germany that the Secretary General use other financial resources.
44. In endorsing the proposal made by the Representative of Germany and supported by the
Representatives of France, Singapore, the United States and Spain, among others, the Representative of Italy
emphasized the need to find new, less bureaucratic ways to tackle problems.
45. While agreeing on the importance of security, the Representative of Mexico was concerned
about the approach being proposed. He emphasized that if there were an imminent threat from Al-Qaeda,
then ICAO and the Canadian authorities needed to work together to determine what action could be taken.
The Representative of Mexico voiced support for the proposal made by the Representative of Singapore.
46. Although he did not question the importance of security measures within the ICAO
premises, the Representative of Switzerland found it unacceptable that the carry-over of 2008 appropriations
should be used to finance ISEC expenses for 2010, the year in which most of the expenses would be incurred.
C-MIN 186/11 - 112 -
Indicating that it would be a different case if part of the said carry-over came from the funds allocated to the
Human Resources Branch (HRB) for 2008, he noted that there would then at least be an excuse to take part
of the carry-over of 2008 HRB appropriations to fund a P-2 Associate Security Officer post in 2009, but
certainly not in 2010. For that reason, the Representative of Switzerland endorsed the proposal made by the
Representative of Singapore.
47. The Representative of Namibia recalled how, during the Assembly and other major
meetings held in the ICAO Headquarters concrete blocks were placed around the premises to protect the
human lives inside. Noting that it was possible for two or three cars to enter the garage at the same time, he
stressed that that situation should be corrected to further protect human lives at all times. Underscoring that
human life was so precious that it could not be compared to political and economic considerations, the
Representative of Namibia indicated that he supported the Secretary General’s proposal.
48. In commending the proposal made by the Representative of Nigeria, the Representative of
the United States suggested, as a compromise, that CAD 98 500 be transferred to ISEC (CAD 79 500 for the
extension of the G-5 Secretary from July 2009 to December 2010 and CAD 19 000 for security kits for
Regional Offices and training for the use of defibrillators) and that the balance, CAD 253 500, be applied to
the environmental programme. She underscored that there might be ways to fund additional ISEC work
through the Regular Programme budget and the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF). The
Representatives of Brazil, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, South Africa and Mexico supported
this compromise solution.
49. The Representative of Argentina supported the proposal made by the Representative of
Nigeria as it seemed to be the most balanced. For his part, the Representative of Nigeria indicated that he had
no objection to the remainder of CAD 253 500 being applied to the environmental programme as suggested
by the Representative of the United States.
50. The Representative of Germany indicated that he was unable to support either the initial
proposal by the Representative of Nigeria or the compromise proposal by the Representative of the United
States without first consulting his national administration thereon. Questioning how spending some
CAD 80 000 to extend the contract of the G-5 Secretary in ISEC to December 2010 would improve the
security of ICAO Headquarters, he underscored that he would not change his position that the carry-over
of 2008 appropriations should not be used for ISEC as proposed. The Representatives of the Republic of
Korea and Japan were of the same view. The Representative of Japan indicated that, while he supported the
proposal made by the Representative of Singapore, he was not in a position to take a decision thereon during
the present meeting.
51. Noting that a number of Representatives had supported the proposal by the Representative
of the United States that CAD 98 500 be transferred to ISEC (CAD 79 500 for the extension of the G-5
Secretary from July 2009 to December 2010 and CAD 19 000 for security kits for Regional Offices and
training for the use of defibrillators) and that the balance, CAD 253 500, be applied to the environmental
programme, the President of the Council suggested, and the Council agreed, that he circulate the draft text
of a corresponding Council decision to Representatives the following day to enable consultation with
national administrations prior to the Council’s consideration thereof at its next meeting (186/12).
- 113 - C-MIN 186/11
Report on the work methods of the External Auditor
52. The Council considered the above subject pursuant to a request from twenty-three
Representatives dated 26 February 2009 and on the basis of an oral report by the Chief of the Office for
Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (C/EAO) and briefing notes which the latter had
sent beforehand to Representatives at the request of the President of the Council. It was noted that the
External Auditor’s plan of his proposed audit activities of ICAO submitted in a letter to the President of the
Council and the Secretary General dated 4 March 2009 and referred to in paragraph 2 of the briefing notes
would be circulated to Representatives.
53. Noting that ICAO had had an External Auditor for some thirty years and had never had any
problems with regard to the procedures adopted by the latter, and that the Organization had benefitted from
co-operation with the former External Auditor, the Representative of Saudi Arabia expressed surprise at the
working methods of the new External Auditor, the Cour des Comptes of France, which were quite different
from those applied by previous External Auditors. While recognizing that the External Auditor could adopt
any working methods that he considered appropriate in order to fulfill his responsibilities, he underscored
that there was no agreement in writing between the External Auditor and ICAO setting forth his work
programme and methodology. It was for that reason that he and the other twenty-two Representatives had
requested the Secretary General in their letter dated 26 February 2009 that, in future, an agreement be
concluded with the External Auditor comprising three parts: general conditions; conditions specific to the
UN Agencies and in particular to ICAO; and the scope of his work, namely, his objectives and the methods
to be followed to achieve them. The Representative of Saudi Arabia emphasized that the Council should
review the draft agreement before it was presented to the Assembly for consideration in conjunction with the
appointment of the External Auditor. He maintained that it was preferable to have such an agreement with
the External Auditor rather than a letter from him setting forth his audit plan as with the latter the External
Auditor would be able to choose his own working methods, which he found unacceptable.
54. The Representative of Spain indicated that, although he was not one of the signatories of the
said letter, he was in favour of clarifying matters. He noted that what was lacking was written procedures for
the conduct of external and internal audits and the presentation of reports thereon to the Council for
consideration. Observing that a number of audit-related items were to be considered during the next (187th)
Session, the Representative of Spain suggested that the Council treat the subject as a whole, namely, the
work of the External and Internal Auditors and the Advisory Group on Evaluation and Audits (AGEA).
55. The Representatives of South Africa and Egypt strongly supported the comments made by
the previous speakers. The latter emphasized that all those who worked for ICAO, including the External
Auditor, must comply with the Organization’s rules.
56. In concurring that there should be a formalized procedure for the conduct of external audits,
the Representative of Nigeria indicated that it should encompass the scope of the audits, including
accounts/funds and administration management, the impact on costs, and the expertise that the External
Auditor should possess. He proposed that the Finance Committee (FIC) be requested to develop a procedure
addressing the future External Auditor’s appointment and working methods. The Representative of Nigeria
further suggested that, if the Council considered that it was necessary to formalize the working methods of
the current External Auditor, then it could be done through a memorandum of understanding. He emphasized,
in this regard, that the Cour des Comptes had indicated in its offer that in preparing audits, the auditing
C-MIN 186/11 - 114 -
director would “unfailingly take into account expectations of the Council and other deliberative organs of the
ICAO” (cf. paragraph 5 of C/EAO’s briefing notes).
57. Referring to the comment made by the Representative of Spain, the Representative of the
United Kingdom suggested that an informal briefing be given by the Internal Auditor, the External Auditor
and AGEA on their specific roles and how they worked together. Recalling that at a presentation that he had
attended the previous year given by the United Kingdom’s National Audit Office the three levels of audit had
been described as the “power of three”, he underscored that while they each worked in their separate areas,
they provided a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts. The Representative of the United Kingdom
emphasized that such an informal briefing would give the Council a better understanding of the roles of the
Internal Auditor, the External Auditor and AGEA so that it could obtain the best possible advice from them
and thus provide the best possible governance to the Organization.
58. Averring that the said letter from the twenty-three Representatives was the result of the lack
of information regarding the relationship between the External Auditor and the Council, the Representative
of Brazil observed that when the State letter inviting nominations for External Auditor of ICAO
for2008, 2009 and 2010 had been issued, the Council had not known what to request from the new External
Auditor. Consequently, the Cour des Comptes had not included its annual audit plan in its offer. He agreed
with those previous speakers who had underscored that the External Auditor should base his work on what
the Council wanted.
59. The Representative of Mexico indicated that, in his opinion, and in light of the information
provided to Representatives, the External Auditor had not infringed upon any rules or his terms of reference.
He stressed that the External Auditor’s independence guaranteed to the Assembly impartial results regarding
the audits of ICAO’s accounts and management. In affirming that the proposed informal briefing would help
ensure the good governance of the Organization, the Representative of Mexico suggested that the Council
could subsequently consider how co-operation between the three levels of audit could improve and benefit
the Organization’s work.
60. Agreeing that an informal briefing would be very useful, the Representative of the United
States suggested that a recapitulation beforehand of the events leading up to the selection of the current
External Auditor would be of benefit to Representatives in posing questions during the briefing.
61. In supporting the comments made by the Representatives of Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria
and Mexico, among others, the Representative of China emphasized that the Council should take a
forward-looking approach. Noting that the said twenty-three Representatives had sent their said letter as they
considered that the current working methods of the External Auditor were not transparent, he underscored
that the same procedures should not be followed in the future. The Representative of China therefore
proposed that the Council request either the FIC or the Secretariat to develop a standard agreement on the
scope and cost of external audits.
62. The Representative of Argentina suggested that, during the Fall session of each year, a paper
be presented to the Council on the External Auditor’s audit plans for the following year.
63. In taking the action proposed by the President of the Council in light of the discussion, the
Council noted the oral report by C/EAO, on the understanding that an informal briefing would be given in
due course by the Internal Auditor, the External Auditor and the AGEA on their specific roles and how they
worked together. It was further noted that the Working Group on Efficiency (WGOE) was proposing that the
- 115 - C-MIN 186/11
item “Report on the Working Methods of the External Auditor” be added to the Council’s Work Programme
for the next (187th) Session (C-WP/13327) and that the Council would have the opportunity to approve the
inclusion of that item, and its possible referral to the FIC for consideration, when it reviewed the said Work
Programme later in the current session.
Other business
Review of the composition of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP)
64. The Chairman of the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC) gave an oral report on the
UIC’s review of the composition of the Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP). He recalled that, on 16 February
2009, he had informed the UIC that a letter had been received from the Representative of China on the
Council of ICAO nominating Mr. Wang Yongming, Security Inspector of Aviation Security Bureau, Civil
Aviation Administration, China, as Member of the AVSECP. The AVSECP was currently composed of
twenty-five Members and five permanent observers. It had been recommended that, due to the scope and
nature of the tasks to be performed by the Panel in the light of the recent challenges facing civil aviation, the
present composition of the Panel be revised. Taking into consideration the involvement of China in the work
of the Panel and its contribution to the ICAO Aviation Security Programme, it had been proposed that China
be included in the Panel, thus increasing the number of Members to twenty-six.
65. It had been noted that at present the working languages of the Panel meetings were Arabic,
English, French, Russian and Spanish. Should China be included in the membership of the Panel,
consideration should be given to adding the Chinese language to the working languages of future Panel
meetings. It had been suggested, however, that, due to the lack of resources, the Chinese language not be
added to the working languages of the Panel for its forthcoming meeting, scheduled to be held from
30 March to 3 April 2009.
66. As no objection had been received from UIC Members by Friday, 27 February 2009, the
Chairman of the UIC considered that the Committee had agreed to expand the membership of the AVSECP
as proposed.
67. In noting the above oral report by the Chairman of the UIC, the Council also agreed to the
proposed expansion of the AVSECP to twenty-six Members to include Mr. Wang Yongming (China), on the
understanding that the AVSECP would continue to work in the said five languages and that the Chinese
language would not be added to the Panel’s working languages at the present time; it would only be added
after the said upcoming AVSECP meeting, depending on the availability of resources.
Subject No. 14.3.9: Communications
Report on the results of the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference (2007) (WRC-07)
68. As no request had been received by 4 March 2009 to have C-WP/13183 on this subject
tabled for discussion in response to memorandum PRES RK/1656 dated 26 February 2009, it was
C-MIN 186/11 - 116 -
Subject No. 6.3: Election of Chairmen and Members of subsidiary bodies of the Council
Appointment of an Alternate on the Air Transport Committee, the Joint Support Committee
the Finance Committee and the Committee on Unlawful Interference
69. The Council appointed Mr. R. Monning (Germany) to succeed Mr. T. Burlage as Alternate
to Mr. J. Mendel on the Air Transport Committee (ATC), the Joint Support Committee (JSC), the Finance
Committee (FIC) and the Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC), with effect from 20 April 2009.
----------
Elimination of the unnecessary translation of certain documents
70. In order to make better use of internal resources, the President of the Council suggested, and
the Council agreed, that the following covering PRES memoranda would no longer be translated: the PRES
memoranda circulating Council working papers designated as “Information Papers” (the working papers
themselves would continue to be translated); and the PRES memoranda giving notice to Representatives of
when Annex amendments would be tabled for adoption. As was the current practice, the said PRES
memoranda would continue to be posted on the ICAO-Net, but in the English language only.

- 117 - C-MIN 186/12
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
OPEN MEETING
PRESENT:
Italy — Mr. P. Ciancaglioni (Alt.) United States — Ms. L. Faux-Gable (Alt.)

Mr. S.R. Prado (Alt.) Argentina *Ms. N. Graham — D/ANB
Mr. L.M. Coelho de Souza (Alt.) Brazil *Mr. R.J. Heighes-Thiessen — D/TCB
Mr. A. Romera (Alt.) Brazil *Dr. Fang Liu D/ADB
Mr. L.R. Nascimento (Alt.) Brazil *Mr. A.R. Diallo C/HRB
Ms. S. Chambers (Alt.) Canada Mr. J. Begin — C/CRC
Mr. Chunyu Ding (Alt.) China Mr. R. Bhalla C/FIN
Mr. Feng Tai (Alt.) — China *Mr. A.E. Eussner — C/EAO
Mr. E.N. Mendez (Alt.) Dominican Republic *Mr. W. Amaro — C/JF
Mr. T. Burlage (Alt.) — Germany *Mrs. H. Biernacki TO/SFP
Mr. F. Christensen (Alt.) — Iceland *Mr. L. Koukoui C/ISEC
Mr. W. Yoshioka (Alt.) — Japan Mrs. C. Rideout CSO
*Part-time
C-MIN 186/12 - 118 -

Subject No. 18.2: Transfers from one Major Programme of the budget to another
Financial Year 2008 – Report on the Carry Forward
1. The Council resumed (186/8 & 11) and completed its consideration of the above subject,
documented in C-WP/13329 presented by the Secretary General.
2. It was recalled that at the eighth meeting of the current session, when reviewing Table 3
(Requests for carry-over of 2008 appropriations – new activities), the Council had excluded the item entitled
“ISEC – Additional resources” and the corresponding amount of CAD 352,000 from its approval of the
proposals in C-WP/13329. The Secretary General had been requested to provide further information on that
item. In light of the information provided by e-mail to Representatives on 11 March 2009 and of the further
discussion which had taken place at the previous (186/11) meeting, the President had circulated the draft text
of a decision to Representatives. The majority of Representatives who had expressed their views were in
favour of the proposal.
3. Out of a total of CAD 352,000 requested for carry-over of 2008 appropriations to ISEC, as
reflected in Table 3 of C-WP/13329, the Council approved the transfer of CAD 98,500 to ISEC which
included $79,500 for the extension of the G-5 Secretary from July 2009 to December 2010 and $19,000 for
Security Kits for Regional Offices ($12,700) and training for the use of defibrillators ($6,300). The balance
of $253,500, originally proposed for the ISEC, would instead be applied to the environmental programme.
4. The Representative of Germany indicated that with regard to carry forward funds in
international organizations, it was the general policy of the German Government to insist on reimbursement
of such funds to the Member States. This fact was not written in stone, however; in individual cases his
Government could agree on other uses of carry-over funds if it lowered future assessments. This was, for
example, the case if the carry-over funds were to be used for completing tasks which had to be funded by the
Member States in the future. This, however, was not the case when it came to the financing of new activities
and was certainly not the case with respect to ISEC. In the case of additional funds for the Environment
Programme, Germany’s position was that a mix of voluntary contributions and regular budgeting was not
acceptable at this point in time. As long as the Environment Programme was not fully financed by funds from
the Regular Budget, Germany could not agree to using funds from the carry forward. The Representative of
Canada confirmed that after careful analysis of the Secretariat proposal, his Administration had decided that
this proposal should not be maintained. Therefore, Canada, the host country, strongly supported the
statement by the Representative of Germany. The Representative of Japan also strongly supported the
position expressed by Germany.
5. It was also noted for the record that the Council did not believe there was a need for a P-2
post in the ICAO Security Section (ISEC), and an explanation of the coordination between the RCMP and
ICAO would be provided to the Council during the next (187th) Session.
6. The Council requested the Finance Committee to review the Organization’s policy with
respect to the carry-over of funds. The FIC would present an oral report on the subject during the next (187th)
Session.
- 119 - C-MIN 186/12
Performance Assessment Report of the Office for Programmes Evaluation,

Audit, and Management Review (EAO)
7. The Council noted C-WP/13320, an Information Paper in which the Secretary General
transmitted the Report of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and Management Review (EAO) on
the activities undertaken by EAO, for the year 2008 together with the comments of the Secretary General on
audit and evaluation reports completed during the year.
8. The Representative of Spain observed that the report under consideration followed naturally
from the discussion the Council had had during the previous session on audits. There were three auditing
mechanisms, i.e. external audits, internal audits, and the audits of the Advisory Group on Evaluation and
Audit (AGEA), and there should be an informal briefing to provide an overall picture. The report of EAO
was an information paper that the Council could really only note. The Representative of Spain wished to
know what findings would be reported in future to the Secretary General, what would be reported to Council,
and what action the Council would be asked to take in reaction to notifications of findings. He also noted that
some of the planned evaluation and audit projects listed in paragraph 1.4 had not been conducted in 2008 and
would instead take place in 2009. As regards the AGEA, mentioned in paragraph 4.1.4, the Representative
of Spain wished to know if C/EAO had any information as to whether the Group had been able to discuss the
External Auditor’s plan, and especially the steps to be taken and best practices to follow in an international
organization.
9. C/EAO indicated that at the recent meeting of the AGEA at the Paris Regional Office, and
also at a meeting with the External Auditor, it had been possible to discuss reporting lines of EAO. As a
result of these discussions, AGEA planned to present a report to Council on the reporting lines of EAO.
C/EAO had observed that at ICAO, little real programme evaluation had been done in terms of analysing the
objectives and results of programmes. What were referred to as “evaluations” in the work programme were,
rather, performance audits which would likely come to the Council only as summaries in the annual
performance reports. The programmes evaluations which C/EAO planned for 2010 would be reported upon
to the Council. The results of discussions with AGEA concerning reporting lines of EAO would be presented
to the Council, and there would also be a charter for the work of EAO presented during the next (187th)
session; this might facilitate a more systematic discussion. As regards the discussions about the working
relations with the External Auditor, C/EAO had discussed the subject with the AGEA members and the
President of the Cour des comptes, as well as with the Director of the International Audit Department in the
Cour des comptes. With regard to the audits and evaluations which had been planned during 2008 and had
not been included, C/EAO indicated that he had inherited this work programme which had been approved
by the Council, and because of resource constraints some of the items were being delayed.
10. The Representative of France hoped that future reports by EAO would be considered by the
Finance Committee before being forwarded to the Council, in order to make it possible to carry out a more
in-depth study, and also stressed the importance of forwarding reports on audit activities on subjects such as
recruitment of staff to the Human Resources Committee.
11. The Representative of Brazil noted that the list, in paragraph 1.4 of C-WP/13320, of audit
projects planned for 2008 included a reference to an audit of technical cooperation projects in Brazil,
including follow up to EAO’s report of 2001. This was one of the activities that had been stopped because
of a lack of resources. The Representative of Brazil considered that internal audits of this nature were a very
C-MIN 186/12 - 120 -
healthy activity for an international organization, and wished to know if the necessary resources had been
allocated in the next budget for these activities to be completed. C/EAO indicated that because of the very
limited travel budget, this audit was not included in the work programme for 2009. It might be possible, if
funds were left over at the end of the year, to hire a local consultant to carry out the audits. Otherwise the
project would be kept in mind for next year’s proposals.
12. The Representative of the United Kingdom recalled during the previous session, the
Council had considered a report of the AGEA (C-WP/13263) which had made reference to a capability
assessment for internal audit. One of the elements had concerned the need for a charter, and a number of
other measures had been proposed which would improve the functioning of EAO. The Representative of the
United Kingdom wished to know what progress had been made in responding to those recommendations
from the AGEA, and whether or not there would be a specific report on the improvements that should be
expected. C/EAO indicated that the point raised by the Representative of the United Kingdom was not
presented in the report now under consideration since it was too soon for significant developments to have
taken place. The next report would address some of the issues raised.
13. The Representative of Venezuela wished to be associated with the concerns expressed by
the Representative of Brazil with regard to the resources which would have to be allocated to audit the
technical cooperation projects in that country. He considered auditing activities not as an end in themselves
but rather a process to be used to improve the transparency and efficiency of the Organization. The
Representative of Venezuela wished to know if any measures were being taken in order to find the necessary
budgetary resources to continue with the projects which had been interrupted.
14. The Representative of the Russian Federation wished to know if EAO was planning to carry
out an analysis of outsourcing translation and publication services. His Delegation had noted that the quality
of translations had deteriorated seriously because some 60 percent of translations had been outsourced.
C/EAO indicated that an evaluation of language services was on the current EAO work programme as a
carry-over from 2008. C/EAO wished to point out, in connection with the question which had been put
forward by the Representative of Venezuela regarding efforts to mobilize supplementary funding, that the
use of external evaluators would give rise to some costs, since those consultants would have to be paid and
their missions would have to be funded.
15. The comments and concerns expressed by some Representatives were noted. It was also
noted that the planned work programme had been too ambitious given the resources within EAO in 2008,
and that EAO, when presenting future work programmes, would be more realistic in accordance with
available resources.
Work Programme of the Council for the 187th Session
16. The Council considered its work programme for the 187th Session on the basis of a paper
presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/13327) and an oral report by the Working Group on Efficiency.
17. Subject to any amendments which may be deemed necessary in light of its approval of the
work programmes of the Committees, the Council approved the work programme presented in C-WP/13327,
with the inclusion of three items, i.e. a report on the outcome of the PKD Board Meeting, a status report on
the split assessment, and a report on the working methods of the External Auditor, recommended by the
Working Group on Efficiency.
- 121 - C-MIN 186/12
18. It was noted that in accordance with the recommendation of the WGOE, four items in
C-WP/13327, i.e. the Report on action taken to implement the decisions of the Council taken at the
186th Session (Item 2); Information on Large-Scale Technical Cooperation Projects (Item 5); Celebration of
International Civil Aviation Day (Item 30); and Administration of Justice at the United Nations (Item 48)
would be circulated under cover of memoranda of the President. The distribution date for Item 5,
Information on Large-Scale Technical Cooperation Projects, was advanced to 15 May rather than the
planned 15 June in order to enable the Ad Hoc Working Group on Technical Cooperation Programme
Development to review the paper.
19. On the basis of a paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/13321) and an oral report
presented by the Chairman of the Air Transport Committee, the Council approved the work programme of
the ATC for the 187th Session as presented in C-WP/13321.
20. The Council approved the work programme of the Joint Support Committee for the 187th
Session, which was the subject of C-WP/13322 presented by the Secretary General and an oral report
presented by the Chairman of the Joint Support Committee.
21. The Council approved the work programme of the Finance Committee which was the
subject of a paper presented by the Secretary General (C-WP/13323) and an oral report presented by the
Chairman of the Finance Committee. In accordance with the oral report, five items were added for referral
to Council, namely a report on audit activities for 2008 – audit report on travel costs; a review of the
conclusions of the Air Transport Symposium (Abuja, 28 to 30 April 2009); a preliminary report on the
results of the pilot study for the development of a harmonized policy on cost recovery for indirect costs; a
report on performance of the ICAO budget; and an oral progress report on the status of the implementation
of split assessment. An item related to treasury guidelines had been added as well by the FIC, but would be
considered only by the Finance Committee and not by the Council. As a result of the inclusion, in the work
programme of the Council, of a report on the working methods of the External Auditor, it was noted that this
subject would also be referred to the FIC.
22. The Council approved the work programme of the Committee on Unlawful Interference on
the basis of C-WP/13324 presented by the Secretary General and an oral report presented by the Chairman
of the UIC. In accordance with the oral report, an item was added related to a review of Assembly resolutions
currently in force in the field of aviation security.
23. The Council approved the work programme of the Technical Cooperation Committee for
the 187th Session on the basis of C-WP/13325 presented by the Secretary General and an oral report
presented by the Chairman of the TCC. In accordance with the oral report, an item was added related to
consideration of a preliminary report by the Technical Cooperation Ad hoc Working Group on the format and
contents of future reports on technical cooperation programme development.
24. The Council approved the work programme of the Human Resources Committee for the
187th Session, documented in C-WP/13326 presented by the Secretary General and an oral report presented
by the Chairman of the HRC. In accordance with the oral report, an item was added related to the recruitment
policy and process for gratis and seconded staff. It was noted that the title of the first item in the Appendix
to C-WP/13326 would be amended, taking into account the amendment to C-DEC 186/1, paragraph 3 a)
recorded below.
C-MIN 186/12 - 122 -
Appointments and promotions to senior level (P-4 and above) posts at ICAO
25. In accordance with Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure for the Council, the Council decided
to reopen discussion of this item, which had been considered earlier in the session (186/1), and, on a proposal
by the Representative of Singapore supported by many Representatives, agreed to amend sub-paragraph 3 a)
of C-DEC 186/1 to read:
“a) keeping in mind Resolution A1-8 (Appointments and promotions at ICAO),

decided that as of 20 January 2009, it would require the written approval of the
President of the Council for any hiring, appointment, promotion, extension and
termination of P-4 employees and above.” The approval of the President would not,
however, be necessary for the following decisions:
i) hiring or extension of temporary employees when the contract offered is of

less than one year (e.g. special service agreements, contracts for freelance
interpreters/translators); and
ii) hiring or renewal of a contract for field staff of technical cooperation

projects.
26. The Representative of Saudi Arabia wished to place on record his objection to the Council’s
decision on this subject, since he believed that the Council had acted in haste and should have proceeded
more carefully.

- 123 -
SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE 186TH SESSION
Advisory Group on Evaluation and Audit (AGEA) Annex 9 – Facilitation

Appointment of a Member (5) Adoption of Amendment 21 (68)
Air Navigation Annex 10 — Aeronatutical Telecommunications,

Interim report on the outcome of the Special Volume I
Africa-Indian Ocean Regional Air Adoption of Amendment 84 (46, 50)
Navigation (SP AFI/08 RAN) Meeting (53)
Report on the results of the ITU World Annex 11 — Air Traffic Services
Radiocommunication Conference (2007) Adoption of Amendment 47 (38)
(WRC-07) (115)
Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation
Air Navigation Commission (ANC) Adoption of Amendment 12 (38)
Appointment of Alternates and a Member (67)
Proposed amendment to the Technical Annex 14 — Aerodromes, Volume I — Aerodrome Design
Instructions for the Safe Transport of and Operations and Volume II — Heliports
Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284) with Adoption of Amendments 10 and 4 respectively
respect to mixtures of dangerous goods and (42)
classification of Division 1.4S explosives
(80) Annex 15 — Aeronautical Information Services
Seating arrangements (39) Adoption of Amendment 35 (46)
Air Transport Aviation Security Panel (AVSECP)

Night curfews and slot allocation (11) Review of the composition (115)
Proposed Terms of Reference of the
Secretariat/Council Group on Regional Budget
Bodies (12) Progress report on issues relating to protecting the
purchasing power of the ICAO budget (split
Air Transport Committee (ATC) assessment) (73)
Appointment of Members and Alternates (5, 116)
Committee on Unlawful Interference (UIC)
Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing Appointment of Members and Alternates (5, 116)
Adoption of Amendment 169 (34)
Conditions of service
Annex 2 — Rules of the Air Appointments and promotions to senior level (P-4
Adoption of Amendment 42 (45) and above) posts at ICAO (2, 122)
Review of the net base salaries of the President of
Annex 4 — Aeronautical Charts the Council and the Secretary General (92)
Council
Annex 6 – Operation of Aircraft – Part I – International Processing of credentials of Representatives and
Commercial Air Transport – Aeroplanes Alternates on the Council (25)
Diplomatic Conference on Compensation for Damage
Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part II — International Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties Arising from Acts of
General Aviation — Aeroplanes Unlawful Interference or from General Risks
Adoption of Amendment 28 (38) Responses to State letter convening Conference
(20)
Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part III —
International Operations — Helicopters
Annex 8 – Airworthiness of Aircraft

- 124 -
Environment
Convening of the High-level Meeting on International Women’s Day
International Aviation and Climate Change Statement by the President of the Council (50)
(99)
Environmental Protection – Recent developments Joint Support Committee (JSC)
in other United Nations bodies (99) Appointment of Members and Alternates (5, 116)
United Nations (UN) Climate Neutral Initiative
(104) Kim, C.-H. (Republic of Korea)
Statement (74)
Espada, Dr. J. R. (Guatemala) Welcome to (50)
Statement (67)
Legal Committee
External Auditor Convening of the 34th Session (21)
Report of the External Auditor on audit activities
in 2008 – Update on investigations (76) Legal matters
International Interests in Mobile Equipment
Finance (aircraft equipment) (20)
Financial situation of the Organization (39)
Financial Year 2008 – Report on the carry forward Meetings
(68, 106, 118) Changes to the Programme of meetings for 2009
Report on review of Financial Regulations 7.8 (5)
and 9.5 (23) Programme of Meetings for 2009 (25)
Report on the processes for delegation of financial
authority (22) Meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was
Report on the use of the Information and represented
Communication Technology (ICT) Fund and Report for the third quarter of 2008 (24)
possible means of financing the Report for the fourth quarter of 2008 (39)
modernization of financial systems (24)
Review of the ICAO Procurement Code President of the Council
(Doc 9761) (105) Report on activities during the recess (10)
Status report on the audit of the Ancillary Revenue
Generation Fund (ARGF) (25) Public Key Directory (PKD)
Appointment of a Member (5)
Finance Committee (FIC)
Appointment of Members and Alternates (5, 116) Safety oversight
Review of exceptional remuneration made to Disclosure to the Council of States referred to the
seconded staff (106) Audit Results Review Board (ARRB) (57)
Report on the Implementation Support and
Fourteenth Meeting of the Statistics Panel (STAP) Development (ISD) — Aviation safety and
Inviting international organizations (5) security activities for 2008 — Progress report
on ICAO audit activities: USOAP and USAP
Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (39)
(GIACC)
Progress Report (94) Secretary General
Appointment (29)
Human Resources Committee (HRC) Interviews for the post (6)
Appointment of an Alternate (5)
Report of HRC — Progress report on the work of Shin, G.-S. (Republic of Korea)
the Human Resources Committee (88) Farewell to (18)
ICAO Workshop on Aviation and Alternative Fuels Technical Cooperation

Inviting international organizations (5) Technical Co-operation Programme Development
(80)
International Committee for Airspace Standards and
Calibration (ICASC) Technical Co-operation Committee (TCC)
Request for inclusion in the list of international Appointment of Members and Alternates (5)
organizations that may be invited to attend
suitable ICAO meetings (68)
- 125 -
Third Meeting of the Group on International Aviation Work Programmes

and Climate Change (GIACC/3) Addition of a new item to the work programme for
Approval of suggestion of the Chairs (6) the 186th Session (63)
Convening of an International Conference on
Translation Aviation Security (14)
Elimination of the unnecessary translation of Performance Assessment Report of the Office for
certain documents (116) Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and
Management Review (EAO) (119)
Unlawful interference Report on action taken to implement decisions
ICAO Regional Seminar on MRTDs, Biometrics (10)
and Security Standards (90) Report on the work methods of the External
Report on acts (8) Auditor (113)
Report on the implementation of Assembly Schedule for consideration of items during the
Resolution A36-19: Threat to civil aviation 186th Session(10)
posed by man-portable air defence systems Work programme of the ANC for the
(MANPADS) (25) 181st Session (67)
Work Programme of the Council for the
187th Session (120)
Working Group on Efficiency (WGOE)

Appointment of Members and Alternates (5)
- 127 -
LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED DURING THE 186TH SESSION
C-WP/13183
Report of ANC - Report on the Results of the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference (2007)
(WRC 07) (11)
C-WP/13265 and Addendum No. 1
Appointment of the Secretary General (4)
C-WP/13266
Report on activities during the recess (2)
C-WP/13267
Report on action taken to implement decisions taken by the Council during the 185th Session (2)
C-WP/13268
Convening of an International Conference on Aviation Security (2)
C-WP/13269 Restricted and Blue rider (French, Spanish, Arabic & Chinese only)
Report on acts of unlawful interference for 2008 (2)
C-WP/13270 Restricted, and Addendum No. 1
Report on the implementation of Assembly Resolution A36-19: Threat to civil aviation posed by
man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) (3)
C-WP/13271
Night curfews and slot allocation (2)
C-WP/13272
Proposed Terms of Reference of the Secretariat/Council Group on Regional Bodies (2)
C-WP/13273
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Aircraft Equipment) (3)
C-WP/13274
Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented - Third Quarter –
1 July to 30 September 2008 (3)
C-WP/13275 and Blue rider (English only)
Convening of the 34th Session of the Legal Committee (3)
C-WP/13279
Financial situation of the Organization (5)
C-WP/13280
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendment 169 to Annex 1 (5)
C-WP/13281
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendment 33 to Annex 6, Part I (5)
C-WP/13282
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendment 28 to Annex 6, Part II (5)
C-WP/13283
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendment 14 to Annex 6, Part III (5)
C-WP/13284
C-WP/13285
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendment 12 to Annex C-WP/13 (5 )
C-WP/13286
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendments 10 and 4 to Annex 14, Volumes I and II, respectively (6)
- 128 -
C-WP/13287
C-WP/13288
C-WP/13289
C-WP/13290
C-WP/13291
Report of ANC - Adoption of Amendment 84 to Annex 10, Volume I (6, 7)
C-WP/13292
Report on the Implementation Support and Development (ISD) – Aviation safety and
security activities for 2008 (5)
C-WP/13295
Disclosure to the Council of States referred to the Audit Results Review Board (ARRB) (7)
C-WP/13297
Work Programme of the Air Navigation Commission for the 181st Session (8)
C-WP/13298
Progress report on the ICAO audit activities: USOAP and USAP (5)
C-WP/13299
Report on meetings of other organizations at which ICAO was represented –
1 October to 31 December 2008 (5)
C-WP/13300
Report of ATC - Adoption of Amendment 21 to Annex 9 - Facilitation (8)
C-WP/13301
Technical Co-operation Programme Development (9)
C-WP/13302
Report of TCC - Technical Co-operation Programme Development (9)
C-WP/13305
Status report on the audit of the Ancillary Revenue Generation Fund (ARGF) (3)
C-WP/13306
Report on the processes for delegation of financial authority (3)
C-WP/13307
Report of FIC - Report on the processes for delegation of financial authority (3)
C-WP/13308 and Blue rider (English only)
Progress report on issues relating to protecting the purchasing power of the ICAO Budget
(split assessment) (8)
C-WP/13309
Report of FIC - Progress report on issues relating to protecting the purchasing power of the
ICAO Budget (split assessment) (8)
C-WP/13310 and Corrigendum No. 1 (French only)
Report on review of Financial Regulations 7.8 and 9.5 (3)
C-WP/13311 and Blue rider
Review of the ICAO Procurement Code (11)
C-WP/13312
Review of exceptional remuneration made to seconded staff (9, 11)
C-WP/13315
Progress report on the work of the Human Resources Committee (9)
- 129 -
C-WP/13316 and Addendum No. 1

Convening of the High-level Meeting on International Aviation and Climate Change (10)
C-WP/13317
Environmental Protection — Recent developments in other United Nations bodies (10)
C-WP/13318
United Nations Climate Neutral Initiative (11)
C-WP/13319 and Blue rider (English only), Corrigendum No. 1
Progress Report on the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) (10)
C-WP/13320
Performance Assessment Report of the Office for Programmes Evaluation, Audit, and
Management Review (EAO) (12 )
C-WP/13321
Work Programme of the Air Transport Committee for the 187th Session (12)
C-WP/13322
Work Programme of the Joint Support Committee for the 187th Session (12)
C-WP/13323
Work Programme of the Finance Committee for the 187th Session (12)
C-WP/13324
Work Programme of the Committee on Unlawful Interference for the 187th Session (12)
C-WP/13325
Work Programme of the Technical Co-operation Committee for the 187th Session (12)
C-WP/13326
Work Programme of the Human Resources Committee for the 187th Session (12)
C-WP/13327 and Addenda Nos 1 and 2 & Corrigendum, Addendum No. 3 & Corrigendum
Work Programme of the Council for the 187th Session (11, 12)
C-WP/13328
Request of the International Committee for Airspace Standards and Calibration for inclusion in the
list of international organizations that may be invited to attend suitable ICAO meetings (8)
C-WP/13329
Financial Year 2008 – Report on the Carry Forward (8, 11, 12)
C-WP/13330 Restricted
Report of the External Auditor on audit activities in 2008 – Update on investigations (9)
Report of UIC - Report on acts of unlawful interference for 2008 (2)
C-WP/13332 and Corrigendum
Proposed amendment to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods
by Air (Doc 9284) with respect to mixtures of dangerous goods and classification of
division 1.4S explosives (9)
Review of the Net Base Salaries of the President of the Council and the Secretary General (10)
C-WP/13334
Appointment of an Alternate on the Air Navigation Commission (8)
C-WP/13335
Appointment of an Alternate and of a Member on the Air Navigation Commission (8)
— END —
NOT FOR SALE
11/09, E/P1/460
Printed in ICAO

International Civil Aviation Organization: Council - 186Th Session

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Civil Aviation Organization: Council - 186Th Session

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doc 9928-C/1162

COUNCIL — 186TH SESSION

Montréal, 20 January – 18 March 2009

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING (CLOSED) ......................................................... 7

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING (OPEN) ....................................................... 9

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING ........................................................................ 19

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING .................................................................... 27

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIFTH MEETING ......................................................................... 33

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING ........................................................................ 41

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING ................................................................... 49

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING ..................................................................... 65

Report of ATC – Amendment 21 to Annex 9 – Facilitation ........................................................ 68

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING (CLOSED) .................................................... 75

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING (OPEN) ......................................................... 79

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING (CLOSED) ................................................... 91

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING (OPEN) ........................................................ 93

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING ............................................................. 103

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING ............................................................... 117

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE SUMMARY MINUTES

LIST OF WORKING PAPERS CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 127

COUNCIL — 186TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TUESDAY, 20 JANUARY 2009, AT 1430 HOURS)

President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González

Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT:

Subject No. 7: Organization and personnel

2. The above-mentioned letter was supplemented by updated information provided orally by

4. Addressing the level of officials to be included in this measure, the Representative of

b) these measures would be permanent as of the date of 20 January 2009;

a) keeping in mind Resolution A1-8 (Appointments and promotions at ICAO),

c) instructed its Human Resources Committee to review procedures and propose

Decisions taken during the recess

27. The meeting adjourned at 1700 hours.

COUNCIL — 186TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1640 HOURS)

President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González

Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT:

Report on acts of unlawful interference

a) noted the annual report on acts of unlawful interference for 2008;

COUNCIL — 186TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, MONDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1430 HOURS)

President of the Council: Mr. Roberto Kobeh González

Secretary: Dr. Taïeb Chérif, Secretary General

ALSO PRESENT: SECRETARIAT:

3. Some additional points already explained in Addendum No. 4 & Corrigendum to

Subject No. 19.1: Reports by the President of the Council

Report on activities during the recess

Subject No. 15.2: Regulation of international air transport services

Night curfews and slot allocation

9. There had been considerable discussion on possible actions to be taken by ICAO in

c) requested the Secretary General to continue to monitor the situation on night

Subject No. 15: Subjects relating to air transport

Proposed Terms of Reference of the Secretariat/Council Group on Regional Bodies

Convening of an International Conference on Aviation Security

Farewell to Mr. Gil-sou Shin, Representative of the Republic of Korea

COUNCIL — 186TH SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING

(THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, WEDNESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2009, AT 1000 HOURS)