International Civil Aviation Organization Purpose and classification of RSOOs Grégory Lièvre EASA Agreements and External Representation Section Manager 26 October 2011 ICAO RSOO Symposium

2 Outlook Why should RSOOs be classified? What could classification criteria be? Examples Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)

3 Why should RSOOs be classified? Observation: no “one size fits all” Existing RSOOs are diverse Dependent on political, institutional, economical, industrial and social circumstances Future RSOOs to benefit from existing solutions Academic interest Inventory to better know RSOOs Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)

4 Why should RSOOs be classified? Practical interests Technical assistance: better knowledge  Adapted solutions (“tool- box” concept) Defining RSOO « perimeter » = an essential, early step in establishing an RSOO RSOO / RSOO dialogue more fruitful if mutual knowledge is more accurate ICAO / RSOO relations dependent on nature of RSOO Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)

5 What could classification criteria be? Potential classification criteria (examples) Transfer of regulatory powers (yes/no) Transfer of enforcement powers (yes/no; if yes, type of judicial control) Technical remit Regulatory convergence / Standardisation / Mutual recognition Type of funding Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)

6 Examples (from AFCAC/EASA Symposium – Livingstone 2009) Project title (Insert, Header & Footer) ACSABAGASOOCASSOACASSOSEASA Initial airworthiness Yes No Yes Continuing airworthiness Yes LicensingYes OPSYes ATM/AirportYesNo/YesYes Probably in the future Other fieldsAll ICAO Annexes AGAAVSECAll ICAO Annexes SAFA, ESSI etc. Remit (based on 2009 data)

7 Examples (from AFCAC/EASA Symposium – Livingstone 2009) Project title (Insert, Header & Footer) ACSABAGASOOCASSOACASSOSEASA Development of regulations Yes Regulatory powers (hard law) NoNo (act through the States) No Regulatory powers (soft law) Yes RAC System Yes No, harmonizing activity only Yes Internalisation process NoneApproved regulations go through States internal processes for promulgation Proposed through amendment of CARICOM Heads Agreement None (EU Treaty) Regulatory aspects (based on 2009 data)

8 Examples (from AFCAC/EASA Symposium – Livingstone 2009) Project title (Insert, Header & Footer) ACSABAGASOOCASSOACASSOSEASA Automatic mutual recognition between members Yes Partial/ Personnel licenses PartialYes Standardisation mechanism Yes Yes, under authority of EC Mutual recognition with other partners NoYesNo Through BASA (EC) Mutual recognition (based on 2009 data)

9 Examples (from AFCAC/EASA Symposium – Livingstone 2009) Project title (Insert, Header & Footer) ACSABAGASOOCASSOACASSOSEASA Power to deliver certificates or approvals No Through trans national mechanism Yes (e.g. TC, STC, Part- 145 approvals etc.) AppealsIn processRefer to BAGASOO Agreement NoAgreement has appeal process for disputes between Members Board of appeal (Article 44 of BR) Judicial control American Court of Justice Refer to BAG Agreement East African Court of Justice (EACJ) Caribbean Court of Justice European Court of Justice Executive powers (based on 2009 data)

10 Examples (from AFCAC/EASA Symposium – Livingstone 2009) Project title (Insert, Header & Footer) ACSACOCESNA Navigation feeds Annual Budget ~ $ BAGASOOState contribution and/or passenger safety charge and service charge CASSOAEqual Contribution from the Partner States through the CAAs + Resources mobilised by the Community: ~ $1,650,000 CASSOSEqual annual contributions from each Member. Annual Budget approx $480,000 USD including ICAO Observer EASASubsidy from the EC + fees and charges Annual budget: ~ € Funding (based on 2009 data)

11 Conclusion Classifying RSOOs has both academic and practical interests There is no “one-size-fits all” RSOO institutional model An initial list of potential criteria can be adopted by the Symposium Project title (Insert, Header & Footer)