1. International Civil Aviation Organization Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) Comparative Analysis Mikołaj Ratajczyk Permanent Representation of Poland to the European Union ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organisations Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011

2. 2 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 Regional cooperation increasingly seen as a promising approach to enhance air safety and efficiency; A number of regional air safety cooperation schemes already exist (earliest established in 1960’s); … but still lack of comprehensive, cross- cutting studies of RSOOs and their benefits (recent exception: new edition of ICAO Doc. 9734 part. B);

3. 3 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 There could be advantages in promoting greater understanding of RSOO concept or making it more precise:  The notion of RSOO increasingly used in ICAO documents (e.g. Assembly Resolutions);  But there is currently no RSOO definition, or common understanding of it in the ICAO context (concept very broad);  Especially, where safety functions normally attributed to States are concerned, there should be no ambiguity as to who is responsible;  Improving understanding of different types of RSOOs (or classifying them) could have advantages but should be practical, based on relevant criteria (e.g. legally binding delegation of safety responsibilities), and take into account that …

4. 4 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 Most of the RSOOs are still young, and expected to continue evolving in the years to come:  Concept not new, but a real „RSOO boom” in the last ten years;  8 out of 10 organisations studied established only in the last decade (6 out of 10 if evolution from other organisations taken into account);  Dynamics of ‘young’ organisations in general different to that of older ones – further changes can be expected;

5. 5 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 There is no single model or “one size fits all” approach for RSOOs  Needs of States differ - the concept therefore implemented in a “tailor-made” manner;  Three main types of RSOOs: a) networks of aviation safety regulators, b) international safety organisations, c) and regional safety agencies evolving within the broader framework of a REIO;  Most dealing with regulatory and oversight issues, but also accident investigation or aviation security bodies;  Broad range of considerations influencing the model finally chosen;  And we also need to bear in mind that …

6. 6 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 RSOOs (especially those established recently) have a clear tendency to evolve into more “institutionalised” structures:  4 out of 8 organisations established in the last decade have already undergone an evolution;  Some examples of transformations:  technical cooperation project international safety organisation/agency;  network of aviation safety regulators international safety organization/agency;  States generally consider it necessary for an RSOO to have legal personality (9 out of 10 organisations studied have some sort of legal personality, and evolution of RSOOs over time clearly also going in this direction);

7. 7 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 Delegation of safety functions to RSOOs important but still not widely utilised  Some of the RSOOs are empowered to exercise, in a legally binding manner, safety functions, normally attributed by the Chicago Convention to States (e.g. certification);  A powerful tool to simplify the exercise of a safety function in a uniform, and legally binding way across a whole region;  One of the most important criteria distinguishing the different types of regional air safety organisations;  In theory can be far reaching, but in practice still not widely used (e.g. only 3/10 RSOOs issuing certificates on behalf of their Member States);

8. 8 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 The „tool-box” concept  Experience shows that if political will exists, legal solutions can accommodate States’ needs (i.e. legal engineering a solution rather than obstacle), but…  States need to be aware that the institutional/legal choices will have far reaching implications for an RSOO;  Experience also shows that it is helpful to organise the whole process in a structured way (e.g. a „matrix” plotting different possible RSOO safety functions with institutional alternatives);  This structured, tailor-made approach could be replicated in a more generic way;

9. 9 Features and Evolution of Regional Safety Oversight Organisations (RSOO) ICAO Symposium on Regional Safety Oversight Organization, Montréal, 26 - 28 October 2011 Conclusions  giving more precision to the notion of RSOO could be advantageous – but in a practical manner based on relevant criteria and taking into account, in particular:  the majority of RSOOs are still young, and expected to continue evolving in the years to come;  there is no single model or “one size fits all” for RSOOs;  RSOOs have a clear tendency to evolve into more “institutionalised” structures with legal personality;  there could be benefit in developing a methodology and more structured guidance material for establishing RSOOs in a tailor-made manner (i.e. a “tool-box” concept), to best meet the safety needs of States concerned;

10. International Civil Aviation Organization Thank you for your attention Contact: Mikołaj Ratajczyk Permanent Representation of Poland to the EU tel. (32) 2 7804 498 E-mail: mikolaj.ratajczyk@msz.gov.pl