. TENTH STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING OF CASP-AP SINGAPORE AVIATION ACADEMY, SINGAPORE

10 and 11 APRIL 2013

SUMMARY RECORD The 10th Steering Committee Meeting (SCM) of CASP-AP was hosted by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore at the Singapore Aviation Academy on 10 and 11 April 2013. The SCM was attended by forty participants of whom thirty one represented fourteen Member States and Administrations. One observer from the United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA), two observers from New Zealand Aviation Security Service (AVSECNZ), two from the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and two from the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA). Two participants represented CASP-AP and Regional Officer Aviation Security represented the ICAO Regional Office.

10 April 2013 – Day One Opening Session Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Chair of the 9th SCM of CASP-AP, (Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India) welcomed participants and stated that CASP-AP had many substantial achievements in its two phases, during which its membership increased from initial 12 to 24 members. This had been undertaken with the continued support from ICAO and the Regional Office. India had chaired both the 8th and 9th Steering Committees and during that time many missions had been conducted to identify needs, and courses and workshops arranged to meet the needs of members States/Administrations. Mr Shrivastava also complimented the CASP-AP Programme Coordinator (PC) and the Technical Cooperation Assistant (TCA) for the splendid work that had been undertaken, and the results of this work could be seen in the improvements of the USAP findings of members from cycle 1 to cycle 2. In response, the PC thanked India for the 20 months of Chairmanship and the directions and support that had been provided to CASP-AP over this period. Handover of Chairmanship At this time, the Chairmanship of the 9th SCM by India was formally handed to Singapore and the 10th SCM commenced. Mr. Yap Ong Heng, Director-General, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) as Chairman of the 10th SCM, opened the meeting by thanking India for the excellent leadership and support of CASP-AP over the past two years, and members States/Administrations, and observers of CASP-AP for their efforts to continually move forward to meet the requirements of Annex 17. The Chair highlighted the growth potential and the diverse capabilities that exist in the Asia Pacific (APAC) region in the field of aviation. He reiterated CASP-AP’s effectiveness as a platform for the exchange of knowledge and expertise through aviation security programmes, and for strengthening its members’ systems and performance. He also urged all to continue participating actively in CASP-AP, adding that it would be good to see other non-member States in the region come on board as well. As CASP-AP was about 14 months away from the completion of Phase II, Chair emphasised the importance of establishing a vision for Phase III to guide CASP-AP’s future directions, priorities and initiatives, and to also take the opportunity to relook at CASP-AP’s raison d’être to further enhance its effectiveness.

2

Adoption of Agenda1 The proposed agenda for the 10th SCM was tabled for consideration. The PC highlighted the following differences in the proposed Agenda compared to previous SCMs:

The major issues for discussion (i.e. Finances, Work Plan and considerations for Phase III) would be introduced early in the meeting to allow members time to digest the content. Each of the major issues was to be presented with an explanation and discussed in detail on Day 2 to allow informed decision-making.

Extra financial information would be provided to support the budget and work plan discussions.

Presentations provided would include those from the PC, acting as the Secretariat, and members and observers.

The meeting adopted the proposed agenda. Perspectives of 9th SCM – India On behalf of Chair 9th SCM, Mrs Shefali Juneja presented on the preceding 20 months of CASP-AP, thanked Singapore for hosting 10th SCM and extended a warm welcome to members. She presented a list of significant achievements made during 8th and 9th SCM period, highlighting the innovations of the sub-Regional approach and partnering as effective new directions for CASP-AP. The Chair 10th SCM indicated that Singapore looked forward to enhancing the achievements made under India’s Chairmanship. AAPA thanked India for its presentation and support, and suggested that future meetings could possibly measure the improvement of compliance with Annex 17, through the presentation of USAP reports, to provide a system of benchmarking for the identification of improvements. In response, the Chair indicated that RO/AVSEC would present in detail, the analysis of USAP findings, during the meeting. Nepal also passed on their thanks to India and CASP-AP for the recent sub-Regional Special Quality Control Programme (SQCP) Workshop. While Nepal had already prepared its QCP, it needed help in making the programme work. In response, PC stated that it would become apparent that the SQCP Workshop was the first of three phases. Later phases would be about implementation and making the programme work by initiating a QC system. Overview of CASP-AP members’ needs RO/AVSEC presented an analysis of CASP-AP members’ USAP Lack of Effective Implementation (LEI) of the Critical Elements (CE) and explanation of which components of each CE were deficient. This analysis was presented as the collective member States’ findings, excluding those member states/administrations with LEI lower than the APAC region average for each CE. It provided a good overview of members’ needs. The data indicated that the greatest deficiencies were in the CEs 5, 6, 7 and 8. The presentation also highlighted areas requiring immediate attention, due to Amendment 13 of Annex 17. Based on deficiencies identified by USAP and requirements resulting from Amendment 13, the areas requiring attention were summarised as: Quality Control, Training and Certification, Approval Obligations, Cargo and Access Control. RO/AVSEC also highlighted the components of each of the areas which were currently deficient. Her presentation included a summary of assistance currently available to address those deficiencies. The presentation was useful in informing activities that CASP-AP could

1 Copies of the Agenda and the list of participants are attached to this Summary Record.

3

undertake, through the Annual Work Plan, in the absence of other assistance already available. The following issues were discussed and addressed accordingly:

In response to India’s query, RO/AVSEC stated that the USAP data presented were from the USAP Cycle 2, 2008-2013.

Bhutan stated that while a lot of training had been done, staff returned to their States without the required handbooks and tools to institute systems. PC stated that the SQCP was specifically designed as Phase 1 of the three Phased approach leading to implementation. Hence, Bhutan would receive further assistance in this way.

In response to Singapore’s suggestion, PC confirmed that the deliverables required of States arising from ICAO’s amendments to Annex 17 and other relevant Annexes would be discussed at future ATOMs.

AAPA commented that assistance on the development of a communication strategy was not currently available. As the airlines wanted to work with regulators, there was a need for a consultative rather than a directive approach, which could be established by a communication strategy.

In response to New Zealand’s query on where the Pacific stood, in relation to the data presented, RO/AVSEC clarified that the data reflected the outcomes of audits of CASP-AP members only, which closely reflected the APAC region’s results. For the Pacific region, a key deficiency was in the implementation of quality control as reflected in its high LEI in CE 7 and 8.

In response to India’s suggestion that more assistance is needed to facilitate the adoption of technology, RO/AVSEC clarified that CE-5 (on the provision of technical guidance) did not refer to technology per se, but to operational and guidance material such as SOPs. Nonetheless, the inaugural ATOM had also identified an equipment-related issue which would be covered under the discussion of the ATOM issue list. Chair observed that in relation to technology, there were other fora such as the Regional Aviation Security Coordination Forum (RASCF) in which such issues could be addressed.

SESSION 1 - ADMINISTRATION AND PERFORMANCE Discussion Papers 1 and 1 A - Actions arising, 9th SCM (by CASP-AP PC) and Amendment to AOPPM PC updated that out of the 11 actions directed by the 9th SCM, 8 had been completed. One other had been completed but needed an additional task, and two required guidance from the 10th SCM to be progressed. He provided a suggested amendment to the CASP-AP Administrative and Operational Policy and Procedures Manual (AOPPM) in relation to funding arrangements, as directed by the 9th SCM. This amendment was agreed upon by the meeting. He also suggested that a review and rewrite of the AOPPM be undertaken to make it more useful. The meeting noted that the re-vamp of the AOPPM was already an item under the draft AWP 2013/14 and would be considered during this discussion. The task could be done in consultation with COSCAP-SEA which had a similar issue. Chair reiterated the need for members who had not yet done so, to sign the Phase II document, noting CASP-AP could only continue services if members made their financial contributions. In response to Chair’s query on the status of the website, which was the last item outstanding from the 9th SCM, PC updated that the CASP-AP website had been reinstated but the data was outdated. Upgrading the website would require assistance from members or the use a contracted resource at considerable cost. This matter would be discussed further under the agenda item on future directions for CASP-AP.

4

The meeting also noted the developments regarding the remaining outstanding items from 9th SCM:

a) The framework governing how RO/AVSEC and the PC should coordinate their

activities and work together to enhance regional aviation security had been

completed and endorsed by ICAO HQ.

b) Submission of the CASP-AP Focus Person Form by members (largely completed by

the end of the 10th SCM).

The Chair thanked the Regional Office for its support of CASP-AP and asked members to complete the CASP-AP Focus Person Form as soon as possible. Discussion Paper 2 – Progress Report 2012/13 Membership PC updated that out of 24 members, only 14 have signed the CASP-AP Phase II Programme Document. Timor-Leste would sign the document today and one or two other States had indicated that they should be able to sign in the very near future. There are five member States that are effectively not active in CASP-AP. There has been no response to any form of communication. These were listed in Attachment 2 of DP 2. The PC would continue to initiate communications with these members and he suggested that if any other members had bilateral relationships with these States, they might be able to assist too. The meeting also noted that there were 3 States that had provided no financial contributions in Phase II, noting that Bhutan had committed in writing to provide funding in their new financial year. Assistance Missions The PC updated that the standard assessment Mission conducted by him would last five days and involve a review of the CAP and national programmes, and was designed to identify training and capacity building needs. A draft report would be provided to the State for comments after which it would be formalised and sent, normally to the DG. Information gained during these Missions and discussions with members indicated that nearly all CASP-AP members’ National Programmes needed updating to reflect Amendment 12 and 13 to Annex 17. CASP-AP had on-going internal projects to update model programmes to Amendment 13. The programme models should be available for issue in 6-8 weeks’ time and would include track changes so that States could compare the models with their existing programmes. Attachment 3 to DP 2 provided the status of CASP-AP’s legal review of member States’ legislations as indicated by CASP-AP records. States were requested to check its accuracy and to notify the PC of inaccuracies, and if they had need of assistance in this matter. Training and Capacity Building On CASP-AP assistance, PC shared that support was normally provided directly by the PC or through the use of international experts, especially in early phases of assistance programmes, which was expensive. More support could be provided by member States/Administrations and he suggested that where possible, experts available within the region should be engaged either through contract or from in kind contributions from members, so as to keep costs down. Greater coordination of efforts is also possible to reduce costs.2 In the same vein, RO/AVSEC suggested that members should consider sending staff for training in ICAO-sponsored courses so as to enable their trained staff to co-

2 For example, CASP-AP and Indonesia recently coordinated in the engagement of Dr Ludwig Weber as an Air Law Expert

in the CASP-AP Legal Aspects of Aviation Security Seminar, through a cost sharing mechanism.

5

deliver the same courses, with CASP-AP or ICAO instructors, in their own country (“in situ training”). This would help to increase the sustainability of training outcomes throughout CASP-AP. PC also thanked New Zealand for its support of the Screener Training in Laos PDR. CASP-AP could now use the provided screening training materials for the benefit of other members. Annual Technical and Operational Meeting (ATOM) PC provided an overview of the inaugural ATOM conducted in Bangkok on 23/24 January 2013, which served as an important platform for tackling technical and operational issues affecting members and in undertaking technical and operational studies and reviews. Members were asked to note the revised Terms of Reference, in Attachment 1 of DP 2A, and to refer to the Issues List in Attachment 3 of DP 2, for subsequent discussion under the AWP 2013/14. PC also stated that the willingness of members and observers to share their experiences and tools during the ATOM discussions was particularly notable and very encouraging. Partnership arrangement PC reported that the use of a partnership arrangement had been effective in the joint development of ATS security requirements at the ATS Provider Security Provisions Workshop organised jointly by CASP-AP and Singapore. Communications The need to further improve communications between member States and CASP-AP was highlighted by PC. He appealed to members to respond promptly whenever they were requested to provide information to the CASP-AP Secretariat. Outcomes of CASP-AP ATS Provider Security Provisions Workshop – Singapore Singapore shared on the outcomes of the ATS Provider Security Provisions Workshop, held in partnership with CASP-AP, on 12-14 March 2013. The results included the initial drafting of an ATS Security Programme template and additions to Model NCASQCP and NCASTP, which would be shared with members when finalised. PC also clarified that since such a development workshop was not a training activity, it was necessary to involve only technically qualified personnel to facilitate focused and meaningful discussions. Nonetheless, where practical, consideration would be made to invite more participants to future workshops such as the upcoming Instructor Certification Workshop in Hong Kong during AWP 2013/2014. The meeting noted that the success of the workshop demonstrated the feasibility of the partnership approach and that such activity could be considered as a form of in kind contribution to CASP-AP. Members were thus encouraged to consider undertaking similar partnership arrangements with CASP-AP in future. Outcomes of CASP-AP Specialised Quality Control Workshop – PC on behalf of India The presentation was delivered by PC on behalf of India. He thanked MoCA India and Bangalore Airport for their support in hosting the Specialised Quality Control Programme (SQCP) Workshop. The workshop represented another fresh approach for CASP-AP as it targeted a few specific member States, with similar needs for assistance, within a sub-Regional grouping. It was also Phase 1 of a three-phased approach aimed at assisting members to implement a QC system. Subsequent Phases 2 and 3 missions to each State would be carried out during AWP 2013/14, to assist in the finalisation and implementation of updated NCASQCPs of the States involved. The critical need for workshop participants to possess the appropriate subject matter expertise (SME) to contribute to the development of their State NCASQCP was also reiterated. Chair congratulated CASP-AP and India for the

6

successful partnership approach, noting the support given by both the industry and government. Discussion Paper 3 – PC (options for transfer of chairmanship) PC stated that because the alphabetical rotation system had failed, there was a need to consider what system should be used in the future. The Programme Document stated that the chairmanship should ‘rotate annually’ but neither guidance nor constraints on the mechanism for the selection of the chair had been provided. The meeting noted the following two options available for the transfer of the CASP-AP chairmanship and hosting of future SCMs:

1) Resume the use of the alphabetical rotation system, or

2) Adopt a voluntary system where members volunteer to chair and host the SCM for

one of the next five years of the CASP-AP Programme.

The meeting deliberated on the pros and cons of each option for the rotation of the chair. Singapore suggestedr CASP-AP adopt a hybrid system – a voluntary based system where priority is given to member States which have not hosted before. Should too many States volunteer, the alphabetical rotation system would then be used to select a chairing State from amongst members that have yet to chair and host an SCM. Chair pointed out the merit of ensuring that all States be given the opportunity to chair and host an SCM. However, should there be no offers from such States, CASP-AP could consider members which had previously chaired and hosted past SCMs. The meeting agreed to adopt Singapore’s suggestion that the chairmanship of the five years for Phase III be left open to volunteers and that priority would be given to members which have yet to chair and host an SCM. Chair instructed PC to initiate this by approaching members.

Conclusion 1 – The meeting resolved that all members should have an equal chance to chair the Steering Committee but priority should be given to those who have not yet chaired. Generally the alphabetical progression system should be used as guidance but would not be rigid and would be negotiated with members by the PC and notified, so there is prior information for all members. It is intended that the full five years of chairing for Phase III would be in place soon after 10th SCM.

SESSION 2 – FINANCES AND WORK PLAN Discussion Paper 4 - Status of contributions and budget PC presented on the status of financial contributions to CASP-AP and the Programme’s budget, and reminded members that the continuation of CASP-AP was dependent on their yearly contributions. At the 9th SCM it was stated that CASP-AP was not looking to recoup all arrears from Phase II, but would like members to start with their commitments from 2011/2012. Although the total budget was over $2m for the past five years, much of this amount was not received. Hence, PC had to tailor the Work Plan to fit within the budget. CASP-AP was thus constrained, particularly in the hiring of SME/STEs and members could not gain maximum benefit from the Programme. He also highlighted that, for the figures provided as at 28 February 2013, there were only sufficient funds3 to conduct the AWP

3 Please refer to Attachment 3 of DP 4 for CASP-AP’s budget situation with effect from 28 February 2013.

7

2013/2014 till April 2014, but not to also run the Programme, including staff and other costs beyond January 2014. Since February 2013, further funds had been received from members, but were not yet shown in Attachment 3. These funds were shown in the budget in Attachment 4, and indicated that there was just sufficient funding to run both the programme and the AWP through till April 2014. Also , as further funds could be expected from members which had historically been regular contributors, it was likely that the Programme could be sustained until the end of Phase II in June/July 2014. The Programme’s funding situation could also be improved if in-kind contributions were forthcoming from members and were used to minimise the costs of running activities. In summary, there was just sufficient funding presently available to run the programme and the AWP until April 2014 and, with expected contributions and in-kind support, through to the end of Phase II. PC shared that as the timing of the CASP-AP financial year (August to July) made it difficult for members to gauge their current financial commitments, he had provided specific statements of reconciliation to members. In addition, in response to members’ requests at the 9th SCM for more transparency, he had also provided a list of the estimated costs of activities to be undertaken during AWP 2012/2013, in Attachment 2 of DP 4, for members’ information.

Conclusion 2 - The meeting agreed that all CASP-AP members should be encouraged to make their financial contributions in a timely manner, and to explore other forms of contributions such as in-kind contributions.

Discussion Paper 5 - Annual Work Plan PC provided an overview of AWP 2013/14, which would be discussed in detail on Day 2 of the 10th SCM, and highlighted among other things, that the activities in the AWP corresponded in part to the Issues List produced by the first ATOM. The AWP also included assistance required as identified via the assessment of States’ needs during the PC’s missions to member States and is therefore a mix of training and capacity building. In response to a query on the ASP and AOSP4, and on the use of a Model Programme to assist members in updating their respective programmes, PC informed that CASP-AP planned to look into providing such assistance after the national security programmes of members had been updated. The usefulness of a compliance matrix on the ASP and AOSP was also discussed and AAPA offered to assist CASP-AP with the development of an initial draft compliance matrix and a model AOSP, as the AOSP was a key concern for airlines. Sri Lanka also indicated its willingness to share with CASP-AP the relevant technical guidance material for developing an AOSP. PRESENTATIONS BY MEMBER STATES Efforts of the DGCA in improving AVSEC in Indonesia Indonesia presented on their latest initiatives to improve aviation security, which was informative and well-received. Efforts of Bangladesh in protecting civil aviation against AUI Bangladesh presented on their latest initiatives to improve aviation security, in particular, on their successful NCASC meetings and the way forward. Bangladesh also thanked CASP-AP

4 Airport Security Programme and Air Operator Security Programme; Please refer to Attachment 4 to DP 2 for details

8

for its assistance missions and for organising the SQCP Workshop. The presentation was well-received by members. Aviation Security Activities in Nepal Nepal presented on its successful conduct of NCASC meetings which helped resolve their long term local organisational issues. Nepal also expressed its appreciation to CASP-AP for the assistance missions and for the SQCP Workshop. The presentation was well-received by members. SESSION 3 - CASP-AP PHASE III CONSIDERATIONS Discussion Paper 6 - Programme Directions and Priorities Membership types and commitment PC explained that DP 6 was presented early in the SCM to provide members with an overview and to give them more time to consider the issues before the discussions in Day 2. CASP-AP objectives, membership types and status of financial contributions PC raised the issue of whether CASP-AP should continue pursuing its second objective (under Phases I and II) of building a regional aviation security standing structure. A major issue for consideration related to the fact that both CASP-AP Phase I and II had the two objectives of training and capacity building, and the building of a regional aviation security standing structure. The second of these, seemed to refer to the building of a centralized information and process sharing mechanism. This objective had remained unchanged since the commencement of CASP-AP in 2004, and had seen various unsuccessful initiatives such as RAVSEC and the MOU, each of which had previously been rejected by various SCMs. Since that time, other activities such as ATOM, RASCF, and AVSECpadia, have been initiated. Hence, there was a question on whether CASP-AP Phase III still required the second objective or whether it should concentrate on training and capacity building. The PC also discussed increasing flexibility in the management of CASP-AP by increasing the types of membership which could be differentiated by, for example, whether members had provided financial contributions or had signed the Programme Document. PC noted that while there were no known reasons to deviate from the four level World Bank formula (based on classification of States’ per capita income), and which has been utilised by CASP-AP since its 6th SCM, to determine the quantum of member States’ annual financial contributions. However, there would be a need to review this since the socio-economic status of States could have changed since then. He further stated that the CASP-AP budget would need to be developed for the next five years, and the funding requirements assessed, in order to determine the actual amount of financial contributions required for the upkeep of the Programme if it were to continue into Phase III. Regional Aviation Security Coordination Forum (RASCF) RO/AVSEC provided an overview of the upcoming Regional Aviation Security Coordination Forum (RASCF) and described its relationship with the DGCA Conference, with reference to the dates and agenda items of both events. In response to India’s query on how RASCF relates to CASP-AP, RO/AVSEC explained that the scope of RASCF was broader and would cover more issues apart from capacity building, which was largely CASP-AP’s focus. She also reiterated the establishment of RASCF was decided by the 49th DGCA Conference and that CASP-AP would be a strong partner to RASCF. Chair suggested that clear differentiation be made between the raison d’être for CASP-AP and that for RASCF, with the former for capacity building and training/assistance and the

9

latter, primarily for regional coordination of AVSEC programmes and activities. It would be important also, to ensure that there was coordination between the two regional mechanisms and also with other existing AVSEC fora to prevent the duplication of efforts. He requested members return to the discussion on Day 2 with their views so as to help develop a practical and cost-effective AWP for CASP-AP. Signing Ceremony for Phase II Programme Document PC notified the SCM that Timor Leste had also recently signed the CASP-AP Phase II Programme Document, thus bringing the total number of signatories to 15 (out of 24) member States. The SCM was declared closed for Day 1 and participants proceeded for an official dinner hosted by CAAS.

11 April 2013 – Day Two The Chair opened Day 2 and reminded members that much of the discussion on Day 2 would be based on materials which they had been provided with on Day 1. Sri Lanka, on behalf of members, thanked Singapore for its kind hospitality by in hosting the dinner the previous evening. SESSION 4 – DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ANNUAL WORK PLAN 2013/14 Update on ICAO Aviation Security Programme and Activities: The RO/AVSEC provided an overview on ICAO’s Regular Programme Activities, which included:

Activities conducted under the 2012 Aviation Security Regional Officer Role, Strategy and Work Plan;

Outcomes from the High-level Conference on Aviation Security;

Requirements for Amendment 13 to Annex 17, specifically, with respect to access to security restricted areas (SRA) and cargo. RO/AVSEC also stressed the need to work with the industry whilst the Standards are being implemented, in light of the resource implications for the Appropriate Authority, the regulator and the industry itself;

Proposed Amendment 24 to Annex 9;

Items under the 24th meeting of the Aviation Security Panel;

Security Manual Corrigendum 1 and 2;

Aviation Security Training Packages and Workshop Updates, including the update to the Supervisor and Cargo Course and release in late 2013 of the Risk Management Overview Workshop;

Developing Countries Training Programme (Korea, Singapore and Indonesia);

The (eight) APAC Regional Aviation Security Priorities that would inform the on-going work of the RO/AVSEC; and

The future of the Universal Security Audit Programme, specifically, the transition to the risk-based Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA).

USAP-CMA Timor Leste thanked RO/AVSEC for the assistance provided by the Regional Office for its Corrective Action Plan for USAP. Sri Lanka pointed out that members might be able to draw on lessons they had learned from their experience with the USOAPCMA when implementing the USAP-CMA.

10

In response to Lao PDR’s query, RO/AVSEC emphasised that it was not the intention for the collection and exchange of information with States to be purely online-based, as in the case of USOAP-CMA. ICAO would also be conducting regional information sessions to educate member States on USAP-CMA from 3rd quarter of 2013, through to the 1st quarter of 2015. To India’s query on whether CASP-AP would provide assistance to members in preparation for the CMA and how ICAO-certified auditors were selected. RO/AVSEC indicated that the Regional Office would be available to provide assistance, as it had done for USAP Cycle 2. PC advised that further or targeted assistance by CASP-AP could also be considered at a later date, if necessary. With regard to the selection of USAP auditors, RO/AVSEC said this was dependent on the number of auditors required for the audit missions under USAP-CMA. Should additional auditors be required, a request for nominations would be made to all ICAO members and that such auditors would then need to be trained and certified by ICAO. The meeting agreed that since ICAO would be conducting regional information seminars on USAP-CMA and as the RO/AVSEC would also be available to provide any clarifications on the CMA if required by member States, there was no need to include any specific activity relating to the USAP-CMA in AWP 2013/14. Difficulties in implementing Annex 9 SARPs Sri Lanka highlighted the difficulties associated with implementing Annex 9 SARPs, particularly Recommended Practices (RPs) which were not under the purview of the Appropriate Authority for aviation security. Since there is less importance placed on RPs, Sri Lanka enquired on the possibility of converting such RPs to Standards to facilitate more effective implementation. RO/AVSEC acknowledged said difficulties, and noted that this was usually the case where some of Annex 9 security-related SARPs were well outside the responsibilities of a Director AVSEC. On whether there was merit for the Regional Office to raise awareness within ‘non-security’ agencies (e.g. Customs and Immigration) on Annex 9 SARPs, the meeting noted that this could perhaps be considered by the RASCF. RO/AVSEC reiterated that it was ultimately a State’s prerogative to require the implementation of RPs through passing of the necessary national legislation and policies to enforce compliance, in the same way Standards are being enforced. She also advised that as ICAO members, States they can seek to amend the status of RPs, through the Council via established Protocols. PC opined that such a difficulty may have arisen because of the lack of a National Air Transport Facilitation Programme and the fact that facilitation was not initially covered by USAP. Chairman said there was also a need to address the issue of facilitation and noted that this would be covered during subsequent discussions on AWP 2013/14. Activities in AWP 2013/14 The PC followed up from his overview of the Annual Work Plan 2013/2014 on Day 1 and led discussions on the following activities:

B7 – Re-writing of the AOPPM: The meeting agreed to this activity.

D3 – Screener Certification programme: The meeting agreed to India’s offer to host the workshop for the Screener Certification programme.

D5 – Legal Awareness Seminar: Given its high costs, the SCM was requested to consider if this seminar was of a high priority, and whether local expertise could be engaged to run it. PC also reminded members to confirm the accuracy of their legal review status. RO/AVSEC also suggested that States could call on past seminar participants to share what they had learned within their own States. In response to Sri Lanka’s suggestion for the Regional

11

Office to take the lead in organising the seminar, RO/AVSEC stated that as it was a CASP-AP activity related to a low LEI, it was unlikely to be adopted as a Regional Office/Regular Programme activity. As members were unable to confirm the need for the seminar at that point in time, and due to the difficulty of conducting it under AWP 2013/14 (before January 2014) due to budgetary constraints, Chair suggested postponing the seminar till late in the AWP, and instructed the PC to conduct a survey of members’ needs to confirm if a seminar would be conducted..

D7 – Instructors Certification Development Workshop, Hong Kong: To ensure sufficient support, the PC indicated that three months’ notice would be given and more member States would be invited to attend this workshop if it was approved for AWP 2013/14.

D8 – Implementation Development Workshop: The meeting was informed that Malaysia would be partnering CASP-AP in the development of this training workshop. The workshop would address issues raised by members during the inaugural ATOM and the desired outcome would be a CASP-AP Training Workshop on Implementation, which could be delivered to members individually or sub-regionally.

D12 – Facilitation (FAL) Development Workshop: PC stated that globally, compliance with the requirement for a National FAL Programme, as seen from USAP results, is the weakest, with an LEI output of 75%. Hence, he suggested that CASP-AP assist in this area by developing a National FAL Programme writing workshop, and to this end, he had already approached ICAO ISD-SEC for assistance. Singapore indicated that it was prepared to host and partner CASP-AP and AVSEC ISD-SEC in this activity. Members were also encouraged to send non-aviation security personnel to attend this workshop since facilitation also involves many other non-AVSEC agencies. Chair suggested that since Singapore was currently working on a model FAL Programme with ICAO through a FAL Panel sub-working group, it could disseminate the programme to CASP-AP members, once completed. PC informed that a copy of CASP-AP’s own model FAL programme had been provided to the sub-working group for reference. The meeting decided that it would be better for CASP-AP to organise this workshop after receiving the finalised model ICAO FAL Programme.

A4 – National Inspector Course, Macau: Macau mentioned that this course was to be held in August and offered to open up places to other members. It also used this opportunity to thank Singapore for hosting the meeting. PC stated the process used for this type of activity is for the host to have 50% of positions and any additional positions not filled by other members. This was an incentive for members to host and have a large number of participants.

Cost of activities in AWP 2013/14 The SCM was informed that unlike previous SCMs, the considerations of the AWP also included costs of the individual activities versus their worth, and for this reason, an estimate of the costs of each activity was provided for those items in AWP 2013/14 which require travel, accommodation or the hiring of SME/STEs. The approved AWP 2013/14 would allow the PC to coordinate the listed activities as ‘pre-approved’ over the next 12 months and members would also be updated regularly on the progress of the activities via the CASP-AP Activities and Dates table. The meeting also noted the possibility of minimizing SME/STE costs by the use of locally available, suitably qualified personnel as “regional experts." To this end, an adjustment would have to be made to the budget provided in Attachment 3 of

12

DP 4 to put in place a Budget Line for Regional Experts. These work plan activities would be coordinated with ISD-SEC. SESSION 5 – DETAILED DISCUSSION ON CONSIDERATIONS FOR PHASE III Following up from the earlier discussion on Day 1, the meeting deliberated and agreed that there was no need to retain the second objective of creating a regional aviation security standing structure in the Programme Document for Phase III, as CASP-AP and other available mechanisms such as ATOM and the upcoming RASCF provided the necessary cooperation and coordination mechanisms. TSA opined that as the scope of RASCF was broader than that of CASP-AP, capacity building should also remain a focus within RASCF. CASP-AP should also maintain a spirit of cooperation and information exchange. Chair noted that while capacity building cannot be discussed in isolation from the broader regional aviation security-related issues and developments, there is a need to ensure focus in the primary role of the RASCF which is to enhance a unified approach to aviation security in the Region.. Bangladesh commented on the enduring role played by CASP-AP in terms of coordination and cooperation while Singapore suggested that CASP-AP focus its approach for Phase III on training and capacity building. The meeting agreed that in drafting the Programme Document for Phase III, there was no need to insert the objective of establishing a regional aviation security standing structure for the purpose of enforcing cooperation and coordination, as both existed in CASP-AP’s operations and other fora. Membership Types for Phase III PC highlighted the state of CASP-AP’s membership relative to that of COSCAP, whose members sign the Programme Document at the commencement of the Programme and are up to date with their financial contributions. Given that only 15 of the 24 members have signed CASP-AP’s Programme Document 46 months into Phase II. PC sought guidance on proposed changes to the membership structure, designed to increase the value of CASP-AP membership, and to incentivise members to sign the Programme Document at the commencement of Phase III and maintain their financial contributions. He also stated that members’ statuses vary from year to year depending on their contributions, which could affect the services they could request or receive. Following discussion on the matter, the meeting decided to maintain the status quo by retaining the existing membership structure. AAPA suggested that members be approached individually to elicit more prompt financial commitments. Sri Lanka suggested tabling a paper at the 50th DGCA Conference to resolve this matter, but PC pointed out that this had been done at the 49th DGCA Conference, under direction from the 9th SCM. 5 RO/AVSEC remarked that seeing how cooperation mechanisms have been mentioned in various strategic documents such as the Declaration on Aviation Security and High-level Conference on Aviation Security Communique, highlighting the expectations for mechanisms like CASP-AP to achieve its deliverables, to the DGs, may help CASP-AP’s requests for timely and regular funding support from member States. Chair suggested that CASP-AP continue to maintain a single type of membership but consider a different nomenclature for observers by referring to them as ‘Partners’. Sri Lanka and India expressed support for this suggestion, which was endorsed by the SCM.

5 The DP had requested for an equivalent level of support for, and for a comparison of the support given to the safety and

security agendas.

13

The meeting agreed that ‘Partners’ would be included in the Programme Document under Phase III so as to include those presently known as observers in a more appropriate manner. Four level World Bank formula As suggested by PC, the Chair concurred that since there was no alternative formula to the existing four-level World Bank formula, CASP-AP should retain it, as it has proven to be a fairly equitable funding mechanism. It was noted that the actual payment level would need to be reviewed due to different members’ socio/economic changes and differing Phase III budget. He also stressed the need to review the budget for the Phase III programme, and explore ways to reduce overall costs. The meeting agreed to retain the four level World Bank formula currently used by CASP-AP. Signing of Programme Document In response to a query on the implications of the ‘no signing – no membership’ statement in his presentation, PC explained that as ICAO TCB maintains oversight of the governance and financial management of CASP-AP and, CASP-AP is an agreement between ICAO and member States and Administrations where the Secretary-General signs the Programme Document on behalf of ICAO, it is incumbent upon States/Administrations that wish to be part of CASP-AP to sign it. PC further highlighted that since the list of signatories would be attached to the Phase III Programme Document and would be part of the agreement signed by the Secretary-General, only States and Administrations which have signed the document would be considered CASP-AP members. The situation with ex member and host state, Thailand, was a little different and the PC would address this specifically with the State. Chair expressed hope that since Phase III would be commencing 10 years after the inception of CASP-AP, members would by now be well aware of, and able to demonstrate their commitment, by signing the Programme Document at the start of Phase III. In response to Bhutan’s suggestion of getting the DGs to sign the Phase III Programme Document at the upcoming 50th DGCA Conference, PC said that since the timing of the event would not coincide with Phase III commencement, it would be prudent perhaps to only seek their commitment during the Conference so as to make it easier to get them to sign the document later on at the start of CASP-AP Phase III. Singapore suggested that a presentation on the vision for CASP-AP Phase III be made at the DGCA Conference to drum up support and endorsement for the CASP-AP programme. It was also pointed out that the problem was not with the CASP-AP membership structure, but with the historical tolerance of, and lack of consequences for members participating in CASP-AP without signing the Programme Document or contributing financially to the Programme. The DGCA Conference would thus be a good opportunity to reinforce the rules and terms of membership of CASP-AP at the DG level. The meeting agreed that the Programme Document for Phase III would limit membership to States which have signed it. Options to reduce Programme Costs Discussion ensued upon Chair’s invitation for suggestions on how to reduce Programme costs, on how observers may be able to contribute. IATA suggested that CASP-AP workshops could be better coordinated and/or aligned with the courses it currently offers, while AAPA urged the meeting to recognise that members had the internal resources and capabilities to contribute as well. AAPA also felt that it would probably be easier for the industry partners to support CASP-AP in some of its training/capacity building workshops. PC shared that airfares were one of CASP-AP’s major costs and there may be an opportunity for industry to provide reduced travel fares as happens for COSCAP activities.

14

The meeting agreed that for drafting of the Phase III Programme Document:

The draft Phase III Programme Document would focus on the training and capacity

building objective of CASP-AP, with minimal coverage of liaison/cooperation activities

which could be undertaken via ATOM and other fora;

There was no need to retain Objective 2 for the Programme Document, due to

existing mechanisms such as the RASCF and ATOM which would meet the intended

outcomes under this objective;

Phase II would end on 30 June 2014 and Phase III would commence on 1 July 2014;

CASP-AP would continue to use the four-level World Bank formula to determine the

levels of members’ contributions, and actual contribution amounts would depend on

updated World Bank data and the final budget for Phase III;

Membership types as used in Phase II, would be retained, but industry bodies and

non-members involved, currently considered as observers were to be re-categorized

as ‘Partners’;

The Programme Document would include a Vision for CASP-AP and be written to

provide a tight focus on its activities; and,

The following mechanisms to reduce Programme costs would be included: - continuation and increase of sub-Regional activities; - use of in-kind contributions from members and partners; - consideration of donor support; and, - use of regional experts rather than international experts, where possible.

The meeting also agreed that the PC would prepare a paper for the DGCA Conference to

highlight the transition of CASP-AP into Phase III, to include its emphasis on training and

capacity building, and to seek the commitment and support of the Director-Generals in the

Asia Pacific region.

The Chair stated that members would have the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Phase III Programme Document, and to raise issues regarding the problems they might face in signing the Programme Document and in making their financial contributions. SESSION 6 - GENERAL INFORMATION ITEMS RO/AVSEC provided an update on ICAO AVSEC activities undertaken or being planned by the Regional Office, including the inaugural RASCF. She highlighted that in the absence of a regional AVSEC coordination forum, the RASCF could serve as a platform for coordinating the discussion of aviation security matters and developments, adding that CASP-AP was expected to play a significant role given a major focus of the Forum would be on capacity building coordination. Approaches and resources for training and capacity building assistance IATA suggested that better coordination between various organisations which are already delivering training could help to minimise costs through avoiding the duplication of training and the overlapping of assistance provided. In the same vein, RO/AVSEC encouraged members and partners to verify with her whether similar activities had been planned, were completed or were already underway, before they embarked on such activities. This was also in response to AAPA’s suggestion for the Regional Office to coordinate information about training undertaken in the region. New Zealand added that it would be useful to know who has attended what type of training in the region. RO/AVSEC then informed the meeting that a formal record of the training and capacity building assistance programmes, based on information that members may be willing to provide, was underway.

15

New Zealand also indicated that it was very supportive of the innovative sub-regional approach taken by CASP-AP and expressed its commitment towards such partnerships with CASP-AP. Sponsorship of assistance provided and donor support Similar to the Chair’s suggestion for in-kind contributions from members through the provision of SMEs, PC said that qualified retirees from within the region could be considered as potential resources and that the current budget could cover the lower costs of hiring such SMEs/STEs. Chair also suggested that opportunities to allow members or partners to sponsor training/ workshops hosted by other members or partners at the sub-regional level, should be explored. PC shared that CASP-AP currently does not have donors and that the Programme Document accords ICAO and members the responsibility for obtaining donor support. He noted a recent suggestion to obtain donor support from security equipment manufacturers and New Zealand’s offer to approach entities such as Smith Detection for such support, upon CASP-AP’s agreement. PC also shared that there would be a need to establish governance processes for the receipt of such donor support however as such guidelines already exist in COSCAPs, this should be straightforward. Presentation by AvSec Service NZ New Zealand gave a presentation on its on-going support for AVSEC training in the southwest Pacific sub-region, and on the Screener advanced/refresher training provided to CASP-AP/Lao PDR. In response, Lao PDR thanked New Zealand for the comprehensive training while Sri Lanka commended New Zealand’s sponsorship of the course and noted that it was a good example of how costs to CASP-AP of conducting activities could be minimised. Presentation by IATA IATA presented its 5-pillar strategy for security and facilitation and the related challenges in the Asia Pacific region. In particular, it emphasised enormous growth and consequential pressures on airport infrastructure and passenger facilitation were expected for the region. Presentation by AAPA In its presentation, AAPA highlighted the need for a more cost effective and sustainable risk-based approach through fostering greater cooperation amongst stakeholders in addressing threats. AAPA specifically addressed the issue of increasing occurrences of unruly passengers and stated there needed to be a concerted effort between industry and regulators to follow through on prosecutions. It also shared that the airline industry was fully committed to working closely with regulators and stakeholders but would require measures be supported by effective cost-benefit analysis and the meeting of appropriate goals. Finalisation/Adoption of Annual Work Plan (AWP) 2013/14 There were no further inputs or comments on the proposed AWP 2013/14 and its budget.

Conclusion 3 – The meeting agreed to adopt the AWP 2013/14 as presented by the

PC. Before the Legal Awareness Seminar (AWP 2013/2014 – D5) is conducted, a

survey would be undertaken to assess the demand for it, and to seek inputs for more

cost effective means of providing this activity, including roping in regional SME(s) to

conduct the seminar.

With the adoption of the AWP, members also agreed to adopt the proposed budget for the programme, with slight modifications to cater for the hiring of regional SME/STEs.

16

Conclusion 4 – The meeting agreed that Phase II would end on 30 June 2014 and

Phase III would start on 1 July 2014.

Other Business and Adoption of the Meeting’s Conclusions PC tabled a set of draft Conclusions for consideration by the 10th SCM. Following discussion and amendments, the meeting agreed to adopt the Conclusions that are included in this Summary Record. Closing Remarks The Chair remarked that the 10th SCM had been successful in providing the directions needed for the remainder of Phase II and had provided the guidance needed to prepare for the transition to Phase III. The Chairman thanked the PC and the TCA, as well as the CAAS Aviation Security team for the extensive work that had gone into the organization and management of the SCM. The Chair also acknowledged the support of ICAO’s RO/AVSEC and TCB Montreal FOS staff for their support. The Chair further thanked all participants for their active support and contributions during the meeting. The Tenth Steering Committee Meeting of CASP-AP was declared closed by the Chair.