MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 15 july 2015
Chairperson: Mr Hsiao-Yin WU (Chinese Taipei)
1.
The Chair
referred to the proposed agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/TCA/1. No requests
were made by Signatories for "Other business" items. The Committee
adopted the agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/TCA/1.
2.
The Chair
recalled that since November 2007, the Committee had been working to reach
consensus on modifications to the Product Coverage Annex (PCA) of the Trade in
Civil Aircraft Agreement ("TCA Agreement") to bring it into
conformity with the Harmonized Coding and Description System that entered into
force in 2007. At the previous meeting on 4 November 2014, the Secretariat,
upon his request, had provided to Signatories, for their consideration, a draft
of the Protocol amending the PCA to the TCA Agreement, identifying the relevant
sub-headings and summarizing the status of Signatories' comments as of 29
October 2014. Following that meeting, the Secretariat had received some
additional comments from Signatories, while the Chair had also
held discussions bilaterally with delegates to listen to their
thoughts and concerns on the matter in as transparent a manner as possible. The
Chair believed there were almost no differences between Signatories' views on
the proposed modifications of the PCA.
3.
Based on that
understanding, the Chair had asked the Secretariat to consolidate the various
comments into a revised draft version of the Protocol amending the PCA. By
letter of 15 June 2015 he had requested all Signatories to comment on that
final draft Protocol by cob 30 June 2015, indicating whether or not the
changes proposed could be accepted. Most Signatories replied by cob 30 June 2015
that they agreed with the proposed changes. One Signatory indicated that it
could not indicate its acceptance by 30 June but would do so by 15 July and
indeed that Signatory sent its comments on 13 July which the Secretariat
conveyed immediately to all Signatories for their reflection and asked
Signatories to try to have a position on the latest comments by today's
meeting.
4.
Finally, the
Chair noted that he had asked the Secretariat to prepare for today's meeting a
final version of the Protocol incorporating all comments received from all
Signatories through 13 July 2015 as well as some modifications made by the
Secretariat in the first paragraphs of the Protocol concerning the way and
timeline of accepting the revised Protocol. The Chair asked Signatories whether
there was consensus on the proposed changes and on the date that the new
Protocol would enter into force.
5.
The United
States stated that it had submitted some comments on 13 July, including
some suggestions for the description of HS heading 3917; however, following
discussions with other Signatories, the United States elected to withdraw that
particular suggestion. Looking through at the draft distributed at the meeting,
the United States confirmed that the revised Annex incorporated all the other US
suggestions and could thus confirm that it found the content of this revised
Annex acceptable.
6.
With regard to
the draft Protocol's prefatory paragraphs relating to entry into force, the
United States noted that it understood well the issue and what the proposed
changes attempted to address; however, it would come back to the Committee in a
few days after capital colleagues had the time to see the new language
proposed.
7.
The European
Union stated that, on a preliminary basis and pending on its internal decision-making
procedure, it was also able to sign up to a consensus on the content of the
revised Annex.
8.
As far as the
draft Protocol's first preamble page was concerned, the European Union agreed
with the United States that it would be good to have a couple of days to
consult with capital and come back with a final response.
9.
Chinese Taipei stated that it also found acceptable the content of the revised
Annex and would only need to consult capital regarding the small changes
proposed in the prefatory language of the draft Protocol.
10.
Canada stated that the revised Annex was agreeable to it; as for the draft
Protocol's prefatory language, Canada would check with capital and revert to
the Committee shortly.
11.
Switzerland also confirmed that it needed a few days to confirm with capital
the proposed changes in the draft Protocol.
12.
Japan stated that it could also join consensus on the context of the
Annex and would need a few days to confirm its views on the suggested prefatory
language.
13.
The Chair
suggested then that Signatories agree, in principle, on the proposed
modifications to the 2015 Protocol amending the Product Coverage Annex of the
TCA Agreement, and that the Protocol would enter into force on 1 January 2016,
subject to confirmation from the Signatories who had not yet received
appropriate mandate to adopt the protocol. As soon as the Chair received from
such Signatories that confirmation, he would immediately call another meeting
of the Committee to formally adopt the proposed Protocol. He expected such meeting
to take place in September. In the meantime, he suggested that the Secretariat
circulate a clean version of the revised draft Protocol, with the changes
accepted and without any track changes or explanations of the changes,
reflecting Signatories' in principle agreement.
14.
Switzerland asked if there was a deadline for Signatories to come back to the
Committee or whether the Committee would proceed to an ad referendum adoption.
15.
The Chair
invited the Secretariat to respond to Switzerland.
16.
The Secretariat
clarified that there was no deadline for Signatories to come back with their
confirmation about the prefatory language, although Signatories were encouraged
to reply as soon as possible so that they could adopt the draft Protocol at the
next meeting of the Committee in November 2015.
17.
Egypt observed that if Signatories had no deadline and they could reply
by the next meeting, and if some Signatories had further comments on the
current draft Protocol it would be difficult to adopt it at the next regular
meeting in November.
18.
The Chair
invited the Secretariat to respond.
19.
The Secretariat
recalled that the Chair had sent a fax on 15 June 2015 requesting all
Signatories to provide final comments on the draft Protocol by 30 June 2015,
with most Signatories having replied on time. One Signatory sent its comments
on 13 July 2015. The Secretariat had forwarded immediately by email those last
few comments to all Signatories for their consideration in view of today's
meeting. The Secretariat understood that Signatories had already expressed
their final views on the content of the proposed modifications in the revised
Annex. The additional time requested today by some Signatories was only for
them to consult their capitals regarding the suggested changes on the prefatory
language of the first page of the draft Protocol, considering that such
suggested changes were presented by the Secretariat for the first time in
today's meeting.
20.
Egypt noted that it was not in a position to state if it accepted, in
principle, the draft Protocol and would need to consult with capital which was
still working on this issue and would need to send to capital this last version
of the draft Protocol for consultation. As soon as capital colleagues returned
with comments, Egypt would convey to the Secretariat any such comments and
Signatories could discuss them on the next meeting.
21.
The European
Union noted that it saw two different issues. First, Signatories needed a
few days to consult capitals about the first prefatory page because it was new
language and Signatories could confirm their agreement on that new language
before the summer recess. Secondly, regarding the content of the revised Annex,
the European Union agreed with the understanding of the Secretariat that there
was emerging consensus on that.
22.
Egypt stated that it could not accept, in principle, the content of the
revised Annex at the moment because it needed to send the document to capital
for further comments. Egypt suggested that another meeting could be held in
September.
23.
Switzerland agreed with the Egyptian proposal of having an intermediate meeting
in September at which time Signatories could provide final comments on the
proposed amendments and, if so, agree, in principle, on the 2015 Protocol.
Thereafter, Signatories could come to the next regular meeting of November to
adopt formally the 2015 Protocol.
24.
The Chair
asked all Signatories if they could reply to him or to the Secretariat by 30
August 2015 in relation to any final comments on the proposed draft Protocol
revising the PCA.
25.
Egypt asked if the deadline could be pushed back to end September 2015.
26.
The Chair
then proposed that, following the meeting the Secretariat would circulate by
fax the draft Protocol amending the PCA as it stood today and, all Signatories
would confirm their positions on the proposed draft Protocol by 15 September
2015.
27.
The European
Union regretted this further delay in the process. For its own internal
decision-making process, it needed a consolidated document reflecting
Signatories' common understanding on the content of the Annex and on the first
page of the Protocol, on the basis of which it would make a proposal to the EU
Council and would seek the appropriate mandate from Member States to adopt
formally the revised Protocol amending the Annex.
28.
The Committee agreed to the Chair's proposal and took note
of the statements made.
2.
other
business
29.
There were no
items under this agenda item.
30.
The United
States stated that considering that 2015 was the fourth year of the HS2012
nomenclature and only one and a half years before the adoption and
implementation of the HS2017 nomenclature in most national schedules, the
Committee could consider agreeing to move ahead expeditiously with the HS2012
exercise for the Annex.
31.
The Committee took note of the US statement.
3.
date of next
regular meeting
32.
The Committee
confirmed that its next regular meeting would be held on Thursday, 5 November
2015, without excluding the need for the Chair to call a meeting of the
Committee in September 2015 so that Signatories may agree, in principle, on the
draft Protocol.
33.
The meeting was adjourned.
__________