FAO’s mandate is to “raise levels of nutrition, improve agricultural productivity, better the lives of rural populations and contribute to the growth of the world economy” (http: //www.fao.org/UNFAO/about/mandate_en.html). The consultation concludes that setting and enforcement of SPS standards at international and national levels has a major impact in each of these areas and that FAO has an important role to play. Its strength lies in interdisciplinary capability in economics and social sciences as well as biological sciences. The following are specific recommendations.
The pace of change is increasing in all areas of animal health, human health and food safety standards, and this impacts on poor populations. Historically, very rapid change in this area has been harmful to poor producers. FAO should encourage a national agenda of gradual implementation to avoid serious adverse impact on the most vulnerable producers and consumers. In order to do this it will be necessary to monitor the impact of changing standards on vulnerable groups, learn lessons and bring them to the attention of governments where similar situations arise.
Intensive and extensive farming systems embody different risks and may require different approaches. FAO needs to be aware of proposals from the standards setting bodies, to review their impact and possible interactions and consider them in an holistic manner.
International standards are gold standards but not necessarily achievable quickly or even appropriate for domestic or regional food chains, e.g. laboratory testing standards, maximum residue levels, disease control. Uniform gold standards are not globally enforceable. Equivalent options to manage the risks should be defined both for and by developing countries (e.g. between pasteurization and boiling, milk powder or UHT; BSE surveillance). They must be applicable, enforceable and practical. FAO should evaluate international SPS standards in the context of their impact on developing countries.
Efforts should be made to identify the gaps in the science that impact on the standards setting process (e.g. diseases of trade, AI, zoonotic diseases, MRLs) and provide information to the bodies and member countries involved in standards setting. This is a responsibility of the whole international community. It will require a co-ordinated agenda with broad interdisciplinary research to provide the scientific information necessary to ensure the development of appropriate evidence based standards. FAO should work with other international organizations and the private sector in order to obtain the information that is needed.
The Doha declaration expects that LICs should become WTO members. The consultation recognises that there has been a major input from the international organizations to encourage participation and provide training and advice on implementation of SPS standards. One further step in this process is to analyse the involvement of developing countries to the standards setting process, and the reasons why they do not attend or contribute. It is suggested that FAO should undertake this as a regular process, and explore alternative and innovative methods that do not necessarily involve attending central meetings and put in place a mechanism for measuring the success of this programme.
OIE and Codex have the mandate to develop standards. There is no international organization currently monitoring, evaluating or communicating the impact of standards on sustainable development. This ideally occurs before and during the process of standards development and remains an important function during the implementation of standards. It falls within FAO’s mandate to take on this role and FAO should take a lead in this process. It is important that the publication of an economic, social and environmental impact statement is prepared when new standards are set or major revision of existing standards takes place.
Standards setting within a risk management context is a multi-disciplinary activity. Programme management or task forces have been used by member countries to bring together the range of expertise necessary without major organizational change. FAO has a number of separate initiatives. These need to be synergized and harmonised in a programme rather than a silo structure.
FAO should develop a framework for decision making including criteria to enable developing countries to assess their requirements in a systematic manner. A consistent application of a standard framework is essential and should include assessment, management and communication of risk. It should include an economic evaluation.
A food chain approach is a useful way to identify gaps in food safety. A value chain approach is useful to identify distributional and governance issues. Both are recognised and have been used by FAO, however the consultation recommends a more systematic and uniform approach to their use, and suggests that as a starting point an attempt is made to typify livestock value chains.
FAO should continue to provide advice to countries as requested, using the framework for risk analysis and the decision processes previously described but tailored to the needs of developing countries.
This consultation believes that the issue of food safety is central to the poor. Food safety cannot be uncoupled from food security, especially for the poor and vulnerable. It is recognised that changes in standards have a complex effect on low income countries and the poor. While the SPS standards can be valuable in promoting food safety, the process by which they are set, and the speed at which they are implemented, may at the same time result in exclusion of vulnerable groups from participation in the food chain. FAO should use its offices to develop appropriate strategies for analysis of the problem and promote effective methods of dealing with it.
Figures to assess the problem are not clearly known. There appears to be over emphasis on problems of the wealthy countries, e.g. residue levels, rather than basic safe food. FAO should work with WHO to assess the problem because they have complementary skills. Sharing information is important. There is also a lack of primary data, but it may be valuable to explore new analyses of existing but unexploited data.
The consultation recognises that there is excellent technical co-operation on a regional basis and that there is an FAO representative in the majority of member countries. It is important to build on this structure to maximize the way in which FAO relates to the member countries at the high level and uses this to inform the standards setting process.
FAO is in a position to champion and protect the interests of least developed member states and work with regional groups of standards setting organizations to take into account issues of relevance to the LIDCs. This consultation sees this advocacy as a common good for development of all FAO members.
There is a need to promote risk analysis methodology and its application in the development of sustainable national policies for food safety, human and animal public health. This includes economic, social and environmental as well as technical risks.
Information on food safety standards is available but scattered. There is a need to co-ordinate the dissemination of such information in a way that is useful to developing countries. The recently established FAO biosecurity information portal is highly recommended. It should continue to be developed to meet the needs of all member countries, including consultation on its value to them. Other useful dissemination tools include policy briefs, which should be short and to the point, e.g. World Bank policy briefs, SPS newsletters.
Advice and technical packages for practitioners, related to animal health food safety standards, are valuable and necessary. They should be based on a supply-driven focus to risk management in the food chain or value chain and take account of investment potential of producers as well as the purchasing preferences of consumers. They will usually need to be modified in light of local circumstances. A publication exists for the dairy industry describing the food chain approach and recommendations for best practice. A similar publication on meat is under development. Similar publications for other livestock products would be useful.
This consultation and its documentation should be converted into a strategy for assisting the poor in the context of SPS agreements, and should be funded accordingly. The recommendations of this report should be reviewed in one year, to assess their effectiveness and application, and FAO should develop indicators against which to judge progress.
