 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
192. This evaluation was commissioned by FAO and WHO and was also designed to meet the request for a review by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The terms of reference specified that the evaluation should provide an input into decision-making on future policy, strategy and management at the level of FAO and WHO Governing Bodies and their respective secretariats and to the joint FAO-WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was to make recommendations for the future relevance of standards or alternative approaches in meeting overall objectives in consumer protection, especially for health, and in fair practices for food trade. Particular attention was to be paid to the needs of developing countries. Although the evaluation concentrates on Codex, it covers all aspects of the food standards work of FAO and WHO, which includes capacity building and expert scientific advice.
193. The work was undertaken by an independent evaluation team, advised by an independent expert panel. The evaluation team consisted of five persons, three of whom, including the team leader, were external to the two organizations. The independent expert panel had ten members drawn from all parts of the world and stakeholder interests. At meetings between the evaluation team and the expert panel, key issues, procedures and recommendations of the evaluation were agreed.
194. In the conduct of the evaluation, members of the evaluation team visited 24 countries in all parts of the world and at all levels of development, and also the European Commission. During these visits the team held discussions with civil servants responsible for health, food, agriculture, industry, trade and standards setting and with representatives of primary producers, industry, consumers and other sectors of civil society. They also had discussions with other international standards setting organizations. A questionnaire was sent to all members of Codex and non-Codex members of FAO and WHO (103 replies received of 186 sent out). A further questionnaire was sent to Codex and WHO – international non-governmental organization (INGO) and intergovernmental organization (IGO) observers (40 replies received). There were two calls for comments on the Internet, the first completely open, the second targeted to national NGOs. The evaluation team also met key informants involved with Codex, including the Chairperson and other members of the Executive Committee, Chairs of some Codex committees and staff of the Codex and FAO and WHO secretariats. A number of background papers was used, including several prepared by members of the expert panel.
195. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was established in 1963 as an intergovernmental body by FAO and WHO. Membership is open to all member countries of the two organizations. There are currently 167 members and 149 INGOs and 58 IGOs with observer status. INGOs represent producers, industry and civil society. Standards are currently developed through 24 subsidiary bodies consisting of regional, commodity and general subject committees.
196. The work of CAC, which meets in full body every two years, and its subsidiary bodies, is logistically, technically and managerially supported by a small Codex secretariat housed in FAO and funded jointly by FAO and WHO. The cost of commodity and general subject committees is met largely by host countries, but also supported administratively by the Codex secretariat. Members bear the cost of their own participation in meetings.
197. Expert scientific advice to inform Codex standards making is provided by two established expert committees financed and administered jointly by FAO and WHO – the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (JECFA) and the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). The Joint Meeting on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) is not a fully constituted committee but a series of consultations that began in 2000 to examine risks from microbiological hazards in foods. Other expert consultations are set up as needed, for example, the task force for risk assessment of foods derived from biotechnology. Committees and expert consultations are administered and financed independently from Codex by FAO and WHO. JECFA, JMPR and JEMRA all have joint secretariats in each organization.
FAO and WHO undertake capacity building separately. The Codex secretariat also cooperates with FAO and WHO for some capacity building in the form of training, workshops, etc.
198. The full report of the evaluation is found in PC 89/5(a) and the responses of FAO and WHO management and the Codex Alimentarius Commission are in PC 89/5 (a) Add.1. The contents include an overview of Codex and other food standards work and evaluation and recommendations for:
199. Annexes address the resource use and resource requirements for future food standards work and a summary analysis of the questionnaires. A more comprehensive analysis of the questionnaire returns is available on the FAO evaluation and Codex web sites.
200. Governments have an obligation to protect the health of their citizens and this includes protection against food-borne illness for which publicly set standards are necessary. However, standards do not protect consumers unless they are enforced through a properly functioning food control system. This needs many elements – comprehensive and current legislation, food monitoring and food-borne illness surveillance, licensing and inspection (which in turn requires educated and trained staff and good laboratory facilities), not to mention political and institutional support and stability, lack of corruption, etc. In these respects, responsibility rests squarely with individual countries.
201. Globalization has seen growing levels of international trade in agricultural and food products and new food-borne hazards rapidly spread internationally. Food standards and control in one country can be as important as in one’s own, which creates a demand for international standards of the type developed by Codex. Emerging pathogens may not be responsive to many traditional food preparation and preservation practices. As these become global food safety issues they demand global solutions that include standards based on risk assessment and global surveillance. At the same time, novel processing technologies are increasingly being used in response to developed country consumers’ preferences for more “natural” food (e.g. less salt and additives) and food standards setting must respond to changing needs.
202. As well as protecting consumers’ health, food standards reduce the costs of doing business (for example, the risk of fraud and costs of finding reliable trading partners). To be useful, they must be meaningful to consumers and, if so, they reduce consumers’ risks (for example, inadvertently buying inferior quality or unsafe food). Standards are thus considered to be a prerequisite to the operation of a well-functioning market. If standards are harmonized (within or between countries), they naturally facilitate trade (both domestic and international).
203. In setting international standards, one of the difficulties is balancing the different needs of consumers and producers in developed and developing countries. The balancing of the costs and benefits of incremental increases in food safety is part of the process of risk management.
204. Value of Codex. Whereas in the past member governments of Codex were under no obligation to use Codex standards for domestic consumer protection or health, from 1994 the WTO SPS and TBT agreements gave Codex standards legal status. While this does not require that countries adopt all Codex standards, they must be able to justify non-adoption with respect to health risks according to strictly defined criteria. Legal recognition of Codex has given it greater relevance and importance, but has inevitably made compromise more difficult.
205. The responses to questionnaires summarized in the table indicate that Codex food standards are very important for members. Standards were regarded as a fundamental prerequisite in consumer protection, especially in developing countries and those with smaller economies for more direct use in their own legislation for domestic commerce as well as international trade. They were important to all countries in ensuring the safety of food imports and in facilitating both imports and exports.
How are Codex standards important for your country? | ||||
Income level |
Not important* |
Medium importance* |
Very important* | |
Protect health of domestic consumers |
All countries |
2.0 |
22.0 |
76.0 |
Low |
2.9 |
11.1 |
86.0 | |
Middle |
0 |
17.3 |
82.7 | |
High |
5.3 |
52.7 |
42.1 | |
Facilitate domestic commerce |
All countries |
8.6 |
40.5 |
51.0 |
Low |
8.6 |
20.0 |
71.5 | |
Middle |
2.2 |
44.4 |
53.3 | |
High |
21.1 |
68.4 |
10.6 | |
Facilitate food exports |
All countries |
0 |
23.0 |
77.0 |
Low |
0 |
8.6 |
91.4 | |
Middle |
0 |
29.6 |
70.5 | |
High |
0 |
33.3 |
66.7 | |
Ensure safety of food imports |
All countries |
1 |
16.7 |
82.3 |
Low |
0 |
11.4 |
88.6 | |
Middle |
0 |
21.7 |
78.3 | |
High |
4.8 |
14.4 |
80.9 | |
| ||||
206. Codex has been most successful in establishing health-related standards where there is a clear science base. The quality of the advice given by the established expert scientific committees and expert consultations was rated highly.
207. Problem areas. Codex can, however, be very slow. This is a concern to all, but especially to developed countries (90 percent dissatisfied with the speed of decision-making in Codex) and industry. If Codex cannot move more quickly, major trading countries and blocs may increasingly set standards independently. Developing countries are not able to participate fully and effectively in Codex. Priorities for standards setting are not always deemed appropriate and developing countries in particular feel that they sometimes have difficulty getting their needs on to the agenda. The reliance on meetings as the main way of developing standards places steadily increasing demands on countries and also makes it more difficult for those with smaller economies to be fully involved.
208. There has been overall satisfaction with the objectivity, independence and quality of the expert advice provided to Codex for independent health risk assessment. However, in improving international food standards setting, it was found particularly important to strengthen this input to the process. Significant backlogs exist, especially with respect to pesticide residues, and demands are expected to rise sharply in future, encompassing new areas such as functional foods, supplementation and fortification and health issues relating to new food technologies.
209. Capacity building in developing countries was found to be essential for countries to protect their own citizens, to benefit from a globalizing market in food and to represent their interests effectively in Codex and WTO negotiations. Codex and FAO and WHO capacity building were found to be continuing to make a substantial contribution internationally and to individual countries.
210. Based on analysis of the problems, four main areas for improvement to enhance food standards setting and use were identified. Recommendations of the evaluation were designed to contribute to these:
211. Mandate and priorities. It is important that a comprehensive and clear mandate be developed for Codex and ratified by the FAO Conference and the World Health Assembly.
212. The health-related demands on Codex are growing with greater consumer consciousness, the emergence of new technologies, pathogens and nutrition-related issues including fortification, supplements, functional foods and health claims. The scope of Codex should fully cover health-related aspects of food standards. It would thus be desirable for Codex to:
213. Without prioritization, this work would require substantial additional resources for Codex and for expert scientific advice. It is recommended that Codex does not take on additional work in non-health-related areas and, in determining its standards-setting work programme, Codex should prioritize as follows:
214. Codex, OIE and IPPC. The International Office of Epizootics (OIE) deals with zoonoses and other livestock diseases transmitted through food, while the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) addresses all aspects of plant pests in food. Food safety increasingly addresses the food chain in a unified way, leading to increased complementarities between Codex, OIE and IPPC. It also sometimes leads to gaps and overlaps. Codex and OIE, in particular, should formalize their relationship and should use joint task forces as appropriate to deal with overlapping issues.
215. Management of Codex. Codex gains credibility from its location within FAO and WHO, particularly with respect to health protection through its direct association with WHO. However, the majority of governments felt that the Codex Commission should have a “much increased role” in making proposals for priorities and proposing a programme of work. The evaluation thus recommends that Codex remain within FAO and WHO but that it should have more independence, authority and responsibility over priority setting and management of its work programme within the overall budget and programme of work approved by FAO and WHO.
216. In order to speed up work, especially in the approval of standards, the Codex Commission should probably meet once a year, rather than once every two years as at present.
217. The Executive Committee should be replaced by an Executive Board, meeting every six months, charged with strategic and managerial responsibility but without the authority to consider standards. The function of the board would be to improve speed and efficiency by assisting the Commission in strategic planning, budgeting and monitoring, including the:
218. The function of ensuring much tighter management of standards development between Codex committees and task forces is regarded as especially important for the effectiveness of Codex. Since the full Commission is unable to perform this function effectively, it should be delegated from the Commission to a smaller body. In this context, consideration should be given to the creation of a Standards Management Committee to perform functions that otherwise would need to be undertaken by the Executive Board.
219. It is generally agreed that the Codex secretariat is hard working, efficient and member-oriented. However, the secretariat is, by common consent, already overworked and has insufficient resources to support the present activities of Codex. The situation is deteriorating as the volume of activity steadily increases and certain functions are regarded by some as being inadequately served, notably strategic planning, monitoring, analysis and reporting on the work of committees.
220. The executive role of the secretariat should be enhanced to support the greater independence of Codex and increased efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. This requires both the expansion of the secretariat and greater seniority of its staff. Substantially increased financial resources are required for the secretariat to exercise its expanding role (initially US$1.4 million per biennium).
221. Codex committee structure. The role of committees has changed over the past 40 years. General subject (horizontal) committees have become more important, commodity vertical committees diminished and several discontinued. New work has increasingly been undertaken by task forces of limited duration. The evaluation did not look in depth at the structure and work of individual committees, although there were recognized cases of lack of clarity and overlapping of work (e.g. traceability and equivalence).
222. In line with the priorities proposed for Codex standards setting, only horizontal committees and those vertical committees with some horizontal functions, such as fish, should have a continuing life. Other commodity work, deemed sufficiently important, should be handled through time-bound task forces established to address clearly defined issues. With issues that involve several committees, an ad hoc cross-committee task force could reduce overlap and increase efficiency in work on a standard. The treatment of health issues in commodity committees should be reduced to the essential minimum and wherever possible handled through a task force with the relevant horizontal committee. Codex should undertake a review, including a detailed study by consultants of the work of general subject and commodity committees as soon as possible, and thereafter on a fixed schedule, with a view to rationalization where appropriate. The review should in particular examine:
223. The regional committees are appreciated and attendance by low- and middle-income countries at regional coordinating committee meetings is significantly higher than at the Commission itself; some countries participate in Codex meetings only at the regional level. However, this is clearly one area of Codex where improvements need to be made if developing country governments and NGOs are to make a more effective input into Codex. Codex should undertake a review of the mandate and work of regional committees within the next two years.
224. Codex is considerably more open and accepting of NGOs than many comparable international standards-setting organizations. Indeed, the Commission can be presented as an example of good practice in terms of its relations with NGOs and its willingness to accept their input into its work. Furthermore, the Commission has made efforts in recent years to enhance the participation of NGOs as observers. However, there are concerns that NGOs can too easily obtain representation in Codex even if they have only regional representation. Thus, Codex should not be complacent about its record of having led the way with respect to inclusiveness of INGOs. Stricter criteria should be applied to ensure that observers are genuinely international and the credentials of Codex observers should be approved individually by the Executive Board. Observers should be represented on the proposed Executive Board.
225. Working arrangements. Codex working methods should be streamlined, yet become more inclusive. The present eight-step decision-making process for standards adoption is widely seen as unduly cumbersome and should be simplified to a five-step procedure for all standards. At step five, the Commission should not amend the standard but be required to adopt it, refer it back to the committee to explore certain changes, or cancel or suspend work on it.
226. In a major departure from the present way of working, there should be much more work between sessions with use of facilitators to consult among members and to develop re-drafts for further consideration by committees. The emphasis should shift from developing standards in committee sessions to developing standards between sessions following a consultative process with the members that also fully considers written comments. The use of facilitators and electronic working groups has the potential to foster an inclusive process of consultation for developing countries, whereas the greater use of between-session working group meetings could have the reverse effect.
227. In order to improve the performance and ensure greater consistency among committee chairs, explicit criteria for selection of chairs should be drawn up and chairs should be confirmed by the Executive Board. More emphasis should be placed on training and assessment of chairs and the explicit role of the Codex secretariat in supporting effective chairpersonship should be fully recognized.
228. As well as more between-session work, it is proposed that committees should appoint co-chairs from developing countries and more meetings should be held in developing countries. This would entail increased resources from host countries. The concept of shared hosting may be introduced where no one country feels able to bear the full cost (this may also facilitate increased developing country involvement).
229. Codex views active consensus building as vital to the legitimacy of its standards. However, the occasional use of simple majority voting of delegates present to adopt standards has led to some of the most controversial Codex decisions, given the narrow margins by which standards were passed.23 Codex has no definition of consensus and this can mean that cautious application of the principle can halt progress because of reservations on the part of a few countries, while a forceful chairperson may push through a “decision”. Wherever possible, decisions should be made by consensus. Codex should define consensus for decision-making purposes in committees and the Commission and:
230. Expert advice to Codex needs to have greater identity and coordination and significantly increased resources and independence and transparency need to be further reinforced within FAO/WHO. Codex must continue to strive for a clearer separation of the risk management and risk assessment functions to ensure transparency, the usefulness of scientific advice, and the speed of decision-making.
231. At the same time, Codex needs to be able to establish priorities within an agreed budget for expert advice in line with its work programme. This budget needs to be adequate not only to cover the inputs from JECFA, JEMRA and JMPR to Codex, but also to respond to priorities for more ad hoc advice, including that for emerging issues.
232. It is recommended that FAO and WHO establish a scientific committee of eminent scientists to provide to Codex and the two organizations over-arching scientific advice, including priorities for risk assessment, emerging challenges and providing guidance and quality control to JECFA, JEMRA, JMPR and ad hoc committees. A joint FAO/WHO secretary to the Scientific Committee and Coordinator for Risk Assessment and Food Safety and Health Scientific Advice should be appointed and housed in WHO. The secretariats to the existing JECFA, JEMRA and JMPR should continue as at present. WHO is recommended to increase its contribution markedly for health risk assessment. In addition to the work on food safety assessment, FAO should strengthen its input on good manufacturing and handling practice.
233. Urgency is attached to increasing the throughput of standards for pesticides to ensure that new pesticides can be reviewed quickly and existing pesticide recommendations updated. Expansions in the work of JECFA and JEMRA are also envisaged.
234. A high priority for WHO and FAO is to support the collection of data covering diets and production processes of a wider range of countries. This includes the essential capacity building for countries to develop their data. Furthermore, FAO and WHO should increase their role in defining data requirements for risk assessment and guaranteeing good quality data.
235. It is also recommended that the consultation requested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on strengthening scientific support for Codex decision-making be regarded as a priority. A consultancy study should be immediately undertaken of expert advice and risk assessment and this should be followed by the requested expert consultation and discussion in Codex. Detailed proposals were made for elements to be covered in the study.
236. The minimum necessary immediate increase in resources from FAO and WHO expert risk assessment is estimated at US$2.5 million per biennium.
237. Capacity building for food safety and health systems for domestic consumers and for trade is a major priority of developing countries. In many of these countries, domestic food safety surveillance and controls tend to be very weak.
238. The evaluation found inadequate interaction between FAO and WHO at the country level in developing food safety systems and food standards. The new funding facility, for which the secretariat is provided by WTO and some seed money from the World Bank, was welcomed. The new trust fund hosted by WHO (Codex Trust Fund) to enable effective participation in Codex, including attendance at meetings, was also very valuable. A major joint FAO-WHO effort is now recommended to mobilize extrabudgetary funds and foster coordinated bilateral assistance in capacity building. This will help promote a more coordinated approach between WHO and FAO. In addition, FAO and WHO should urgently analyse and inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission on how they will improve coordination and distribution of work, drawing on their mutual strengths and synergies.
239. The evaluation recommended early and continued action for implementation of agreed recommendations with:
240. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, having considered the report and recommendations of the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards, expressed its appreciation to the parent organizations for having initiated the evaluation and ensuring that it was carried out in a consultative, efficient and effective manner. It also expressed its appreciation to the evaluation team and expert panel for their excellent report, the depth of the analysis and the comprehensive proposals and recommendations contained therein.
241. The Commission noted with satisfaction the finding of the evaluation that its food standards had a very high importance to members as a vital component of food control systems designed to protect consumer health and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. It endorsed the view that standards were a fundamental prerequisite in consumer protection but had to be looked at in the context of the total system throughout the food chain, especially for food safety.
242. The Commission recalled that Codex standards were used as references for member countries in relation to their obligations under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. In this regard, it recognized that many member countries with less developed economies or with economies in transition were able to use Codex standards directly as a basis for domestic legislation and standards setting in conformity with these agreements. It noted that this was particularly true when standards were based on global data, including those derived from developing countries.
243. The Commission supported the overall thrust of the evaluation report and expressed its commitment to the implementation of strategies that would meet the objectives of the recommendations contained therein. It strongly agreed that these recommendations be reviewed expeditiously. The Commission noted that since the 1991 Joint FAO/WHO Conference on Food Standards, Chemicals in Food and Food Trade, significant changes had been made in the Commission’s priorities and programmes with increased emphasis on food safety issues. This emphasis had resulted in an increased output of health-related standards and was now being extended to the whole food chain; this process would continue to be developed.
244. Noting the evaluation’s recommendations concerning the Commission’s mandate, the Commission was of the opinion that its existing mandate to protect consumers’ health and to ensure fair practices in the food trade continued to be appropriate but might be discussed in the future. Within this mandate, the Commission emphasized that its first priority would be the development of standards having an impact on consumer health and safety.
245. In order to maintain the strong support from all member countries and stakeholders, the Commission agreed that in their response to the evaluation, the Commission and its parent organizations should work towards:
246. The Commission agreed that it should have greater independence, within the overall structure of FAO and WHO, for proposing and executing its work programme and budget, once approved by the two parent organizations.
247. The Commission concurred with the views expressed in the evaluation report that the Codex Secretariat was hard working, efficient and member-oriented but overworked and with insufficient resources to support the present activities of Codex. It strongly supported the recommendation that the secretariat be expanded and that the seniority and composition of its staff should match the Commission’s increased requirements.
248. On the matter of expert advice to Codex, the Commission agreed fully with the view that this was a very important element for all member countries and to the Commission itself. It expressed the view that there needed to be sufficient capacity within the parent organizations to ensure that scientific advice was provided on a timely basis. It also agreed that this work needed to have greater identity within the organizations, stronger links to Codex priorities, and internal coordination as well as significantly increased resources. Its independence from external influences and its transparency need to be further reinforced within FAO/WHO. The Commission stated that there should also be greater distinction between the function of risk assessment undertaken by experts and that of risk management undertaken by Codex committees, while noting the linkages that needed to exist between these functions. The Commission emphasized that the provision of expert scientific advice was a joint responsibility of FAO and WHO and should continue to be so. It strongly recommended that WHO markedly increase its contribution to health risk assessment carried out by FAO/WHO expert committees and FAO/WHO expert consultations. It also recommended that FAO strengthen its input in areas reflecting its responsibility and expertise. The Commission welcomed the statement by Dr Bruntland in her opening remarks to the present session that FAO and WHO would prepare for and convene as an immediate priority, the consultation requested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 24th Session24 on strengthening scientific support for Codex decision-making.
249. In the area of capacity building, the Commission welcomed the valuable initiatives described in the report, including the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) operated by WTO in collaboration with the World Bank, FAO, WHO, OIE and, in particular, the new FAO/WHO Trust Fund to enable effective participation in Codex. It called upon FAO and WHO to undertake a major effort to mobilize extrabudgetary funds and foster coordinated bilateral assistance in capacity building. It also called for a more coordinated approach for capacity building between FAO and WHO and requested the parent bodies to analyse their existing means of providing capacity building urgently and inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission on how they will improve coordination and distribution of work drawing on their mutual strengths and synergies.
250. The Commission called upon FAO and WHO to provide additional RP resources, supplemented with extrabudgetary resources where necessary, to strengthen Codex and Codex-related work throughout the two organizations.
251. The Commission called upon member governments to support the follow up to the evaluation process including through their statements made and positions taken in the World Health Assembly and the Council and Conference of FAO.
252. The Commission reiterated its commitment to pursue with all speed full consideration of the recommendations addressed to it in the evaluation report and in this regard:
253. FAO Management wishes to compliment the evaluation team and the independent expert panel for their excellent evaluation report, for the depth of their analysis, and for the thoughtfulness of their proposals. Management also wishes to reaffirm the high importance that it attaches to food standards for the protection of consumer health and for the facilitation of domestic and international trade. It emphasizes that the provision of scientific advice to support standards setting activities and technical assistance for capacity building, particularly in developing countries, is critical for food security and fostering economic development in all countries.
254. Many of the evaluation’s proposals are found relevant and forward-looking and Management is generally in agreement with the recommendations contained in the report, except where otherwise stated.
255. Full implementation of the recommendations contained in the report would result in substantial budget increases for both FAO and WHO, in the immediate order of US$3.9 million per biennium. Of this, in accord with the current practice of cost sharing between the two organizations, FAO would need to cover US$2.3 million. Absorption of all additional resource requirements necessary to implement the recommendations would be difficult. However, even under a zero real growth scenario, the FAO secretariat is proposing to increase RP resources for Codex and expert advice on food standards during the biennium 2000-2005 by US$0.4 million. Under a real growth scenario, the proposed increase is US$1.5 million. Guidance will have to come from FAO’s Governing Bodies on how this priority might be addressed. As Codex and independent expert advice for food standards are expected to continue to be an expanding area, the FAO secretariat is discussing with WHO the various modalities and options available for increasing funding through extrabudgetary contributions.
256. The findings and recommendations presented in the evaluation with a view to enabling Codex to serve the needs, and to maintain the strong support, of all countries and major interest groups are very much welcomed. FAO Management shares this aim and reiterates its commitment to continue to support Codex and Codex-related activities, with emphasis on science-based advice and capacity building. It is agreed that a comprehensive and clear mandate needs to be developed for Codex. This mandate should be developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and submitted to the Governing Bodies of FAO and WHO for decision.
257. Regarding the scope of Codex work, FAO Management accepts the priority accorded to the health and safety aspect, bearing in mind the expectation of members that international food trade issues also need to be given due consideration, as required by the existing WTO agreements, particularly TBT. In this respect, certain aspects of Codex work on product descriptors and informational labelling would need to continue. With regard to the suggested possible reduction of the treatment of health-related work in the commodity committees/task forces, it is emphasized that reductions should not lead to a decline in scientific soundness of standards that still require the input of commodity-specific expertise, including that for best practices.
258. Increased funding for risk assessment is a top priority. There should be a clear budget and human resource allocation for scientific advice and risk assessment and it is agreed that prioritization is necessary. However, while FAO Management agrees with the proposals for improving quality, quantity and timeliness of scientific advice to Codex, the process will require time and substantial additional resources. The FAO secretariat will examine the feasibility of making proposals to the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in consultation with WHO.
259. FAO Management observes that the report focuses on the provision by FAO and WHO of scientific advice on risk assessment to service Codex needs. In this regard, it underlines that the provision of such advice is broader in scope than Codex alone and is intended to serve member countries, in particular those that do not have the capacity to carry out their own risk assessments, as well as other clients. The system utilized for the provision of scientific advice by FAO and WHO needs to be flexible enough to accommodate this variety of services and clients. It needs also to have the necessary resources to address emerging issues, independently or in advance of them being addressed by Codex.
260. FAO Management supports the enhancement of a coordinating function among the scientific expert committees. The principle of the establishment of an FAO/WHO Scientific Committee is endorsed. However, FAO Management considers that its rationale needs further elaboration while the composition of the Committee, its terms of reference and its interaction with the relevant Codex Committees and FAO and WHO need to be clarified. Also with regard to the creation of a post of Joint Coordinator it considers that the rationale would need to be further substantiated.
261. The importance is underlined of capacity building to enhance the participation of developing countries in Codex work, for improving the quality and safety of their local food supplies, and for facilitating access to international markets. Management agrees with the overall assessment of FAO’s capacity building activities and of the needs of developing member countries in this regard. It confirms its willingness to explore means for increasing staff resources for capacity building in food safety and, in particular, to create additional posts for food safety officers in priority developing regions and subregions subject to the availability of resources.
262. The recommendation is welcomed to enhance coordination between FAO and WHO at the country level, aimed at more effective use of FAO/WHO resources and avoiding overlaps and inconsistencies. However, a formal, a priori delineation of responsibilities and division of work is impractical as capacity building often involves joint and individual activities determined on a case by case basis. FAO Management agrees that FAO and WHO should inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission regularly of their capacity-building activities.
263. FAO Management affirms its support to mobilizing donor funding for capacity building in food safety as well as its commitment to promote complementarities and consistency between the existing and planned trust funds and projects.
264. The Committee commended the evaluation report for its thoroughness, transparency and independence of evaluation. The importance member countries attached to the evaluation was testified to by their input into the evaluation process and the seriousness with which it was being addressed in the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
265. The Committee fully agreed with the four main areas for improvement in FAO and WHO food standards work identified by the evaluation, i.e.:
266. The Committee discussed the recommendations of the evaluation in some detail, noting that these had been the subject of an in-depth discussion at a Special Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in February and had also been discussed in WHO’s Executive Board in January 2003. It was noted that the Codex Alimentarius Commission had committed itself to implementing strategies that would meet the objectives of the recommendations of the evaluation and had begun a process of consultation and debate so that the main recommendations addressed to the Commission could be taken up in the Commission's June meeting. The Committee joined the Codex Alimentarius Commission in supporting the overall thrusts of the evaluation report. Members in particular emphasised the importance of:
267. There was general agreement on the desirability of annual sessions of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
268. In common with the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Committee emphasised the need for FAO and WHO to give high priority to allocation of the necessary Regular Programme resources. Some members also noted that it would be difficult to realise this priority in the absence of an increased overall budget for FAO.
269. While in general supporting the intent of the recommendations members also questioned the need for and practicality of:
270. Varying views were expressed on the priority which should be given to non-health related aspects of standard setting. Views also differed on the desirability of Codex developing agreement on acceptable levels of protection for health, for use in setting its own standards.
271. The Codex Alimentarius Commission and both FAO and WHO management had already put in process a programme of work to consult further with members and move forward in developing strategies to implement the main thrusts of the evaluation recommendations. This needed to be discussed further in the FAO and WHO Governing Bodies both to ensure resource availability and that the direction of change represented the interests of all members. The Programme Committee would review the progress in two years time with a view to maintaining the momentum of change and requested a follow-up report at that time.
_____________________________
22 PC 89/5 (a) and PC 89/5 (a)-Add.1.
23 Hormones in beef; mineral waters.
24 ALINORM 01/41, para. 61.
25 PC/89/REP, paras.46-53.
|
|
|
|