28. The Commission noted that the expression “region or group of countries specifically enumerated by the Commission” or the expression “region or group of countries” occurred, apart from Rule VI.3, in Rules II.4(a), (b) and (c), IV.6, IX.1 (b) (1) and (2) and IX.3, 6(b) and 7 and X.1. It had been pointed out at the Fifth Session of the Commission that the meaning of the word “region” was not made clear anywhere in the Rules. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the 12th session of the Executive Committee (5–7 June 1968) that a clarifying amendment should be made in the first Rule in which either of these expressions is used, Rule II.4(a), and adopted the following revised version of the Rule:
“Rule II.4(a)
The Commission may appoint a Coordinator from among the delegates of the Members of the Commission for any of the geographic locations enumerated in Rule III.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘regions’) or for any group of countries specifically enumerated by the Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘groups of countries’), whenever it may find, on the basis of a proposal of a majority of the Members of the Commission which constitute the region or group, that work for the Codex Alimentarius in the countries concerned so requires.”
29. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the 12th session of the Executive Committee that it would be desirable to place the terms of appointment for Coordinators on a similar basis to those of the officers of the Commission and Members of the Executive Committee. The Commission therefore adopted the following revised version of Rule II. 4(b), as recommended by the Executive Committee:
“Rule II. 4(b)
Appointments of Coordinators shall be made exclusively on the proposal of a majority of the Members of the Commission which constitute the region or group of countries concerned. Coordinators shall hold office from the end of the session of the Commission at which they were elected until not later than the end of the third succeeding regular session, the precise term being determined by the Commission in each instance. After having served two consecutive terms, the Coordinators shall be ineligible to hold such office for the next succeeding term.”
30. The Commission had before it for consideration two separate amendments to Rule VI.3, one prepared by the delegation of Canada and the other prepared by the Executive Committee at its Twelfth Session set out, respectively, in paragraph 6 of ALINORM 69/15 and paragraph 21 of ALINORM 69/3. The Canadian delegation informed the Commission that it had reconsidered the matter and had decided to support the proposal of the Executive Committee even though it did not go quite as far as Canada would have wished. Consequently the delegation of Canada withdrew. its own proposed amendment to Rule VI.3.
31. Before proceeding to the substantive amendments to Rule VI.3 proposed by the Executive Committee which are indicated in paragraph 35 of this Report, the Commission adopted the following two amendments to the first sentence of the Rule: Substitute “Members of the Commission” for “Countries” in the expression “countries constituting a given region or a group of countries”; delete the words “specifically enumerated by the Commission” after the words “group of countries”.
32. As regards the proposed substantive amendments, the Executive Committee had indicated that under the present Rules it was possible for a majority of countries of a region to embark on a regional standard even though a large majority of the Commission was in favour of a worldwide standard, and even if a world-wide standard was already in course of preparation. While the Executive Committee had agreed that it was reasonable that the amendment and adoption of a regional standard should be a matter for decision by the countries of the region concerned, it considered that the question whether a regional standard ought to be elaborated in the first instance should be a matter for decision by the Commission. The purpose of the proposed Executive Committee amendment was therefore to enable the Commission to be fully master of its own programme of work within the limits of the budget.
33. While a number of countries were in favour of the proposed amendment of the Executive Committee, for the reasons given by the Executive Committee, others were opposed to the proposed amendment for various reasons. It was pointed out that the experience gained so far in the development of Codex regional standards had not given rise to any significant difficulties, that harmonization of national food legislations on a regional basis was justified for certain commodities which moved in trade principally within that region and which, in many cases, had certain common characteristics associated with the region, that the establishment of regional standards facilitated international trade in that the countries exporting to that region would only have to comply with one regional standard instead of a multiplicity of national standards, and that, if work was undertaken on food standards within a region, it was best for it to be carried out under the aegis of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
34. The delegations of Cuba and Ghana considered that the proposed amendment of the Executive Committee was not fully satisfactory in that, unlike the proposed Canadian amendment, it did not stipulate any specific criteria on which the Commission would base its decisions on whether to authorize the elaboration of a regional or group of countries standard.
35. On 5th March the Commission proceeded to a decision on the amendment to Rule VI.3 proposed by the Executive Committee to add the words underlined and to delete the words in square brackets, as follows:
“At the request of a majority of the Members of the Commission constituting a given region or a group of countries that a standard be elaborated, the standard concerned shall, if the Commission so determines, be elaborated as a standard primarily intended for that region or group of countries. When a vote is taken on the [elaboration], amendment or adoption of a draft standard, primarily intended for a region or group of countries, only Members belonging to that region or group of countries may take part in the voting. The adoption of the standard may, however, take place only after submission of the draft text to all Members of the Commission for comments. The provisions of this paragraph shall not prejudice the elaboration or adoption of a corresponding standard with a different territorial scope.”
At the request of the delegation of France the decision was made by roll-call vote. The Commission agreed that the names of the Members of the Commission be called in French alphabetical order starting with Venezuela, the letter V having been determined by lot. The result of the vote was as follows:
IN FAVOUR: Argentina, Australia, Bulgaria1, Canada, China, Denmark, Spain, U.S.A., Ghana, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Malta, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey.
AGAINST: Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Perú, Poland, Portugal, Germany Fed. Rep., Switzerland, Tunisia.
ABSTAINING: Cuba.
ABSENT: Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Cameroun, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda, Philippines, United Arab Republic, Roumania, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, Togo.
The result of the voting was as follows: in favour, 22; against, 14; abstentions: 1; number of Members present and voting (that is Members voting for or against), 36; number of votes required for a two thirds majority in accordance with Rule XIII.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, 24. The amendment was therefore not carried.
36. The delegation of the Argentina formally proposed, on behalf of eight Spanish speaking countries, an amendment as set out in document ALINORM 69/57, to Rule XII.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, to make it mandatory for subsidiary bodies established under Rule IX.1(b) (Codex Committees and Coordinating Committees) to work in English, French and Spanish. The delegations of Cuba, Mexico, Perú, Spain and Venezuela supported the Argentine proposal.
37. In support of the proposed amendment, the delegation of Argentina drew the attention of the Commission to the following points:
this amendment had the full support of the Organization of American States.
Article 1 of the Statutes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission listed first, among the purposes of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, the protection of the health of the consumer and the ensuring of fair practices in the food trade. The aim of protecting the health of the consumer was impaired by the failure to provide in the work of the Programme full facilities in the matter of interpretation and documentation in the Spanish language.
Three hundred million consumers throughout the world from some 20 Member States of the United Nations and its specialized agencies, were Spanish-speaking.
There was an increasing interest on the part of Spanishspeaking countries in the work of the Commission, and a growing number of Spanish-speaking countries were sending delegations to meetings of various Codex Committees. The failure to provide Spanish as a working language at sessions of Codex Committees was a considerable handicap which prevented delegations from Spanish-speaking countries from participating fully in the work.
Working documents for Codex Committee sessions were not provided in Spanish and considerable difficulties arose in translating the technical terminology in these documents, and this gave rise to delays in making the comments of the Spanish-speaking countries available in good time.
Spanish was an official language of the United Nations and of many of its specialized agencies.
The Argentine delegation also drew attention to the World Health Assembly Resolution WHA 20.21, relating to the adoption of Spanish and Russian as working languages of the World Health Assembly and the WHO Executive Board, and its implementation in progressive stages.
38. The Argentine delegation indicated that it was not the intention that the cost of providing the required facilities in Spanish should fall on countries chairing Codex Committees but that the cost might be met from the budget of the Commission under Article 10 of the Statutes of the Commission.
39. Several delegations from countries chairing Codex Committees expressed their appreciation of the difficulties facing the Spanishspeaking delegations attending meetings of Codex Committees, but thought that before considering any amendment to the Rule it would be advisable to have the views of the governments responsible for chairing Codex Committees.
40. The Secretariat pointed out that there were some differences between FAO and WHO so far as official and working languages were concerned and that the subject of working and official languages for the Commission was under study by the Directors-General of both Organizations.
41. It was agreed that countries responsible for chairing Codex Committees should be asked for their views as to the possibility of their Committees working in English, French and Spanish and that the Directors-General of FAO and WHO should be asked to lay before the Commission at its Seventh Session a report on Rule XII as a whole. In the light of this information, it would be possible to give further consideration to the Argentine proposal.
42. In view of this agreement, the delegation of Argentina agreed that its amendment should not be proceeded with at this session of the Commission.
