1. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has noted that the present Rule VI.3 and Rule XIII.1, which lay down that a two-thirds majority of the votes cast is required for an amendment to the rules, have been approved by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO and confirmed by the appropriate procedures of the two Organizations. The wording of Rule VI.3 was very thoroughly discussed at the Sixth Session of the Commission in 1969 and the amendment to the Rule proposed by the Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which would have reserved the decision on the elaboration of regional standards to the Commission as a whole and not simply to Member Countries belonging to the region concerned, was not carried on a roll-call vote, the vote being 22 for, 14 against and 1 abstention. The required two-thirds majority was thus not obtained.
2. The majority of the Members of the Commission considered that this amendment was necessary for the Commission to be fully master of its own programme of work within the limits of the budget. They thought that it should not be possible for a majority of the countries of a region to embark on a regional standard even though a large majority of the Commission was in favour of a world-wide standard and even if a world-wide standard was in course of preparation.
3. The Members opposing the amendment considered that it was perfectly possible for the Commission to remain master of its work programme without depriving countries of a region of the right to elaborate regional standards when they themselves wanted to do so. The elaboration of regional standards has always been accepted as one of the functions of the Commission and the possibility of elaborating regional standards should be facilitated and not hampered by the Rules of Procedure.
4. It is not easy to isolate any basic principles that underlie the procedure for elaborating regional standards. Respectable arguments can be adduced both for the view that the undertaking of any work under the aegis of the Commission - no matter what its scope - should require the approval of a majority of the Members and for the view that the elaboration of a regional standard can be of such importance for the members of that region that their wishes should not be open to frustration by the votes of members of other regions. The Commission does not therefore at present appear to be unanimous on the principles which should govern the elaboration of regional standards.
5. In view of this divergence of view, it would not, in the opinion of the Commission, be sensible to return to this issue at each session of the Commission. The question, however, remains open and if there is a change in the views of member countries in the light of experience, it will be reconsidered under the procedures of the Commission but it is submitted that the time for reconsideration is best judged by the Commission itself and its Executive Committee. They will certainly keep in mind that this is an issue to which the FAO Conference attaches importance.
