English only
|
|
| Agenda Item 6.1 | Conference Room Document 25 English only |
second fao/who global forum of food safety regulators
Bangkok, Thailand, 12-14 October 2004
(Prepared by Norway)
During the past ten years, Norway has been through many phases in relation to a reform process of the country's food safety administration. On 1 January 2004, the process culminated in the establishment of a 4-pillar reform, represented by the establishment of a new authority; the Norwegian Food Safety Authority, reorganized scientific support pertaining to the food chain through the establishment of an independent risk assessment body, a new Food Law, merging 13 separate Acts and a new clarification of the relevant ministries' constitutional responsibilities.
The process represented a realization of several overlapping, and complementary, political signals, both nationally and internationally. These may briefly be summarized as a need to have a clear separation of tasks between the scientists performing risk assessment and the managers considering risk management, the need to have a clear chain of command and clear constitutional responsibilities along the entire food chain, from primary production to product delivery, a need to bring regulators closer to the public and the operators and a simplification of regulations in general.
A new authority
The new authority represents a merger of 4 government authorities and 89 municipal authorities, which in total covered the responsibility for controls along the entire food chain, from the farm to the fork, but in a fragmented organizational and constitutional system. The reorganization involved approximately 1600 employees, both at central level and throughout the country.
The merging authorities were:
The new authority is a governmental body responsible for controls along the entire food chain, from primary production to product delivery. The new authority also covers animal welfare and health not related to the food chain, plant health also not related to the food chain, drinking and production water and cosmetics. The new authority also performs tasks for other authorities, namely control of sales of medicinal products from retailers.
The authority's role is to prepare draft legislation, inform on legislation, perform risk-based inspections, monitor food safety, plant and animal health, and be prepared to handle emergency situations related to our activity area. The new authority does not have its own diagnostic services, and such services are procured by the authority, either on the basis of tenders or through separate government reference laboratories bound by budgetary agreements.
The goals are to influence the responsible operators to obtain safe food and drinking water, healthy plants, fish and animals, ethically acceptable animal and fish keeping, environmentally-friendly production, high quality and honest production and trade, and innovation and progress within the food sector.
A 3-level organization has been set up, with approximately 130 employees at the central office. The central office is organized with competence along the entire food chain. Approximately 240 employees belong to 8 regional offices, and approximately 1000 employees belong to 64 district offices. Most first instance decisions have been delegated to the district level.
Among the 8 regional offices, 5 offices have been designated as national centres for specific production along the entire food chain (terrestrial animal, fish and plant/vegetable), and support the entire organization within their specified competence areas. The reasoning behind this organizational choice is partly based on historical factors and our desire to maintain competence. However, it also provides us with a unique opportunity to assess our governmental tasks in the most coherent manner possible prior to decisions being made.
On the administrative level we are in the process of introducing a set of administrative tools, such as one central electronic archive, electronic document handling and electronic budget planning and control.
Many international food and animal health crisis the last years have focused on the need to have a clear separation of tasks between risk assessors and risk managers. In the Norwegian reform, this signal has been followed up through the establishment of a budgetary independent scientific committee, set up to serve the new authority, but also with competence to communicate its scientific opinions, independently of the authorities' risk management choices. The structure of the scientific committee mirrors the structure chosen by the European Union in the establishment of EFSA. A small secretariat serves 8 independent scientific panels. The participants on the panels are chosen based on their scientific merits in the appropriate field covered by the panel.
A challenge in relation to utilizing this asset is to have clear routines and understanding on communication between the authority and the committee secretariat. Experience will teach us how to obtain optimum effect as regards this communication. There is also a question of balance between, on one hand, direct communications with national reference laboratories supplying scientific support in their field, and, on the other hand, identifying risk evaluation questions that should be raised within the committee panels.
A new law
As part of the reform, the first step in a major restructuring of the regulations in the field of food safety, plant health and animal health was completed. One law, covering 13 former laws, was given royal assent in December 2003. Animal welfare, cosmetics, animal breeding, plant breeders' rights and animal health personnel were not included in the amalgamated Act, and are still regulated in separate Acts. Regulations under all the old laws were updated to take into account the new organizational structure and competence. There is still much left to be done with regard to realizing the political signal pertaining to a simplified regulatory framework.
The new food law has strengthened our legal powers. We may demand action by an operator; we may act on the operators' behalf, impose fines, close business until action is taken, impose a quarantine on businesses for up to 6 months, and actively inform the public. In addition, the courts may impose penalties.
We are now focusing on a major challenge in harmonizing our actions, so that operators throughout the country can rely on us to react both proportionately and with consistence to similar situations and conditions.
Constitutional responsibility
The reform has produced one authority, fewer laws and a scientific committee dedicated to risk assessment. The constitutional responsibility is divided among the 3 ministries pertaining to health, agriculture and fisheries. This has required a clarification of constitutional responsibilities.
The Ministry of Agriculture is the administratively responsible Ministry for the new authority, but all 3 ministries participate in the budget and planning process together. The Ministry of Health is administratively responsible for the new scientific committee. The 3 Ministries have been through a process of clarifying their responsibilities, defined both between primary production and end product and between animal and plant, fish and human health.
Conclusions and lessons learned
The reform of the food safety administration in Norway represents one of the larger administrative reforms in Norway in recent years. The reform included many elements, which all are interdependent in achieving a successful conclusion to such a radical process. The reform required clarification of the constitutional responsibilities, strengthening and simplification of legal powers, a clear division of risk assessment and risk management, and a coherent and effective operational body in close contact with operators and the public.
The four elements of the reform included:
It is still early days to evaluate the experience, but some immediate lessons learned may perhaps be: