EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FAO and WHO have a long history of providing scientific advice to the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies and to Member Countries. A Joint FAO/WHO Workshop was held to review and provide guidance to the two organizations on additional ways to improve the quality, quantity and timeliness of the scientific advice provided. The Workshop was part of a broader consultative process of which the first stage had been an e-forum^[1] conducted end-2003.

The Workshop focused on the principles, management and procedures associated with the provision of scientific advice within the FAO/WHO system. The main components of this work currently include JECFA, JMPR, JEMRA, and ad hoc expert consultations (whether scheduled or held in situations of emergency). Recognizing that the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies are important clients of FAO/WHO scientific advice, and taking account of the recommendations of the Codex Evaluation^[2], the Workshop also considered the linkages and interaction between FAO, WHO and Codex where they have an impact on the provision of scientific advice.

The Workshop agreed that the provision of scientific advice was an important issue for which a comprehensive review was timely, developed a number of essential principles and definitions governing the provision of scientific advice, and outlined several options to enhance the management of the provision of scientific advice. The Workshop, having considered the procedures and mechanisms for the provision of scientific advice, agreed that the system needed to be responsive to emerging issues, and that FAO and WHO should be proactive in identifying future issues. Due consideration was given to mechanisms to enhance the participation of developing countries throughout the process of provision of scientific advice.

The Workshop considered the issue of transparency and openness in depth as it related to all aspects associated with the provision of scientific advice. Transparency was the core principle that received the most widespread attention throughout discussions, reflecting the complexity of the issue. Other core principles identified and agreed by the Workshop included soundness, responsibility, objectivity, fairness and inclusiveness.

The subject of the greater participation of developing countries was also considered in depth. Emphasis was placed on the principle of balance, both in terms of data provision and of expert participation. It was considered essential to overcome the problems of inadequate infrastructure and a sense of scientific isolation. The seriousness of the concerns expressed is reflected in the number of recommendations that are specifically directed to an improvement of the current situation.

The Workshop emphasized the need for improvement in the management of the provision of scientific advice. Options included improvements in the existing management systems, the development of integrated management systems, the establishment of a coordination function, and an independent advisory group.

A set of recommendations relative to essential principles and definitions, management issues, procedures and mechanisms, and participation of developing countries, were agreed by the Workshop. These recommendations were based on in-depth discussions undertaken in three working groups. The recommendations will be further considered during the FAO/WHO consultative process with a view to implementation. This will include an assessment of the legal and financial implications of the recommendations, where appropriate.

The Workshop recognized that several of these recommendations were technical in nature while others might potentially have a significant impact on the management, organization and funding of the provision of scientific advice. It was felt that in view of the expected growth in demand for scientific advice from FAO and WHO in the foreseeable future both organizations should give priority to the implementation of the recommendations. The Workshop highlighted several issues that would require further consideration in the next steps of the consultative process. However, this should not delay the implementation of the recommendations, where this would be possible and appropriate.