1. INTRODUCTION

For many years, FAO/WHO have been convening expert committees (e.g. JECFA, JMPR) and ad hoc consultations relating to the provision of scientific advice to Codex and Member countries. During this time, many changes have taken place to improve the working procedures of FAO/WHO. Meanwhile, food safety has emerged as a priority issue in many countries, and the need for scientific advice has increased. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has noted that the current working arrangements for expert bodies, developed over the years, did not fully meet the needs and expectations of Member countries and the Commission. As a result, the 24^th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, meeting in July 2001, requested FAO and WHO "to convene a consultation to review the status and procedures of the expert bodies and to develop recommendations for consideration by the Directors-General on additional ways to improve the quality, quantity and timeliness of scientific advice to the Commission".^[3]

Recognizing the need to improve the provision of scientific advice, FAO and WHO convened a Preparatory meeting on the elaboration of a common framework for the functioning of Joint FAO/WHO expert bodies and consultations in Rome on 3-4 September 2001. As a result, some improvements in the system were made, but comprehensive action awaited the results of the FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO food standards work. The report^[4] of the Evaluation, submitted to the Directors-General of both organizations in November 2002, included a number of recommendations relating to the provision of scientific advice. One such recommendation was that a consultancy study of expert advice and risk assessment should be immediately undertaken and be followed by an expert consultation, and discussion in Codex.

FAO and WHO also initiated two recent projects which are relevant in this context. Firstly, a Joint FAO/WHO project to update principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food was initiated in 2002, and this is continuing. Secondly, FAO and WHO engaged a consultant to undertake a critical review of JMPR, as a result of which a report entitled Review of the working procedures of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, which contained 29 recommendations, was published in February 2002. A number of recommendations from this report have already been implemented by FAO and WHO, while others were relevant to be considered further during the current exercise.

The present Joint FAO/WHO workshop on the provision of scientific advice to Codex and Member countries was convened by FAO and WHO as part of a broader consultative process on the means to improve the provision of scientific advice to Codex and to FAO/WHO Member countries, as outlined by an informal FAO/WHO Planning Meeting held in May 2003. The first stage of the consultative process was an e-forum for which 10 background discussion papers covering the main issues were prepared (7 by external authors and 3 by the FAO/WHO secretariat). The overall objective of this e-forum, conducted from 1 October to 14 November 2003, was to obtain the views of stakeholders and interested parties in an open discussion addressing the key issues concerning the provision of scientific advice, the steps currently involved in the process, and possible options for improving the process. In addition to the background discussion papers, summaries of comments on these papers were provided to the Workshop as a basis for discussions. Experts were invited in their personal capacity, and not as representatives of their countries or organizations.

The Workshop was opened by Dr Kerstin Leitner, Assistant Director-General, Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, World Health Organization. Dr Leitner welcomed the participants on behalf of both FAO and WHO.

Dr Leitner stated that the Workshop was a unique opportunity to strengthen, both scientifically and operationally, FAO/WHO global food safety programmes without which the standard-setting work of Codex would not have been possible. Over many years these programmes have made significant contributions to the health and wellbeing of consumers, and have been excellent examples of collaboration between FAO and WHO.

Dr Leitner informed the Workshop that FAO and WHO strongly supported this review process. Both organizations were committed to enhancing their ability to serve their constituents, and she emphasized the need to make the scientific advice provided by FAO/WHO more understandable to policy makers and the general public. In addition, with the enhanced status of Codex under the WTO SPS Agreement, the importance of FAO and WHO providing scientific advice in a sound and timely manner to Codex and Member countries had also increased.

Emphasis was placed on the need for better data with regard to dietary intake, disease surveillance, and residues and contaminants, and the importance of generating and using data from developing countries was highlighted. In conclusion, Dr Leitner challenged the participants not to miss this opportunity to strengthen FAO/WHO programmes and not to be afraid to do some "out of the box thinking", while being mindful of the resource implications.

1.1 Adoption of the agenda and appointment of chairpersons and rapporteurs

The Workshop appointed Dr Stuart Slorach as chairperson and Mr Stephen Crossley as rapporteur, and agreed to form three working groups, with the following chairpersons and rapporteurs:

Working group I	Dr Claude Mosha (chairperson); Dr Alan Boobis (rapporteur)
Working group II	Dr Ada Knaap (chairperson); Dr Michael Wehr (rapporteur)
Working group III	Dr Robert Buchanan (chairperson); Dr Ian Munro (rapporteur)

FAO and WHO identified no conflicts of interest for the participants of the Workshop. A list of the Workshop participants is given in Annex 1.

The Workshop adopted the agenda (Annex 2).

1.2 Workshop objectives

The following objectives were agreed by the Workshop:

To confirm and prioritize key issues to be addressed in the improvement of the provision of scientific advice by FAO/WHO, taking into account the background papers and e-forum comments, and personal expertise.
To discuss options to address the issues identified and consider the benefits and constraints of each.
To provide, on the basis of (2) above, guidance on the specific papers to be prepared for consideration of the expert consultation.
To provide guidance to FAO/WHO on completion of the consultative process.

1.3 Organization and operation of the Workshop, including working group discussions

The FAO/WHO secretariat made a presentation outlining current working arrangements, the stages of the consultative process, and an overview of the anticipated achievements of the Workshop. In addition, a summary of the e-forum was presented. There had been 229 subscriptions to the e-forum from 57 countries. A total of 194 comments were received from 54 contributors. Most of the contributors provided comments on more than one of the discussion papers.

The Workshop was advised that while the recommendations may have legal and resource implications for FAO and WHO, the discussions should not be limited by these considerations. Accordingly, while the legal and resource implications may affect the implementation of some of the recommendations, the Workshop was asked to consider making recommendations which might require changes in the current legal and financial framework.

In the next steps of the consultative process, recommendations that arose from the Workshop would be reviewed by FAO and WHO, including consideration of legal and budgetary implications. This additional analysis would be provided to a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation to be convened to consider the recommendations from the Workshop.

The Workshop focused on the practical issues associated with the provision of scientific advice within the FAO/WHO system. Currently, scientific expert bodies are JECFA, JMPR, JEMRA and ad hoc consultations. Ad hoc consultations may be convened to consider specific scientific issues, or be a planned series of consultations which may include the consideration of an emergency issue. 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, the Workshop considered the linkages and interaction between FAO, WHO and Codex where they have an impact on the provision of scientific advice.

The background papers were presented to the Workshop by their authors, together with a summary of the comments received during the e-forum. The discussion papers were entitled:

Scientific advice provided by FAO and WHO
Basic principles underlying the provision of scientific advice
Enhancing risk communication in providing scientific advice
Legal arrangements for the provision of scientific advice
Ensuring the transparency of the process of providing scientific advice to Codex and Member countries
Selection of experts to avail of best available expertise
Providing a flexible management system for provision of scientific advice
Working procedures based on best practice to provide scientific advice
Accessing and managing the best data available
Enhancing the role of developing countries in developing scientific advice

Workshop participants were asked to identify priority issues arising from both the discussion papers and from their expertise and knowledge of the requirements for the provision of scientific advice. Three working groups were established to consider these priority issues. The working groups focused on the following three key areas:

Essential principles, definition and scope governing the provision of scientific advice
Management of the provision of scientific advice
Procedures and mechanisms for the provision of scientific advice

The issues assigned to each working group are listed in Annex 3, and the members of the working groups in Annex 4.

1.4 Findings of the Workshop

In-depth discussion of these issues was undertaken in the respective working groups, which made recommendations accordingly. Owing to time constraints, the plenary session considered only the recommendations of the working groups. The recommendations as listed on pages 7-10 were agreed by all Workshop participants.

^[3] Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Codex Alimentarius Commission. - Report of the twenty-fourth session, Geneva, 2-7 July 2001. Rome, FAO/WHO, 2001. (ALINORM 01/41). (paragraph 61).
^[4] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization. Report of the Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO food standards work. Geneva/Rome, FAO/WHO, 2002. (Unpublished document, which can be found at http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/005/y7871e/y7871e00.htm).