3. WORKING GROUP II - MANAGEMENT OF THE PROVISION OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

In view of time constraints, and because of the importance of the issues, the Group concentrated its discussions on administrative and management systems for the provision of scientific advice. During these discussions, consideration was also given to the related issues of the working relationship and interaction with Codex subsidiary bodies, including communication of scientific advice, and some recommendations were prepared in this regard. Issues such as interaction between assessors and managers, identification and prioritization of risk assessment topics, FAO/WHO clearing house for risk assessments, and procedures for the submission of requests for scientific advice were discussed, but would require further analysis. Issues related to language, use of risk communication experts and researchers, and collaboration with other international organizations were raised, but no specific recommendations were made.

3.1 Administrative and management systems for the provision of scientific advice to Codex and Member countries

Noting the extensive work that FAO and WHO have done and are doing in the provision of scientific advice, the Group discussed this issue at length, including the ability to address future needs. The Group first identified the issues/problems associated with the current administrative and management systems for the provision of scientific advice. Several potential improvements were suggested and discussed. The consequences with respect to resources were also recognized. A matrix was developed showing the issues/problems to be resolved and proposing various options.

The e-forum and the experts participating in the Workshop had identified a wide range of issues that need to be addressed if FAO/WHO are to enhance their administrative and management systems for the provision of scientific advice to Codex and Member countries. The issues/problems identified were the following, it being understood that the list is not exhaustive.

Prioritization of requests for scientific advice
Interface between risk assessment and risk management
Harmonization
- The various expert bodies operate differently
- Risk assessment procedure differs between the various bodies
Lack of capacity to react to emerging issues
System to respond to ad hoc questions
Transparency
Capacity
Timeliness
Workload not sustainable with the current system
Holistic approach - consideration of the entire food-chain
Changing nature of scientific advice
Need for a focal point to deal with requests for scientific advice and communicate results
Management accountability
Review risk management framework
Need to enhance communication with stakeholders
Lack of Codex committee-wide coordination of requests for scientific advice
Developing country participation
Language difficulties both with regard to the provision of data and to participation in the process
Collaboration with other international bodies, e.g. OIE, IPPC, OECD
Managing multidisciplinary issues

The following approaches were identified by the Group as potential means to resolve the issues/problems:

- improvement in existing management systems without the need for additional resources or restructuring;

- development of new integrated management systems that will require additional resources (in funding and in staff) and/or restructuring in appropriate areas;

- establishment of an independent advisory group (the likely need for additional staff and non-staff resources was recognized).

There was general agreement in the Group that a coordinating function would be useful, and should be considered as a matter of priority, thereby improving:

- harmonization across expert bodies providing scientific advice, e.g. of scientific approaches and operating procedures;

- coordination of incoming requests for scientific advice;

- prioritization of requests; facilitation of communication and interaction between risk assessors and risk managers (interface);

- communication of results.

In discussing the enhanced managements systems, including the concept of an "umbrella" approach, the Group considered that some restructuring in appropriate areas might be indicated. However, the Group had mixed views concerning the need for an overarching structure or major organizational changes in the various entities which are involved in providing scientific advice.

As a last step, a matrix (Table 1) was developed in which the identified issues/problems were grouped under specific management objectives and then combined with the different approaches. This table, therefore, presents an evaluation of the options or combinations of options that are likely to best provide enhanced management of the provision of scientific advice in respect of specific objectives. The inclusion of an advisory group as a suggested option is conditional on the identified need for enhanced management systems. It was noted that an advisory group may be established either under the existing management system or in the framework of an enhanced management system, but that it should not be seen in isolation.

No attempt has been made to rank the relative contribution of each option to achieving the management objective. However, the total number of objectives that will be achieved by each option provides a relative weighting of future management needs. It should also be noted that the evaluation was conducted primarily with current management needs in mind. Increasing demands on FAO/WHO and the Codex system in the future would significantly add to these needs.

An "X" in the first column indicates improvements that can be made, in theory, within the current management system and without substantial additional resources. However, while each individual problem checked in this column might be solved within the current system, it would not be possible to address all or even most of these items without additional staff. The Group was of the opinion that the current system is simply not sustainable in light of the expected growth in demand for scientific advice from FAO/WHO in the foreseeable future.

An "X" in the second column indicates improvements that could be made if an integrated system for the provision of scientific advice were adopted, which would foster treatment of the indicated issues in a more holistic manner. A significant increase in staff and non-staff resources has been assumed here, and without the required resources most of the indicated gains could not be achieved.

An "X" in the third column indicates additional added value that could be gained if the integrated system assumed in column 2 were augmented with the independent external advisory group described below.

Table 1. Options that are likely to best provide improvements in the management of the provision of scientific advice

Management objectives	Improved management systems with current resources	Integrated management systems with additional resources	Advisory group
Improving prioritization of work
- ad hoc		x	x
- routine	x	x
- emergency		x
- overall programme strategy		x	x
Improving interface between risk assessors and risk managers
- facilitating linkages and timeliness	x	x
- providing generic guidance		x	x
- harmonizing risk assessment policy		x	x
- enhancing functional separation		x	x
- overall programme strategy		x	x
Harmonization of scientific approaches
- principles	x
- generic procedures	x	x	x
- methodologies		x	x
- work sharing		x
- risk communication		x	x
Providing risk profiles of emerging issues and decisions on further action
- by FAO/WHO secretariats		x
- by Codex		x
- by expert bodies		x
Ensuring transparency of overarching management decisions	x	x	x
Facilitating application of a generic framework for managing risks to human health (preliminary risk management activities, selection of management options, implementation, monitoring and review)	x	x	x
Enhancing communication with external stakeholders		x	x
Ensuring that language is not a barrier to effective management of the provision of scientific advice		x
Facilitating collaboration with other international bodies, e.g. OIE, IPPC, OECD	x	x
Managing scientific issues with multidisciplinary inputs
- food safety		x	x
- food trade		x	x
- nutrition		x	x
- water		x	x
- environment		x	x

The Group then discussed the nature of the proposed advisory group in more detail. It developed a list of positive and negative implications of the establishment of such a group (Table 2), and also considered the responsibilities, membership and frequency of meetings of the proposed advisory group.

Table 2. Implications of establishing the proposed advisory group

Positive

Negative

Provide independent view on strategic planning
Provide independent guidance on setting priorities
Provide an element of external scrutiny over FAO/WHO management of the process without actively directing the process
Help increase transparency of the process to the public
Bring additional experience and expertise into the process without the need to hire additional staff.
Provide an opportunity to include geographical and sectorial interests in the process

Another layer of bureaucracy which might inhibit timeliness
Costs in staff time, meeting room availability, and travel budgets for members of the advisory group
Costs in terms of time of the advisory group members Not necessarily the only means of increasing transparency to public
Does not necessarily guarantee inclusiveness in terms of geographical or stakeholder interest coverage

Responsibilities of the advisory group would include:

providing advice on cross-cutting scientific and science-management issues related to the provision of scientific advice;
facilitating and strengthening the scientific work of FAO and WHO in this area by adding independent expertise and perspectives;
providing a transparent forum for dialogue on overarching issues;
providing guidance and feedback on priority setting and strategic planning;
providing guidance on emerging issues;
providing overview and feedback on the implementation of core principles (scientific excellence, harmonization, inclusiveness, transparency, etc.);
providing feedback on the usefulness of advice.

It was envisaged that this group would be composed primarily of experienced scientists and managers with expertise in the development of risk-related scientific advice, and the management of programmes that provide such advice. The members would be drawn from a variety of backgrounds including government, academia, industry and non-profit or NGO research organizations. Members would be selected on the basis of their individual knowledge and drawn from a cross-section of geographical regions, developed/developing countries and stakeholder perspectives. Representatives from expert committees such as JECFA, JEMRA and JMPR that perform risk assessments, risk managers drawn from Codex committees and national regulatory agencies, and experts in risk communication, would specifically be among the constituencies to be included. Overall the members would be chosen from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences, designed to encompass all the areas in which FAO and WHO are currently engaged, or reasonably likely to be engaged in the future, in providing scientific advice on food-related risk issues.

It was suggested that the advisory group should meet periodically with FAO and WHO staff responsible for the provision of scientific advice related to food safety, offering guidance and recommendations on the many management issues that would arise in carrying out that mission.

Recommendation

8. FAO and WHO should, in order to: (1) improve the management of the provision of scientific advice, including enhancing harmonization of scientific approaches and operating procedures; (2) improve the coordination and prioritization of work; and (3) facilitate communication, interaction and transparency:

improve existing management systems, where needed;
introduce new integrated management systems and resources where needed;
consider the formation of an independent external advisory group.

3.2 Working relationships and interactions with Codex subsidiary bodies, including communication of scientific advice

The Group noted that the way in which Codex committees and task forces interact with FAO/WHO expert bodies providing scientific advice needed to be reviewed. Aspects to be included in the review are:

(1) The relatively direct interaction between CCPR/CCRVDF/CCFAC/CCFH and JECFA/JMPR/JEMRA (routine requests for scientific advice).

(2) The more indirect interaction between CAC and its subsidiary bodies (including CCPR/CCRVDF/CCFAC/CCFH) and FAO/WHO (ad hoc requests for scientific advice).

Additionally, the mechanisms for prioritization within the CAC, the individual Codex subsidiary bodies and FAO/WHO need to be optimized and linked in an efficient manner. Questions to be addressed include among others:

Should the CAC prioritize all requests for scientific advice or only those that are ad hoc?
How should the prioritized requests from Codex be referred to FAO/WHO, for example through a focal point?
What should be the format in which the CAC conveys its requests to FAO and WHO?

Recommendation

9. FAO and WHO should develop means to increase the quantity and quality of iterative interactions between those providing scientific advice, e.g. risk assessors (scientific expert bodies) and those requesting advice, e.g. Member countries and Codex.

3.3 Mechanisms to enhance participation of developing countries

The Group exchanged views on ways to enhance participation of developing countries in the provision of scientific advice. The importance of capacity building was generally recognized. Moreover, the need for adequate data gathering at the country or regional level and their inclusion in international assessments made by FAO/WHO was noted. The following suggestions were made relating to an enhanced capability of developing countries to contribute to and participate in the process of providing scientific advice:

Increase the effectiveness of communication on these issues between the headquarters of FAO and WHO and their regional offices.
Increase the capability of regional FAO and WHO offices to be a resource to developing countries to assist with: supplying the data needed for the provision of scientific advice (data bases), providing reference documents, helping to identify regional experts, and providing training.
Increase the funding available for supporting effective participation of technical experts from developing countries in expert body meetings. The possibility of establishing a specific fund to enhance developing country participation was noted.
Use of mentoring countries to assist developing countries to develop risk assessment capability (partnering/twinning).

Additionally, while recognizing that it would be outside the scope of the FAO/WHO system for the provision of scientific advice, the Group was informed that regional programmes might assist developing countries in enhancing their ability to engage in risk assessment and risk management work. The Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Export Cooperation (SEFDEC), a regional cooperative programme among seven Asian countries, was mentioned as an example.

Recommendations

10. FAO and WHO should enhance the participation of developing countries from all regions in all aspects of the scientific advice process, including identifying priority needs, outreach to scientific experts, training for the purpose of knowledge transfer, as well as access to and use of the outputs of expert bodies. This includes the recognition of regional efforts to generate, collect and coordinate data for risk assessments.

11. FAO and WHO headquarters should communicate more effectively with their regional and national/country offices and Codex Contact Points regarding the activities and needs of programmes relating to the provision of scientific advice, and to ensure better gathering and dissemination of information in developing countries.

12. FAO and WHO should further explore and develop the concept of twinning, i.e. establishing partnerships between developed and developing countries/organizations, to improve the capabilities of developing countries for the provision of scientific advice.

3.4 FAO/WHO clearing house for risk assessments

The Group welcomed the idea and encouraged FAO/WHO to explore the possibilities to act as a clearing house, in order to make use of and integrate existing risk assessments performed by national organizations and other international expert bodies. In this context the CICAD programme of WHO-IPCS was mentioned.

3.5 Procedures for the submission of requests for scientific advice

The Group noted that FAO/WHO should develop guidance on how requests for scientific advice should be submitted. An important aspect in this context is an adequate problem formulation (terms of reference), i.e. a clear question should be asked and the context, concerns and reasons for the request should be fully explained. These aspects were dealt with in more detail by working group III.

Furthermore, procedures should be developed on how to receive, prioritize, distribute (and follow up) incoming requests for scientific advice. This is one of the key tasks of an integrated management system. In addition to this important coordination function, it could also serve as a filter for requests.