94. The Committee recalled that this matter had first been raised at its Sixth Session (1998) at which time the Committee had requested the Delegation of India, assisted by other interested delegations, to prepare a discussion paper for consideration at the present Session.[17] In introducing the paper, the Delegation of India stated that there was a need for clear information of importing countries’ requirements in order to facilitate trade, avoid misunderstanding, and reduce the number of rejections at the point of import. The Delegation stated that the paper envisaged a two-step process; the identification of the information required followed by the identification of the format in which the information was to be presented. It was noted that the question of languages to be used could create problems and would need to be decided at a later date. As discussed at the Committee’s Sixth Session, the preferred means of disseminating the information was by a series of linked web sites on the Internet, with a central web site established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
95. Many delegations supported the continued development of the proposed guidelines in order to provide up-to-date information on regulatory requirements. Several delegations felt that the matter was urgent because a number of countries were currently establishing their web sites. The principle that such information should be freely exchanged and made widely available was also strongly supported. It was also suggested that such information could be used as the basis for an international alert system. The representative of Consumers International reiterated its call for an international database on food import rejections.
96. Some delegations drew attention to major difficulties in the technical implementation of the proposal and in assuring the availability of staff and budgetary resources that were implied. Questions were also raised as to the quality of the information that would be made available and its currency in light of rapidly changing regulatory requirements. The legal responsibility of how such information might be used was also questioned.
97. Several delegations drew attention to the transparency provisions of both the SPS and TBT Agreements, including the requirement to maintain enquiry points and to inform other WTO Members of changes in their regulations and other measures. It was also pointed out that guidelines for such a database should be limited to the competence of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and not include matters that were the competence of other bodies, such as phytosanitary requirements under the responsibility of the IPPC.
98. The Codex Secretariat pointed out that the proposal as written may extend beyond the competence of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in particular the Commission’s mandate as expressed in Article 1 of its Statutes. Work underway in the Codex Committee on General Principles in relation to revision of the Acceptance Procedure and its replacement with a notification process would also have to be taken into account. In view of the resource implications, careful consideration would have to be given to the identification of sources of funding additional to the current Codex budget. The Secretariat also pointed out that the paper as written implied operational responsibilities and went beyond the idea of guidelines for governments on how to establish a database. Some delegations observed that if the proposed work proved to be outside the mandate of the Commission, India should not have been assigned the work in the first place.
99. It was pointed out by the Delegation of India that the document could be modified initially to cover guidelines on the type of information and format. Several delegations stated that the guidelines should concentrate on how information should be formulated in a way that it could be made available on the Internet. However, before undertaking any further development of the guidelines, the Committee agreed to request the advice of Legal Counsel as to whether the proposed activity was included in the mandate of the Commission as expressed in its Statutes, and whether it was within the Terms of Reference of the Committee. It was agreed that matters not in the Commission’s competence should be excluded. The Committee also requested the opinion of the Committee on General Principles on the status of the proposed activity in relation to the ongoing work of revising the Codex Acceptance/Notification Procedure.
