52. The Committee noted that this matter had been under consideration since the 21st Session of the Commission (1995), when the Commission agreed that a revision of the Acceptance Procedure was a matter of high priority due to the entry into force of the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements. The 12th Session of the Committee (1996) recommended that a revised procedure should have clearly defined objectives and simple procedures, the least bureaucratic possible.[12] This was confirmed by the 22nd Session Commission (1997), which noted that the present procedures were no longer appropriate in the light of the WTO Agreements and which also recommended that the procedures be revised, rather than abolished.[13]
53. The Committee had reviewed Secretariat proposals for the revision of the Acceptance Procedure at its 13th Session (1998) and several proposals were made.[14] The text before the Committee was a revised version of that presented to the 13th Session with these proposals incorporated.
54. Several Delegations stated that the Acceptance Procedure had no legal meaning or was redundant, and was of little or no practical use, and questioned its practical implementation in whatever form. Furthermore, in any form, it would constitute a burden for Member countries and additional work for the Secretariat. Some Delegations called for its abolition.
55. Other Delegations were of the opinion that a notification procedure would be useful because it would provide additional transparency of national requirements and could also be used as a measure of performance. Some Delegations stated that the understanding of the status of Codex Standards and related texts in relation to the WTO Agreements was still in a state of flux, and since the status of Codex texts was linked to the Acceptance Procedure, it would be preferable not to make any changes for the time being. It was also suggested that the notion of “free distribution”, as described in the Acceptance Procedure, was valuable and should be retained.
56. In relation to the proposals contained in the Secretariat document, several Delegations questioned the introduction of the concept of “Equivalence” which was a term that had acquired special meaning as a result of the WTO Agreements, the consequences of which were still under debate in other Codex Committees.
57. The Committee agreed to advise the Commission that due to the diversity of opinions it was not possible to recommend changes to the current Acceptance Procedure at the present time. The Committee agreed to return to this matter in the future, but decided that it would not be appropriate to include the matter on the agenda of its next session.
