125. The Secretariat introduced the working document, noting that the item had been included on the Provisional Agenda of the Committee pursuant to a request under Rule V.5 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure from Sweden, the State currently holding the Presidency of the European Union. The Secretariat stated that Article 2 of the Statutes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission provided that "membership of the Commission is open to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO and WHO which are interested in international food standards. Membership shall comprise such of these nations as have notified the Director-General of FAO or of WHO of their desire to be considered as members".
126. Under Article II.3 of the FAO Constitution, regional economic integration organizations may be admitted to membership of FAO. Member Organizations have the right to participate in matters within their competence in any meeting of a body of FAO in which any of its Member States is entitled to participate, unless otherwise provided in rules adopted by the FAO Conference. The FAO Constitution provides further that any references to Member Nations thereunder include Member Organizations, except as otherwise expressly provided. Member Organizations of FAO are also eligible for Membership in joint bodies of FAO such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The European Community is a Member Organization of FAO, but not of WHO.
127. The Secretariat noted that the proposal before the Committee was to establish clear Rules of Procedure for the membership of regional economic integration organizations in the work of Codex, including the membership of the European Community. Without such Rules, recourse would have to be made to the General Rules of FAO should a regional economic integration organization exercise its right to membership of the Commission.
128. The Delegation of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the EC, introduced Conference Room Document No. 4 that contained three changes to the proposed amendments to the Rules, and noted that these amendments (Annex 1 to CX/GP 01/8) were the result of discussions between the legal representatives of FAO, WHO and the European Commission. The Delegation requested that the Secretariat proposals and the proposals in CRD 4 be forwarded to the Commission.
129. The Delegation of the United States expressed its concern at the use of Rule V.5 to include the current item on the Committee's Agenda, stating that no urgency (as required by Rule V.5) had been demonstrated in this matter. It also drew attention to the opinion of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations in 1991, that the membership of regional economic integration organizations in any United Nations body should not infringe the principle of "one nation, one vote", and that the admission of regional economic integration organizations into FAO should not be seen as a precedent for other UN bodies. The Delegation stated that the changes to the Rules would allow the Member States of such organizations to enjoy privileges not available to other Members. Moreover, the Delegation was of the view that over the years Codex had been enriched by the diversity of views expressed by all Member countries, and that any loss of such diversity would be a loss to Codex.
130. The Delegation of Argentina, supported by Paraguay, stated that the membership of regional economic integration organizations was an appealing concept, which other regional organizations could eventually avail themselves of in the future. However, it objected to the sense of urgency impressed on this issue. The Delegation requested that a comprehensive legal report on the competence of the European Community on Codex matters be compiled by the FAO and WHO Legal Services, in order to evaluate whether membership was justified on a competence basis, and no further action should be taken on this issue until that report had been circulated among members.
131. The Delegations of Canada and Australia, while recognizing the right of the regional economic integration organizations to become members of the Commission, also reiterated the views of the United States concerning the need for continued diversity of Member countries' opinions in the Commission's debates and the importance of ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all member countries in Codex and in particular voting rights. These views were supported by the Delegations of Malaysia and Singapore.
132. The Observer from Consumers International stated that the proposals did not address possible negative effects such as issues of consultation, openness and transparency and the ability of consumers' organizations to interact with regional economic integration organizations, and asked that this should be adequately addressed. The Delegation of Bolivia questioned the participation of Observers to the debate on membership of regional economic integration organizations. The Secretariat recalled that Observers could participate in the debate on the issues considered by Codex Committees, in conformity with the Principles Concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission[18].
133. In response to a question from the Delegation of India, the Representative of the Legal Counsel of FAO stated that discussions on this matter had been undertaken as part of the normal consultations between the FAO Secretariat and a Member of FAO on matters of interest to that Member, and that in this case, due to the joint nature of Codex, the Office of the Legal Counsel of WHO had been invited to join these discussions. He also noted that at the time of the entry of the EC into FAO in 1991, there had been an explicit agreed reference to the possibility of the Membership of the EC in the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
134. The Delegation of Sweden stated that in practical terms, there would be little if any impact on the nature of debate within the Commission or in Codex Committees, should the proposals be adopted. It was further noted that the EC membership in the Codex Alimentarius Commission would not lead to extra voting rights.
135. The Committee agreed to report the current exchange of views to the Commission and to attach the text of the two proposals to the present report (see Appendix IV). It noted that consultations between the Legal Counsels of FAO, WHO and the EC would continue.
