Revised Draft Strategic Framework/Vision Statement
Chairperson's Action Plan
Status of the Draft Medium-Term Plan 2003-2007, Draft Strategic Statement and Chairperson's Action Plan
46. Between its 47th and 48th Sessions the Executive Committee had developed a structured model consisting of a strategic vision statement; a strategic framework described by objectives; and a detailed medium-term plan described by specific activities. The Executive Committee was of the opinion that the draft Vision Statement and Strategic Framework were suitable for submission to the Commission for adoption.[19] The detailed MTP could then be reviewed and developed with the further input of the Regional Coordinating Committees, other Codex Committees, Member governments and international organizations in time for adoption by the Commission in 2003 as planned.
47. The Commission noted that the draft Strategic Framework/Vision Statement was designed to set the overall strategy and approach for the Commission's Medium-Term Plan. It established a drafting group under the Chairmanship of The Philippines to incorporate suggestions made by Members on the Executive Committee's text, with the exception of Objective 3.
48. In regard to the Strategic Vision Statement, the Delegation of Malaysia supported by India and several other delegations, proposed that the words "highest attainable levels of consumer protection, including food safety and quality" be amended to read "an appropriate level of protection including food safety and essential quality".
49. In regard to Objective 3 - Promoting Seamless Linkages/Interface between Codex and Other Multilateral Regulatory Instruments and Conventions, many delegations were of the opinion that in view of specific references to the work of the Commission in the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the Commission should be encouraged to take due account of international regulatory initiatives and developments, but should not be compelled to ensure that its outputs were consistent with relevant international conventions and agreements. It was noted that the broad membership of the Commission ensured the widest possible consideration of food quality and safety issues related to food standardization and in this regard, suggested the deletion of specific references to other international bodies under this Objective.
50. Other delegations were of the opinion that ensuring consistency with other relevant international conventions and agreements was important and drew attention to Article 1 of the Statutes which stated, inter alia, that the Commission was responsible for "promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations". These delegations noted that consistency with other relevant international conventions and agreements was necessary in order to maintain the credibility of the international system in general.
51. The Commission agreed that its work should take due account of international regulatory initiatives and developments. However, in view of the reasons cited above, it deleted the phrase from Objective 3 that it should "ensure that its outputs are consistent with relevant international conventions and agreements". The Commission also agreed that in order to avoid limiting the relevant organizations with which it should collaborate, the specific listing of organizations in Objective 3 should be removed. The Title of the Objective was amended to reflect this.
52. The Delegation of Uruguay, supported by other delegations proposed that a specific reference be included in Objective 6 - Promoting Maximum Application of Codex Standards to indicate that it was the responsibility of governments to apply Codex standards and therefore promote harmonization.
53. The drafting group proposed minor amendments to take into account the special needs of developing countries; risk communication; and to encourage greater participation at the national and international level. It also proposed amendments to align the text with the Statutes of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The revised text resulting from these changes was submitted to the Commission for adoption (see para. 68 below).
Improved Efficiency and Speed of the Codex Process and Consensus Building
Further Strengthened Scientific Support and Science-Based Decision-Making
Increased Participation of Developing Countries
FAO/WHO Trust Fund
Increased Support from WHO and FAO
54. The Commission noted that the Chairperson's Action Plan, including the six desired outcomes contained therein (see below), was elaborated to assist in the implementation of the MTP. It was noted that the Action Plan would be incorporated into the Medium-Term Plan.
55. Many delegations supported the holding of annual meetings of the Commission beginning in 2004. On the other hand, many other delegations stated that the holding of annual meetings would have serious implications for their ability to continue to participate effectively, primarily because of problems of cost and infrastructure. It was therefore decided that a decision on this issue and on the related issue of the future of the Executive Committee would not be taken until the 25th Session of the Commission in 2003. The Commission recognized that means to correct resource constraints on developing country participation and on the Secretariat's ability to service annual meetings would be important factors on the Commission's decision in this regard. The Delegation of Chile also pointed out that the future of the Regional Coordinating Committees should be addressed in this regard.
56. In relation to the proposed conversion of most Commodity Committees to ad hoc Task Forces, the Commission agreed that the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities, if properly applied, were sufficient to assist in the adjournment or abolition of Codex committees and noted that the Criteria gave preference to the establishment of Task Forces when new work was required.
57. In regard to the Chairperson's Coordination and Advisory Group to facilitate more efficient consideration and finalization of draft standards, the Commission noted that Chairpersons of Codex Committees and Task Forces had been meeting on an informal basis in the margins of some Codex meetings. The Commission agreed that this group should continue to meet, as required, on an informal basis to provide a coordinating role but without the power to take decisions or make recommendations to the Commission.
58. The Commission noted that recent changes had led to the improved identification and selection of experts and temporary advisors for expert groups and consultations and that detailed information on the selection process was contained on the websites of both organizations. It was noted that such experts were required to complete and attest to declarations of detailed interest in this regard to avoid conflict of interest.
59. The Commission welcomed these developments and a planning meeting in November 2001 which would examine, among other issues, increased coordination between the JECFA, JMPR, and the other expert groups devoted to microbiological contamination and biotechnology on matters including selection and establishment of a roster of experts for such bodies, including increased transparency in the process.
60. Several delegations, including The Netherlands speaking as the Member responsible for appointing the Chairperson of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, and observers expressed their concerns that current working arrangements for expert bodies, developed decades ago, increasingly did not meet the requirements of the Commission. They stressed that these structures needed to be reviewed urgently to keep pace with the needs and the expectations of Member countries, the Commission and the public.
61. The Commission requested FAO and WHO to circulate a letter of information on the improvements already made. It 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. It was recommended that such a consultation include the Chairpersons of the relevant Codex Committees and appropriate outside experts drawn from the scientific community and all interested groups including those representing industry and consumers.
62. The Delegation of Egypt requested FAO and WHO to ensure that there would be adequate regional representation of experts and temporary advisors with a view to encouraging Member countries in all regions to adopt decisions developed on a scientific basis.
63. The Action Plan also suggested that Codex host country governments should voluntarily provide developing country governments the opportunity to serve as co-hosts and to identify individuals from their countries to serve as vice-chairpersons for Codex committees. The proposal also encouraged that developing countries should have increased opportunities to convene meetings periodically in their own countries.
64. It was noted that the concept of a vice-chairmanship position for developing country members should not result in an obligation, nor result in permanently relegating such countries to vice-chair positions. Several developing countries expressed concern that the proposal to establish a system of vice-chairs would create a second class status for developing countries and it had not been specified specifically what would be the advantage for developing countries. However, the proposal to convene meetings in developing countries was welcomed.
65. In reaction to the Chairperson's recommendation to establish an FAO/WHO Trust Fund to support developing country participation in Codex Commission and subsidiary body meetings, the Commission agreed in principle that FAO and WHO should establish clear rules and procedures for the establishment and functioning of a trust fund for consideration in the first instance by the Executive Committee in 2002 and the 25th Session of the Commission in 2003 to ensure its complete transparency and avoidance of bias and influence, to report on its implementation and to indicate envisioned sources of funding. Such examination should include considerations of the links between the proposed trust fund and the "Food and Agricultural Safety Facility" announced by FAO and supported by WHO.
66. It was suggested that the proposed FAO/WHO Joint Trust Fund might also be used for the financing of representative consumer organizations in Codex meetings, especially those of developing countries, and this proposal received some support. Some delegations expressed concern that the representation of developing countries was being placed on the same level as that of international nongovernmental organizations. They also expressed their desire that the trust fund be managed effectively to ensure that there would be no discrimination among developing countries. It was agreed that capacity-building in developing countries for their effective participation in the work of Codex should receive the highest priority, considering also the other capacity-building initiatives provided through the FAO Global Facility on Food and Agricultural Safety and Quality.
67. The Commission recalled its earlier discussions concerning the level of financial support to the Codex programme under item 4 above.
68. The Commission adopted the draft Strategic Framework, including the Strategic Vision Statement (see Appendix II).
69. It agreed that the draft Medium-Term Plan should be revised by the Secretariat in the light of the Strategic Framework, the present discussion and the written comments received, and should incorporate the elements of the Chairperson's Action Plan agreed to by the Commission. It agreed that the activities envisaged in the MTP should include cost estimates to determine whether the objectives could be achieved within available resources. The revised draft Medium-Term Plan would then be circulated for the input of Codex Coordinating Committees, other Codex Committees, Member governments and international organizations for further consideration and finalization at the 25th Session of the Commission.
70. The Delegation of Bolivia and other delegations stated that priority should be given to the implementation of points 2 and 4 of the Chairperson's Action Plan.
