149. The Commission recalled that at the 25th (Extraordinary) Session of the Commission, the Secretariat was requested to obtain comments from governments and interested international organizations on the report, and to prepare options and strategies for consideration by the 26th Session of the Commission. In doing so, the Commission also noted the consideration of the Evaluation Report by FAO and WHO Governing Bodies[72].
Proposal No.1: Annual meetings of the Commission
150. A majority of delegations were in favour in principle of holding annual meetings, in order to enhance the speed and efficiency of Codex work. Many delegations emphasized the importance and relevance of the FAO/WHO Trust Fund for Participation in Codex (or of obtaining other resources) in addressing the additional costs and burden of work which would be incurred by Member countries and stated that the holding of annual sessions should be conditional on the availability of these resources and the need for more frequent sessions. In taking a systems approach to its work, the Commission decided that each session would consider the timing for the following session and the general nature of the agenda in order to achieve the appropriate balance between standards issues, general direction of work and policy matters, and taking into account the resources available for adequate participation.
Proposal No.2: Implementation of the Evaluation
151. The Commission decided that the responsibility for following up and monitoring progress in the implementation of the recommendations from the Evaluation Report would be entrusted to the Executive Committee. Twice-yearly sessions of the Committee would be scheduled in order to absorb the additional workload, and provision had been made in the Codex budget to provide support for members from countries experiencing financial difficulties in attending.
Proposal No.3: Priorities for implementation
152. The Commission concluded that all four priorities were of equal importance, and that the ranking was made on the grounds of speed of potential progress. It was noted that in all cases where processes for standards management were reviewed, the standard-setting needs of developing countries should be recognized and appropriate capacity-building activities by FAO, WHO and other international organizations should be promoted (e.g. to facilitate access to Internet). The Commission decided that the priorities should be:
a) Processes for standards management, with due regard to the special needs of developing countries.
b) Functions and composition of the Executive Committee, including the participation of observers in the Executive Committee and Executive Committee procedures.
c) Review of the Committee structures and mandates (including Regional Committees).
d) Review of Rules and Procedures including guidelines for Codex Committees.
Proposal No.4: Acceptable level(s) of protection
153. The Commission decided to take no further action at this stage, with the understanding that the issue might be considered again in the future if required.
Proposal No.5: Review of the mandates of Codex Committees and Task Forces
Proposal No.6: Review of the Regional Coordinating Committees
154. The Commission decided that all the Committees and Task Forces would be reviewed together, based on the proposals set out in the working paper, bearing in mind the objective of reducing the number of meetings while also keeping them short and focused. The key role of Regional Coordinating Committees was recognized, as well as the importance of ensuring that Codex Committee chairs were able to provide input to the review process. The Delegation of India supported by other delegations strongly recommended that annual meetings of the regional Committees be held and that the review should examine their role in contributing to the standards setting process. The Commission endorsed the recommendation made by the Executive Committee concerning the selection of consultants that would be entrusted with the review (ALINORM 03/4, paragraph 23), and stressed the critical importance of transparency in the process.
Proposal No. 7: Strategic and Managerial Functions
Proposal No. 8: Budgetary, Planning and Programming Functions
155. The Commission decided that the Executive Committee should work together with the Secretariat for both activities. The need to consider the development of performance measures for both itself and the Executive Committee at a future session was noted.
Proposal No. 9: Executive Committee
156. The Commission decided to retain the Executive Committee as a Strategic and Standards Management Body, on the basis of the support expressed by majority of countries. A few delegations preferred retaining it as a Strategic Management Body only, expressing a concern not to overburden the Executive Committee.
Proposal No. 10: Additional functions of the Executive Committee
157. The Commission decided that the Rules of Procedure should be amended to remove the obsolete functions of the Executive Committee.
Proposal No. 11: Executive Committee Membership
a) Enlarged Executive Committee
158. The Commission decided that the Executive Committee should be enlarged by appointing the Regional Coordinators as Members. A number of countries questioned the effectiveness of an enlarged committee as a strategic management body and it was noted that the respective roles of the regional coordinators and the regional members may require clarification. The Commission deferred a discussion of the presence of observers to its discussion of Proposal 12.
b) Restricted participation in the Executive Committee
The Commission did not achieve a consensus on the proposal to limit participation in meetings of the Executive Committee to one delegate representing the Members.
c) Establishment of a Sub-Committee on Programming, Budget and Planning
159. The Commission decided that the Executive Committee should have the flexibility to establish sub-committees from among its members. It was noted that any proposed new body would be subject to analysis of costs and that there would only be a limited number. It was noted that a sub-committee could be established for programming, budget and planning.
d) Funding the participation of members of the Executive Committee
160. The Commission decided that budget of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (not the FAO/WHO Trust Fund) should make provisions for the funding of the participation of members of the Executive Committee at its meetings. A number of countries considered that this should be limited to members from developing countries.
Proposal No. 12: Participation of observers in the Executive Committee
161. A majority of members of the Commission agreed to the participation of Members of the Commission that are not members of the Executive Committee and recognized international organizations as observers in Executive Committee meetings with limited clearly defined rights to address the Committee. A few members expressed in principle objections to the presence of observers at Executive Committee meetings. It was also decided by the Commission that the exact modalities of this participation needed further elaboration and consultation with FAO and WHO (See also Proposal No.28, paras. 175-175, below). A number of delegations noted options available for web casting of meetings of the Executive Committee.
Proposal No. 13: Strategic Planning
162. The Commission decided that the Secretariat should work with the Executive Committee in the preparation of strategic planning documents. It was noted that the strategic planning process in the Executive Committee should consider the special needs of developing countries.
Proposals Nos. 14 and 15: - Critical review of proposals to undertake work and monitoring progress of standards development
163. The Commission decided to endorse the critical review process, including the preparation of project documents for major standards, as proposed as well as the closely related proposal to revise the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities (Proposal 38) in order to ensure the relevance of Codex standards at the international level.
Proposal No. 16: - Standards Management Responsibility
164. The Commission recalled that there had been no support for the establishment of a Standards Management Committee at the 25th Session of the Commission. The current session did not support the establishment of such a Committee and decided that the Executive Committee be the body to undertake the critical review of new work. The Commission did not favour the replacement of the Executive Committee with an Executive Board.
Proposal No. 17: - Time-bound decision-making
165. The Commission decided that the body responsible for standards management (i.e. the Executive Committee) should review the status of development of draft standards at the end of a specified time-frame, normally not more than five years, and report its findings to the Commission. The time-frame could be less than five years, where this was appropriate or had been established during the critical review process for new work (See Proposals 14 and 15, above.)
Proposal No. 18: Simplified procedures for standards development
166. The Commission considered that removal of the two-thirds majority requirement for the accelerated procedure would not simplify the procedure as accelerated standards should be adopted by consensus. The Commission did not reach a consensus on the use of a 5-Step procedure as the norm and decided to retain the 8-Step process, with the existing mechanisms to accelerate the process when necessary.
Proposal No. 19: Use of facilitators
Proposal No. 20: Establishment of electronic working groups
Proposal No. 21: Establishment of physical working groups
167. The Commission agreed in principle to all three proposals but decided that the modalities would require clarification by the body responsible for reviewing the Procedural Manual. With respect to electronic working groups, the Commission noted that these were an avenue for exchanging views and not for decision making. Physical working groups should be ad hoc, open to all members, take account the problems of developing country participation and only be established where there is consensus in the Committee to do so and other strategies have been considered.
Proposal No. 22 - Adoption of Standards
168. The Commission decided that adoption of standards with a limited amendment should be allowed, provided that the draft standard had been forwarded to the Commission on the basis of consensus, based on the recommendation of the Executive Committee.
Proposal No. 23: Responsibility for the Procedural Review
169. On the basis of the views expressed by a clear majority of members and noting that only France had offered to host the meetings, the Commission decided that the procedural review would be undertaken by the Codex Committee on General Principles, at special sessions and under a limited time-frame. The Commission agreed that the Committee would need clear instructions, terms of reference from the Commission and support from the Codex Secretariat.
Proposal No. 24: - Amendment of the Codex Mandate
170. The Commission decided that the current Codex Mandate as expressed in Article 1 of the Statutes of the Commission, should be retained but that it might be discussed in the future.
Proposal No. 25: - Revision of the Rules and working procedures governing the Executive Committee to enhance overall management
Proposal No. 26: - Subsequent revision of the Rules and working procedures of the Executive Committee
171. The Commission decided to request the Committee on General Principles when reviewing the Procedural Manual to:
draft amendments and additions to the Rules of Procedure as described in Proposal 25 as a matter of priority, for adoption by the Commission in 2004[77], and
draft amendments and additions to the Rules of Procedure dealing with the remaining issues contained in ALINORM 03/26/11: Part 2 for adoption by the Commission in 2005.
172. The Commission noted that Proposals No.25 and No.26 were not mutually incompatible and that the most desirable outcome would be a comprehensive set of amendments that could be adopted in 2004.
Proposal No. 27: Right to address the Chair
173. The Commission decided to ask the Committee on General Principles to consider a new Rule, based on a comparable Rule of the World Health Assembly[78] to the effect that “In plenary meetings of the Commission, the chief delegate may designate another delegate who shall have the right to speak and vote in the name of his or her delegation on any question. Moreover, upon the request of the chief delegate or any delegate so designated the Chairperson may allow an adviser to speak on any particular point”.
Proposal No. 28: Observer Organizations
174. The Commission decided to:
request FAO and WHO to prepare a report on the status of the current international organizations in “Observer Status” with the Commission and submit the report to the Commission’s next Regular Session;
request FAO and WHO Legal Counsels and the Secretariat to prepare a preliminary paper on Rule VII.5 for consideration by the Committee on General Principles.
175. The Commission also requested the Committee on General Principles to:
revise Rule VII.5 on the basis of the paper to be presented by the Legal Counsels of FAO and WHO, and submit its proposals to the Commission in 2004, if possible; and
revise the Principles Concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and to complete the guidelines on the relations between the Commission and international intergovernmental organizations in a manner that is consistent with the revised Rule VII.5, by 2005.
Proposal No. 29: Chairpersons of Codex Committees and Task Forces
176. The Commission decided to maintain the status quo in regard to the appointment of chairpersons by host countries, but also decided to request the Committee on General Principles to develop criteria for the appointment of chairpersons.
Proposal No. 30: Revision of Rule XI.4
177. The Commission decided to ask the Committee on General Principles to submit a proposal to the Commission by 2004 to revise Rule XI.4 to remove the possible impediments to the participation of recipients of funding from the FAO/WHO Trust Fund for the Participation of Developing Countries and Countries in Codex Standard Setting Procedures in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It also requested that the revised Rule should take into account the Commission’s decision concerning funding of participation of Members of the Executive Committee from the Codex budget.
Proposal No. 31: - Separation of advice to Host Governments and advice on the conduct of meetings
Proposal No. 32: - Co-chairmanship
Proposal No. 33: - Criteria for the selection of chairpersons
Proposal No. 34: - Determination of consensus
Proposal No. 35: - Conduct of meetings: Reports
178. The Commission agreed in principle to all of the proposals except Proposal 32 and referred the work to the Committee on General Principles, requesting it to develop appropriate guidelines and explore further the question of co-chairpersons. The Commission also agreed to the proposal contained in paragraph 31 of document ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 4 to instruct the Committee on General Principles regarding the current Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts, by 2006.
179. It was noted that the advice on the conduct of meetings should include advice to Chairpersons on the participation of Regional Economic Integration Organizations. In addition, the value of consulting with the Chairpersons of committees and task forces in the preparation of this advice was recognized. The Commission recommended that the advice to host governments should include arrangements for holding Codex sessions in developing countries. Some delegations considered vice-chairing arrangements should be considered as an alternative to co-chairmanship, although this was not accepted by other delegations.
Proposal No. 36 - Conduct of meetings: Country groupings
180. The Commission asked the Committee on General Principles to examine this issue by 2006.
Proposal No. 37 - Relations with OIE
181. The Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Evaluation Team and Panel (Recommendation 8) that Codex and OIE should intensify their collaboration to minimize overlaps and avoid gaps in standard setting, so as to ensure a farm-to-fork approach to the safety of foods of animal origin.
Proposal No. 38 - Criteria for the establishment of work priorities
182. The Commission requested the Committee on General Principles to redraft the Criteria for Work Priorities to reflect the current priorities of the Commission and in a manner that would provide explicit judgment tools for assessing work proposals against priorities.
183. The Commission noted that the document ALINORM 03/26/11 Add.5 covered recommendations which had been addressed to FAO and WHO. The Commission was referred to document ALINORM 03/26/11 Add. 6 containing resolution WHA56.23 of the World Health Assembly (May 2003) and an extract of the report of the Eighty-Ninth Session of FAO’s Programme Committee (May 2003), and noted with satisfaction that both parent organizations had responded positively to these recommendations, and that steps had already been taken towards their implementation. It thus requested FAO and WHO to complete the implementation of the recommendations aimed at strengthening the Codex Secretariat and their joint scientific advice and capacity building activities, as quickly as possible.
|
[71] ALINORM 03/26/11 +
Addenda 1-6, ALINORM 03/25/5 para. 25 (Report of the 25th
(extraordinary) session of CAC, ALINORM 03/4 (Report of the 52nd
session of the Executive Committee), CL 2003/8-GEN, CAC/26 INF/2, CAC/26 INF/3
(comments from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba,
European Community, Hungary, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway,
Republic of Korean, United States; OIE; Consumers International, the European
Food Law Association, the International Co-operative Alliance, the International
Dairy Federation, the International Federation of Fruit Juice Producers, the
International Soft Drinks Council and the International Union of Microbiological
Societies, CAC/26 INF/8 (comments from Egypt, Poland, Switzerland and the
Biotechnology Industry Organization), CAC/26 LIM.10 (comments from Indonesia).
[72] ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 6. [73] ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 1. [74] ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 2. [75] ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 3. [76] ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 4. [77] Amendments to the Rules of Procedure once adopted by the Commission, come into force only after their approval by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO. [78] Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Health Assembly. [79] ALINORM 03/26/11 Addendum 5. |
