1) The Codex Committee on General Principles held its Nineteenth (Extraordinary) Session in Paris, France, from 17 to 21 November 2003 at the kind invitation of the Government of the French Republic. The Session was chaired by Professor Michel Thibier, Director-General of Education and Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs. The session was attended by 143 delegates representing 50 member countries and 19 international organizations. A full list of participants, including the Secretariat, is attached as Appendix I.
2) The session was opened by Mr Jean-Yves Perrot, Directeur de Cabinet, who welcomed participants on behalf of Mr Hervé Gaymard, Minister of Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs. Mr Perrot recalled the achievements of Codex since its establishment forty years ago in order to ensure consumer protection in an international framework, including the response of Codex to recent needs, especially in the context of the WTO Agreements. He highlighted the recommendations of the Commission regarding the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards in order to improve the efficiency of the process, to enhance the scientific basis of Codex standards and to increase the participation of developing countries. Mr Perrot stressed the essential role of the Committee in the implementation of these recommendations and noted that the revision of the Rules of Procedure and other sections of the Procedural Manual would be considered by the current session. Mr Perrot recalled that the French government actively supported this process through the organization of two extraordinary sessions in order to complete the tasks entrusted to the Committee by the Commission and wished all success to delegates in this essential work.
3) The Chairperson of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Dr. Stuart Slorach (Sweden) recalled the importance of the issues under consideration in order to improve the Codex process and invited all delegates to adopt a constructive approach in order to follow-up on the important progress achieved by the Commission. He also stressed the importance of guidance to be provided to Codex Chairs in conducting meetings in a productive and efficient manner.
4) The Committee agreed to consider Agenda Items 3b) “Proposed Amendment to Rule VII.5” and 3c) “Consideration of the Status of Observers in the Executive Committee” together with Agenda Item 5 “Review of the Principles Concerning the Participation of INGOs in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission” as these matters pertaining to observers were closely related.
5) The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda as presented in document CX/GP 04/19/1 as the Agenda for the session. The Committee also noted that additional issues that might arise during the discussion of each specific item would be considered under Agenda Item 8 if time allowed.
MATTERS REFERRED BY THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION, INCLUDING THE JOINT FAO/WHO EVALUATION OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION AND OTHER FAO AND WHO WORK ON FOOD STANDARDS
(Agenda Item 2)1
6) The Committee noted that the amendments adopted by the 26th (Regular) Session of the Commission had been included in the 13th Edition of the Procedural Manual, of which the English version was currently available electronically, and that the matters concerning the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation would be considered under the relevant Agenda Items.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, INCLUDING THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Agenda Item 3a)2
7) The 26th Session of the Commission had agreed that the Committee on General Principles should undertake a review of the Rules of Procedure in order to implement its decisions as a result of the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards. The Representative of the FAO Legal Counsel, while introducing the document, noted that the proposed amendments concentrated on substantive changes concerning the enlargement of the Executive Committee; the functions of the Executive Committee; and matters related to budget and expenses.
8) The Committee noted that in view of the recent change in the status of the Coordinators, the Rules regarding their appointment and functions should be removed from the current section of the Rules and reorganized under a separate Rule.
9) The Committee recalled that Rule II. 4 (Rule III. 4)3 specified that Coordinators were appointed from among the Members of the Commission. The Committee also recalled the arrangements agreed upon by the 18th Session of the Commission in 1989 and agreed to reflect the changes in the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the proposal by the Delegation of Malaysia. The first paragraph of the arrangements should now read as follows:
(i) “Except for the Chairperson and the three Vice-Chairpersons, the Coordinators and the members of the Executive Committee elected on a geographical basis are countries, not individuals.”
10) The Committee noted that the provisions covered by the earlier decision of the Commission were currently addressed in the Procedural Manual. It was therefore agreed that no additional recommendations were required in this respect.
11) The Committee discussed whether the delegate of a Member may be accompanied by not more than two advisors from the same geographic location (paragraph (ii) of the arrangements) but could not come to a conclusion. The Committee agreed that this question would require further consideration at a future session and noted that meanwhile the current arrangements would continue to apply.
12) The Committee noted that paragraph (iv) of the arrangements referred to observers, therefore deferred consideration of this issue until the question of observer participation in the Executive Committee had been addressed.
13) The Delegation of Malaysia, supported by other delegations, pointed out that the functions of the Coordinators and that of the Members elected on a geographical basis would need further clarification in a separate document rather than in the Rules of Procedure. The Committee agreed that this question would be considered under Agenda Item 8 as Other Business.
14) The Committee considered the proposed amendment to Rule III.1 (Rule IV.1) to reflect the decision of the Commission that the Executive Committee should be enlarged by appointing the Coordinators as Members (paragraph 9 of the working document).
15) The Committee corrected the proposal for a revised Rule to refer to “the Vice-Chairpersons” and agreed that the first sentence should end after the list of geographic locations. The second sentence should therefore read “Not more than one delegate from any one country shall be a member of the Executive Committee”. Several delegations stressed the importance of this principle to ensure the diversity of representation in the Executive Committee and expressed the view that there should be no exceptions.
16) The Committee discussed extensively the need to amend the proposed Rule or to insert a footnote allowing a member to be represented on the Executive Committee if a delegate of the same Member was the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson, in order to address the particular situation of the North America Region.
17) The Delegation of the United States pointed out that the proposed text might prevent the representation of North America when one of the two members of this geographic location completed its second term while the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson coming from the other Member was still to serve. The Delegation of Canada pointed out that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons were not elected on a geographic basis but represented all members of the Commission and the fact that one of them came from a particular region should not prevent representation of that region in the Executive Committee.
18) Some delegations also noted that the issue of representation was related to the duration of the term in view of the decision to hold annual meetings of the Commission, and proposed to address this matter under Agenda Item 8 as Other Business.
19) The Committee considered the following proposal prepared by the Delegation of Brazil, with the assistance of other delegations:
Should a situation arise where the nationality of the chairperson or the vice-chairpersons would prevent the inclusion of a member elected on a geographical basis, the term of the Member elected on a geographical basis coming from that geographic location may be further extended.
20) Several delegations supported this proposal as a compromise solution to address a specific situation, while retaining the principles set out in the Rule on the composition of the Executive Committee. Several other delegations however expressed the view that this proposal aimed at addressing concerns of a specific geographic location was not acceptable and that the problem was inherent to the particular nature of this geographic location comprising only two countries. The Committee could not come to a consensus on this matter.
21) Some delegations pointed out that the mandate of the Committee was to propose an amendment concerning the Coordinators and that other questions related to the composition of the Executive Committee that could not be solved at the current session would require consideration at a later stage but that the matter could be discussed under Agenda Item 8 if time permitted.
22) The Committee agreed that no further amendment could be introduced at this stage. The Delegations of Canada and the United States reserved their position on this decision, as the proposed revised Rule contained inconsistencies that might prevent the representation of the North America Region in the Executive Committee.
23) The Committee considered the text proposed in paragraph 13 of the working document for a revised Rule III.2 (Rule IV.2) to reflect the new functions of the Executive Committee, while deleting provisions on obsolete functions. The Committee agreed to include additional text referring to the critical review and to monitoring progress in order to clarify the standard management functions.
24) The Committee agreed that the text concerning additional functions of the Executive Committee in paragraph 15 of the working document should be inserted as a new Rule III.3 (Rule IV.3).
25) The Committee discussed the text in paragraph 16 of the working document concerning the question of sub-committees. The Delegation of India, supported by other delegations, pointed out that the number of sub-committees should be limited and that their purpose should be clearly specified. The Committee recalled that the Commission had noted that any proposed body would be subject to analysis of costs and that there would be only a limited number, and that a sub-committee could be established for programming, budget and planning.
26) The Delegation of Denmark, supported by other delegations, expressed the view that sub-committees should not substitute for the Executive Committee by directly exercising its functions and the Committee agreed that the sub-committees would “enable it to exercise its functions as effectively as possible”. The Committee agreed to insert additional text to clarify the role of sub-committees and to specify that they reported to the Executive Committee, as proposed by the Chairperson of the Commission.
27) The Committee agreed to insert a sentence reflecting the need for appropriate geographical balance in the composition of sub-committees, as proposed by the Delegation of Canada.
28) The Committee considered the proposed amendments to Rule XI (Rule XII) Budget and Expenses. In paragraph 20, the Committee agreed with the proposal from the Delegation of Malaysia, supported by many delegations, to limit the funding of participation in the Executive Committee to members from developing countries in view of budgetary implications and amended the text accordingly.
29) The Delegation of Argentina expressed its concern as to the criteria that would allow developing countries to benefit from financial support to participate in Codex in the framework of the FAO/WHO Trust Fund for Participation of Developing Countries in Codex Standard Setting Procedures. The Delegation therefore proposed to consider these criteria under Agenda Item 8. The Committee noted that there was no single definition of “developing countries” and that the criteria applied might differ from one international organization to another. The Committee however recognized that it was not its mandate to discuss such a definition and criteria and that these matters were the responsibility of FAO and WHO, and would be also considered by the Executive Committee.
30) The Representative of FAO informed the Committee that the criteria applied in relation to the FAO/WHO Trust Fund had been reviewed by FAO and WHO following the discussions of the Commission and that a progress report would be presented for consideration by the next session of the Executive Committee.
31) The Committee recalled that the Commission had requested a review of Rule XI.4 (Rule XII.4) to remove possible impediments to the participation of recipients of funding from the FAO/WHO Trust Fund. The Commission had also requested that the revised Rule should take into account the decision concerning funding of participation of Members of the Executive Committee from the Codex Budget.
32) The Delegation of the United States questioned whether the proposal presented in paragraph 23 of the working document adequately addressed these requests. The Representative of the FAO Legal Counsel clarified that the provisions preventing the funding of participants from the Trust Fund had been deleted and therefore no obstacle remained to prevent such funding. The Committee agreed to retain the text of proposed revised Rule XI.4 (Rule XII.4).
Status of the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure, including the Structure and Functions of the Executive Committee
33) The Committee agreed to forward the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure, including the Structure and Functions of the Executive Committee, to the 27th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for adoption (see Appendix II).
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE VII.5 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
(Agenda item 3(b)) 4,5
34) The Committee considered document CX/GP 03/19/3 – Add. 1 entitled Review of Rule VII.5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which was introduced by the Representative of the FAO Legal Counsel. The document set forth preliminary proposals for a revision of that Rule, in accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at its 26th Session and in light of the recommendation by the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius that the Executive Committee should be given a role in the granting of observer status. The document concentrated on issues arising from the participation of international non-governmental organizations in the work of the Codex Commission, and recalled the relevant provisions in force, as well as the practice followed by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO in granting observer status to those organizations.
35) The document presented and analyzed three possible options for the revision of Rule VII.56 as follows: (a) maintaining the status quo combined with stricter application of relevant criteria; (b) giving authority for the granting of observer status to the Executive Committee or the Codex Commission acting on the advice of the Executive Committee and (c) entrusting the Executive Committee with advisory functions with respect to the granting, by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO, of observer status to international non governmental organizations.
36) In light of the observations made in the document, the Committee was of the view that an amendment to Rule VII.5 could be considered on the basis of option (c), whereby the Executive Committee would be entrusted with advisory functions in respect of the granting by the Directors-General of FAO and WHO of observer status to international non-governmental organizations. This option would improve the transparency and democratic base of Codex, while being in agreement with the statutes of the Commission in relation to its parent organizations and with the new role assigned to the Executive Committee.
37) In response to requests for clarification on the procedures of FAO and WHO regarding admission of observers, the Representative of the FAO Legal Counsel provided information on the detailed procedures in force at FAO, as set out in the Basic Texts of the Organization involving, inter alia, three forms of status, i.e. consultative status, specialized consultative status and liaison status. The legal adviser for WHO informed the Committee about the procedure applicable for the admission of NGOs into official relations, which was the only category of formal relations envisaged in WHO. He underlined the fact that the process culminating with the admission of NGOs into official relations by the Executive Board was a long and rather rigorous one and its procedures were currently under review.
38) The question was also raised as to whether it would be possible to establish criteria common to FAO and WHO for the granting of observer status with the Codex Commission to international non-governmental organizations. The Legal Counsels of FAO and WHO indicated that insofar as FAO and WHO have established their own procedures this would involve changes to their respective procedures which would be a process involving some time. To the extent that an actual need existed to establish such common criteria in light of specific requirements of the Codex Commission, the Organizations would be prepared to consider the matter.
Status of the Proposed Amendment to Rule VII.5 of the Rules of Procedure
39) The Committee requested the Legal Counsels of FAO and WHO to prepare a document, setting forth proposed amendments to that Rule, for its forthcoming regular session in May 2004. The Committee noted that the Director-General of FAO would be seeking the views of the FAO Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters (CCLM), at its session of March 2004, on the proposal. The Director-General would bring to the attention of the CCLM the specific status and needs of the Codex Commission as well as the particular nature of its work.
CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF OBSERVERS IN THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Agenda item 3 (c ))7
40) The Committee considered document CX/GP 03/19/3-Add. 2, entitled “Consideration of the status of observers in the Executive Committee”. The Committee noted that at the 26th Session of the Commission a majority of the members had agreed to the participation of Members of the Commission that were not members of the Executive Committee and recognized international organizations as observers in the Executive Committee meetings, with clearly defined rights to address the Committee. The Commission had also decided that the exact modalities of this participation needed further elaboration and consultation with FAO and WHO. A number of delegations had also noted options available for web casting of meetings of the Executive Committee8. The document recalled that the current provisions whereby observers were not allowed to participate in meetings of the Executive Committee were generally based on rules followed by the parent organizations and long standing practice and that the matter had been under discussion at a number of recent sessions of the Commission and of the Committee on General Principles.
41) The Committee noted that the document considered two concerns of particular relevance for the consideration of this agenda item. On the one hand, participation of observers in the Executive Committee would increase transparency and inclusiveness of its work; on the other hand, it was essential to preserve the efficiency of the Executive Committee as a body of restricted membership exercising executive and managerial functions. The document also noted that participation as observers in the work of the Executive Committee would concern Members of the Commission that were not members of the Executive Committee, intergovernmental organizations and international non-governmental organizations and that various options in that connection had been proposed. The document noted that modalities to enable a limited number of observers to participate in the work of intergovernmental organizations had recently been developed within the United Nations system, as regards, for instance, World Food Summits and the Programme Coordinating Board of UNAIDS.
42) In the debate that followed the presentation of the document, all participants expressed the view that it was important to ensure transparency in the work of the Executive Committee. However, it was generally felt that allowing Members, intergovernmental organizations and international non-governmental organizations to participate in meetings of the Executive Committee as observers would limit its ability to discharge its functions in an efficient manner. In view of these considerations, many delegations were opposed to the participation of observers in the deliberations of the Executive Committee and were of the view that increased transparency and participation in the work of the Executive Committee could be achieved, for example, by increased consultation through the members elected on a geographical basis and coordinators, or through the Codex Contact Point at the national level.
43) Several delegations and some observers expressed the view that current procedures and practice adequately ensured transparency, especially as working documents and reports of the Executive Committee were available to all Members and Observers, and hence expressed the view that the Executive Committee should remain open only to government Members. Other observers stated that it was especially important to allow actual participation of observers in view of the new functions of the Executive Committee, and expressed the opinion that this would entail no additional cost to the Codex budget. Other delegations noted that the Executive Committee would no longer have the authority to develop standards in conjunction with annual meetings of the Commission and the new functions of the Executive Committee. The Committee noted the wish of OIE to attend the Executive Committee as an Observer.
44) As had been the case at the latest session of the Commission a number of delegations were of the view that alternative options should be considered, such as web casting of meetings of the Executive Committee, establishment of listening rooms and other facilities. Some delegations questioned the usefulness of listening rooms on the ground that the necessary facility and equipment might be costly and that observers, including those from developing countries, would need to travel to the meeting venue. The Delegation of Argentina proposed, in the evaluation of the costs associated with the participation of observers, to take into account the need to strengthen transparency in Codex work through the translation of documents and interpretation into the working languages of the Commission in order to facilitate the participation of developing countries.
45) The Committee agreed that at this stage no guidelines needed to be developed as to the participation of observers in the Executive Committee. The Committee requested the Codex Secretariat to prepare for the forthcoming extraordinary session of the Committee a discussion document elaborating further such possible alternative options, as mentioned above, in light of all pertinent considerations with particular reference to cost and legal and institutional implications of any of the envisaged options. It was noted that consultation with other organizations both within and outside the United Nations system could be undertaken in connection with the preparation of the document.
PROCESSES FOR STANDARDS MANAGEMENT (INCLUDING THE CRITICAL REVIEW) (Agenda Item 4)
REVISION OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORK PRIORITIES9 (Agenda Item 4a)
46) The French Secretariat introduced the Draft Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities and explained that the proposed text, based on the existing Criteria, incorporated current priorities affirmed by the Commission at its last session as well as necessary changes to accommodate the decisions of the Commission in response to the FAO/WHO Evaluation.
47) As regards the introductory paragraphs, the Committee noted that the reference to the strategic plan and the relevant outcomes of the critical review conducted by the Executive Committee was included and agreed with the text as proposed.
48) Several delegations were of the opinion that the importance of health and food safety viewpoints could further be stressed as high priority. The Delegation of Canada, supported by the Observer from Consumers International, proposed to include a reference to consumer protection against food-borne diseases and inadequate nutritional content of foods, while other delegations expressed a view that the concept of nutrition did not depended on the safety of a single food but on the whole diet and that the text should be kept general and simple.
49)
Many delegations noted that the term “fraudulent practices” was too narrow in its scope and should be complemented with the term “deceptive practices” or be replaced by a reference to “fair practices”, this term being part of the Codex mandate and widely used within Codex. It was also noted that the protection from unfair practices concerns not only consumers but also other parties involved in the food trade.
50) Some delegations, supporting the proposal of the Delegation of Malaysia, were in favour of separating different elements in the General Criterion and presenting them as separate bullet points. However, other delegations felt that the stress on the priority of consumer protection might be weakened if different elements were presented in a parallel manner, and the issue of an order of priorities might arise.
51) After an extensive exchange of views, the Committee decided to keep these elements in a single sentence and agreed with the following text as “General Criterion”:
“Consumer protection from the point of view of health, food safety, ensuring fair practices in the food trade and taking into account the identified needs of developing countries.”
52) The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, proposed that in addition to work already undertaken by other international organizations, account should also be taken of the requests by relevant international intergovernmental bodies to undertake new work. On this proposal, the Delegation of Argentina observed that reference should be made specifically to the World Trade Organization and expressed its concern with a general reference to other international intergovernmental bodies.
53) The Observer from Consumers International, supported by other delegations, stated that among those criteria trade issues should be considered to be secondary, compared to consumer protection and proposed to delete a reference to impediments to international trade in both sets of criteria and replace the term “trade issues” in paragraph (e) in the latter criteria by “fair practices in the food trade”.
54) The Committee did not conclude the discussion on these sections of the text. The criteria will be considered at the next (extraordinary) session.
PROCESSES FOR STANDARDS MANAGEMENT (INCLUDING THE REVIEW OF THE ELABORATION PROCEDURES) 10 (Agenda Item 4b)
55) The French Secretariat introduced the document and stressed the importance of implementing the decisions of the Commission in order to allow the Executive Committee to carry out its standards management functions as soon as possible. The new sections related to the critical review had been introduced in the document as a matter of priority, with the understanding that other sections could be reviewed further at a later stage. The French Secretariat also recalled that whether the Acceptance Procedure had become obsolete or should be revised had been considered by the Committee at earlier sessions and that no conclusion had been reached in this respect.
56) The Delegation of the United States indicated that substantive issues remained to be addressed in the current text and specifically the provisions of the Acceptance Procedure of Codex Standards (Part 3). The Committee agreed to consider this question under Agenda Item 8 if time allowed.
57) The Committee considered the working document section by section and made the following amendments and comments.
Introduction
58) The Committee agreed with the proposals of the Delegation of Australia to amend paragraph 2 as follows: a reference to proposals for new work was inserted to reflect that the critical review should cover all steps of the Elaboration; it was clarified that the standards should continue to meet the strategic priorities of the Commission; and the need to take into account the availability of scientific advice was recognized.
59) The Committee agreed with all other amendments to the Introduction proposed in the working document in order to highlight the concept of critical review, with an editorial amendment in paragraph 9.
Part 2 Critical Review
Proposals to undertake new work
60) The Committee agreed that the title should refer both to proposals to undertake new work and to revise a standard, and made consequential amendments throughout the text where necessary.
61) The Committee agreed that the project document accompanying the proposal to undertake new work or to revise a standard could be prepared by a Committee or a Member of the Commission.
62) The Delegation of Canada proposed to include a new section to clarify the content of the project document in order to ensure a more systematic and consistent approach in the consideration of new work. After an exchange of views, the Committee agreed to integrate the provisions on the project document at the beginning of the section on Critical Review. The Committee discussed the elements that should be included, on the basis of the text provided by the Delegation of Canada in CRD 5 and in particular agreed that the project document should include an assessment against the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities. The Committee added a reference to the requirement for and availability of scientific advice, following its earlier decision on the Introduction. The Committee also agreed that information on the relation between the proposal and existing Codex documents should be included in the project document, as proposed by the Delegation of Switzerland.
63) The Delegation of New Zealand proposed to insert a reference to coordination with other international standard-setting bodies. Several delegations supported this proposal as it reflected the general provisions of the Strategic Framework and the specific recommendations of the Commission concerning collaboration with OIE in order to ensure an integrated approach to food safety.
64) Several other delegations expressed the view that no reference to other bodies should be included in Codex Procedures as the membership of such bodies might differ from the Codex membership and the development of Guidelines for cooperation with international intergovernmental organizations was still under consideration in the Committee. Some delegations noted that Article 1 of the Statutes and the Strategic Framework already addressed the need for such coordination, and there was no need to repeat it in the document under consideration. The Delegation of India expressed the view that the addition of such a requirement would make it more difficult for developing countries to prepare project documents.
65) After an extensive debate, the Committee agreed on a compromise text referring to the “identification of any need for technical input to the standard from external bodies, so that it can be planned for”, as proposed by the Delegations of Brazil and New Zealand.
66) The Committee agreed that the paragraph referring to the work of the Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, the Committee on Pesticide Residues and the Committee on Residue of Veterinary Drugs in Foods should be transferred to the end of the section, and discussed the sub-section concerning the critical review itself.
67)
The Committee recognized that the decision to undertake new work was taken by the Commission on the basis of the critical review conducted by the Executive Committee, and amended the text accordingly.
68) As regards the elements to be included in the critical review the Committee discussed the role of the Executive Committee in assessing the need for scientific advice (the fourth bullet point). After some discussion, the Committee agreed that “a preliminary review” was conducted rather than an “assessment” as the Executive Committee was not a scientific body and would not be in a position to take a final decision to determine the need for scientific advice. A reference to “the prioritization of that advice” was also added, for consistency with the decisions of the Commission in this respect.
Monitoring Progress of Standards Development
69) The Committee amended the first paragraph to clarify that the review of the status of development of draft standards would be carried out against the time frame agreed by the Commission. In the second paragraph, the Committee noted the concerns of several delegations as to the possibility of proliferation of ad hoc Task Forces and agreed to include a possibility for the establishment of a limited number of subsidiary bodies, if appropriate.
70) The Committee discussed the elements that should be included as part of the monitoring process. On the suggestion of the Delegation of Ghana, the Committee deleted the reference to suspension of work in the first bullet and retained only the reference to corrective action as the nature of such action would be left to the decision of the Executive Committee.
71) Some delegations pointed out that the Executive Committee might not be able in practice to examine the standards and related texts for format, presentation and linguistic consistency. The Committee noted that the Executive Committee would require the support of the Secretariat in this respect.
72) Several delegations expressed their strong concerns as to the reference to “other international legal instruments”. They stated that this reference was open to different interpretations and that members of the Commission were not necessarily members of other international organizations. After some discussion, the Committee agreed to refer to the mandate of Codex as it covered coordination with other standardization bodies. The Committee agreed to group some of the elements pertaining to the mandate, existing Codex texts and the decisions of the Commission in the same sentence in order to simplify the text.
Part 3. Uniform Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts
Part 4. Uniform Accelerated Procedure for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts
Guide to the Procedure for the Revision and Amendment of Codex Standards
73) The French Secretariat indicated that the above sections included only consequential amendments referring to the critical review, as a result of the amendments made to the previous sections, since the 26th Session of the Commission had agreed to retain the current Step Procedure unchanged.
74) The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, proposed to add a reference to the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultations on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) in relation to maximum limits for microbiological contamination in the section addressing Step 2 in Part 3 and Part 4 of the document. The Committee however noted that the sections referred specifically to maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs and that the situation was different in the case of microbiological contamination.
75)
The Representative of FAO proposed to refer to “Codex guidance to manage microbiological contamination” so that no reference would be made to maximum limits. Noting that Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultations were also held on an ad hoc basis in other areas, the Committee agreed on a more general wording to the effect that “any other relevant information regarding risk assessment work conducted by FAO and WHO should also be made available”.
Status of the Proposed Amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts
76) The Committee agreed to forward the Proposed Amendments for adoption by the 27th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (see Appendix III).
REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE PARTICIPATION OF INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORK OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION (Agenda item 5)11, 12
77) The Committee considered document CX/GP 03/19/5, entitled “Review of the Principles concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.”. The document was introduced by the legal adviser for WHO, who noted that the item was being considered in accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at its 26th Session that the Principles concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the Principles) be revised in the light of the revision of Rule VII.513. The document clarified that the legal basis for the granting of observer status to NGOs rested in Rule VII.5 and highlighted that the Principles aimed at spelling out and implementing in detail the general provisions contained in the Rule.
78) The document did not set forth specific proposals on a possible revision of the overall process of granting observer status, since this depended on the preliminary question of the revision of Rule VII.5 (see paras. 34-39). However, in line with a recommendation from the Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and Other FAO and WHO Work on Food Standards, the document suggested that the Committee consider clarifying three of the criteria contained in the current Principles.
79) A number of delegations agreed on the usefulness of a clarification of some of the criteria for eligibility of NGOs, and on the need to apply stricter criteria. Many delegations stressed the importance of the requirement that they be “international in structure and scope of activity”. The Committee also considered proposals to determine whether NGOs participated and contributed actively in the work of Codex and noted the view expressed by some observers that this be the sole criterion and that the application of numerical criteria was inappropriate. With regard to the possibility of granting observer status to NGOs that consist of smaller or regional member organizations already enjoying observer status, some delegations stated that observer status should be granted preferably to the larger organization. The Committee also noted the views that the representation of smaller or regional organizations should be allowed in order to allow a wider range of views and expertise.
80) Some delegations stated that the Principles, once revised, should be applied to NGOs already enjoying observer status. Other delegations noted that in accordance with the provisions of the current Principles arrangements for Observer Status could be terminated for NGOs not contributing to the work of Codex14.
81) The Committee noted that the Commission had requested FAO and WHO to submit a report on the status of the current international organizations in “Observer Status” to the Commission’s next Regular Session. This report, which should include a list of observer NGOs, would enable the Commission to have an overview of the general situation concerning NGOs in observer status and to consider whether measures would be warranted to ensure that only NGOs which are willing and able to contribute to the work of Codex would retain observer status.
82) The Committee, while recognizing that in view of a number of outstanding issues it was premature to agree on revised principles, requested the Codex Secretariat, in cooperation with the FAO and WHO Legal Counsels, to prepare a general document outlining the possible main areas of improvement of the principles for consideration at its forthcoming regular session, both in the light of the decision to revise Rule VII.5 as well as with regard to the criteria for eligibility of NGOs.
REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES FOR CODEX COMMITTEES (Agenda Item 6)15
83) The Committee recalled that the Commission at its 26th Session had requested the Committee on General Principles to develop appropriate guidelines in response to the proposal on the separation of advice to host governments and advice on the conduct of meetings, the proposal on criteria for selection of chairpersons, and the proposal on the conduct of meetings16. The Committee noted that four draft texts had been prepared by the French Secretariat on the basis of the existing guidelines and it considered the four draft texts under the following two sub-items 6(a) and 6(b).
ADVICE TO HOST COUNTRIES (INCLUDING CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSONS) (Agenda Item 6a)
84) The document CX/GP 03/19/6, introduced by the French Secretariat, contained two draft texts, namely Draft Criteria for the Appointment of Chairpersons and Draft Guidelines to Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces.
85) Delegations generally supported the criteria contained in the proposed text. The Committee agreed with several proposals for amendment that were aimed at stressing the need for demonstrated ability in chairing meetings and facilitating consensus building, as well as the importance of impartiality and objectivity. The reference to the need for familiarity with the Codex system and its rules was also included. It was also agreed that a general knowledge of the subject matter was more relevant than a highly specialized technical knowledge in the field of the subsidiary body.
86) The Committee discussed the proposals of the Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, to refer to a conflict of economic interest. The Committee however agreed to retain the term “conflict of interest” as it included economic interests and covered other possible conflicts that might arise.
87) The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Criteria, as amended, to the Commission for adoption at its 27th Session (see Appendix IV).
Draft Guidelines to Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces
88) The Committee agreed to make a number of amendments, mostly editorial or practical in nature, to the draft guidelines.
89) The Delegation of the United States, supported by Canada, highlighted the need to use the opportunity of the revision of these texts to improve the structure and presentation of the Procedural Manual and make it a more user-friendly document. The Committee agreed to further discuss this matter at its next regular session (see para. 120).
90) The Delegation of Argentina, speaking on behalf of the members of the Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean and referring to the section on Preparation and Distribution of Papers, expressed the view that the matters related to the timely translation and distribution of documents would require specific consideration. The Delegation highlighted the difficulties faced by member countries due to the delays in the translation and distribution of documents. It was highlighted that the distribution of paper documents was particularly costly and inefficient. The Committee noted that this question would be considered under Agenda Item 8 if time allowed (see para. 120).
Status of the Draft Guidelines to Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces
91) The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Guidelines, as amended, to the Commission for adoption at its 27th Session (see Appendix V).
CONDUCT OF MEETINGS (Agenda Item 6b)
92) Document CX/GP 03/19/6-Add.1, introduced by the French Secretariat, contained two draft texts, namely Draft Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces and Draft Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces.
Draft Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces
93) Under the section entitled “Conduct of Meetings”, the Committee noted that a new text had been inserted in the current text to take account of the status of regional economic integration organizations as Codex Members. In this regard, the Committee agreed to the proposal of the Delegation of the United Sates to insert “or subparts thereof, as appropriate” after the term “each item”. The Observer of the European Commission stated that the European Community and its Member States are responsible for determining where the competence lies for each meeting’s agenda items, and to decide whether a single competence statement is sufficient for the whole item or for each of its subparts when an agenda item comprises several sub-items.
94) With reference to the areas of shared competence between a regional economic organizations and its members, the Delegation of the United States also proposed the insertion of a sentence at the end of the paragraph, as follows: “For issues of mixed competence, the party holding predominance will represent the interests associated with the issue”. The Committee decided not to include this proposal in the guidelines to avoid inconsistencies with Rule II of the Rules of Procedure17 but agreed to replace the phrase “where the competence predominantly lies” in the original draft with the phrase “which party has the voting right” to clarify the text.
95) Under the section “Reports”, the Committee agreed to clarify the text in the last paragraph by including the phrase “in the languages of the Committee”, as requested by the Delegation of Argentina, expressing the views of the members of the Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean, and supported by several delegations. Several Delegations felt that not having translations into all working languages of Committees in a timely manner was a major impediment to transparency and to the smooth progress of Codex work. This also applied to the draft reports of sessions distributed in Codex sessions, that should be made available in the working languages of the Committee concerned.
Status of the Draft Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces
96) The Committee agreed to forward the Draft Guidelines to the 27th Session of the Commission for adoption (see Appendix VI).
Draft Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces
97) Several Delegations stated that the scope of the last sentence under the section “Conduct of meetings” should not be limited to assessing of the situation. The Committee decided to enlarge its scope so as to deal with the whole process of the conduct of meetings including the assessment of the situation with regard to the party which has the right to vote.
98) The Committee had a lengthy debate on the section dealing with consensus. On point (a), the need for timely progress in developing standards was emphasized. The Committee further agreed to simplify point (b). The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, expressed the view that a definition of consensus was needed in the framework of the Draft Guidelines. The Delegation of Ecuador stressed that any definition of consensus should be based on international practice and custom, especially the legal instruments of the WTO. On point (c), the need to define consensus was recognized, but it was felt that this was not within the mandate given by the Commission to the Committee. The Committee agreed not to qualify the term “consensus” but to adhere to the text in the general decisions of the Commission “Measures to Facilitate Consensus”, adopted in 2003.
99) Several delegations stressed the importance of ensuring consideration of written comments from members and observers not present at the session, but in order for this to be possible these comments should be received in a timely manner. The Committee agreed to reflect this idea in the fifth paragraph under the section dealing with conduct of meetings.
100) As regards the set of measures to facilitate consensus building, the Committee underlined the importance of taking into account data from developing countries and amended the text to reflect that if such data were not readily available, they should be actively sought.
101) On point (e) of the subsection on measures to facilitate consensus building, the Committee agreed to include a footnote to allow square-bracketing of small parts of the proposed draft in the early stages of elaboration, as a useful means to progress the work of Codex subsidiary bodies.
102) The Committee agreed to add a last point f) concerning increased involvement of developing countries, for consistency with the Measures to Facilitate Consensus adopted as a general decision of the Commission.
Status of the Draft Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces
103) The Committee decided to forward the Draft Guidelines, as amended, to the Commission for adoption at its 27th Session (see Appendix VII).
OTHER PROPOSALS TO FACILITATE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT (OTHER THAN STANDARD MANAGEMENT PROCESS): REVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES FOR CODEX COMMITTEES AND OTHER ADDITIONAL TEXT (Agenda Item 7)18
104) The French Secretariat introduced the document and recalled that the 26th Session of the Commission had agreed in principle to several recommendations concerning the use of facilitators, the establishment of physical and electronic working groups and had referred the question of co-chairmanship to the Committee on General Principles19. The Committee noted that the document did not include specific text concerning the use of facilitators because the Commission had agreed to adopt an experimental approach and this did not appear to require the establishment of detailed guidelines at this stage. The French Secretariat also indicated that the question of co-chairmanship should be discussed in principle.
105) The Committee agreed to defer consideration of co-chairmanship and facilitators until the next extraordinary session and considered the Draft Guidelines on Physical Working Groups and the Draft Guidelines on Electronic Working Groups.
106) Several delegations pointed out that the provisions of the Draft Guidelines were too close to those of a subsidiary body of the Commission, and that the formality of the process would not allow flexibility in the organization of work and exchange of views. It was noted in particular that the provisions concerning invitation and provisional agenda involving clearance from national authorities at a ministerial level might create significant delay in the process.
107) Some delegations questioned the use of the term “Coordinator” as it might create confusion with Regional Coordinators.
108) The Delegation of Cameroon, supported by the Delegation of Mali, expressed the view that physical working groups should be the rule and electronic working groups the exception, since many developing countries experience difficulties with electronic communication, and other problems may arise such as the use of different languages. Several other delegations, including delegations of developing countries, supported the establishment of electronic working groups whenever possible and the establishment of physical working groups only when other strategies had been considered, in conformity with the recommendations of the Commission in this respect.
109) The Delegation of the United States, supported by several delegations, proposed to amend the section on Duties and Terms of Reference to the effect that working groups convened during a session of a committee should be scheduled so as to allow participation of all delegations present at the session.
110) The Delegation of Argentina stated that not only those delegations present at a Committee session but all other Members and Observers should be invited to attend working group meetings.
111) The Delegation of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union, proposed that physical working groups should preferably be held immediately before Codex sessions, rather than in between sessions, in order to facilitate the participation of developing countries and to reduce costs.
112) Some delegations stressed the importance of balanced geographical representation, as well as adequate representation of developing countries in Working Groups. Other delegations pointed out that all standards or related texts might not be of equal interest to all regions and that flexibility should be allowed in this respect.
113) The Delegation of Mexico proposed a number of amendments to reflect that working groups should work in the three languages of the Commission. Other delegations expressed the view that the use of three languages would create practical difficulties and entail additional costs, especially for the Member who exercised the functions of “Coordinator”.
114) The Observer from Consumers International expressed the view that the impartiality of the Coordinator and/or Chairperson of a working group was essential and proposed that the Draft Criteria for the Appointment of Chairpersons and Draft Guidelines on Conduct of Meetings should also apply to the Chairpersons and meetings of working groups. The Observer also proposed that the Codex Secretariat participate in all physical working groups established by subsidiary bodies of the Commission.
115)
The Committee was informed by the Secretariat that a systematic involvement of the FAO/WHO Codex Secretariat in the operation of the working groups could give rise to statutory problems.
116) Several delegations expressed the view that priority should be given to electronic working groups, as this would reduce costs and facilitate participation, especially from developing countries. Some delegations expressed the concern that the formality of some provisions in the Draft Guidelines might reduce the flexibility and efficiency of electronic working groups. The Committee noted that the process of electronic interaction would require further clarification, bearing in mind the need to ensure efficiency and active participation of all members, especially developing country members.
117) The Committee noted that electronic working groups normally operated by exchanging electronic mail but that in the future the use of more sophisticated Internet-based software could be considered.
118) The Committee also noted that several aspects mentioned in the discussion would require detailed consideration, and in particular: the use of the expression “world-wide consensus” in the Introduction; the need to explore thoroughly the opportunities offered by communication technologies; the need for transparency and clarity in the reports of working groups to reflect consensus as well as disagreement on each point, as applicable; the availability of comments provided within the working group; and the management of the distribution list within the working group. The Committee also reasserted that working groups should allow the exchange of views but should not take decisions. The Committee recognized that due to time constraints, it would not possible to make specific amendments to the Draft Guidelines at the current session.
119) The Committee agreed that both Draft Guidelines would be circulated for comments in a separate Circular Letter. The Committee further agreed that the French Secretariat would redraft both Draft Guidelines in the light of the above discussion and the written comments received in reply to the Circular Letter, for consideration at the next (extraordinary) session.
OTHER BUSINESS, FUTURE WORK AND DATE AND PLACE OF NEXT SESSION20 (Agenda Item 8)
120) Due to the time limitations, the Committee could not discuss issues to have been brought under this Agenda Item. The Committee also recalled that the follow-up of the outcome of the FAO/WHO Evaluation should not impede the on-going programme of work of the Committee. It therefore decided to discuss the following items at the next regular session of the Committee under Other Business, unless overlapping issues were identified:
• clarification of the roles of Members of the Executive Committee elected on a geographic basis and those of Coordinators;
• clarification of the duration of the term of the Coordinators and other Members of the Executive Committee, provided for in the Rules of Procedure;
• relevance of the current acceptance and notification procedures for Codex standards;
• possible reorganization of the structure and presentation of the Procedural Manual to make it more user-friendly;
•
particular situation of the North America Region in the context of Rule IV.121
• implications of the exclusive use of electronic distribution of Codex documents to Members and Observers; and
• applicable criteria for the participation of developing country members in the Executive Committee in the light of the proposed Rule XII.321 and the Codex budget available.
121) The Committee noted that a progress report of the FAO/WHO Trust Fund would be considered by the 53rd Session of the Executive Committee in February 2004, and the recommendations of the Executive Committee in this respect would then be brought to the attention of the Committee on General Principles at its next regular session.
122) The Committee was informed that the 20th (regular) Session of the Committee would be held from 3 to 7 May 2004 in Paris and the 21st (extraordinary) Session of the Committee would be held from 15 to 19 November 2004 in Paris, pending further confirmation by the French and Codex Secretariats.
SUMMARY STATUS OF WORK
Subject Matter |
Step |
Action by |
Reference in ALINORM 04/27/33 |
Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure |
Governments
|
para. 33
| |
Proposed Amendments to the Procedures for the Elaboration of Codex Standards and Related Texts |
Governments
|
para. 76
| |
Draft Criteria for the Appointment of Chairpersons |
Governments
|
para. 87
| |
Draft Guidelines to Host Governments of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces |
Governments
|
para. 91
| |
Draft Guidelines on the Conduct of Meetings of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces |
Governments
|
para. 96
| |
Draft Guidelines to Chairpersons of Codex Committees and ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Forces |
Governments
|
para. 103
| |
Proposed Amendment to Rule VII.5 (Observers) |
Legal Counsels
|
para. 39 | |
Consideration of the Status of Observers in the Executive Committee |
Secretariat
|
para. 45 | |
Review of the Principles concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission |
Secretariat
|
para. 82 | |
Revision of the Criteria for the Establishment of Work Priorities |
21st CCGP |
para. 54 | |
Draft Guidelines on Physical Working Groups and Draft Guidelines on Electronic Working Group |
Governments
|
para. 119 | |
1 CX/GP 03/19/2
2 CX/GP 03/19/3, CRD 1 (comments of Malaysia), CRD 2 (comments of the Philippines), CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International ), CRD 4 (comments of Indonesia)
3 Throughout the section, reference is made to the numbering of the Rules of Procedure in the working document and the 12th Edition of the Procedural Manual followed by the updated numbering in the 13th Edition of the Procedural Manual (in parenthesis)
4 CX GP 03/19/3-Add. 1, CRD 2 (comments of the Philippines), CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International), CRD 4 (comments of Indonesia)
5 This Agenda Item was considered in conjunction with Agenda Item 5
6 As in the 12th Edition of the Procedural Manual (Rule VIII.5 in the 13th Edition)
7 CX/GP 03/19/3-Add. 2, CRD 1 (comments of Malaysia), CRD 2 (comments of the Philippines), CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International), CRD 4 (comments of Indonesia)
8 ALINORM 03/41, para. 161
9 CX/GP 03/19/4, CRD1 (comments of Malaysia), CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International), CRD 4 (comments of Indonesia).
10 CX/GP 03/19/4-Add.1, CRD1 (comments of Malaysia), CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International), CRD 4 (comments of Indonesia), CRD 5 (comments of Canada).
11 CX/GP 03/19/5, CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International), CRD 4 (comments of Indonesia)
12 This Agenda Item was considered in conjunction with Agenda Item 3b)
13 As in the 12th Edition of the Procedural Manual (Rule VIII.5 in the 13th Edition)
14 Principles concerning the Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Section 6, paragraph 2
15 CX/GP 03/19/6, CX/GP 03/19/6-Add.1, CRD 3 (Comments of Consumers International), CRD 4 (Comments of Indonesia) and CRD 6 (comments of Canada)
16 ALINORM 03/41, paras. 178-179
17 Procedural Manual, 13th Edition
18 CX/GP 03/19/7, CRD 3 (comments of Consumers International)
19 ALINORM 03/41, paras. 167, 178 and 179
20 CRD 6 (comments of Canada)
21 13th Edition of the Procedural Manual
22 The Committee will hold its 20th (Regular) Session in May 2004 and its 21st (Extraordinary) Session in November 2004