97. The Committee recalled that it had agreed at the 22nd Session to proceed with the development of a model certificate for fish and fishery products, recognizing that a generic certificate would not address all issues related to import/export control[14]. The Delegations of Canada and Norway introduced the discussion paper, highlighting problems in this area.
98. The Committee noted that the important elements to be considered included the identification of the processing establishment by name or by code, the name of the exporter, the destination of the lot. It was also necessary to consider the title of the certificate, its scope, and the type of attestations used to indicate compliance with the exporting or importing country's requirements or other international requirements. All these issues required clarification before the model certificate could be finalized. The Committee agreed that reference should be made to “Sanitary Certificate” as the term “Health” did not reflect the nature of the certificate or correspond to current practice.
99. Some delegations stressed the great diversity of certificates required by importing countries, and the specific problems associated with transit requirements. The Committee recognized the importance of such work to facilitate international trade in view of the difficulties faced by exporting countries. It was noted that the use of references to competent authorities and to production conditions of the lot were important elements of official certificates.
100. Some countries pointed out linguistic problems in relation with certificates and were of the opinion that the number of languages should be limited. The Delegation of the United States expressed the view that the identity of processors was commercial confidential information which could not be disclosed by brokers; for the purposes of traceability it should be made available only for official purposes. The Observer from the EC informed the Committee that the establishment of origin was an essential information as the EC system was based on a list of establishments.
101. The Committee was informed that the Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems was working on Guidelines and Criteria for Official Certificate Formats and Rules Relating to the Production and Issuance of Certificates. In the light of the on-going work in the CCFICS it was suggested that the CCFFP continue its work on the title and scope of the model certificate and keep the CCFICS informed of its progress. The Committee agreed that work on a model certificate should proceed and delegations were invited to send their comments on the issues discussed to Norway (Directorate of Fisheries in Bergen), with a view to the preparation of a draft model certificate by Canada and Norway for further consideration.
