4. The 8th Session of the Committee agreed to forward the proposed draft Guidelines to the 47th Session of the Executive Committee (CCEXEC) for adoption at Step 5. The Committee further agreed that a drafting group under the direction of Australia would review comments submitted during discussions at the 8th Session as well as comments submitted subsequent to adoption at Step 6 with a view towards the consideration of an amended text at the Committee’s current meeting.[7] The 47th Session of the CCEXEC adopted the proposed draft Guidelines at Step 5 and comments were subsequently requested at Step 6 under CL 2000/15-GEN (July 2000) with a comment deadline of 15 September 2000. Several delegations noted that the Circular Letter had not come to their attention. No comments were received.
5. The Guidelines were revised by a drafting Group under the direction of Australia with the assistance of Canada, France, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the USA and the European Commission. In redrafting the document, particular attention was given by the drafting group to written and verbal comments provided at the Committee’s Eighth Session. The Delegation of France, speaking on behalf of the Members of the European Union present at the Session[8], expressed concern at the procedure used following adoption of the text at Step 6 because, the time available to the drafting group being short, some of the comments by members of the drafting group did not appear to have been considered. The Committee agreed to consider the document revised by the drafting group as the basis for its discussions at Step 7.
6. The delegation of Australia, in introducing the document, emphasized that the Guidelines were written so as to apply only to official and officially recognized certificates and were intended to apply equally to both paper and electronic forms of certification.
TITLE
7. No change was made.
PREAMBLE
8. The Committee decided to make reference to third party certificates which, while not included in the guidelines were recognized as playing a trade facilitatory role.
SCOPE
9. The Committee agreed that throughout the text a reference to “certificates” would mean a reference to both “official and officially recognized” certificates and amended the text accordingly. It also noted the concerns of some countries about the difficulty of referring to “wholesomeness” as a declaration that could be subject to certification and agreed to use the term “suitability for consumption” based on the use of the expression in the Recommended International Code of Practice - General Principles of Food Hygiene[9].
10. It was agreed that matters of animal and plant health, although not normally addressed in the guidelines, should be considered when directly related to food quality and safety. The text was amended accordingly.
OBJECTIVES
11. No change was made.
DEFINITIONS
12. The Committee agreed to add a definition of “Certification”, using the definition in the General Principles for Food Inspection and Certification[10]. It also agreed to amend the definition of “Certifying authorities” to “Certifying bodies”, as this was the term used throughout the text. It was further agreed to link the recognition of these bodies with the requirements for Official Accreditation in Section 8 of the Guidelines for the Design, Operation, Assessment and Accreditation of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems[11].
PRINCIPLES
13. The Committee agreed to include in this Section a statement to the effect that government agencies having jurisdiction assume the responsibility for all certificates issued by official and officially recognized bodies.
14. Several delegations noted that the expression “competent authority” was used frequently throughout the text and proposed that a definition of this term be established. The Committee noted, however, that both terms had been used in previous texts adopted by the Commission and had been considered as self-explanatory.
15. The Committee also agreed to include a statement to the effect that multiple or redundant certificates should be avoided to the extent possible.
CRITERIA
Standard format
16. Several editorial changes were made to this section. The Committee deleted the reference to “paper that cannot be photocopied” as the document recognizes that further copies can be photocopies (paragraph 10). It also agreed that in cases where a certificate extended to two or more pages, each page should bear the unique identification number of the certificate in addition to other requirements to ensure integrity of the certificate (paragraph 11).
17. In regard to the situation when certificates were issued while the consignment was in transit, the Committee recognized that this was an exception to normal practice. Several alternative texts were proposed in the working paper and written comments. The Committee had an extended debate on this issue and agreed that although an exception to normal practice for certification, conditions could be established and agreed upon that would allow the issuing of certificates relating to consignments already in transit. The precondition to this taking place was the agreement between the relevant authorities in the importing and exporting countries on the appropriate systems to control the integrity of the certificate. Such agreements would allow, for example, the issuance of a certificate of analysis under such conditions. Paragraph 14 was amended accordingly.
Details of the consignment
18. The Committee recognized the practice and usefulness of including information on relevant transport and handling requirements including temperature control, for example in the case of frozen, quick frozen or chilled foods. A statement was added to this effect.
Statement of origin
19. No changes were made.
Attestations
20. The Committee agreed that the health status of the exporting country as it may affect the safety of the food could be subject to an attestation. It also agreed that attestations as to conformity to requirements should be extended to include standards, production and processing requirements.
Responsibilities of the certifying body
21. Editorial changes were made.
Responsibilities of certifying officers
22. The Committee agreed that a certifying officer could also certify in respect of known circumstances including conformity with production requirements and any other specified requirements applicable between the production of the food and the date of certification, as well as the circumstances at the time of signing the document. The text was amended accordingly.
Presentation of original certificates
23. No changes were made.
Instructions for completing paper certificates
24. In addition to editorial changes, the Committee agreed to delete reference to “Duplicate” certificates while retaining the reference to “Copies” so as to avoid confusion of terms. It was also agreed that alterations to certificates should be initialed and, where required by the importing country, stamped as this reflected current practice. In view of its earlier consideration regarding photocopies, it was agreed to delete reference to the use of a colour of ink “that does not readily photocopy”.
25. The Committee decided that the date borne by the certificate should be expressed unambiguously, but did not specify a date format.
26. The Committee also agreed that a certifying officer should ensure that each page of multi-page certificates bore the unique certification number as indicated above (see para. 16 above).
Instructions for completing electronic certificates
27. No changes were made.
Replacement certificates
28. It was agreed that loss as well as damage would constitute a reason for the issuance of a replacement certificate.
Revocation of a certificate
29. It was agreed that the exporter (or their agent) should be notified as soon as possible of the revocation of a certificate either in hard copy or by electronic means. It was agreed that the appropriate control authority of the importing country need only to be notified of this act in cases where the export of the consignment had occurred since in such cases the consignment was no longer under control of the exporting country.
STATUS OF THE DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR GENERIC OFFICIAL CERTIFICATE FORMATS AND THE PRODUCTION AND ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES
30. The Committee noted that the draft guidelines had been developed in the course of several sessions and that all points of disagreement had been resolved. It agreed therefore to submit the revised draft Guidelines as contained in Appendix II to this report for adoption by the Commission at Step 8 of the Procedure.
