Kenza Dimechkie
CODEX
TRUST
FUND
PARTICIPANT REPORTS ASSESSMENT 2009
2
Executive Summary
Background
Beneficiaries of Codex Trust Fund support are expected to submit a report to the Trust Fund
following attendance to Codex meetings. In an effort to improve the quantity and quality of country
reports, an online reporting format was introduced in June 2009. This assessment of country reports
submitted for meetings attended in 2009 was commissioned in order to measure what beneficiary
countries gain from participating in Codex meetings, highlighting good practices and areas for
improvement, as well as to assess the quality of reports so as to provide recommendations to
improve reporting.
Quantity and quality of reports
Both the quantity and the quality of reports received for 2009 were higher than in past years. This
can probably be attributed to the convenience of the new online reporting format as well as the
more frequent communication from the CTF Secretariat on the reporting requirement. The online
reporting format also facilitates comparison of experiences across countries, though it provides
beneficiaries with fewer opportunities to elaborate on their countries’ specific experience.
Experiences before, during, and after Codex meeting
While experiences vary broadly from country to country and meeting to meeting, a broad picture
emerges:
• While most participants considered that they had prepared sufficiently prior to the Codex
meeting they attended, some areas for improvement emerged. Notably, the need to start
preparations early enough to circulate relevant data and information, organize meetings and
formulate a written national position, involving a broader array of stakeholders in the
process.
• The majority of participants considered that they had participated actively during the course
of the Codex meeting they attended, usually through interventions during meetings. Among
the delegates who did not participate actively, 76% were participating in the meeting for the
first time. Differences also emerged between first time and repeat participants in the type
and quality of participation, as well as in preparation for meetings.
• Less than 10% of delegates reported to have contributed scientific or technical data to Codex
meetings.
• Meeting participation is usually followed by a debriefing process, most often a stakeholder or
NCC meeting, and results in the formulation of recommendations for follow up at the
national level. Meeting participation can also act as a catalyst, giving new momentum to
existing national projects, such as the finalization of a draft national standard.
Recommendations
The rollout of the online reporting format led to a big improvement in the reporting system. By
providing feedback in cases of either excellent or insufficient reports, as well as regular reminders of
the reporting obligation, it should be possible to improve the reporting quality even further. Also, in
order to capture more information on activities that follow Codex meetings at the country level, it
3
would be beneficial to communicate more on when countries should be reporting, i.e., ideally when
enough time has passed for follow up activities to take place. The report also contains
recommendations to revise specific questions of the online format (see Table 4).
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................2
Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................................4
1. Background ....................................................................................................................................5
1.1 The Codex Trust Fund...................................................................................................................5
1.2. Participant Reports......................................................................................................................5
2. Objectives...........................................................................................................................................6
3. Methodology......................................................................................................................................6
4. Results................................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Quantity and Quality of reports ...................................................................................................7
4.2 Profile of Participants ...................................................................................................................9
4.3 Before meetings .........................................................................................................................11
4.4 During meetings .........................................................................................................................13
4.5 After meetings............................................................................................................................16
4.6 Scientific/technical participation................................................................................................18
4.7 WHO and FAO Involvement........................................................................................................19
4.8 Problems encountered by participants ......................................................................................19
5. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................................................20
5.1 Quality of participation ..............................................................................................................20
5.2 Widening vs. strengthening participation: the benefits of repeat participation ........................21
5.3 Quality of reporting....................................................................................................................21
4
Abbreviations
CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission
CCP Codex Contact Point
CTF Codex Trust Fund
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
LAC Latin American and Caribbean
LDC Least developed countries
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
NCC National Codex Committee
NCCP National Codex Contact Points
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SWP South West Pacific
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organisation
5
1. Background
1.1 The Codex Trust Fund
The Codex Trust Fund (CTF) was established in 2003 through a joint FAO/WHO partnership dedicated
to helping developing countries to enhance their level of effective participation in the development
of global food safety and quality standards by the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC).
From 2004 to 2009, the CTF supported the attendance of of 1,129 participants from 126 countries to
Codex meetings, primarily from least developed countries (LDCs).
The year 2009 marks the mid-point of the Fund’s 12 year expected duration. The CTF has
increasingly focused on developing and capitalizing on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools to
assess the progress of the Fund in achieving its objectives. Within a broader M&E framework,
participant reports constitute one tool for continuously measuring CTF impact at the national level.
1.2. Participant Reports
Trust Fund beneficiaries are required to submit a report to the CTF Secretariat following attendance
to each Codex meeting in order for their country to be eligible for further CTF funding in the next
calendar year. The purpose of these reports is to (1) monitor the quality of participation and impact
at the national level of participating in Codex meetings and (2) assist beneficiaries and the countries
they represent in identifying good practices in Codex participation as well as areas that need
strengthening.
From 2005 to June 2009, beneficiaries were provided with a reporting template consisting of a series
of broad open-ended questions covering before, during and after meetings, and were required to
submit the report within one month of attending a Codex meeting. This reporting system was
problematic in that:
• Reports were handed in late or not at all
• The template provided was often not followed
• Reporting quality was inconsistent and generally low.
In sum, the reports provided little information on the quality of participation or on national Codex
processes and made data comparison difficult. The CTF Secretariat, due mainly to staffing
constraints, was not able to provide feedback to participants on their reports. Codex Contact Points
in countries were reminded about the reporting requirement for participants, but sanctions (i.e., the
suspension of further funding) were often difficult to apply due mainly to the absence of a system
which provided immediate and real-time information on fulfillment of reporting requirements.
In an effort to improve the quantity and quality of participant reports, a new online reporting format
using the WHO-developed Datacol system was piloted in early 2009 and rolled out formally following
the 32nd
session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in June 2009 during which the Codex Trust
Fund was able to discuss the new system with beneficiary countries and get additional feedback from
the pilot phase. Based on these discussions, the reporting deadline was extended to three months
following participation in a Codex meeting in order to provide time for participants to engage in the
6
necessary follow up actions upon return to their country. At the same time, the CTF Secretariat was
able to actively enforce the reporting requirement as the online system allowed for ease of follow up
of outstanding reports. The present report is the first analysis of the Datacol online reporting format.
2. Objectives
The main objectives of this assessment of participant reports for 2009 are to:
1. Measure the quality of participation and impact at the national level of participating in Codex
meetings;
2. Highlight and disseminate good practices in Codex participation as well as areas that need
strengthening based on participants’ reported experiences;
3. Evaluate the success of the new online reporting format introduced as of June 2009.
3. Methodology
The present study analyses reports submitted for Codex meetings attended from January to
December 2009. The list of meetings attended is available in Annex 1.
The assessment builds on the methodology designed and applied to previous reporting periods
(August 2005 - July 2006; August 2006 – July 2007 and August 2007 -December 2008) 1
, with some
modifications to take into account the changes in the reporting format from an open-ended narrative
report to a questionnaire.
The methodology of the study consists of three stages:
1. Data gathering: Export of participant reports from Datacol online database to Excel
spreadsheet; narrative participant reports collected from CTF Secretariat; reports read;
narrative responses coded and added to Excel spreadsheet.
2. Data analysis
3. Reporting and recommendations
The use of Datacol significantly reduces the data gathering stage and facilitates the analysis and
comparison of responses by imposing limited response options through “multiple choice” format for
most questions. However, as 2009 represents a departure from past years’ reporting format, the
possibilities for comparing responses to past years was limited. In subsequent years though, Datacol
is expected to greatly facilitate the comparison of responses across years.
The criteria for assessing the quality of reports was also modified slightly compared to past years to
take into account the new reporting format. As the new reporting format obliges respondents to fill
in a series of required fields in order to be able to submit the report, the presence or not of required
1 See Gossner, Celine (2008). Participant Reports Assessment, August 2005 to July 2007. Codex Trust Fund,
Geneva. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/codex/country_report_assessment_05_07.pdf
And Dimechkie, Kenza (2009). Participant Reports Assessment, August 2007 to December 2008. Codex Trust
Fund, Geneva. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/codex/country_report_assessment_07_08.pdf
7
information has been removed from the quality criteria. However, the broad lines of the criteria
developed for past periods were applied in an effort to be as consistent as possible. Based on these
criteria, reports were classified into one of four categories: Excellent, Good, Medium or Insufficient.
Figure 1. Classification of Reports by Quality
The next section of this report follows the structure of the participant report, with results broken
down into before, during and after the meeting. Some additional analysis is provided on the
contribution of scientific or technical data to Codex meetings, as well as any differences between
participants attending the Codex meeting for the first time and those who have attended in the past
(“repeat participants”). The results are then followed by conclusions and recommendations to
improve the quality of participant reporting.
4. Results
4.1 Quantity and Quality of reports
In 2009 the CTF supported 245 participants to attend Codex meetings, and received 186 reports, or
76% of the reports required. While this is not optimal, it is clearly an improvement over past years,
where levels of submission were around 60% (see Figure 2).
8
Figure 2. Percent of Participant Reports Submitted by Period2
With the extension of the reporting deadline from one month to three months following attendance
to meetings, the timeliness of reporting also improved. The majority of the 2009 reports (77%)
were submitted to the CTF Secretariat within the three month deadline, and 36% were submitted
within one month of attending a meeting. Another factor which likely contributed to more timely
reporting was the more frequent contact by the CTF Secretariat to beneficiaries regarding the
reporting requirement. The new Datacol reporting system was introduced by email and followed up
with reminders of the deadlines and the possibility of sanctions if the reporting requirement was not
met.
It does appear to some extent that the longer period given for submitting reports gave beneficiary
countries more time for post-meeting de-briefings and other activities to take place, thereby
increasing the availability of information on the impact at national level. However, a number of
beneficiaries continued to fill out the report shortly after returning home and reported that
insufficient time had passed for an impact to take hold.
The overall quality of reports for 2009 is higher than in past years, and more homogeneous, as
shown in Figures 3 and 4. With the introduction of the Datacol questionnaire containing mainly
multiple choice questions and required fields, the scope for straying from the expected format and
contents is far more limited than with the previous narrative format. As a result, none of the reports
which used the Datacol format were judged “insufficient”. At the same time, the number of
“excellent” reports was also reduced, as the new format provides fewer opportunities for elaborating
on responses.
2 As of 2009, the period for which reports were analysed was modified to correspond to the calendar year
(January – December) rather than the Codex Alimentarius Committee calendar..
9
Figure 3 Quality of reports Aug. 2007 – Dec. 2008
Figure 4 Quality of reports Jan-Dec. 2009
4.2 Profile of Participants
Figure 3 below summarizes the provenance of reports by region.
Figure 5. Share of reports received by region
The majority of beneficiaries were affiliated with government ministries, primarily with the Ministry
of Agriculture, followed by the Ministry of Health. None of the participants reported to be affiliated
with a consumer organization.
Figure 6. Institutional affiliation of beneficiaries
10
The reports also provide an indication of the gender distribution of CTF beneficiaries in 2009: 68% of
the reports were authored by male participants, and 32% by female participants. This year’s gender
distribution closely mirrors the overall distribution since the Fund became operational: from 2004 to
2009, 34% of all CTF beneficiaries were women.
Participants’ experience with the subject of the meeting they attended ranged widely, with roughly
the same proportion having less than one year as those having over seven years (see Figure 7). The
majority (63%) of participants were new to the Codex meeting they were attending, though they
may have participated in Codex meetings on different subjects in the past. The proportion of first
time participants was lower than in 2008 however, where 79% of participants reported to be new to
the meeting.
Figure 7. Experience in the subject of the meeting Figure 8. Number of times attending the meeting
Almost half of the beneficiaries (45%) reported to have received some form of Codex training prior
to attending a meeting. This most frequently cited were regional or national workshops organized
11
by the FAO or the WHO. Some beneficiaries also indicated they had undertaken e-learning courses
or other forms of self-learning. Bilaterally funded training, such as those organized by USAID and
SIDA were also cited, as were trainings by other multilateral institutions, including the WTO, EU, and
OIE.
4.3 Before meetings
According to the reports, a country’s rationale for choosing to attend a particular meeting often
relates to its relevance to current developments or concerns in the national food safety system, such
as the enactment or amendment of existing regulations underway, the creation of a new agency or
regulatory body, or a concern over a food-related health risk. The choice of meetings to attend also
frequently relates to a country’s key imports and exports and related trade issues:
“The country imports pesticides for agricultural basis after approval from authorized
governmental agencies. Maldives has now started collecting chemical information and
data regarding pesticides and also in compiling a "Pesticide Act" and following it will come
the standards and limits for pesticide residues in it.”
“The Gambia exports Crude Groundnut Oil to Europe and imports from Indonesia RBD Palm
Oil hence the need to: (i) be abreast with the code of practice for the storage and transport
of edible fats and oils (proposed draft criteria) including the draft and proposed draft list of
acceptable previous cargoes; (ii) draft amendments to the standard of named vegetable
oils for Palm Kernel Stearin and Palm Kernel Oil etc.”
Continuity with past years’ participation was also cited in the rationale behind choosing to attend
particular meetings, which is also presumably linked to the continued relevance of the meeting's
subject to the national food safety system or trade concerns.
Participant responses on the rationale for choosing a meeting also shed some light on the reasons
behind the “perceived preference for the CAC and CCGP, which, it is argued, have less potential
impact of the food safety of poor countries than other committees, since they are largely
procedural.”3 Twenty three percent of the 2009 reports were from CAC or CCGP attendance.
These meetings are perceived by CTF beneficiary countries as an effective opportunity to
network with committee chairs and international organizations, as well as a learning opportunity
to further understand Codex procedures and processes in a broad sense:
“The rationale for attending this particular committee is because it has been identified by Belize
as one that exposes the delegate to all the work of the various codex committees and one that
Belize (albeit at a late stage), can endorse or object to in the final decision making process for
elaboration of food standards. The CAC is also where contact can be made with the Chair or
members of specific committees or working groups, delegates of regional countries and for
formulation and sharing of common interests, concerns etc. “
3 Forss et al, (2010) Codex Trust Fund Mid-term Review. Draft Final Report March 2010: 31.
12
In providing the rationale for attending regional coordinating committees, participants highlighted
the following reasons:
• To participate in the formulation of a regional position or strategy
• To learn from neighboring countries’ food safety systems and priorities, and serve as a
training opportunity for first time national delegates
• To participate in the nomination of the next regional coordinator
The criteria for selecting a delegate to be sponsored by the CTF to attend a meeting is generally
based on the candidates’ expertise in the subject matter of the meeting, their understanding of and
involvement with standard-setting activities, and their perceived or demonstrated ability to actively
participate in discussions and support the country’s position during Codex meetings. Several
countries indicated that being a member of the National Codex Committee (NCC) was also a
requirement.
While the results above indicated that repeat participation in a Codex meeting is not the norm, some
countries require past participation in international standard setting meetings in order to be selected
as a delegate. One country stated:
“Criteria for selection include: academic background; work experience in such area; current
work in relation to topic/subject; experience in attending international standardization
activities and demonstrated /perceived ability to actively participate in and contribute
constructively to the discussions on the topic.”
Other countries took a different approach, specifically choosing delegates who had not previously
participated in a meeting in order to broaden exposure to Codex among those active in national
standard setting. For example, another country wrote:
“The selection of a delegate for CTF support is normally undertaken by the country's National
Codex Organization based on the following criteria: current and active chair of a sub-
committee that has not yet attended a Codex meeting; and whose committee has already
undertaken the necessary steps to come up with a country position.”
The process for selecting a delegate usually consists of holding an NCC meeting during which
nominations are discussed and agreed upon. This is sometimes done in conjunction with the
completion of the annual application for CTF funding. Other countries indicated that invitation letters
are sent to the relevant Ministry, who then unilaterally appoint a delegate. In these cases it is unclear
whether there is any guidance on, or control over how a delegate is appointed.
The vast majority of beneficiaries affirmed that they had undertaken some form of preparation
before the meeting (93%) and had been involved in all stages of the preparatory process (92%).
Preparations typically took the form of a meeting of the NCC or of relevant stakeholders, resulting in
an oral agreement on a national position. Less frequently, a written national position was developed.
13
Figure 9. Results of the preparatory process
Most delegates judged these preparations to be sufficient in that they contributed to satisfactory
outcomes during Codex meetings, though some areas for improving pre-Codex meeting preparations
were identified:
• The need to start preparations earlier in order to have sufficient time to circulate relevant
data and information, organize meetings and formulate a national position;
• Broaden stakeholder consultation to include academia, research institutions, the private
sector, regulatory authorities and political actors;
• Prepare written national positions and written responses to request for comments.
Of those who indicated that either no preparatory process took place or that they were not involved
in the entire process, 79% were participating in the Codex meeting for the first time. Among the
barriers to adequate meeting preparation identified were a lack of understanding of what to prepare
among first-time participants, as well as time constraints and unavailable funds to hold Codex
meetings at the national level.
4.4 During meetings
The majority of delegates (88%) considered that they had participated actively during the course of
the Codex meeting they attended. Participation mainly took the form of interventions during
meeting proceedings and participation in informal working sessions. Interventions were usually
limited to 5 or less. Only 9% of delegates reported to have contributed scientific or technical data to
meetings. Other forms of active participation indicated by delegates included taking part in side
events, electronic working groups, chairmanships, and networking and dialogue with other
delegations.
The reports indicate some differences in the quality of participation between first time and repeat
participants. As shown in Figure 10, repeat participants more often indicated they had made
interventions on agenda items at least 6 times during the course of a meeting, and were slightly
more likely to contribute technical or scientific advice to a meeting.
Figure 10. Type of participation in Codex meetings, by number of meeting participations
14
Among the delegates who did not participate actively in the meeting they attended, 76% were
participating in the meeting for the first time, and 52% had one year or less experience in the subject
matter of the meeting. When asked why they did not participate actively, delegates most frequently
attributed it to their lack of prior experience attending the Codex meeting:
“I did not actively participate in the formal meeting because it was my first time attending the
meeting so I proposed to learn from all interventions and discussions. However, I was able to
participate in the regional informal meetings and discussions.”
Others barriers to active participation identified by the delegates include a lack of scientific data due
to insufficient means for collecting data at the national level, and lack of time to prepare for the
meeting.
In 84% of the cases, participants supported by the CTF were the only delegate from their country
attending the meeting. Several participants noted that they would have benefitted from the
presence of an additional CTF-supported delegate from their country, seeing it as a means to
reinforce support for their national position, and to broaden the knowledge base within the national
Codex infrastructure. An additional delegate was also seen as relevant given that Codex meetings
often touch on transversal subjects covering the competencies of several ministries or agencies:
“The fact that people from different backgrounds (e.g. laboratory, plant and animal
production, SPS, inspection or standards) perceive issues differently and in relation to their
operations, each will identify within different contexts, how the issues affect the national food
chain. This provides a broader view of issues of a country’s interest in relation to the meeting’s
proceedings.”
All of the participants affirmed they had benefited from participating in the meeting. The most
frequently cited benefits gained were:
• Broad exposure to the subject of the meeting;
• Understanding of Codex procedures and processes;
15
• Networks and contacts;
• Information on food safety.
Participants frequently noted that they came away with more awareness and understanding of
current food safety issues relevant to their national food safety systems. In addition to a broad
awareness, they also often cited gaining access to specific resource materials and sources of
information and channels for communication on Codex issues. Some delegates also indicated that
meeting participation allowed them to identify areas for improvement in national Codex structures
or processes. One participant highlighted:
“The delegate was able to gain better understanding of the work of the Committee and had
gained confidence in undertaking its task at the country level. Our limitations as a developing
country were also identified and will be elevated as recommendations to our governments in
order to improve our participation and involvement to Codex works.”
Of the types of benefits gained, participants least frequently indicated that they had gained access to
a leadership role by participating in a Codex meeting.
Figure 11. Benefits gained from participating in Codex meetings
As in past years, networking was reported to be one of the primary benefits drawn from
participating in Codex meetings. Delegates most often networked with delegates from the same
Codex region (38%), as would be expected given that two regional Codex meetings were held in
2009. Thirty percent of delegates engaged in networking with delegates from other Codex regions.
Networking with other delegations provided participants with opportunities to learn from others’
experiences and to facilitate collaboration:
“Resource materials and examples of legislative framework and food control programmes in
effect from other countries [helps] Belize to develop its own national food control structure and
programme.”
16
“Listening and learning from what other Codex member countries are already doing in these
areas [food labeling] is very useful… for national food policy formulation and implementation
and is a form of capacity building for our country.”
“Networking with other countries, specifically for products that are specific to the region (i.e.,
fish sauce and smoked fish) would promote better working relationship and sharing of
experiences.”
Delegates also networked with international organizations such as the FAO, WHO and OIE, using
these occasions mainly to discuss and learn about opportunities for technical assistance and funding
for national food safety activities.
4.5 After meetings
Following meetings, 92% of participants indicated there had been some form of debriefing process
to share the information acquired and discuss the implications of the outcomes of the meeting at the
national level. This usually took the form of producing and sharing a report (78%) with relevant
stakeholders, and/or holding an NCC meeting (56%) or other debriefing meeting (53%).
Figure 12 shows the stakeholders involved in the post-meeting sharing process. Stakeholders were
drawn mainly from government institutions:
“A debriefing meeting was held with a shadow committee and follow up actions are being
monitored. Stakeholders include: Ministry of Agriculture,Commerce,Tea Board, the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research,etc.”
“Technical and management meetings at my home institution (Tanzania Food and Drugs
Authority). Stakeholders included: Food inspectors, agricultural extension officers and trade
officers in some regions of the country”
In some cases, post-meeting processes encompassed a broader spectrum of actors, including NGOs
and private associations such as women’s associations, research institutions, academia, and regional
institutions.
Figure 12. Stakeholders involved in debriefing process following Codex meetings
17
In regard to outcomes at the national level, participants most frequently cited recommendations for
follow-up , usually in terms of improving Codex processes or national food safety systems:
“The meetings described in detail pesticide residues and food standards which are clearly being
overlooked at the moment in the country. It is envisaged that joint efforts by Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries and Ministry of Health will be enhanced in the future in relation to
Pesticide regulation and control, food safety and standards setting for pesticide residues in
food items….”
“One of the recommendations that we have made…is to keep the networks with other Codex
members alive so that we can share information and get guidance on issues that we are not
literate on such as comprehensive scientific data on GE/GM foods.”
More concrete outcomes, whether in terms of the development of national standards, changes in
legislation, regulations, or the food safety system were also frequently indicated:
“We have developed local limits for melamine in milk and the limit is being implemented by
TFDA. In addition, we are setting national maximum tolerated limit for fumonisins in maize
for human consumption in Tanzania. These measures may be reviewed in case the ongoing
Codex assessment of the contaminants produces different results.”
“We have drafted import/export regulations that incorporate CODEX model health certificate
requirements. Consultations are underway with stakeholders before gazetting of the
regulations.”
The responses also suggest that participating in Codex meetings can act as a catalyst, giving new
momentum to existing national projects, such as the finalization of a draft national standard or
update of existing standards, or lead to an increase in political support for national Codex activities:
“Serbia is currently in the process of harmonization of national legislation concerning food
safety in general which includes the issue of residues of veterinary drugs in foods. Participation
at the 18th CCRVDF was advantageous since the outcomes of the meeting can serve as the
guidelines in establishing and bringing into force new national legislative.”
18
“Shortly after the CAC meeting, there was a briefing with the responsible officials in the
Ministry of Agriculture. Discussion was held on speeding up the necessary steps for the
establishment of the National Codex Committee.”
Nineteen percent of participants indicated that changes were made in the provision of scientific
advice to Codex as an outcome of meeting attendance. This mainly referred to the collection of new
data and additional support for research laboratories, though specific examples such as the following
were rarely provided:
“We are collecting new data from research institutions and other stakeholders on lead,
cadmium and fumonisins in maize to be sent to JECFA through countries coordinating these
activities of collecting data on those contaminants.”
Figure 13. Outcomes of post-meeting phase at the national-level
Monitoring of follow up actions at the national level is done primarily through regular meetings and
reporting to the NCC or relevant Ministries. Broadening stakeholder involvement, in particular to the
private sector, was also identified as a means to monitor activities. In some countries,
recommendations emanating from participation in Codex meetings are integrated into existing
national Codex strategic plans or used as the basis for formulating such a plan.
4.6 Scientific/technical participation
The report questionnaire contains a number of indicators to aid participants in assessing the extent
of their country’s participation in providing scientific/technical advice in support of Codex standard
setting. The results are summarized in Table 1. According to participants’ responses, while in the
pre-meeting phase 44% of countries undertook consultations to identify scientific data, only 29%
succeeded in identifying data. During Codex meetings, only 9% of participants actually
contributed scientific data. Finally, as an outcome of attending a Codex meeting, only 19% of
countries effected changes in the preparation of scientific advice.
19
Table 1. Contribution of scientific/technical data
Indicator Yes Responses
Pre-meeting national consultations held to identify scientific/technical
advice relevant to Codex agenda items
44%
Pre-meeting consultations resulted in identification of scientific/technical
data to contribute to standard-setting process
29%
During the meeting, contribution of scientific/technical data to standard(s)
under development
9%
After the meeting, changes made in the provision of scientific/technical
advice to the Codex process as an outcome of the meeting
19%
From the reports it is not possible to determine why many countries which prepared data did
not go on to contribute it during meetings. Some respondents did however remark that a lack of
scientific data - often due to insufficient means for collecting data at the national level – was a
barrier to active participation in meetings.
4.7 WHO and FAO Involvement
Fifty-eight percent of delegates indicated that the WHO/FAO were involved in Codex meeting
processes at the national level. This was mainly limited to administrative aspects of the pre- and
post-Codex meeting processes, such as assisting in arranging participants’ travel and per diem. In
some instances, participants reported that WHO/FAO provided a technical or consultative role during
meeting preparations and debriefing processes, as well as through ongoing assistance and training
on food-safety related themes. The extent of their involvement varies widely from country to
country:
They are members of the CODEX committee and regularly participate in the meetings and
provide useful information regarding CODEX participation and facilitate all the processes
needed to attend the meeting.
We have a good collaboration with FAO/WHO country representatives particularly in technical
assistance to develop guidelines and standards, capacity building such as short courses,
training and workshop. However for developing national position for Codex meeting we have
not involved FAO/WHO.
In some instances, FAO/WHO representatives also provided input to countries in selecting priority
Codex meetings to attend and criteria to select delegates.
4.8 Problems encountered by participants
Participants who reported to have encountered problems or difficulties (38% of participants) mainly
referred to administrative and communication issues, in particular late confirmation of travel
arrangements and delays in receiving per diems and relevant documentation on the meeting subject.
Suggestions to improve these procedures included greater involvement of the WHO/FAO country
offices in travel arrangements and more direct communication between the participant and the CTF
Secretariat, rather than channeling communication through the national Codex Contact Point.
20
In terms of Codex processes, delegates indicated that a lack of financial and/or technical capacity at
the national level created difficulties in their participation. Examples included insufficient funds to
hold national Codex meetings or implement follow-up processes. A lack of capacity to produce
scientific data was also highlighted, as was the lack of political will to support national Codex
activities.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Quality of participation
The reports provide a broad picture of the quality of delegates’ participation in Codex meetings from
their own perspective, as well as an opportunity for them to reflect on what went well and what
could be done better next time. The vast majority of delegates reported that they participated
actively in all stages of the meeting process and were broadly satisfied with the outcomes, while
recognizing areas for improvement. Table 2 below summarizes the main points that came out of the
reports for processes before, during and after Codex meetings.
Table 2. Good practices and areas for improvement in Codex meeting participation from delegates’
perspectives
Good practices Areas for improvement
Before meetings
• The rationale for choosing Codex meetings is
based on relevance for national food safety
and/or trade concerns;
• NCC or other stakeholder meetings are held
to agree on a national position;
• Criteria for the selection of delegates include
experience with the subject of the meeting
and ability to represent a national position in
an international standard-setting forum.
• Broader stakeholder involvement in pre-
meeting preparations, including academia
and research institutions to strengthen the
preparation of scientific advice;
• Early preparation for meetings to allow
sufficient time for stakeholder input and
familiarization with the subject;
• Identification of relevant scientific/technical
data.
During meetings
• Networking and experience sharing with
other delegations and international
organizations;
• Formal and informal participation in
meetings;
• Improved understanding of food safety issues
and of Codex procedures gained;
• More significant contribution to formal
meeting proceedings (more frequent
interventions, contribution of scientific data);
• Need for additional delegates to support
country position;
After meetings
• NCC and/or other debriefing meeting held to
share results of Codex meeting;
• Integration of recommendations into national
action plans;
• Broader stakeholder involvement in debriefing
process
• Follow up to ensure recommendations
translated into actions
21
• Meeting participation can give impetus to
national food safety initiatives
• Changes/improvements in the provision of
scientific data
5.2 Widening vs. strengthening participation: the benefits of repeat
participation
The majority of participants reported to be attending the particular Codex meeting for the first time,
and many had little or no experience in the subject of the meeting. This is somewhat surprising
when we consider that 2009 was the 6th
year of operation of the Trust Fund. In some cases, first-
time participants were sent intentionally in order to widen exposure to Codex among nationals
involved in food safety issues. However, the report results suggest differences in the quality of
participation between first time and repeat participants. Specifically, repeat participants more
frequently reported that they:
• Undertook preparation for the meeting at the national level and were involved in all aspects
of preparation;
• Participated actively in meetings;
• Made frequent (6 or more) interventions during meetings;
• Contributed scientific or technical data during Codex meetings;
• Undertook networking activities during meetings.
A number of first-time participants also indicated that their lack of experience attending a Codex
meeting was a barrier to active participation, even among those who had several years of experience
in the subject of the meeting. It would seem that even if participants were familiar with relevant food
safety issues, they still had to go through a “learning curve” on Codex processes and procedures
before they could participate actively in meetings.
While the choice of delegates to send to meetings is clearly an issue of national sovereignty for the
CTF, communicating to beneficiary countries on the potential benefits of repeat participation may
encourage them to take it into consideration among their selection criteria. In terms of analysis of
the quality of participation, crossing data from participant reports with other sources of data (such as
the CTF’s participation database) as well as collecting observations from Codex meeting
hosts/moderators would provide a more complete picture of how countries are evolving in their
participation.
5.3 Quality of reporting
The rollout of the Datacol reporting format in 2009 was successful in improving the quality and
quantity of participant reports as compared to previous years. The use of a simplified online
questionnaire, together with periodical reminders to participants of the reporting requirement, and
the extension of the reporting deadline seem to have all played a part in the improved results,
notably in the timeliness of reporting and the amount of relevant, comparable information that was
collected. There are, however, drawbacks to the online format, particularly in terms of the country-
specific details provided and the amount of reflection that goes into responses – it is far easier to
click a box than to provide a written narrative of a process or action taken. The evidence of
contradictory responses, as well as a lack of examples provided to support multiple choice responses,
and instances of “copying and pasting” from one report to another suggests that responses were not
22
always well thought out. Nevertheless, the Datacol reports represents a vast improvement to past
years reports.
Table 3. Pros and Cons of Online Questionnaire Reporting Format
Pros Cons
• Greater comparability of results across
participants and across years
• Obligates respondents to answer key
questions
• Less variation in the quality of responses
• Facilitates tracking of reports received (date
of receipt, quantity received per meeting…)
• Limited space for narrative responses and in-
depth explanation of responses given
• Ease of “ticking a box” may result in less
reflection before responding
• Evidence of “Copy and paste” responses
from one report to the next
• Offline version difficult to use
While recognizing the constraints faced by the CTF Secretariat which limit its ability to provide
feedback on individual reports, by providing feedback in cases of either excellent or insufficient
reports, as well as regular reminders of the reporting obligation, it should be possible to improve the
reporting quality even further. Also, in order to capture more information on activities that follow
Codex meetings at the country level, it would be beneficial to communicate more on when countries
should be reporting, i.e., ideally when enough time has passed for follow up activities to take place.
Currently, many countries are reporting when they are still at the stage of formulating
recommendations for follow up or even earlier, which limits the use of participant reports as a tool
for systematically collecting information on results at the country level.
Table 4 below proposes some minor changes to the current questionnaire format for purposes of
greater clarity as well as to avoid redundant or vague responses.
Table 4. Suggested Adjustments to Datacol questionnaire
Question
Number Current Question Suggested Adjustment
4
16. If yes, please describe (the Codex training
you received).
Replace with 2 questions:
(1) If yes, who provided the
training? Multiple choice
responses: FAO, WHO, other
international organization, your
country, other country. If other,
please describe.
(2) Please provide the title and a
brief description of the training
attended.
31. If yes, what type of benefit was gained? Remove response: Being introduced to
new concepts.
4 Please note some questions are adapted from a survey of Codex Trust Fund Beneficiaries conducted
in February 2010 within the framework of the Codex Trust Fund Mid-term Review.
23
33. Where the delegation comprised several
participants, was the additional participant
supported by the Trust Fund?
Move position of this question to
section 1 so that it follows immediately
question 12 (How many delegates from
your country were in this meeting) and
Replace text with: Were any of these
additional delegates supported by the
Trust Fund?
38-40. Did the meeting correspond to national
expectations? If yes, how? If no, why not?
Replace with: Which issues did you find
most important to work with
immediately when you returned home
from the Codex meetings?
51. If no, what would you do differently next
time?
Replace with: What could be done to
make your participation in Codex
committee meetings more effective?
Top Related