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?