ALINORM 03/26/1 - codex - BSN

34 REP12/CAC
80 % of the non staff costs which relates to the implementation of the various expert meetings, preparation
and publication of reports, updating of databases etc.
225. Efforts to support the provision of scientific advice continue and an additional allocation has been
provided to support scientific advice in the area of nutrition in the current biennium. Nevertheless, reductions
in the availability of Regular Programme funds coupled with the increasing demand for scientific advice, for
example on pesticide residues, and the increasing complexity of issues across the board, mean there is an
ongoing and growing need for extra- budgetary resources to supplement the regular programme budget of
FAO for the provision of scientific advice.
226. FAO wish to ensure that the processes for generating standards maintain the highest standards while
increasing in efficiency and remaining sustainable. GIFSA and other mechanisms are in place in FAO to
receive extra-budgetary resources to support this work. FAO very much appreciates the support that has been
received from countries to date but does note that such support has been limited to a few countries. The
Representative also indicated that the position of FAO JECFA Secretariat is currently under recruitment and
applications are welcome until 17 th July.
227. The WHO Representative, in referring to document CX/CAC 12/35/15, explained the estimated
budget needs for scientific advice in food safety and nutrition and highlighted the current estimated budget
gaps.
228. The Representative of FAO introduced the current FAO situation of the cost and output of the JMPR.
He highlighted that the FAO Regular Programme funds in the work of JMPR has been significantly reduced
in recent years, while there was an increasing demand for scientific advice on pesticide residues. He further
emphasized that the JMPR now works over its capacity. To increase the output of JMPR would require
additional sustainable financial resources for staff and non-staff costs, and additional expertise.
229. Many delegations stressed the importance of FAO/WHO scientific advice and supported the proposal
made by the Executive Committee to set up a sub-committee to propose finding realistic solutions to the
critical resource problem in scientific advice.
230. Several delegations expressed their concern about the possibility of funding from the private sector as
this would impair the integrity of the process, transparency and independence of the scientific advice. Other
delegations recalled that it was necessary to seek funding from other sources than governments, with the
understanding that any such funding should be acceptable according to FAO and WHO rules
231. One delegation encouraged the Secretariat to prepare a report on the financial situation in order that
FAO and WHO members’ representatives could draw the attention of the governing bodies to the issues of
funding for scientific advice.
232. In response to some comments, the WHO Representative clarified that the scientific advice
programme is not part of the Codex work and has a separate budget, and clarified that estimated costs for
individual scientific advice activities are as listed in the table to the document, and refer to activity cost only,
excluding staff cost. Regarding rules for funding for scientific advice and Codex work, she clarified that this
is considered as core business of the Organizations and, as normative work according to the rules and
procedures, is excluded from receiving funds from private sector entities that have a direct interest in the
outcome of the work, in order to safeguard the independence and integrity of this work.
233. As regards the information provided to the governing bodies of FAO, the Secretariat indicated that an
information document on FAO's Role in International Standard Setting, including Codex and referring to the
importance of scientific advice, had been presented to the Committee on Agriculture (COAG) in 2012.
234. The Commission expressed its thanks to FAO and WHO for their support to scientific advice, took
note of the current challenges in meeting the funding gap for scientific advice and supported the conclusions
of the Executive Committee and agreed with the establishment of a sub-Committee of CCEXEC, chaired by
Professor Samuel Sefa-Dedeh, to consider funding options, for consideration at the next session of the
CCEXEC and the Commission
235. The Commission endorsed the proposal of the CCEXEC to request member countries to reconsider
their funding priorities and provide financial support to FAO and WHO expert bodies. It was also agreed that
the attention of the governing bodies of FAO and WHO should be drawn to the financial situation of
scientific advice through the appropriate reporting channels in both organizations.