57. Dr. R.K. Malik, Codex Consultant, introduced the paper which covers the subject of “mutual recognition” of food sanitary measures between trading partners in the context of prevailing situations with regard to food production, distribution and processing systems, national food control systems and infrastructure in the region and the requirements of SPS (and TBT) Agreements in this regard. Attention was drawn to the principles of “levels of protection” and “equivalence”, which were the key to development of a mutual recognition agreement (MRA). He was of the opinion that the “level of protection” should be universal and based on international recommendations of expert committees such as JECFA and JMPR and a particular country might in an exceptional case lay down more stringent “acceptable levels of risk” depending upon the dietary patters and other relevant scientific data relating to risk analysis.
58. Dr. Malik continued that the SPS and TBT Agreements provided a level playing field to all trading partners and MRAs were a means to derive maximum benefits in terms of better consumer protection, facilitation of trade and improved utilization of resources. It was explained that the Commission had already adopted Codex Guidelines for the Design, Operation, Assessment and Accreditation of Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems[18] and the CCFICS would soon be considering the Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Development of Agreements Regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification systems at its next meeting[19]. The document under consideration was not meant to provide any structural framework or a draft of an MRA or a protocol which lay within the domain of the CCFICS but was meant to inform the Committee about the importance and complexity of the issues involved, the pre-requisites of improving food systems and strengthening food control systems, and sharing information on the experience within the countries of the region.
59. The Delegation of Thailand highlighted the benefits of MRAs and emphasised the need for meeting the pre-requisites at national level. This would enable proper implementation of the sanitary measures with regard to one food or a class of foods. Thailand had reached an agreement with Canada on the equivalence of fish and fishery products inspection and control systems. Similar agreements with USA, EC[20] and other were being developed. In this connection, the delegation referred to the need for technology transfer from industrialized to developing countries, an area where, besides FAO and WHO, help could be sought from UNCTAD and UNDP. The Delegation further recommended that Codex should continue to promote such bilateral and multilateral agreements. The Committee also emphasized the need for technology transfer and technical assistance to developing countries, a subject that had also agreed both in SPS/TBT Agreements but on which very little had been done so far.
60. The Delegation of the United Arab Emirates referred to the need for an accreditation body for analytical laboratories and pointed out that its laboratory in Abu Dhabi had been recognized as a reference centre. Several delegations which supporting the views expressed in the document stressed the need for active participation by the Asian countries in the deliberations of CCFICS so that their consensus with regard to equivalence, risk analysis and MRAs were taken into consideration. The Committee fully endorsed this view.
61. The Committee while noting that the subject of MRA guidelines, etc. fell within the jurisdiction of the CCFICS, recommended that such an item should be maintained as a standing item on the agenda of the Committee.
62. The Committee agreed to encourage Member countries to actively participate in the deliberations of the Draft Guidelines for the Development of Agreements Regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems by the CCFICS. The Committee requested UN specialized organizations through the Commission to develop a framework for technology transfer from developed to developing countries. The Committee also agreed to include this item on its next session’s agenda for exchanging information and experiences on mutual recognition and related subjects.
63. The Delegations of Korea and Japan were of the opinion that there was no need to discuss this matter in this Committee as it was being considered by both the CCFICS and APEC.
