Assessing national food control systems: a new
FAO tool
Catherine Bessy
Food Safety Officer, FAO
Within the FAO context
• Specialized UN agency for Food and Agriculture
• Mandate to ensure food and nutrition security
• Hosts the joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius
Commission
• The Food Safety Programme in FAO is the
“operational arm”/revolves around Codex texts:
implementation, participation of countries in
governance, explanatory guidance
• Consumer protection: food safety and fraud
Strong capacity development focus
• FAO/WHO guidelines – 2003 - food control
system: integration of mandatory regulatory
activities and non regulatory approaches
• National perspective – export certification
capacities are only a sub segment.
• Looking beyond one specific CA’s jobintegration of their approaches, linkages with
primary production; and looking at non
regulatory approaches (training, awareness
raising, enabling environment…)
Until recently: Assessment of national
food control capacity development needs
• Existing tools for Assessment of priority capacity
building developments needs – quick guide, full
guide
• 5 technical areas for assessment: legislation;
management; inspection; laboratories and
information, education and communication
• Support tools: International
reference/benchmarks, key questions for
capacity assessment, national stakeholders
perception, national context
• Participatory approach to determine priorities
(use of focus groups, key informants, SWOT
analysis, step by step elaboration of a short, mid
and long term vision) to decide on priorities for
capacity development upgrade
Experience of FAO
• About 50 countries, support for assessment
prior to investing into a project
• Support tool highlighting a participatory
approach
• Provides a “soft” benchmarking approach
• Not specifically a monitoring tool to follow
up progress
New developments
• July 2013 : adoption of Codex Principles and
Guidelines on National food control
systems.
• Recognition in FAO that there is a need for a tool
that:
– Builds on but goes beyond previous FAO guidance
– Integrates the new Codex Guidance
– Guides progress by helping to define a logical and
specific sequence for progress
– Provides a more robust benchmarking system, and
allows better monitoring
A tool for whom/for what?
• For member countries: FAO intervenes in countries
only at their request
• Possible use: self assessment or facilitated
assessment ( currently our basis for outlining
interventions)
• Not for comparison among countries! Careful about
ratings…
• Need for a set of supporting guidance about
appropriate use of the tool ( including glossary,
recommended process)
• For self improvement, policy planning, support to
better coordination and integration of donor support
Process for developing the tool
• Establishment of advisory groups ( internal and external)
• Review of existing SPS/Food sector assessment tools;
synthesis about approaches
• Acknowledgment that other complementary tool exist –
making relevant linkages, overall vision at the system and
bringing components together.
• Key considerations to be incorporated in the new FAO tool
• 4 options for tool outlines, critically reviewed
• development of draft tool
• Field testing of draft tool
Latest development…
• WHO is joining for a better integration of the PH
surveillance
• So it will be a joint FAO/WHO tool
• Current revision of the structure: some new
“capacities may come in ( labs; surveillance) ;
some could be moving from ne dimension to
another ( “quality assurance” towards
continuous improvement?)
• Levels of advancement; cleaning up/revision of
text; supported by indicators, other
alternatives…
What do we intend to do with the
data collected?
• Basis for agreement with the country: they
own the report.
• Report can be used as a monitoring tool – for
self assessments or baseline in case of
capacity development project.
• Re- assessment only if there a strong demand
and a specific reason
• Country profiles? Watch next Codex
discussions…
The draft tool
• Terminology still to be decided!
• 4 Dimensions
• Each dimension is divided in sub-dimensions, which
identifies competencies.
• For each competency, we propose “levels” that
describe a certain situation – 5 levels for each
competency; progress from one level to another is
increasingly steeper
• The quality of assessment relies on the provision by
the country of good quality data (indicators)
Beyond the tool, a package
• Development of standardized detailed
guidance for the application of the tool by
users ( national and international)
• Recommended process
- Collection of information
- Treatment of information
- Presentation of report, discussion and next steps
• Training for the use of the tool
Example for levels (DRAFT)
• Competency: “CA are actively and systematically engaged,
into international standardization organizations relevant to
food control as recognized by WTO ( Codex, OIE , including in
relevant WTO committees)”
• Level 1: the country is not a member of any international
standardization organization, nor of WTO; or the country
is a member of some IO, but is not represented by its
relevant CA
• Level 2: CA represent the country in the IO, but not in
WTO. They are aware of the existence ( or even of the
importance) of international standards, and are using
them in their control activities, but these are not legally
adopted in the national regulations
Example for levels (DRAFT)
• Level 5: CA contribute to the science base of
international standardization processes, by
providing data, experts or by leading formal
WG. Their activities are consistently founded
on the risk analysis paradigm for food safety.
CAs collaborate effectively with authorities in
charge of trade negotiations, for economic
partnerships and free trade agreements.
Field testing
Reflexions about implementation
In theory: Process for applying the
tool
• Pre-assessment research – guidelines for national
consultants
• Assessment, complementary findings: international
mission, meeting CAs, private sector, consumers,
academia, other stakeholders
• Analysis of data collected and report preparation
• Validation and discussion of the report
• Beyond the assessment, to review and discuss
strategies for improvement – selection of priority
capacity development needs
In practice…
• In the 3 ongoing assessments, different
sequences
• Different teams, national and international
• Different motivations and ownership
Some challenges
• Collection of information: time consuming/
costly process.
– Relates to leadership issue ( and no immediate
trade incentive)
– Issue of competence in some developing countries
• Getting the right balance in the assessors
team
Some points for reflexion and
discussion
• Government buy in is key – but for food
control who is this?
• In case of self assessment: where would be
the leadership when in many cases the most
critical point is the interaction among CAs
• Best presentation/process to ensure reports
are read and “judgment” is accepted?
Some points for reflexion and
discussion
• Balance between accuracy of analysis and cost
of the entire process in case of facilitated
assessments: multidisciplinary teams; process of
data collection at national level
• Levels: currently a mix of observed situations ( 1
& 2) and logical steps ahead – reality far form
being logical. Other drivers: e.g. international
projects…
• Further iterations of the tool: set of indicators..
Or list of “crucial elements”, “important
elements” and “nice to have”
Many thanks for in kind (intellectual investment,
participation to the advisory committee) and financial
support to:
-Canada
- the EU /FVO office
- Guelph and Reading Universities
-IICA
- Japan
- OIE
-South Africa
-Thailand
-UNIDO
-US (USDA and USFDA)
-WHO