Assessing national food control systems: a new FAO tool

1. Assessing national food control systems: a new FAO tool Catherine Bessy Food Safety Officer, FAO

2. 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

3. 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 job- integration of their approaches, linkages with primary production; and looking at non regulatory approaches (training, awareness raising, enabling environment…)

4. 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 questionsfor 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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…

10. 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…

11. 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)

12. 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 • Trainingfor the use of the tool

20. 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

21. 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.

22. Field testing Reflexions about implementation

23. 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

24. In practice… • In the 3 ongoing assessments, different sequences • Different teams, national and international • Different motivations and ownership

25. 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

26. 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?

27. 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”

28. 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