11. GF-3 Suggestions from the Brazilian attendees to GF-1 and GF-2
-----Original Message-----
From: VanDerWal, Londa (ESNS)
Sent: 04 May 2005 12:01
To: GF3-L@mailserv.fao.org
Subject: GF-3 Suggestions (GF3-L message #10)
Message from Ned Groth ________________________________________________________________________
Greetings, Colleagues.
I am Ned Groth. I attended both GF-1 and GF-2 as delegation head for Consumers International. I am a food safety scientist who worked for a US consumer NGO for nearly 25 years, retiring in 2004. In my contributions here I am not speaking for CI but rather as an individual with long experience in the consumer movement and in international efforts to ensure food safety.
I heartily endorse the concept of a GF-3. I believe the first two GFs have been very valuable opportunities for learning and capacity-building, and I believe the very large attendance by delegations from the developing countries, especially in Bangkok last autumn, attests to the value of these meetings.
I think the right interval for GFs is two years, and the best timing is spaced midway between CAC meetings. Although in theory there might be some economy in doing GF and CAC back-to-back, I believe the GF meetings should be held in developing countries, rather than in Rome or Geneva. I also think that if some months pass by between GF and CAC, there is time for ideas and proposals to germinate in the interval, such that colleagues meeting again at a CAC meeting may be able to take their discussions from a GF meeting six months ago to the next level. Whereas, if the CAC meeting occurred the week after the GF meeting, there would not be that opportunity to pursue ripened ideas. So, spacing at intervals of 6 to 12 months (how long would depend on the interval between CAC meetings) feels best to me.
I agree with other commenters who have suggested that the objective of the GFs should continue to be sharing experiences, and learning from each other. No matter what the topic, a strong co-objective should be presentation of successful models in national experiences that might be emulated by other countries, i.e., "teaching what works."
Perhaps an additional, informal objective should be efforts to organize regional strategies to pursue regional, multi-lateral solutions to food safety problems where it may be appropriate. For this reason, perhaps an extra day could be provided during the meeting for regional sub-sessions, with brief report-backs on the final day.
All of the proposed themes for the meeting have merit. I agree with Rima Zu'mot, who suggested that there should be two "overarching" themes and that they should be of a holistic nature--perhaps incorporating more than one of the proposed themes. I will suggest my favorites, below. I also would like to propose an additional theme that is not yet on the table: Roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, especially, how to enhance and get the most benefit from consumer participation in food safety decisionmaking.
While the scientific, technical, economic, legal and practical aspects of building food safety systems can be overwhelming, it is also essential to keep in sight that food safety policy decisions are in part political in nature, i.e., they often require making trade-offs among competing societal objectives, and the process through which they are reached must therefore be a democratic one.
I also agree with Rima Zu'mot that, in plenary sessions, much less time should be devoted to formal presentations of papers than was the case in Bangkok, and more of the plenary time should be devoted to discussion. Papers should be posted and read in advance, and presenters should be given no more than five minutes, for a brief summary, to seed discussion. The focus should be on the attending delegations' responses to the theme papers, not on exposition of the papers themselves. I also agree that more country and other (observer) CRDs in response to the theme papers should be strongly encouraged.
In terms of format for the meeting, I believe 1/3 of the time should be spent in plenary sessions, and 2/3 should be spent in smaller workshops. I recommend that there be two "overarching themes," each presented in the morning on two consecutive days, with plenary discussion up to the lunch break. Then the afternoon each day would be devoted to four simultamneous workshops on sub-topics of the morning's theme. On the third day, workshops would be repeated without a plenary session. The topics of the third day's workshops would be the same sub-topics from the previous days (four in the morning, four in the afternoon). Repeating the sessions would allow delegates to attend sessions they had been unable to attend on previous days.
I appreciate the view, stated by some commenters, that smaller "workshop" sessions put a burden on small delegations, who cannot be everywhere at once. However, I believe the value of the smaller sessions is that they are truly interactive, and almost everyone can and usually does participate. In Marrakech, at GF-1, workshops were the scene of many lively exchanges, in which real dialogues took place. In plenary, speakers may need to wait through several further interventions before they get the chance to respond to something that interests or excites them, so such exchanges are much less common and less effective in an all-plenary meeting.
I think the greater interaction and advancement of learning that occurs in the small-group sessions far outweighs the disadvantages of small delegations unable to cover all sessions. And this latter disadvantage can be mitigated by repeating workshops, as proposed.
Finally, let me suggest the topics I would most like to see GF-3 address. I like the two overarching themes, "Risk Analysis" and "Doing More With Less." Each of those is holistic, and could embrace other proposed topics, both as sub-themes for discussion in plenary, and as workshop topics. I suggest this kind of matrix:
Theme 1: Risk Analysis
--Science as a basis (note, A basis, not THE basis) for food safety decisions
--Emerging/forgotten risks
--The food-chain approach to risk management
--Making food safety decisions democratically: Participation by stakeholders
(Would include industry, farmers, consumers, and other "interested parties"
and should examine appropriate ways to involve the public, without undue
influence and without overly "politicizing" the process. Good models exist!)
Theme 2: Doing More With Less
--Focus on small-scale & rural production
--Making scientific decisions when capacity is limited
--Getting stakeholder buy-in: The benefits of stakeholder involvement, how to
manage it, avoiding pitfalls
--What has worked and what has not: How to get capacity building to the
"critical mass" stage
I hope these ideas are useful to this e-forum and may stimulate some discussion. I have also alerted Consumers International to the e-forum and I hope that some of my colleagues from consumer organizations, especially in developing countries, will submit their own ideas to this e-forum.
Thank you for considering my ideas,
Best regards,
Edward Groth III, PhD
Groth Consulting Services
75 Clifford Avenue
Pelham, NY 10803-1702 USA
phone 1-914-738-5956
nedgroth@cs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: VanDerWal, Londa (ESNS)
Sent: 04 May 2005 18:03
To: GF3-L@mailserv.fao.org
Subject: GF-3 Suggestions from the Brazilian attendees to GF-1 and GF-2 (GF3-L message #11)
Message from Miss Antonia Maria de Aquino, Mr. Cleber Ferreira dos Santos and Mr.Hoeck Miranda, Brazil ________________________________________________________________________
We would like to thank FAO for the opportunity to send comments on the needs for the GF-3 to be convened. These comments are sending in the name of the Brazillian attendants to GF-1, Miss Antonia Maria de Aquino and GF-2, Mr. Cleber Ferreira dos Santos e Mr.Hoeck Miranda.
Mr. Cleber F. Santos is the General Manager of the General Management on Food of the Brazilian National Agency for Health Surveillance - ANVISA, under the Ministry of Health, Miss Antonia M. Aquino is the Manager of the Special Products Management, under the General Management on Food, and Mr. Hoeck Miranda is the Technical Assisstant under the General Management on Food.
We agree with the continuation of the efforts, made until now, to allow the Member Countries the opportunities to Discuss issues of importance to harmonize the trade relations among these countries and to develop appropriate measures to protect the health of food consumers, in a world basis, and in a more effective way.
In accordance with these points we undestand that it is necessary to convene the next Global Forum, maintaining as the central focus "the Building of Effective Food Safety Systems". We believe that the following poits could be discussed more deeply: 1 - The criteria to consider a Food Safety System as Safety Focused; 2 - The criteria to consider a Food Safety System as Effective; 3 - The Technical Assistance to Member Countries to Build Food Safety Systems that can be considered as Effective; 4 - The procedures to maintain a Food Safety System as Effective.
Related to the appropriate time to convene the next meeting, we would like to recommend that a time interval that could facilitate contries to attend, and improve the participation of delegates from developing countries, should be considered.
Yours sincerely,
Cleber F. Santos (GF-2) Antonia M. Aquino (GF-1) Hoeck Miranda (GF-2)
