The 34th session of the Codex Alimentarius Com­mittee on General Principles (CCGP34) successfully addressed all topics on its agenda. CCGP34 endorsed several proposed key changes to the Procedural Manual of the Codex Alimentarius Commission relating to (a) the guidelines for Codex subsidiary bodies (Committees and Task Forces), (b) inconsis­tencies in language used in the main sections of the procedural manual, (c) the guide to the procedure for the amendment and revision of Codex standards and related texts, (d) the participation of Interna­tional Non-Governmental Organizations in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and (e) the criteria and procedural guidelines for Codex com­mittees and ad hoc intergovernmental task forces working by correspondence. CCGP34 also agreed to continue the discussion on the issue of the review of new work proposals which do not fall within the re­mit of an active Codex committee and agreed that an updated document would be prepared by the Codex Secretariat, considering proposals and feedback from delegates made at CCGP34. CCGP34 also considered but didn’t agree to start new work on two proposals raised at the meeting: (i) a glossary of terms and definitions used in all Codex standards and related texts and (ii) a guidance for use of “reservations” in Codex.¹

See more information available about CCGP34 working documents quoted in this article², as well as in the official report of the CCGP34 meeting.³ Codex standards, guide­lines, codes of practices and related miscellaneous texts quoted in this article are readily and freely available.⁴

Mr. Jean-Luc Angot, the Chairperson of CCGP34 said: “I welcome the great progress made in the work of the CCGP, particularly with regards to the Procedural Manual. This achievement contributes significantly to the strengthening of multilateralism. I thank all the del­egations for their commitment and constructive partici­pation, which took place in an excellent atmosphere.

AGREED CHANGES TO THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION’S PROCEDURAL MANUAL (‘Codex PM’)

Guidelines for subsidiary bodies: review of the procedures laid down in Section 3 of the Codex PM

Section 3 of the Codex PM covers various guidelines to countries hosting and to chairpersons of Codex subsidiary bodies, such as committees, task forces, regional coordinating committees, physical working groups, and electronic working groups. Section 3 also covers guidance to host countries of Codex commit­tees and task forces working by correspondence.

Based on the outcome of the intersessional work led by the USA and co-led by CCGP host country (France) and the discussions held during its plenary session, CCGP34 agreed to forward the proposed changes made to Sections 3.1 to 3.3 to CAC48 for their final adoption and update in the next version of the Codex PM. CCGP34 also requested the Codex Secretariat to propose harmonization of the terminol­ogy related to “proposed draft” and “draft” standards in the Codex PM for further consideration at the CCGP35 meeting.

Regarding virtual meeting modalities, and noting the strong interest from Codex members on the use of virtual modalities in convening Codex meetings, CCGP34 recommended to CAC48 to further consider the need for clarity and transparency on the interpre­tation of current procedures and practices. While recognizing the complexities and challenges of re­vising and interpreting the Codex PM in relation to virtual meetings, CCGP34 noted the importance of inclusiveness in these future discussions (such as the CCGP) and the willingness of Uruguay, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Senegal, and the USA to prepare a discus­sion paper on virtual meetings for further consider­ation by CAC.

Regarding the Sections specific to Physical Working Groups (3.5) and Electronic Working Groups (3.6), CCGP34 agreed to continue their review at CCGP35 based on the outcome of the work of a new EWG led by the USA and co-led by Spain and Panama, to use the discussion held during CCGP34 to align further current Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Codex PM with cur­rent practices and covering all working modalities.⁵

Review of inconsistencies in language and superseded content

Based on the working document prepared by the Codex Secretariat containing two appendices (one presenting all superseded sections of the Codex Procedural Manual with commentary and proposed follow-up actions, and one with detailed editorial changes recently made to – or planned for – subse­quent editions of the Codex PM), CCGP34 agreed to forward the proposed changes to Sections 2.1, 2.11, 6.1 and 7.2 of the Codex PM to CAC48 for adop­tion, while noting the editorial updates presented in Appendix II of the CCGP34 working document. CCGP34 also noted New Zealand and USA proposed support to prepare a discussion paper to address whether the references to the International Dairy Fed­eration (IDF) in the Step 2 of the uniform procedure for the elaboration of Codex standards and related texts are still relevant. CCGP34 also requested the Codex Secretariat to harmonize references to stan­dards (and related texts) throughout the Codex PM and to ensure that the link to the membership of CAC was more visible in Section 6. CCGP34 also agreed to forward the comments received in response to the circular letter ‘CL’ (CL 2024/27-GP) on Section 4.8 “Risk analysis principles applied by the Codex Commit­tee on Pesticide Residues” to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) for its consideration.⁶

Updates of the Guide to the procedure for the amendment and revision of Codex standards and related texts

CCGP34 agreed to forward to CAC48 for adoption the proposed amendments to paragraph 8, paragraph 12 and Part 7 of the Section 2.1 relating to Procedures for the elaboration of Codex standards and related texts.⁷ CCGP34 also agreed to suggest to CCEXEC to monitor the application of part 7 of Section 2.1 of the Codex PM in the critical review process, and if needed request CAC to refer the issue back to CCGP for further consideration.

CCGP34 considered the working document prepared by the Codex secretariat based on the discussion already held at its previous meeting (CCGP33) that identified the need for clearer definitions on some terminology used to describe a revision, an amend­ment, a correction, as well as to improve workflows, enhance transparency of updates, and ensure a better common understanding of the control of the appro­priate version “in force”. The proposed approaches aimed at being pragmatic and not disturb established practices. Some recent examples served as a basis for the discussion (e.g., correction to a technical value of the composition of some named vegetable oils (in CXS 210) due to a wrong transcription; amendment to the standard on canned sardines and sardine-type products (CXS 94) due to the evolution of the taxo­nomic name of fish species).

Amendment Relating to The Participation of International Non-Governmental Organizations in the Work of The Codex Alimentarius Commission

CCGP34 agreed to put forward a newly added sub­heading “Relations between INGOs holding observer status with Codex” between paragraphs 23 and 24 of the current Principles concerning the participation of iNGOs in the work of the CAC in the 30^th edition of the Codex Procedural Manual to CAC48 for fi­nal adoption. The proposed change was intended to ensure that this double representation clause, already endorsed by CCEXEC86, would apply to any iNGO having “status with FAO” and/or “in official relations with WHO”⁸ CCGP34 also requested the Codex Secretariat to consider, in collaboration with the legal offices of FAO and WHO, the proposals for further amendments of the double representation clause, and present their review for consideration by a future ses­sion of the CCGP.

Review of the application of the Criteria and Procedural guidelines for Codex committees and ad hoc intergovernmental task forces working by correspondence

CCGP34 agreed to forward for adoption by CAC48 the proposed changes to Section 3.4 of the Codex Pro­cedural Manual, “Criteria and procedural guidelines for Codex committees and ad hoc intergovernmental task forces working by correspondence”. CCGP34 also rec­ommended that the CAC provide a clear statement of tasks and timeframe when assigning work to be con­ducted by correspondence. CCGP34 recalled the im­portance of transparency regarding reporting on the absence of a quorum at a session of subsidiary bodies of Codex and recommended drawing the attention of CAC to this matter. The item was introduced by the Codex Secretariat with references to previous discus­sions held at the 31^st and 32^nd meetings of the CCGP on a procedural guidance for committees working by correspondence (CWBC). The Codex Secretariat shared the main aspects of their analysis presented in the working document, including several proposals for amending Section 3.4 of the Codex PM. One of the main changes related to the CWBC sessions (whereby the registered participants could contribute to the session discussions during a certain period of time by correspondence), the Chairperson (of that session), in consultation with the Codex Secretariat, may excep­tionally propose that a specific issue be discussed by simultaneous virtual presence of (registered) partici­pants if deemed necessary for the efficient conclusion of the item. The other significant amendment was the addition of a new paragraph to reinforce that a CWBC would address only the task(s) assigned by the CAC. These two proposals were adopted by CCGP34, among others.⁹

OTHER ISSUES OF INTEREST

Review of the potential use of existing provisions to promote more resource efficient practices in the review of new work proposals which do not fall within the remit of an active Codex committee

CCGP34 noted that the existing provisions of the Codex PM could promote resource-efficient prac­tices in the review of new work proposals, including those for which there may not be a relevant existing or active committee to undertake such a technical re­view. CCGP34 also noted the importance of Circular Letters (CLs) as a mean for gathering views of Mem­bers and Observers on new work proposals. As such, CCGP34 recommended to continue the discussion on this issue based upon an updated document which would be prepared by the Codex Secretariat, taking into account proposals and feedback from delegates made at CCGP34.

CCGP34 discussed the working document prepared by the Codex secretariat aimed at making optimal use of existing structures in an increasingly resource-con­strained environment. The CCEXEC87 had taken the position that for proposals for new work falling within the terms of reference of a committee adjourned sine die, consultations of Members and Observers on the need for such a new work as well as to ease tech­nical discussions on the content of such new work proposal, should be done in an inclusive, timely and resource-efficient way. It was also confirmed that the use of the existing provisions of the Codex PM could promote resource-efficient practices in the review of new work proposals, including those for which there may not be a relevant existing or active committee that might undertake their technical review. Circular Letters had been a useful way to gauge interest in new work proposals falling outside the remit of an active committee. However, a CL only seeks views, it does not provide the possibility for technical exchange and dialogue.¹⁰

Proposal for a unique Codex glossary of terms

United Kingdom (UK) introduced its proposal of a Codex glossary (contained in CCGP34 CRD03), foreseen as a centralized resource accessible to all Co­dex stakeholders and intended to enhance the acces­sibility of Codex standards and amplify their impact. The new work would start with a simple collation ex­ercise and would not re-open any conversation around the existing definitions, to be consolidated by the Codex Secretariat and the host country secretariat and published as a living information document (noting that multiple definitions of the same term could be in­cluded in such a document, based on the various con­texts where such a term may be used in Codex texts). Although the potential value of such a centralized glossary resource was recognized, CCGP34 expressed the need for more discussion to clarify the scope of the UK proposal. In particular, concerns regarding the resources required were expressed, in particular the additional work for the Codex Secretariat. It was noted that confusion could be created, should a term used in a specific text be applied in a different con­text. The possible use of technology to undertake this work, including artificial intelligence, was suggested. CCGP34 agreed to continue the conversation around this proposal informally between the Codex Secretari­at and interested Members to explore the scope and its potential benefit. The UK indicated its willingness to continue discussing the potential way forward of this proposal with the Codex Secretariat.

Use of “reservations” in Codex proceedings

Oman introduced a proposal for new work, prepared in collaboration with Egypt and Tunisia (contained in CCGP34 CRD20), to address the definition and application of « reservations », as recorded in Codex meeting reports. The proposal aimed at initiating a dialogue among Codex Members on improving guid­ance for reservations and to enhance their clarity, con­sistency, and transparency. Noting that more time was needed to review the document, it was proposed to defer further discussion. It was also proposed that the Codex Secretariat could include information on the use of reservations in their capacity-building train­ing on the application of working procedures within Codex committees, tailored for different participants, including for the Chairpersons of Codex subsidiary bodies. This approach would foster a more uniform understanding across such Codex bodies, mitigating the need for extensive procedural review. The Codex Secretariat also recalled that previous discussions on reservations, documented in Codex archives, provided extensive details on their use and interpretation, and it encouraged Members to review such Codex archives to gain further insights into these past practices. CCGP34 agreed that initial discussions on the use of reservations could be held informally, among Codex Committee Chairpersons to exchange experiences before discussing the issue within the CCGP.

Endnotes

1. CCGP is the specialised body of the Codex Alimentarius Commission Food Standard Program dealing with procedural and general matters as referred to by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, including (i) the review or endorsement of procedural provisions and texts forwarded by other subsidiary bodies for inclusion in the Procedural Manual of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and (ii) the consideration and recommen­dation of other amendments to the Procedural Manual. The session was chaired for the last time by Mr Jean-Luc Angot, General Inspector of Veterinary Public Health at the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sov­ereignty, France, who announced his near retirement and received a tribute by CCGP34 participants. The CCGP34 session was attended by 63 Member Coun­tries, one Member Organization and eight Observer organizations. The next CCGP meeting (CCGP35) was tentatively scheduled to be held in 18-month time (i.e., end 2026 or early 2027) to be held possibly in person and in France (to be confirmed). The CCGP35 session would be chaired by Dr Loic Evain, Inspector of Veterinary Public Health and Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) and Deputy Director of the French Food Di­rectorate (DGAL) from 2015 to 2021, and Permanent Representative of France to the WOAH (OIE). 
2. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCGP&session=34& 
3. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/meetings/en/ 
4. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/en/ 
5. See proposed changes to the Codex PM on Section 3.1 to 3.3, as included in Appendix II of the CCGP34 report. As part of the few examples of changes, one may note the following: the chairperson of a host country of a subsidiary body “may be supported by one or more co-chairpersons and/or assistants designated by the host country” (that provision was debated as to what the role of an assistant was versus that of a co-chair). Para. 7 on the host country secretariat was reworded to help more countries to be able to chair a subsidiary body, and sim­plified in its wording. Throughout the revised sections, a reference to “and related texts” was added when a refer­ence to “standards” is mentioned. A new paragraph was added to emphasize that the preparation of the draft report of a session is the responsibility of the Codex secretariat in consultation with the subsidiary body’s chairperson, the host country secretariat and where appropriate the appointed rapporteurs (‘elected’ re­placed with ‘appointed’). The wording of the paragraph referring to specific tasks to be accomplished by partic­ipants to a session (representing a member country or an international organisation with observer status) was changed to refer to ‘provide data, information or views on specific points. ‘Working documents’ replace the term ‘papers’ and the requirement for them to be made at least 3 months in advance to the opening of a plena­ry session is now established (and translated within 2 months ahead of the session). It was also clarified that reports of the working groups held in conjunction with a session should be published in a Conference Room Document. The same would be valid for comments, proposals, or any other information to be presented at the session. CRDs should be tabled by a certain point during the session and be made publicly available on the Codex website. To conduct Codex meetings, a refer­ence to Coordinating Committees was added through­out that revised section 3.2. The section was clarified, so that only heads of the delegations attending a Codex meeting have the right to speak unless they delegate that right to a member of their own delegation. Interestingly, current para. 34 was amended to reflect that new work proposals agreed for submission to CAC for approval by a Codex body should be appended to the session report, as well as provisions or work subject to revocation or discontinuation. Other information documents agreed upon by the Committee should also be appended to the report. Requests for comments through a CL should be systematic on proposed texts proposed for CAC review/ adoption at step 5, step 8, step 5/8, or step 5 (accelerat­ed). There was some debate on differences between the various steps, in particular the 5/8 and 5 accelerated, but these are viewed as sufficiently clear as laid out in the Codex PM. Paragraph 37 was significantly simpli­fied and a reference to “group standard” was added. It is now clarified what is a host country, a chairperson of the Codex body, and that meetings could be referred to as “sessions”. In current paragraph 54 on consensus building by chairperson, a new point was added “ensuring that issues are thoroughly discussed at meet­ings of the committees concerned” as the first element, and also that “where applicable, concerns form are sub­mitted in line with the procedures set forth in Section 4: Risk Analysis” of the Codex PM. “Facilitating increased involvement and participation of developing countries” was also added as a main point to help reaching consensus. 
6. See proposed editorial changes to the Codex PM, as included in Appendix III of the CCGP34 report. Procedures for the elaboration of Codex standards and related texts (Section 2.1): it was clarified that the omission of steps 6 and 7 would imply a concurrent adoption at Step 5 and 8 as “commonly referred to as adoption at Step 5/8). That proposal was intensively debated as some members would consider adoption at step 5 or 8 as different from 5/8. Codex texts and related texts are to be made freely accessible (to gov­ernments…). The renewal of the Codex Strategic Plan would be no more systematic on a rolling basis but would now become renewed “as needed, every two years.” For the timeline foreseen under the critical review, the date for adoption of a Codex text is replaced by “the number of sessions foreseen to develop the stan­dard”, while the timeline remains, by default, no more than 5 years. The wording on how a regional standard could become an international standard is simplified to recall that in the absence of an active commodity com­mittee, it is up to the regional coordinating committee to make such a proposal. Principles for the establishment or selection of Codex sampling procedures (Section 2.11): “printed” replaced by “published” as official methods and “Receive” by “Access” all Codex final texts. Principles concerning the participation of interna­tional non-governmental organizations in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission: reference to “seminar” organised by FAO/WHO was deleted. Instead of who is sending working documents in advance to a session, the wording was simplified to refer to “access” [to] the working documents. 
7. See proposed changes to the Codex PM, as included in Appendix IV of the CCGP34 report.
   Introduction (para. 8): an amendment would fol­low the same procedure as a revision of a standard or related text but it any step may be omitted. When the proposal is of an editorial nature or of a substan­tive nature but consequential to provisions in similar standards adopted by the Commission at step 8, such proposed amendment could come from either the subsidiary body concerned (if active of course), or the Codex secretariat or a member of the Commission when that subsidiary body is abolished or dissolved or adjourned sine die. Part 2 Critical Review: amended to add “amendment” proposals along with new work or revision of a standard or related text, while a reference to “(as appropriate, see Part 7)” was added. Part 7 Guide to the procedure for the correction, amend­ment and revision of Codex standards and related texts: An entirely new paragraph was added to specify the conditions under which a correction is proposed to be made, while the existing paragraph referring to the conditions for an amendment to be made waas also amended as follows (entire proposed texts): “25. For the purpose of this guide, correction of a Codex standard or related text means fixing any editorial or typographical errors including: – incorrect spelling; – incorrect bold or italics; – other incorrect formatting of text; – an incorrect or incomplete transcription; – an incorrectly numbered or located footnote; and/or – errors in translation. A corrigendum for all corrections should be included in the standard or related text and the Commission and relevant subsidiary body notified accordingly” and “26. For the purpose of this guide, the amendment of a Co­dex standard or related text means: – editorial chang­es that are not corrections, as defined in paragraph 25; – insertion of an explanatory footnote; – updating of references consequential to the adoption, amend­ment or revision of Codex standards and other texts of general applicability, including the provisions in the Codex Procedural Manual; – alignment of provisions, for consistency, to those in similar standards or related texts adopted by the Commission including replacement of content with a reference to another Codex text (a consequential amendment); – updating of methods of analysis and sampling; and/or – may include any other addition, change or deletion of text or numerical values in one or a limited number of provisions following due consideration and agreement by the relevant subsidiary body and adoption by the Commission. An explanation for the amendment should be included in the standard.” and “27. For the purpose of this guide, revision means of a Codex standard or related text means a change to the scope, or changes other than those covered under “correction,” as defined in paragraph 25 or “amend­ment,” as defined in paragraph 26. An explanation for the revision should be included in the standard.” CCGP34 also clarified once for all that a “correction,” as described in new para. 25 is of the responsibility of the Codex secretariat. It was also clarified in para. 28 that in the case of an amendment to an existing standard, it is up to the Commission to decide “the procedure by which it is addressed.” The former para. 25 is now reworded as para. 29 to state that “When the Com­mission has decided to amend or revise a standard, the unamended or unrevised standard will remain the applicable Codex standard until the amendment to the standard or the revised standard has been adopted by the Commission.” Para. 30 was modernized to make sure that “Where the subsidiary body concerned is not in existence abolished, dissolved or has been adjourned sine die, the proposal for an amendment or revision should be submitted to the Commission by the Codex Secretariat or a Member of the Commission.” Such pro­posal should be accompanied with a project document “unless the Executive Committee recommends and/ or the Commission decides otherwise.” Existing para. 31 was amended to allow the Commission to adopt an amendment to an existing standard at Step 8 (in addition to the Step 5 which was the only one specified so far). Existing para. 32 was amended to reflect the above changes on corrections in particular “If the need for corrections is identified, then the Codex Secretariat should make the corrections and notify the Commission and relevant subsidiary body accordingly.” 
8. See proposed changes to the Codex PM, as included in Appendix V of the CCGP34 report. CCGP34 considered a proposal by the USA as laid out in CRD 17 to adapt the section on iNGO to reinforce the dual representation aspects rather the current wording which seems to allow the selection of the iNGO to attend a given Codex meet­ing. USA proposal was: “24. Observer status at specific meetings will not normally be granted to individual organizations that are members of another observer larger organization authorized and that intends to represent them at these meetings. To avoid double representation two entities should not comment on the same point where one observer is a member of the other.” The Codex Secretariat advised on the need for careful consideration of any proposed changes. The Codex Secretariat advised that these proposed changes could be considered as part of the analysis of the appli­cation of the clause within the context of the next review of INGOs with Observer status with Codex. In response to a question related to the timeframe of this review, the Codex Secretariat recalled that the Codex Procedural Manual indicated that a review should be carried out every four years. CCGP34 recalled also the conclusion of CAC46, which encouraged i-NGOs holding Observer status with Codex to actively provide information on their membership in other organizations in accordance with the Codex PM. 
9. See proposed changes to the Codex PM, as included in Appendix VI of the CCGP34 report. Members ex­pressed a general support for the amendments proposed, and made the following comments: (a) allowing part of the work of a session of a CWBC to be undertaken through simultaneous virtual presence was an addi­tional helpful tool for chairpersons to reach consensus; (b) the proposed amendments would allow alignment with current work practices, experience and technolo­gy; (c) working by correspondence was a practical and cost-effective working modality of Codex committees; (d) the scope of the work of CWBC should be: (i) limited to specific tasks, not too complex in nature, and where general agreement could be expected; and (ii) focused on the work assigned to it by CAC to ensure its smooth and efficient conduct; (e) the need for clarification on the provision of logistical arrangements, translation and interpretation to ensure equitable participation of Members; (f) with the proposed amendments, CWBC would become an even more effective modality to address new work; (g) the term “simultaneous virtu­al presence” and how it differed from “simultaneous presence” needed further explanation/clarification; and (h) clarification was needed on how the chairperson in consultation with the Codex Secretariat would deter­mine the need for part of the work of the CWBC to be undertaken through simultaneous virtual presence, and how this would be communicated to and agreed by Members. It was clarified by the Codex Secretariat that the absence of “simultaneous presence” was actually the main criteria distinguishing a CWBC from any other Codex committee. Any potential deviation would there­fore need to be explicitly described in the Codex PM, and the addition of the possibility of discussing issues through “simultaneous virtual presence” would provide better clarity on the nature of participation and how that could be achieved by means of virtual tools to ad­dress part of the work of a CWBC. Members amended the initial proposals presented in the Codex secretariat’s working document as follows: (a) the word “exception­ally” was removed, as it potentially limited the flexi­bility of chairpersons to propose simultaneous virtual presence to address parts of the work, and was some­what redundant as the text also indicated that the op­tion would be limited to a specific issue; (b) the phrase “specific issue” was changed to “specific issues”; (c) the phrase “the agreement of the Members participating in the session of the committee” was added to ensure that Members participating to a CWBC session should be consulted on the use of the virtual modality; (d) the new paragraph referring to limit the work of a CWBC to the task(s) assigned by CAC was proposed based on recent experiences with CWBC, and whether the procedural requirements to refer certain alignment tasks to active commodity committee were relevant when that com­mittee was working by correspondence, noting that it might be disruptive to ongoing alignment work and beyond the capacity of a CWBC; and that it could be useful to provide CAC with a list of matters that could be referred from other Codex committees to the specific committee and for CAC to take an informed decision on the work to be assigned to the CWBC accordingly; and the word “topic” was changed to “tasks”; (e) as a consequential amendment to the new text, the need for a host country to provide interpretation as appropriate was added; (f) while not proposed as an amendment, a concern was expressed regarding transparency on the issue of quorum in meeting reports and it was proposed that an explicit reference be added on the need to record the absence of a quorum in the CWBC report and it was also agreed that CCGP34 would draw the attention of the CAC to the need for transparency regarding the quorum in subsidiary body meetings; (g) the Codex Sec­retariat clarified that paragraph 76 referred to the use of virtual tools by the chairperson during informal discus­sions, while paragraph 59 provided the possibility to use virtual tools during the formal discussions of a CWBC; (h) regarding paragraph 81, the Codex Secretariat noted that these provisions referred to the case when a CWBC, following completion of its deliberations, concluded that it was not able to progress work and in the report of the session submitted to CAC could recommend alternate working mechanisms for decision by CAC on the way forward; (i) Additional amendments stemming from the review of Sections 3.1 to 3.3 of the Codex Procedural Manual (Agenda item 4.1) were inserted into Section 3.4 for consistency purposes. 
10. Members welcomed the thought-provoking document and expressed the following views: (a) the use of CLs remained a useful means of gathering comments from Members and Observers on the interest in, and the need for a new area of work; (b) working by correspondence could be a cost-effective way of discussing new work proposals; (c) the establishment of an EWG reporting to CCEXEC and CAC with the mandate to review such work proposals in advance of CCEXEC and CAC meet­ings could be considered; (c) concerns were expressed regarding the use of Coordinating Committees to review new work proposals as they only meet every two years and might not have the necessary technical expertise available at their sessions; (d) the organization of infor­mal events (on the side of Codex meetings) was insuffi­cient to ensure an inclusive discussion by Members, and there was also lack of clarity as to the expected outcome or follow up actions; (e) recognizing current challenges regarding the completeness of new work proposals, the upcoming guidelines on new work proposals, currently under development by the Codex Secretariat, were wel­comed; (f) it was proposed that consideration be given to whether other tools outlined in the Codex PM such as task forces could be useful for the purpose of reviewing new work proposals; (g) while there was flexibility to discuss new work proposals in existing committees, it was noted that such proposals should be fairly closely related to the committee’s mandate as it was not feasible for Members to include a broad range of expertise in their delegations; (h) the use of information communication technology (ICT) tools was considered important and further clarification on what these might include beyond those currently in use, was requested; and (i) careful consideration of the various proposals was needed as each had positive and negative aspects and it would be premature to make any specific recommenda­tions at this session, but important to continue the anal­ysis in support of further discussions at the next session.­