WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/916 
26 March 2009 
 (09-1507) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
PARTICIPATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN THE WORK OF CODEX 
 
Data on the participation of developing countries in Codex sessions
 
 
Extract from Document CX/GP 09/25/9 pre pared for the Twenty-fifth Session of  
the Codex Committee on General principles  
(Paris, France, 30 March – 4 April 2009) 
 
  The following communication, received on 2 March 2009, is being circulated at the request of 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission
. 
 
_______________ G/SPS/GEN/916 
Page 2  
 
  Extract from Document CX/GP 09/25/9 pre pared for the Twenty-fifth Session of  
the Codex Committee on General principles  
(Paris, France, 30 March – 4 April 2009) 
 Scope 
 1. The physical participation of all Codex members in the sessions of the Commission and of its 
subsidiary bodies established under Rule XI.1 (b ) (i) was analysed for the nine-year period from 
January 2000 to December 2008.  The sessi ons of the Executive Committee and regional 
Coordinating Committees were excluded from the an alysis as the membership of these bodies is not 
open to all Codex members.  The extraordinary session of the Commission held in February 2003 was 
also excluded. Data were collected from a total of 140 Codex sessions. 
2. Participation in the meetings of physical working groups was analysed for the year 2008, 
focusing on those meetings that were held as stand- alone events; those sessions held back-to-back to, 
or during, a plenary of subsidiary body were excl uded. In 2008, there were five such meetings, of 
which three working groups established by TFAMR me t back-to-back to each other, so did the two 
working groups established by CCFICS, at the same venue.  
Method 
 
3. Attendance data of Codex members were obtaine d from the lists of participants that are 
systematically included in Codex session reports. Presence of each member in each Codex session 
was counted manually; the size of the delegation was not analysed.  For the sake of this study
1, all 
Codex members were grouped into either of tw o categories: "developing members" [DEV] and 
"industrialised members" [IND].  "Developing member s" were defined as those countries that were 
eligible for the support from the Codex Trust Fu nd when the latter came into operation in 2004 as 
well as those countries that later joined the Codex membership and were classified, upon accession, as 
eligible for the Trust Fund.  Countries were moved from the category of "developing members" to the 
category of "industrialised members" when they beca me ineligible for the Trust Fund because of the 
evolution in their basic economic indicators, wh ile other developing members were kept in the 
category of "developing members" even after they ha d became ineligible for (or "graduated" from) the 
Trust Fund having benefited from it for a pre-determined number of years.2  All members other than 
"developing members" were classified in  the category of "industrialised members". 
4. To make calculation simple, the total number of  Codex members as it stood at the end of each 
year was applied throughout that year when obtai ning participation rates – in other words, new 
members were considered as if they had joined Codex on 1 January of the year even if they joined the 
membership sometime between January and December.3  Data were aggregated by biennium to allow 
diachronic analysis of participation in Codex bo dies including those that did not hold sessions every 
year, with the exception of the data for 2008, wh ich represent the first half of the ongoing biennium. 
Results 
 
5. The overall summary of the study is shown in Tabl e 1 in the Annex to this document.  Figures 
1 and 2 show the participation of developing and industrialised members in the sessions of the 
                                                      
1 There are no common definitions for "developing countries" or "developed countries" within the 
United Nations system. 
2 "Group 3" countries "graduated" from the Trust Fund four years after they first benefited from the 
Trust Fund. 
3 In the case of the year 2008, the number of "ind ustrialized members" was 43, "developing members" 
134.  G/SPS/GEN/916 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Commission, held in Rome and Geneva. In the Commission sessions, developing members 
outnumbered industrialised members by far, especially since 2003 (Fig.1).  The participation rate of 
developing members (the number of  developing members present in a given meeting divided by the 
total number of developing members in the Codex membership) was constantly lower than that of 
industrialised members, but it is getting closer to the participation rate of industrialised members 
(Fig.2).  It should be noted that a large number of  developing member participation was recorded in 
the 2003 and 2008 Commission sessions (91 and 98 countries, respectively). 
6. Regarding General Subject Committees, the numbe r of participating developing members was 
close to that of industrialised members until th e 2002-03 biennium, however the former clearly 
outnumbered the latter since the 2004-05 biennium (F ig.3).  While the participation rate of 
industrialised members was stable between 60% and 70%, that of developing members increased 
from 17% in 2000-2003 to the 25-27% range in 2006-2008 (Fig.4).  For both industrialised and developing members, the participation rates in General Subject Committees were significantly lower 
that those in the Commission.  
7. When looked at on a committee-by-committee basis,  participation patterns in General Subject 
Committees somewhat differed between devel oping and industrialised members.  Among 
industrialised members, CCFH and CCNFSDU we re among the most "popular" committees, while 
among developing members, CCGP and CCFICS attr acted a larger number of delegations.  CCFL 
was increasingly well attended in recent years by both developing and industrialised members. 
CCRVDF and CCMAS recorded relativ ely lower participation both by  developing and industrialised 
members (Figs. 5 and 6).  
8. Participation rates in Commodity Committees were generally lower for both developing 
members (by ca. 8 points) and industrialised memb ers (by ca. 15 points) than in General Subject 
Committees (Figs. 4 and 8), but their evolutio n over the 2000-2008 period was similar.  CCMH, 
CCMMP were among the most well attended committees for industrialised members with participation rates ranging betw een 50% and 65%; the same comm ittees were least attended by 
developing members, generally attracting less than  15% of these members in their sessions (Figs. 9 
and 10).  CCFFP was relatively well attended by both developing and industrialised members, while 
participation in CCPFV was low among both categories of members.  CCFO was attracting an increasing number of developing members over the 2000-2007 period while during the same period 
the participation of industrialised member s in this committee was in decline.  
9. Due to the small number of records, it was not po ssible to analyse in detail the participation of 
members in the sessions of ad hoc  task forces.  One could however observe notable difference in 
participation rates between industrialised and deve loping members (Fig. 11 and 12).  Even among the 
industrialised members, some task forces ( TFAF, TFFBT and TFAMR) were as well attended as 
general subject committees or some popular commod ity committees, while participation in TFFJ was 
low.  Developing members' participation in task  forces was generally below 15%, except for TFFBT 
in 2004-2007. 
10. Participation rates of members in working gr oups held as separate events in 2008 were 
between 30% and 45% among industrialised member s and were less than 10% among developing 
members (Table 2).  The working groups established by TFAMR attracted less developing members that those established by CCFICS (Figs. 13 and 14).  
Discussion 
 11. In general, the Codex Trust Fund seems to have  played a visible role in boosting physical 
participation of developing members in Codex sessi ons. Since 2004, the partic ipation of developing 
members was enhanced in the sessions of the Co mmission, General Subject Committees, Commodity G/SPS/GEN/916 
Page 4  
 
  Committees and Task Forces.  However, the high-le vel participation of developing members in the 
2003 Commission session, which was held prior to the entry into operation of the Codex Trust Fund, 
shows that developing members were able to atte nd a Codex session if there was commitment to do 
so. 
12. The content of agenda and the venue of session may have influenced the participation of 
members.  For example, one could recall that se cret ballot took place for the elections of the 
Chairperson of the Commission in 2003 and in 2008  when highest attendance record was established. 
Relatively lower interest among industrialised members and higher interest among developing 
members in attending the session of CCFFV and CCFO suggest that producing and exporting 
countries may have assigned higher priority to th ese committees, compared to non-producing and 
non-exporting countries of the commodities in question.  The fact that both CCFFP and CCMMP 
were equally well attended by industrialised memb ers but that developing members attended CCFFP 
more than CCMMP might partly be explained by th e difference in travel co sts to reach the meeting 
venue; however as seen in the developing members'  participation in CCFICS, geographic location of 
venues only cannot explain all the ob served behaviour of members.  A set of different factors appears 
to determine the priority a Codex member assigns  to a Codex body when considering attendance. 
13. Participation of developing members remained  very low in physical working groups, 
according to the data from 2008.  This may be due  to various reasons. Some members might have 
considered that drafting work could be done by a small number of volunteering members and might 
have chosen not to participate, with the understandi ng that draft text would later be circulated for 
comments by all members.  Alternatively, by the time the date and venue of a working group meeting 
was announced, some members may have committed its resources (own resources or trust fund 
support) to other Codex sessions.  It might be th at the substance matter handled by TFAMR working 
groups was less attractive to developing members compared to the issues dealt with by CCFICS 
working groups. 
14. Even if one considers that the Commission and many committees are more or less well 
attended by Codex members, one cannot ignore discrep ancy in the level of participation of members 
between the sessions of the Commission on one hand, a nd the sessions of certain subsidiary bodies on 
the other.  It should be noted that the overall pa rticipation rates (both de veloping and industrialised 
members altogether) in CCCPC, CCFFP, CCFFV, CCFO, CCPFV, CCS, TFAMR, TFFJ and TFQFF were at times less than 20%, below the quorum of th e Commission set forth in Rule VI.7 of the Rules 
of Procedure.  This level of low participati on was observed in CCPFV, TFFJ and TFAMR even after 
the entry into operation of the Trust Fund.  Is this to be taken as a simple sign of lack of interest on the 
part of a large number of Codex members and their tacit "trust" in the capable hands of other, more interested members to advance the work?  Or were there actually many members wishing to 
participate but not being able to do so?  If the la tter was the case, it should be taken as a real problem. 
15. As it operates today, the Commission is expected to mainly take important decisions at the 
initial and final stages of the standard elaboration (Steps 1 and 8, namely) at its sessions and cannot 
afford lengthy technical discussion within the time it di sposes of.  In other words, draft texts must be 
fully discussed and all (if at all possible) questions and concerns of members answered at the level of 
committees or task forces before the draft reaches the Commission.  When a member which has not 
participated in the discussion at a subsidiary body le vel raises a technical issue (whether a valid one or 
not) during a Commission session, a significant portion of time is lost, either because the fact that that 
issue had already been raised and addressed at th e committee level must be explained to the member, 
or because the Commission may return the draft to  the committee.  It is therefore of utmost 
importance that many members participate in C odex work at the level of subsidiary bodies (or 
working groups where appropriate) through physical a ttendance, by correspondence, or, ideally, by a 
combination of both means.   
   G/SPS/GEN/916
 Page 5Table 1 – Number and Rate of Participating Members by Member Category and by Codex Body 
 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007 2008 
 IND DEV Total IND DEV Total IND DEV Total IND DEV Total IND DEV Total 
 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 
CAC 29 85% 57 43% 86 52% 32 89% 92 68% 124 73% 31 86% 75 54% 106 61% 32 86% 83.5 60% 115 66% 36 97% 101 72% 137 77% 
CCCF                                     22 59% 38 28% 60 34% 25 68% 38 27% 63 36% 
CCFA(C) 24 69% 21 16% 45 27% 21 59% 24 18% 45 26% 27 74% 33 24% 60 34% 23 62% 39 28% 61 35% 23 62% 41 29% 64 36% 
CCFH 25 74% 30 22% 55 33% 23 64% 21 16% 44 26% 27 74% 33 21% 60 34% 23 62% 41 30% 64 36% 24 65% 36 26% 60 34% 
CCFICS 22 65% 23 17% 45 27% 21 59% 20 15% 41 24% 23 64% 44 32% 67 39% 22 60% 34 25% 56 32% 24 65% 36 26% 60 34% 
CCFL 23 66% 26 19% 48 29% 20 55% 23 17% 43 25% 24 65% 34 24% 57 33% 25 67% 45 32% 69 39% 24 65% 49 35% 73 41% 
CCGP 26 75% 33 25% 58 35% 23 65% 26 19% 49 28% 23 63% 43 31% 65 38% 24 64% 47 34% 70 40%             
CCMAS 24 71% 19 14% 43 26% 22 63% 25 19% 47 28% 21 57% 22 16% 43 25% 21 56% 29 21% 50 28% 22 59% 37 26% 59 33% 
CCNFSDU 26 76% 26 20% 52 31% 23 63% 29 22% 52 30% 25 69% 36 26% 61 35% 23 62% 30 22% 53 30% 23 62% 30 21% 53 30% 
CCPR 25 72% 24 18% 49 29% 24 66% 28 20% 51 30% 21 58% 30 22% 51 29% 21 56% 28 20% 48 27% 22 59% 38 27% 60 34% 
CCRVDF 21 62% 14 11% 35 21% 21 58% 15 11% 36 21% 22 61% 24 18% 46 27% 22 59% 21 15% 43 24%             
CCCPC 17 50% 9 7% 26 16%                                                 
CCFFP 23 68% 21 16% 44 27% 21 58% 23 17% 43 25% 18 50% 29 21% 47 27% 20 56% 26 19% 46 26% 22 59% 29 21% 51 29% 
CCFFV 14 41% 20 15% 34 20% 12 34% 15 11% 27 16% 14 39% 28 20% 42 24% 13 36% 22 16% 35 20% 15 41% 31 22% 46 26% 
CCFO 19 56% 13 10% 32 19% 17 47% 14 10% 31 18% 17 47% 22 16% 39 23% 15 41% 27 20% 42 24%             
CCMH             23 63% 13 10% 36 21% 23 64% 14 10% 37 21%                         
CCMMP 23 68% 12 9% 35 21% 18 51% 15 11% 33 19% 21 58% 21 15% 42 24% 21 58% 19 14% 40 23% 20 54% 15 11% 35 20% 
CCNMW 19 56% 14 11% 33 20%                                     20 54% 27 19% 47 27% 
CCPFV 12 35% 14 11% 26 16% 9 26% 8 6% 17 10% 13 36% 19 14% 32 18% 11 31% 14 10% 25 14% 14 38% 29 21% 43 24% 
CCS 16 47% 11 8% 27 16%                                                 
TFAF 23 66% 17 13% 40 24% 23 63% 17 12% 39 23%                                     
TFAMR                                     22 59% 15 11% 37 21% 21 57% 11 8% 32 18% 
TFFBT 21 60% 15 11% 36 21% 21 58% 14 10% 34 20% 23 64% 27 20% 50 29% 23 62% 24 17% 46 26%             
TFFJ 15 44% 9 7% 24 14% 12 34% 18 7% 30 18% 9 25% 11 8% 20 12%                         
TFQFF                                                 10 27% 8 6% 18 10% 
 G/SPS/GEN/916 
Page 6  
 
  Figure 1.  
Number of Participating Members in Commission Sessions
2932 31 31 31 32365792
5990
7889101
020406080100120
2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
YearN°
Industrialised Members Developing Members
 
 
Figure 2. 
Member Participation Rate in Commission Sessions
43%68%72%85%89% 86% 86% 86%
86%97%
64%
56%65%
43%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Industrialised members Developing members
  G/SPS/GEN/916 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Figure 3. 
Number of Participating Members in General Subject Committees
24
2224 23
222338
3533
23
0510152025303540
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008Industrialised Members Developing Members
 
 
Figure 4. 
Member Participation Rate in General Subject Committees
63%
27%61%65%
61%70%
25%24%
18%
17%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008Industrialised Members Developing Members
 G/SPS/GEN/916 
Page 8  
 
  Figure 5. 
Industrialised Members Participation Rate
40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07CCFA(C)
CCFH
CCFICS
CCFL
CCGP
CCMAS
CCNFSDU
CCPR
CCRVDF
 
 
Figure 6. 
Developing Members Participation Rate
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07CCFA(C)
CCFH
CCFICS
CCFL
CCGP
CCMAS
CCNFSDU
CCPR
CCRVDF
  G/SPS/GEN/916 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Figure 7. 
Number of Participating Members in Commodity Committees
18
1718
1618
14 15222226
051015202530
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008
Industrialised Members Developing Members
 
 
Figure 8. 
Member Participation Rate in Commodity Committees
49%
44%49%
47%53%
11%19%16% 16%
11%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008Industrialised Members Developing Members
 G/SPS/GEN/916 
Page 10  
 
  Figure 9. 
Industrialised Members Participation Rate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07CCFFP
CCFFV
CCFO
CCMH
CCMMP
CCPFV
 
 
Figure 10. 
Developing Members Participation Rate
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07CCFFP
CCFFV
CCFO
CCMH
CCMMP
CCPFV
  G/SPS/GEN/916 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Figure 11. 
Industrialised Members Participation Rate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07TFAF
TFFBT
TFFJ
TFAMR
 
 
Figure 12. 
Developing Members Participation Rate
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%
2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07TFAF
TFFBT
TFFJ
TFAMR
 G/SPS/GEN/916 
Page 12  
 
  Table 2 - Number and Rate of Participating Members in 2008 Working Groups by Member 
Category   
   
IND DEV Total 
Working Group Date Venue N % N % N % 
CCFICS(1) 8-9/VII Brussels 13 31% 12 9% 25 14% 
CCFICS(2) 10-11/VII Brussels 14 33% 12 9% 26 15% 
TFAMR(1) 26/V Brussels 15 36% 5 4% 20 11% 
TFAMR(2) 27-28/V Brussels 16 38% 6 4% 22 12% 
TFAMR(3) 29-30/V Brussels 18 43% 4 3% 22 12% 
 
 Figure 13. 
Number of Participating Members in Working Groups (2008)
14151618
12 12
56
413
02468101214161820
CCFICS(1) CCFICS(2) TFAMR(1) TFAMR(2) TFAMR(3)IND DEV
 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/916 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Figure 14. 
Member Participation Rate in Working Groups (2008)
31%33%36%38%43%
9% 9%
4% 4%3%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
CCFICS(1) CCFICS(2) TFAMR(1) TFAMR(2) TFAMR(3)
IND DEV
 
 
__________