3. Recommendations for the establishment of the OIE Observatory

This chapter provides recommendations to support the establishment of the OIE Observatory on Standards Implementation. These recommendations build on the specificities of OIE standards, the institutional framework of the OIE, and the existing information collection mechanisms as reflected in previous chapters, as well as on a comparative analysis of selected IO experiences.

    

The OIE has embarked on an ambitious and unique exercise with the establishment of the OIE Observatory. In May 2018, the World Assembly of OIE Delegates adopted the Resolution No. 36 recommending the creation of an Observatory on the implementation of OIE Standards by Member Countries. Subsequently, the OIE put in place a specific governance to carry out the project and called on the OECD to support this undertaking building on work done with 50 international organisations (IOs) on the quality of international rulemaking.1 This preparatory work has laid the ground for a thorough reflection on the critical objectives, modalities and challenges of OIE standard-setting and the opportunities for better monitoring of implementation at domestic level.

To make the most out of this opportunity, the design of the Observatory should reflect the specific objectives and traits of the OIE standard implementation and build on the existing practices and strengths of the organisation as reflected in this report. In particular, OIE standards aim to ensure transparency around animal health status, build good governance of veterinary services and support safe trade of animals and animal products. These standards are expert-driven and voluntary. Their voluntary nature reflects the need to account for specific country conditions (diseases are not present everywhere, diversity in production and trade profiles) and for implementation modalities that fit different regulatory systems. The implementation of OIE standards is a key responsibility of OIE members, with support from the Headquarters through guidance and capacity building. Members are incentivised to adopt OIE standards in national legislation, including through explicit promotion of OIE standards in the WTO SPS Agreement. While a thorough monitoring of the implementation of OIE standards is not yet in place, a number of information collection mechanisms, whether internal to the OIE or external, already give indication on their use in a range of Member countries and provide solid starting points for the future monitoring mechanisms.

It is noteworthy that while most IOs offer their constituency some forms of assistance for the implementation of their normative instruments, only a few have established an actual “Observatory”, and none of the similar initiatives equate to the level of ambition set for the OIE Observatory. IO support generally takes the form of training programmes or implementation tools / guides. In some cases, the IOs also track the implementation of their instruments (OECD, 2016[1]). However, the IO mechanisms to monitor implementation tend to relate to legally binding instruments, for example in the field of human rights, rather than voluntary standards. They also tend to monitor the field of the IO at large rather than the implementation of the legal instruments more narrowly. Therefore, no other IO monitoring mechanism can be used as an exact model for the future OIE Observatory. Nevertheless, many IOs have established mechanisms to “observe” realities under their mandate and collect information on national systems in their field of activity. Specific lessons can be drawn from these various experiences and serve loosely as an inspiration for the establishment of the Observatory.

Building on the key features of OIE standard implementation and data collection described in previous chapters, as well as on a comparative analysis of selected IO experiences, this section offers recommendations to the OIE in support of the establishment of its Observatory. These recommendations aim to account for the specific nature of OIE standards and leverage the existing information collection mechanisms on OIE standards, while learning from other monitoring experiences. They are organised in three parts (and summarised in Box ‎3.1): i) the objectives and rationale for the establishment of the Observatory; ii) the scope of the future Observatory’s activities; and iii) considerations on the modalities of the future “Observatory”.

Setting the objectives of the OIE Observatory

In 2018, the OIE General Assembly identified a number of objectives associated with the establishment of the Observatory, emphasising 1) the importance of identifying OIE Members’ assistance needs; as well as 2) improving the quality and relevance of OIE standards:

The OIE develop an Observatory to monitor the implementation of its international standards, to increase transparency and to identify constraints and difficulties faced by Member Countries. The design of the Observatory should ensure an efficient and integrated collection, analysis and reporting of information on progress and challenges associated with implementation of OIE international standards by Member Countries in a manner that incentivises increasing harmonisation while maintaining anonymity of the Member Countries;

In addition to monitoring the implementation of the international standards, the Observatory should evaluate the relevance, feasibility and effectiveness of the standards to Member Countries, as a basis to develop a more strategic focus to the OIE standard setting and capacity building work programmes.2

In this sense, the OIE is in line with international practice. Overall, out of 36 IOs surveyed by the OECD in 2018 (OECD, 2019[2]), the majority of IO Secretariats conduct active data collection from publicly available sources, questionnaires, or on-site missions, or rely on voluntary reporting of information on implementation by their Members. The information collected by IOs is used to assess the overall or the individual implementation of instruments. It feeds in compliance or capacity building programmes. It supports self-reflection on the defects in instruments and the need for their revision and serves to promote the use of the instruments. IOs may combine many of the above objectives. However, IOs more rarely use the information for enforcement purposes or for evaluating the performance of instruments, in particular for assessing whether or not they achieve their objectives (Figure ‎3.1). This owes largely to the mostly voluntary nature of international instruments and to the lack of granular data on specific member’s implementation. Limited evaluation of international instruments also underlines one of the shortcomings of international rulemaking that the OECD Partnership for Effective International Rulemaking (IO Partnership) aims to address.

Figure ‎3.1. For what purpose is information on implementation used by international organisations?

36 respondents

Note: The figures in brackets reflect the number of IOs reporting such mechanisms.

Source: (OECD, 2019[2]), The Contribution of International Organisations to a Rule-Based International System, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/IO-Rule-Based%20System.pdf.

Given the nature of OIE standards and existing data collection mechanisms, the Observatory could focus on two interrelated objectives of its monitoring activity: 1) Identifying Members’ capacity assistance needs and successful practices in implementing OIE standards; and 2) Enhancing the standard-setting process through evidence-based assessments of the actual use of OIE standards. These two complementary objectives are detailed below. A more compliance-focused approach aiming to enforce OIE standards would be difficult given the voluntary nature of OIE standards, and the flexibility allowed in their implementation.

Monitoring implementation to identify Members’ assistance needs and successful practices

The OIE already relies on a number of mechanisms to identify the capacity building needs of members. For example, the PVS framework is a complex system of evaluation of the quality of veterinary services, which results notably in assisting evaluated countries in the reinforcement of their veterinary services.

Building on the broader monitoring that it will carry out, the OIE Observatory could aim to systematically identify technical assistance needs on a broader scope, beyond veterinary services. By identifying Members who struggle to implement certain standards, or specific areas of the Codes and Manuals that receive less attention from countries, the OIE Observatory will provide relevant information to target both Secretariat and donors’ assistance activities and support the relevant departments in their efforts to tailor capacity building initiatives.

Beyond the more systematic identification of challenges and related capacity building needs, the Observatory will be in a unique position to monitor Members’ practices in implementing OIE standards over time. The gathered information could help other jurisdictions struggling in their own application of OIE standards by highlighting ways, including new ones, of implementing the body of OIE instruments. This aspect of the monitoring exercise offers the OIE Observatory a broader scope of action of relevance to all its Members and enables a powerful peer learning exercise. It also allows for a dynamic use of the Observatory as implementation practices are likely to evolve over time.

Monitoring implementation to strengthen the quality and relevance of OIE standards

Using the monitoring of implementation to improve the quality and relevance of international standards is an ambitious objective, which remains rarely pursued by IOs on a systematic basis. The OIE Observatory could help achieve this objective, using information collected by the existing mechanisms to identify strengths and weaknesses in the OIE standards’ use and application. The data collected by the Observatory over time could be gathered into a database and would help identify trends, challenges and gaps in implementation to feed back into the OIE standard-setting process.

The OIE standard-setting process would be enhanced in three different ways:

• The information collected by the Observatory could help identify whether specific standards have unintended consequences or ancillary impacts that need to be remedied. It is only after their full adoption and use by Members that the extent of the impacts of international standards materialise. Therefore, it is only then that potential unintended consequences can be identified and corrected.

• Over time, given technological progress and changes in production and consumption patterns, standards may become outdated and obsolete. Their regular monitoring is a critical condition to assess their continued relevance and to signal a need for their revision. It is also an essential baseline exercise to assess the need for and motivate the development of new standards.

• Finally, given the wide range of information collected by the OIE – pertaining to the use of standards, the state of domestic veterinary and animal health legislation, disease outbreaks and trade flows and concerns – the Observatory is in a good position to go beyond a mere data collection platform and draw analysis linking standards and outcomes in the field. Beyond monitoring the use of OIE standards, this analysis would open the door for a better understanding of their effectiveness at influencing outcomes (i.e. quality of veterinary services, improving animal health and welfare, and facilitating safe international trade).

Ultimately, the capacity of the Observatory to influence OIE standards will depend on the feedback loops with the standard-setting process, in particular its connection with the Specialist Commissions, so that the former informs the latter when there is a need to reconsider a standard or to develop a new one.

While experience with observatories is scarce among IOs, a number of them have developed systematic mechanisms to review the implementation of their standards and identify the improvements needed to enhance their effectiveness. This is the case of the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), which conducts systematic reviews of all of its standards every five years maximum to identify their use and deduce their relevance and effectiveness (Box 3.1). The IPPC is currently in the process of introducing a monitoring and evaluation mechanism aimed at improving effectiveness, involving indicators on standard-setting, implementation and on integration and support. These examples provide interesting evaluation practices that could inspire the OIE in a future stage of the Observatory to connect information collection and evaluation and revision of standards.

Box ‎3.1. Systematic Reviews in International Organization for Standardization

The ISO has a systematic review process that can be initiated by a technical committee, a national standardisation body, by the ISO/CS or by the ISO Secretariat.

Table ‎3.1 shows the maximum time that can elapse before a systematic review takes place, but committees can choose to launch a review much earlier, if they believe it necessary.

Table ‎3.1. Timing of ISO systematic reviews
Deliverable	Max. elapsed time before systematic review	Max. number of times deliverable may be confirmed	Max. life
International Standard	5 years	Not limited	Not limited
Technical Specification	3 years	Once recommended	6 years recommended
Publicly Available Specification	3 years — no default action by ISO Central Secretariat	Once	6 years (If not converted after this period, the deliverable is proposed for withdrawal)
Technical Report	Not specified	Not specified	Not limited
Source: ISO/IEC Directives Part 1. See also (OECD/ISO, 2016[3]).

Defining the scope of the OIE Observatory

On the one hand, the OIE Observatory should aim to serve the core objectives of the OIE, namely: i) foster transparency on the sanitary status of animal diseases for country, zone or compartment; ii) build good governance of the national animal health and welfare systems through improved legal frameworks and resources of veterinary services; and iii) support world trade in animals and animal products by ensuring safe international trade, while avoiding unjustified sanitary barriers to trade. This mandate provides a broad scope of potential activity for the Observatory. The Recommendation by the World Assembly of Delegates explicitly states that the OIE Observatory’s activities should include an integrated collection of information, an analysis of the information collected and a reporting of information on the progress and challenges associated with implementation.

On the other hand, taking into account resource constraints and the need for a gradual approach that allows for learning by doing, the OIE Observatory should start by focusing on selected instruments and existing sources of information to help channel its resources and test its activity. This calls for a prioritisation of the OIE standards that will be the focus of the Observatory (before progressive expansion) and for a practical approach to the concept of implementation.

Normative scope of OIE Observatory: initial focus on monitoring of Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes, the basis of OIE normative work

As underlined throughout the study and summarised in Table ‎3.2, the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes and Manuals are the most substantive OIE instruments of external normative value (i.e. addressed to Members and not the Secretariat itself), and serve as a basis for the other instruments developed by the organisation. They follow an in-depth and evidence-based development process, and are the subject of most of the information collection exercises in place to date. Therefore, they offer a logical starting point for the monitoring activities of the Observatory. However, even the Manuals themselves can be considered as deriving from the Codes, in that they aim to provide a uniform approach to the detection of diseases listed in the Codes. The OIE Observatory could therefore start by focusing on monitoring the implementation of the Codes, before broadening its scope.

Table ‎3.2. Overview of OIE instruments, addressees, bodies involved and related monitoring mechanisms
OIE name	Addressees	Body/ authority involved in development	Monitoring mechanism
Codes	OIE Members	Specialist commissions; permanent working groups; ad hoc groups; WAD	PVS Pathway; WAHIS; Official recognition of disease status; self-declarations; Anti-microbial resistance Global study
Manuals	OIE Members	Specialist commissions; permanent working groups; ad hoc groups; WAD	Official recognition of disease status; Reference laboratories
Technical resolution	OIE Members OIE Secretariat	WAD	N/A
Administrative resolution	OIE Secretariat	WAD	N/A
Recommendations of Regional Commissions	OIE Members OIE Secretariat	Regional Commissions; WAD	N/A
Recommendations of Global Conference	OIE Members OIE Secretariat	Global Conference	N/A
Guidelines, checklists, etc.	OIE Members	Expert; OIE Secretariat	N/A
Code of Conduct	OIE Secretariat staff	OIE Secretariat	N/A
MoUs, co-operation agreements	OIE Secretariat, other international organisations	OIE Secretariat	N/A
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on OIE responses to OECD 2018 survey to international organisations.

Still, the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes together represent around 212 chapters, all of which include several articles. Therefore, even narrowing these efforts to the Codes, prioritisation remains important, particularly in the early stages of establishing the Observatory, in order to allow for a piloting phase. The very first step for the OIE Observatory would be to deepen the work initiated in Annex B to map the OIE standards (or the parts) that are already the object of data collection under the existing OIE mechanisms as summarised in Table ‎3.3 (PVS or other).

Annex B provides a starting point but would need a more granular analysis of the links between the data currently collected by the OIE and others and the standards covered. This mapping exercise could help clarify the scope of information already collected, the current gaps, the easy extensions and the analytical needs where raw data would not achieve the purpose of the monitoring. In particular, the mapping should seek to identify: the connection with the underlying OIE standards; the geographic coverage; the frequency of the collected information (ad hoc or regular and if so how often); the nature of information (quantitative, qualitative); the level of availability of the information (public or limited) and the level of the validation (self-reporting versus quality check carried out by the OIE).

Subsequently, the OIE Observatory may extend its monitoring scope to a broader set of standards, while still prioritizing those that are of most importance for achieving the objectives of the OIE. To identify these standards, the organisation could survey its Members to gather their priorities and areas of key interest. For example, it may choose to focus on standards with a broad scope of application, i.e. that concern OIE Members at large, independent of their level of development and of geographic specificities.

Material scope of OIE Observatory: broad and flexible understanding of the concept of implementation

Given the nature of OIE standards, the concept of implementation will remain elusive and cover different realities in various jurisdictions. It will never be possible to reduce the monitoring exercise to a couple of indicators. To capture the reality of OIE standards’ use, the Observatory will need to approximate the notion of implementation and adopt a multifaceted approach. This study provides directions by highlighting ways in which implementation of OIE standards takes effect, including through their uptake in domestic legislation (primary, secondary or tertiary) and their use by economic operators.

In particular, given the public nature of national legislation, uptake in domestic legislation can be tracked without confidentiality obstacles. This would nevertheless entail resources to gather the data, possibly relying on reporting / notification of relevant legislations and other regulatory measures by OIE Members and further research into the content of national legislation to determine the specific references made to OIE standards. Similar examples of legislation tracking exists in other IOs, in particular FAO Lex. Despite the challenges (Bucher, Tellechea and Mylrea, 2019[4]), the notifications of SPS measures made under the WTO requirements also provide a good start for countries to reflect on the use of OIE standards in their domestic legislation and limit their reporting efforts by satisfying both their WTO and OIE notification. That said, given the broader objectives of OIE standard-setting compared to the trade focused mandate of the WTO, there should be a reflection on whether reporting should be limited to those measures that have a significant trade impact (with the risk that the full mandate of OIE is not reflected) or extend beyond.

Monitoring the use of OIE standards by economic operators, such as importers and exporters, may be challenging in practice. For example, relevant information could be obtained through the tracking of international veterinary certificates issued by the veterinary authorities certified to assess the conformity of animals or animal products with OIE standards. However, the sharing of information is likely to be problematic due to the confidentiality of the certification details. The OIE Observatory may nevertheless be able to collect models of international veterinary certificates negotiated between trading partners to identify the use of OIE standards and then benefit from general statistics elaborated by Competent Authorities to have an overview by country of use of OIE standards by economic operators. This could help give an indication of animal health outcomes in practice.

Given the multifaceted dimensions of implementation, a core task of the Observatory could be to investigate the various forms implementation of OIE standards may take through taking stock and analysing Members’ practices. This work could help the OIE refine its understanding of what constitutes good implementation of its standards and help better target the evidence and indicators to be monitored in the future.

Information sources

This report has identified the many information collection exercises that already exist in relation to OIE standards. Their key features are summarised in Table ‎3.3. These tools provide a key starting point for the activity of the OIE Observatory, one upon which it can progressively build to expand its activities.

Table ‎3.3. Overview of existing mechanisms to support and monitor implementation of OIE normative instruments
Monitoring mechanism	Current country coverage	Type of information	Frequency	Availability of information
PVS Evaluations	Mostly developing Members; ad hoc use by some developed Members	Country-level Direct references to OIE Codes	Occasionally, upon country request	Publication upon country decision
Veterinary Legislation Support Programmes	Mostly developing Members	Country-level Direct references to OIE Codes	Occasionally, upon country request	Publication upon country decision
WAHIS	All OIE Members	Country-level Few direct references to specific OIE standards	Continuously Early warning system Six-monthly and annual reports	All notified information publically available
Official Recognition of Disease Status	OIE Members with trade interest: mostly developed country and emerging economies	Country-level Direct references to OIE Codes & Manuals	Annual reconfirmation	Reports of ad hoc groups and SCAD are publically available. Applicant dossiers are not public.
Self-declaration of disease status	OIE Members with trade interest: mostly developed country and emerging economies	Country-level Direct references to specific OIE Codes & Manuals	Occasionally	All information publically available
Reference Laboratories	One fifth of OIE Members; Most are developed Members	Unknown	Annual report	List of laboratories available; annual report publically available; information on data gathered by laboratories not public.
Thematic items of WAD	All OIE Members	Country level and aggregates	Annual report	Aggregate results of surveys available to public through reports by expert or OIE Secretariat.
OIE General Survey on Use of Anti-microbial agents	All OIE Members	Country level and aggregates	Annual report	Aggregate results of surveys available to public through reports by expert or OIE Secretariat.
Country Self-assessment on AMR action plan	All OIE Members	Few direct references to specific OIE standards	Every two years	All information publically available
Focal point seminars	All OIE Members	Diverse	Multi-annual cycle	Information mostly gathered for internal purposes; In some cases, aggregate results of surveys available to public through reports by expert or OIE Secretariat
Regional Conferences	All OIE Members	Country level and aggregates	Every two years	Aggregate results of surveys available to public through reports by expert or OIE Secretariat.
WTO notifications, STCs and TPRM	All WTO Members (majority of OIE Members)	Not systematic but some references to OIE Codes & Manuals	Continuously	All information available.
EU country profiles of EU Members	EU Member States	Not systematic but some references to OIE Codes & Manuals	Multi-annual cycle	All information available.
Source: Author’s own development on the basis of information in the current note.

Beyond the inherent limitations of standards covered, the information collected through existing internal OIE mechanisms pursue specific objectives, which largely differ from those of the Observatory. For example, WAHIS was set up as a mechanism to provide transparency on animal health disease status throughout OIE Members. The primary objective is therefore not to show a relation to a specific OIE standard. In the same way, the PVS Pathway gathers information on the quality of a given Member’s veterinary services and provides tailored support in improving these services. Therefore, while the different mechanisms provide information on implementation of OIE standards, there is no consistency and no comparability in the information collected. The country coverage is patchy and the frequency of information not regular.

To capitalise on the existing internal sources of information, the OIE Observatory will need to invest some resources in “cleaning”, standardising and gathering the information into comparable datasets. This involves broadening and systematising the information gathered through existing mechanisms to ensure some comparability of information across OIE Members – a sine qua non condition of any aggregation exercise. It will also involve clarifying the links with specific OIE standards – to allow for a connection with their implementation. Finally, some consolidation of information in a single source would be helpful to address its current fragmentation.

As underlined in this study, other international organisations, such as the WTO and the FAO, as well as regional organisations such as the European Commission, maintain information collection processes of relevance to the OIE. Building bridges with these data collections efforts will save on costs and may usefully complement existing OIE sources. For example, the FAO national legislation database FAOLEX is already used in certain cases as an information source in the conduct of PVS reviews, and can also feed into the monitoring efforts of the OIE Observatory in areas where there is a close relation between the scope of activities of the FAO and of the OIE. Similarly, WTO notifications allow identifying national measures that are related to OIE standards. The EU monitors its Member States measures related in particular to animal health. These information sources are public and can be easily accessed. However, these mechanisms do not specify the link with the precise OIE standards concerned. Therefore, to be able to rely on these mechanisms, the OIE Observatory will need to invest resources in clarifying this link.

To obtain detailed information on implementation, the OIE relies on data actively collected by the Secretariat (e.g. on-site missions for PVS evaluations; questionnaires developed for technical items), but also by Mandatory reporting by Members (e.g. WAHIS) as well as voluntary reporting by Members (e.g. official recognition of disease status, or self-declaration of disease status). In addition, Members are likely to collect further substantive information on areas of relevance to the OIE mandate for their domestic purposes. While over reliance on self-reported data may be problematic and raise quality and comparability issues, this could provide an additional (so far still untapped) valuable source of evidence for the OIE Observatory, which is likely “reliable” and sustainable (because it satisfies domestic needs and not only the OIE’s). A survey by the OIE, for example through a dedicated Technical item of the World Assembly of Delegates, may help identify relevant national mechanisms that could feed into the information collection objectives of the OIE Observatory.

Highlighting some key principles of how the Observatory will operate

Based on the core objectives and key remit of the Observatory, the OIE will need to define its main outputs, its organisation and resources, and the key principles underlying its functioning. Some comparison with existing initiatives, however different, may be helpful to identify the key points. In this perspective, Annex D provides comparative information across a number of IO monitoring initiatives, including:

• FAOLEX

• the Health Systems and Policy Monitor of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies

• WHO International Health Regulations Core Capacities Implementation Status

• the Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)

• ILO’s regular system of supervision, and

• the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council.

Key outputs of the Observatory

An “Observatory” goes beyond the sole practice of collecting data. It involves some consolidation of information in one location, on-site observation and transparency / publication of results. With this in mind, existing “Observatories” in other organisations deliver several types of outputs in order to fulfil their broad mandate. These may range from searchable online databases with information on national practice and/or legislation, to cross country reports on implementation by the Membership and individual country profiles. These forms of outputs are not exclusive from each other, and several IOs combine them.

Searchable online databases provide a user-friendly source of information about the monitoring of international instruments. These may take the form of thematic, national3 or crosscutting reports to searchable databases4 or interactive maps.5 They may include information about legislation, or on more factual status in a given country or region. The information made available can aim to facilitate access to the relevant legislation, as is the case for FAOLEX, or provides a more detailed overview of the level of implementation, as is the case for country profiles of the WHO International Health Regulations Core Capacities Implementation Status.6

The OIE Secretariat already makes information available on its website on the legislation in force in Member countries and on country disease status. Indeed, the PVS and VLSP tools gather information on legislation, and WAHIS gathers information on both disease status and control measures, and official recognition of disease status, endorsement of national official control programmes as well as self-declarations of disease status provide information on legislation and practices corresponding to specific OIE standards. Transparency is important for peer learning purposes, to test data and provide opportunities to other stakeholders (including civil society, academia, business interests) to comment and confirm or bring contradicting evidence. In turn, these inputs can feed into the monitoring and allow access to different perspectives.

The OIE Observatory could build on this information to prepare country profiles of legislation enacted by Members dealing with veterinary services, as gathered through the PVS pathway and VLSP exercises, and on disease status. This same information could be searchable by theme, disease, relevant OIE Code Chapter, country or region, in a central database. The online information could include basic links towards the relevant legislation with summaries in OIE Official languages, in the same form as in FAOLEX. Other disease status-related information, such as disease outbreaks or other related policy updates could be listed in a similar way as is the case for the country profiles of the European Health System and Policy Monitor.7 The level of detailed information on the database may be agreed upon together with Members. Members may be unwilling to have their “level” of implementation disclosed publically, as is for example the case for the WHO International Health Regulations Core Capacities Implementation Status. The OIE Observatory may therefore keep the information on the level of correspondence between national legislation and OIE standards for more analytical reports to be published in aggregates.

The analysis of the information is an essential complement to the collection of data. It allows understanding the significance of data and relating it back to the core objective of the Observatory, i.e. a better understanding of OIE standards’ implementation. Such analysis is routinely done by other international organisations. For example, the IPPC IRSS issues triennial implementation review reports that summarise the situation of the implementation of the Convention and its standards. In these reports, the focus is on assessments related to the IPPC standards. The information about country practices is disclosed in aggregates. The ILO Committee on the Application of Standards issues annual reports that include a general section on trends in the implementation of international labour standards, and sections detailing information on each Members’ implementation and the exchanges throughout the year between the Members and the relevant committees.

Governance model and operational modalities of the OIE Observatory

Given its remit, the OIE Observatory needs to be appropriately resourced and located strategically to support the Organisation’s strategic objectives. It should benefit from strong connection with existing data collection mechanisms and be able to influence the OIE’s standard-setting process. At the same time, should the Observatory’s role involve some elements of “scrutiny”, i.e. of assessing whether OIE standards remain fit for purpose or are adequately implemented by their constituency, this activity would be best carried out at a certain distance from those developing the standards in the first place. The location of the Observatory and its links with the various OIE bodies will depend ultimately on its core focuses and objectives.

In addition, to ensure its credibility, the OIE Observatory should be endowed with dedicated professional staff and entail close consultations with external stakeholders. The roles for and relations of the Observatory with existing OIE bodies (regional commissions, specialist commissions and the World Assembly of Delegates) need to be clarified. The allocation of responsibilities between the Observatory and OIE Members when it comes to data collection and use should be specified.

A governing body of the OIE Observatory could help align the scope and objectives of the Observatory with those of the Organisation at large. To ensure its broad and horizontal vision of the various thematic focuses and tools of the OIE, it could be located under the direct authority of the Director General. The OIE Observatory’s governing body would benefit from regular contact with external stakeholders that have information on the implementation of OIE standards, both to help the OIE Secretariat in the conduct of analytical work and to gain external insights on developments happening beyond the OIE.

Several IOs rely on independent experts and academics to support them in the analytical work, either in the actual development of surveys or in the conduct of analysis of the information gathered. The IPPC for instance hires external consultants for the design and development of surveys for the IRSS, in order to ensure their technical relevance and specificity. The ILO has set up a Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, composed of 20 eminent jurists appointed by the Governing Body for a three-year term, from different geographic regions, legal systems and cultures to provide an impartial and technical evaluation of the state of application of international labour standards in ILO Member States.

IOs consult with external stakeholders periodically to set the high-level agenda. For example, the European Health Observatory has a partnership with a number of stakeholders including international organisations, national governments, decentralised authorities and academia that participate in the European Health Observatory’s Steering Committee, which determines the Observatory’s strategic direction and scope of activities. Given the on-going strategic partnership of the OIE with the FAO, the WHO, the Codex and the WTO, these IOs could constitute, with others, an advisory board for the Observatory.

Members have a key role to play in providing relevant data, in involving domestic stakeholders to interact with the Observatory and in using the resulting analysis. Contact points in capitals could have a key role in following closely the work of the Observatory.

References

[4] Bucher, K., D. Tellechea and G. Mylrea (2019), “Safe trade of aquatic animals and aquatic animal products: exploring the use of OIE international standards for setting sanitary measures”, OIE Scientific and Technical Review, Vol. 38/2.

[2] OECD (2019), The Contribution of International Organisations to a Rule-Based International System, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/IO-Rule-Based%20System.pdf.

[1] OECD (2016), International Regulatory Co-operation: The Role of International Organisations in Fostering Better Rules of Globalisation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264244047-en.

[3] OECD/ISO (2016), The Case of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ISO_Full-Report.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2019).

Notes

← 1. www.oie.int/standard-setting/overview/oie-observatory/.

← 2. Resolution No. 36.

← 3. www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Documentation.aspx.

← 4. List of different searchable databases in the field of IP rights: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/tools-systems-and-resources

← 5. www.eublockchainforum.eu/initiative-map.

← 6. See WHO country profiles available at http://apps.who.int/gho/tableau-public/tpc-frame.jsp?id=1100.

← 7. See country profiles accessible here www.hspm.org/countries/france25062012/countrypage.aspx.