The engineer under FDIC's conditions of contract for construction

FIDIC has over the years produced standard forms of contracts for the international procurement of projects. A source of continuing criticism of its Red Book concerns the duality in the traditional role of the engineer as the employer's agent and as an independent third party holding the balance fairly between the employer and the contractor. In response to this and other criticisms FIDIC produced a replacement for it in 1999. The role of the engineer under the new Red Book is critically examined in the light of relevant case law, expert commentaries and feedback from two multidisciplinary workshops with international participation. The examination identified three major changes: (1) a duty to act impartially has been replaced by a duty to make fair determination of certain matters; (2) it is open to parties to allow greater control of the engineer by the employer by stating in the appropriate part of the contract powers the engineer must not exercise without the employer's approval; (3) there is provision for a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) to which disputes may be referred. Although the duality has not been eliminated completely, the contract is structured flexibly enough to support those who wish to contract on the basis of the engineer acting solely as the agent of the employer.

The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foods

Three main changes to current risk analysis processes are proposed to improve their transparency, openness, and accountability. First, the addition of a formal framing stage would allow interested parties, experts and officials to work together as needed to gain an initial shared understanding of the issue, the objectives of regulatory action, and alternative risk management measures. Second, the scope of the risk assessment is expanded to include the assessment of health and environmental benefits as well as risks, and the explicit consideration of economic- and social-impacts of risk management action and their distribution. Moreover approaches were developed for deriving improved information from genomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling methods and for probabilistic modelling of health impacts for risk assessment purposes. Third, in an added evaluation stage, interested parties, experts, and officials may compare and weigh the risks, costs, and benefits and their distribution. As part of a set of recommendations on risk communication, we propose that reports on each stage should be made public.