G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
5 December  2019 
(19-8381) Page: 1/12 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMEN T PROCEDURES:  
NATIONAL QUALITY INF RASTRUCTURE 1 
12 NOVEMBER 2019 , 15:00 -18:00 – 13 NOV EMBER  2019, 10:00 -13:00  
Moderator s' Report2  
The Moderator of the Thematic Session on Conformity Assessment Procedures: National Quality 
Infrastructure  delivered this Report  at the WTO TBT Committee 's meeting of  13-15 November 2019.  
 
_______________  
 
 
At the Eighth  Triennial Review, Members  agreed to continue to hold thematic session s in conjunction 
with regular meetings of the Committee , and to hold a session on conformity assessment procedures 
(CAP) in November 2019 with a  focus on National Quality Infrastructure  (NQI) .3 The pr ogramme for 
the thematic session  is contained in the Annex  of this report. The p resentations  summarized below  
are available through  the WTO website.4  
Guiding questions:5 
• What approaches exist for the development of NQI, including metrology, standardization, 
conformity assessment and accreditation?  
• How can Members encourage the use of NQI by their regulators, in order to avoid 
unnecessary barriers to trade?  
 
Panel 1: Accreditation  
1.1.  Mrs. Konny Sagala6 (Indonesia ) provided a presentation on Indonesia's experience on the 
use of accreditation as a basis for conformity assessment acceptance. She stressed that accreditation 
is an important tool for Indonesia to prove the confidence of conformity assessment result s in 
facilitating trade, both domestically and internationally. Mrs. Sagala described Indonesia's system 
for standardization (derived from Act number 20 of 2014). She noted that accreditation is a pre -
requisite requirement for the recognition of compliance of a r egulated product with Indonesian 
national standards, regulatory scheme for halal product and tourism services . Indonesia  faced a 
number of challenges, including: (i) the lack of acceptance of the conformity assessment results 
under the framework of IAF ILA C MRA;  and (ii) the fact that some private standards d o not recognize 
accreditation under the framework of IAF ILAC MRA. It was important, she stressed, that WTO 
Members take into account  accreditation for assuring reliable conformity assessment results to prove 
the compliance of the technical regulation. In this regard, accreditation under the framework of IAF 
ILAC MRA play s an important role in trade facilitation; hence, it was important  that WTO Members 
consider the use of this MRA/MLA for the acceptance  of products ' conformity assessment results . 
                                                
1 The final programme  was circulated  as G/TBT/GEN/272 . It is also in Annex I of this document.  
2 Mr. BI Zhonglin ( China) and Ms Lorena Rivera (Colombia) . This Report is provided on the Moderators ' 
own responsibility.  
3 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.iv, footnote 298 . 
4 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/thematic_session_cap_121119_e.htm . 
5 G/TBT/41 , para. 4.17.c.iv.  
6 Director of Implementation System for Standard and  Conformity Assessment, BSN . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2.  Mr. Andreas Steinhorst7 (European Union ) provided an overview of the European system for 
accreditation – as part of a national quality infrast ructure. He stressed, at the outset, that products 
benefiting from the free movement of goods within the EU need to fulfil requirements providing a 
high level of protection of public interests, including in areas such as health and safety – as well as 
protection of the environment. The European Accreditation (EA) System, based on Regulation (EC) 
No 765/2008 on Accreditation, is premised – among other things – on the principle of one national 
accreditation body per country and non -competition between nationa l accreditation bodies. As such 
it strengthens the use of accreditation in the EU as the last level in the conformity assessment chain 
and places an obligation on EU member States to accept results issued by the conformity assessment 
bodies accredited by a ny of the EA MLA signatories . In the discussion, it was noted that accreditation 
is important for confidence in international trade. In the case of the EU, regulators accept conformity 
assessment results from bodies accredited by an ILAC or IAF MRA/MLA sig natory if there is a 
government -to-government MRA or trade agreement in place which would take recourse to the ILAC 
and IAF agreements and provide for enhanced cooperation between the accreditors of the parties.  
1.3.  Eng. Hany El -Desouki8 (Egypt ) provided an ov erview of the Egyptian Accreditation Council 
(EGAC). The EGAC was established in 2008 and granted full independence as the sole accreditation 
body of Egypt; it was noted that international recognition by ILAC and IAF had been achieved, inter 
alia, for testing and calibration as well as medical laboratories, inspection bodies, certification bodies 
for management systems, product and personnel besides proficiency testing providers. EGAC also 
has several significant partnerships, including with the E A and the ISO.  Egypt's national quality  
infrastructure was also described.  
Panel 2: Metrology  
1.4.  Mr. Andy Henson9 (International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) ) provided an 
overview of a common international approach to Quality Infrastructure (QI) from  the perspective of 
the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures  (BIPM). The BIPM, it was explained, is the 
intergovernmental organization through which countries act together on matters related to 
measurement science, and measurement standards. Mr Henson  spoke about recent developments 
on QI in particular, and emphasized the new definition of "Quality Infrastructure"10 that had been 
developed by a number of organizations in 2017, and the launch, in November 2018, of the 
International Network on Quality Inf rastructure (INetQI) .11 Mr Henson stressed that in the broader 
context of QI, metrology is essential for supporting innovation, conformity assessment activities and 
consumer protection, as well as the work of regulators. Sound measurements are achieved by 
ensuring metrological traceability to internationally agreed standards with the appropriate 
measurement uncertainty.   
Panel 3: Standard ization  
1.5.  Ms Yukiko Kotani12 (Japan ) gave an overview of Japan's Quality Infrastructure. She explained 
that in 2014 a standardization program me for new market creation had been launched. It had been 
designed by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry to help companies develop standards to 
promote innovative products or technologies. She stressed that it was not intend ed to replace the 
current system but rather to give companies the alternative path to make standards. An example of 
how an SME could use this system was described. The benefits, i t was noted, were in the system's 
practicality – it was hoped that 100 standa rds would be developed through this new program me in 
2020.  
1.6.  Ms Leslie McDermott13 (United States ) gave an overview of standardization in the context of 
the US National Quality Infrastructure. She stressed that, compared to many other countries, the 
US system  is "bottom up" – i.e., standards users  drive standardization activities. She said that there 
are different tools for the development of globally relevant standards, ranging from "one -country -
                                                
7 Executive Secretary, European co -operation for Accreditation . 
8 Executive Director,  Egyptian Accreditation Council . 
9 Director of International Liaison and Communication Department, BIPM . 
10 https://www.inetqi.net/documents/quality -infrastructure/ . 
11 The following 12 international organizations are part of INetQI: BIPM, OIML, ILAC, IAF, ISO, IEC, ITU, 
ITC, UNIDO, UNECE, WBG and WTO . 
12 Japanese Standards Association Group . 
13 Director, International Development, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 3 - 
 
  one-vote" based on national participation (e.g., ISO, IEC); dire ct participation (e.g., ASTM, ASME); 
and, consortia driven standards. All of these types of standards are applied in the US market, with 
users selecting the tool that best fit s their needs. In the US view, standards need to meet societal 
and market needs a nd not be developed to act as barriers to trade. Ms McDermott stressed that the 
US system endorses the principles developed by the TBT Committee on international standards, and 
ANSI accreditation of standards developers reflects these principles. Essential ly, the US system is a  
public -private partnership. Its activities are a mix of government (regulatory program mes) and 
private sector (market -based program mes). As such the system is flexible, supports a broad range 
of stakeholders and is well positioned to  address emerging priorities and new technologies.   
1.7.  Mr. Gonçalo Ascensão14 (European Union)  gave an overview of the role of standards in 
quality infrastructure in the European Union. Mr. Ascensão said that the network of CEN & CENELEC  
include s more than 200 thousand experts and cover s several business sectors. Many topics are 
covered by this work , including environment and smart technologies. He stressed that standards 
developed by CEN and CENELEC: (i) are based on the national delegation principle; (ii) represent a 
consensus among all interested parties, including industry & SMEs and societal sta keholders; (iii) 
are voluntary; (iv) are developed by independent organizations clearly distinct from authorities; and, 
(v) are in compliance with the TBT Agreement. He recalled that the European standardization model 
meant that standards are identical acr oss member States, and that there is an obligation to withdraw 
conflicting national standards. There are about 4,000 harmonized standards listed in the Official 
Journal of the European Union. The ultimate goal – it was stressed – is to have identical Europ ean 
and international standards. To this effect, 33% of all CEN standards are identical to those of the 
ISO and 73% of all CENELEC are identical to those of the IEC ( with an additional 6% based on those 
of the IEC).  
Panel 4: Conformity Assessment Procedure s 
1.8.  Mr. Adam Dubas15 (New Zealand)  provided an overview on the use of the "regulatory 
stewardship approach" underpinning how New Zealand manages and develops its National Quality 
Infrastructure (NQI) and its regulatory systems. He explained that a "regulatory  stewardship 
approach" encapsulates ways to "look after" a regulatory system in terms of: (i)  using a whole -of-
system, collaborative approach; (ii)  monitoring and regularly reviewing regulatory systems; 
(iii) carrying out robust analysis for any regulatory  change and supporting its implementation; and 
(iv) using Good Regulatory Practice (GRP). The ultimate end result of applying such an approach, 
he said, are optimal regulations that better cater for the wellbeing of New Zealand's population. This 
also carr ies a second beneficial consequence: the reduction of regulations constituting unnecessary 
barriers to trade. Mr. Dubas also illustrated the benefits of using this approach with a case study on 
how using this approach for reviewing its "conformance infrast ructure" led to the development of 
New Zealand's "Conformance System Strategy"16, which is based on four focus areas:  organisational 
performance (more coordination among NQI bodies); regulatory quality and practice (using GRP for 
CAPs); partnerships for ski lls and value (use technologies and more NQI workforce training); and 
international connections (more CAP international cooperation). Ultimately, he concluded, this work 
demonstrated New Zealand's commitment to the three internationally recognized categori es of GRP: 
(i) internal government coordination of rulemaking activity; (ii)  regulatory impact assessment (RIA); 
and (iii)  public consultation mechanisms.   
1.9.  Ms Jennifer Evans17 (Australia ) presented a case study for illustrating the way Australia 
successfully matches CAPs with NQI capacity. In 2002 the Australian government put in place a new 
energy efficiency strategy for reducing energy consumption of electronic and electrical appliances 
while switched  off or in standby mode to a maximum of 1  Watt. The policy objective was reducing 
both greenhouse gas emissions as well as consumer energy costs (estimated to be up to 10% of 
electricity bill). The actual case study started in 2007, with a lab  wishing to gain NATA (National 
Association of Testing Authorities) accreditation for the measurement of standby powe r (a very low 
level of power). NATA, in turn, had to find expertise for performing such assessment. This was 
however made difficult because  one of the Australian standards for measuring standby (and thus 
                                                
14 Manufacturing, Standardization & Digital Solutions, European Committee for Standardization (CEN) - 
European Committee for Electrotechnical S tandardization (CENELEC) . 
15 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment . 
16 The New Zealand "Conformance System Strategy " and more information are available at: 
www.mbie.govt.nz/conformance . 
17 CEO, Nat ional Association of Testing Authorities, Australia.  G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 4 - 
 
  very low) power had a photograph of a measur ing instrument that was not actually capable of 
performing such a task. Another challenge was that instrument calibration at low power levels was 
not available in Australia at that time. The core problem was measuring modern equipment, which 
often contain electronics that distort the supply current. This meant that instruments for measuring 
standby power must have the ability to measure highly distor ted waveforms and at very low wattage. 
In response, Australia NQI had to develop new measurement capabilities in order to meet those 
energy efficiency policy objectives set by the Australian government in 2002. To this end: (i)  NATA 
developed additional te chnical expertise to deal with unfamiliar aspects of the testing; (ii)  standards 
underwent review and amendment; (iii)  CABs (laboratories) acquired suitable instrumentation; and 
(iv) the National Measurement Institute developed calibration capability. For her, the following key 
lessons could be drawn from this case study: early and ongoing policy coordination with NQI bodies 
can avoid a mismatch between the regulatory objective and conformity assessment capabilities; and 
the importance of engaging in early cooperation and coordination between NQI bodies to resolve 
issues about national capabilities. Additionally, what was learned by the NQI from the standby power 
issues was also beneficial later for new similar situations (e.g. measurement issues around 
developments in LED lighting). In conclusion, she said that the lessons learned can be summed -up 
as follows: " your NQI is an invaluable resource: consult early, consult often, and consult 
collaboratively ". 
1.10.   Mr. André Iwasa18 (Brazil) made a presentation on the n ew conformity assessment (CA) 
framework for telecommunications products in Brazil (October 2019). He started by providing an 
overview of the previous framework, established under Resolution 242 of November 2000, adopted 
by ANATEL (Brazil's National Telecom munications Agency, created in 1997). This framework was 
mainly based on type  approval/certification, with priority for accredited third -party laboratories 
(declaration of conformity was allowed only in exceptional cases). Telecom products were divided 
into three categories: first , equipment directly used by consumers; second , equipment emitting 
radiofrequency but not used directly by consumers ; and third , all equipment not included in the first 
and second categories. However, as a result of important devel opments in the ICT environment  
(high demand for connected devices, fast growth in equipment approvals and new connectivity ways 
such as 5G and IoT), a new framework was needed. To this end, in 2017 ANATEL started public 
consultations and sought proposals f rom stakeholders, eventually resulting in the adoption in 
October  2019 of the new framework under Resolution 715/2019. The main changes and 
improvements made were: (i)  elimination of the homologation fee  (thus representing a reduction of 
barriers for certi fication); (ii)  revision of CAPs  (thus providing more flexibility  by allowing the 
technical area to define which CA model would be more appropriate for each product type, a decision 
to be also based on a risk analysis); and (iii)  a new model of market surv eillance : while ANATEL 
would be responsible for issuing operational procedures detailing market surveillance requirements, 
all market surveillance costs would be the responsibility of the certificate owners.  
Panel 5: NQI systems  
1.11.   Ms Jo -Anne Beharry19 (Trinid ad and Tobago ) presented the steps her country is taking, and 
the challenge it is facing to strengthen its NQI, in particular when carrying out the following three 
initiatives: (i)  "National Quality Policy " (NQP) ; (ii) "Regional Initiatives"; and (iii) promoting 
"stakeholder engagement". Regarding the NQP, she referred to the four key components of Trinidad 
and Tobago's new NQP Implementation Plan: Component 1  - formation of governance bodies: 
Quality Councils, Pro ject oversite offices; Component 2  - review of legislation to clearly define 
mandates, avoid overlaps and address regulatory gaps; Component 3  - address institutional 
strengthening: e empowerment of institutions and capacity building; and Component 4  - building a 
"quality conscious society". Regarding "Regional Initiatives", she mentioned the work of the CROSQ  
("CARICOM Regional Organization for Standards and Quality") in coordinating approaches to QI 
development at the regional level, taking advantage of na tional competencies. Regarding 
"stakeholder engagement", she underscored the importance of promoting various forms of 
engagement, both prior to, as well as during, regulatory implementation. She also noted that the 
various thematic sessions during the national launching of the NQP, in early November, was actively 
attended by many high -level participants. She concluded by listing various key lessons learned from 
this process. First, in the absence of a policy, the infrastructure may be developed in an ad hoc  
manner and may not relate to national development priorities. Second, a robust gap analysis of the 
system would be needed: if legislative roles were to be clearly defined; or for avoiding overlap of 
                                                
18 Process Coordinator, National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) . 
19 Standards Officer III, Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 5 - 
 
  responsibilities; or for establishing a baseline for mon itoring and evaluation. Third, regional 
initiatives are useful for supporting buy -in at the national level. Fourth, funding mechanisms should 
be identified for implementation. And lastly, governments should champion initiatives to foster 
buy-in and engage stakeholders by relating the  NQP to their specific areas of interest.   
1.12.   Mr. WANG Yunsong20 (China ) started his presentation on China's QI, listing the two sets of 
elements supporting it:  policies  (the "Quality Development Outline (2011 -2020)", the "Guidance on 
Launching Quality Improvement Actions", and the "Guidance on Strengthening the Construction of 
the Quality Certification System and Promoting Comprehensive Quality Management") and laws and 
regulations (the "Product Quality" and "Metrology" laws, and the "Regulations on Certification and 
Accreditation"). He then gave an overview of China's QI institutional and technical settings, which 
has the "State Administration for Market Regulation" (SAM R) on the top and, under it,  the following 
four quality and technical institution at the national  level: (i)  "National Institute of Metrology" (NIM), 
"China National Institute of Standardization" (CNIS), "China National Accreditation Service for 
Conformity  Assessment" (CNAS), and "China Quality Certification Center" (CQC). He then gave a 
detailed explanation of various aspects of China's QI, including with respect to: the development 
and adoption of national standards; the designation of certification bodie s; and the work of 
inspection and testing institutions. He, in turn, presented the recent reform of China's QI and 
regulatory frameworks, the purpose of which was: to streamline the organization, simplify 
procedures, improve operational efficiency, reduce enterprise burdens, improve the business 
environment, support trade development, promote industrial upgrading, and protect the public 
interest. Key changes resulting from this reform included: improvements of the top -level design of 
quality policy, improve ments in metrology and standardization practices and procedures, 
enhancements of cooperative services for quality infrastructure, and advancement of reform and 
innovation of market regulation. He then concluded offering the following three suggestions to t he 
WTO: (i) adopting relevant guidelines to clarify the concepts, components, basic principles, policy 
framework, status and role of QI; (ii)  more active participation in international exchanges and 
cooperation in the field of QI; and (iii)  conduct in -depth discussions on various TBT -related law 
enforcement measures to promote information exchanges and cooperation in the field of market 
surveillance.  
1.13.   Ms. Sanem Yıldız21 (Turkey)  presented the Legal, Implementation  and Inspection  
dimensions of Turkey's NQI. Sh e explained that the main structure was established upon the Legal  
dimension and that there were two basic tenets underlying the legal infrastructure : the WTO and 
the Customs Union (CU) between EU and Turkey. As  a member of the WTO since 1995, Turkey has 
had full faith in the benefits of free trade, abiding by WTO rules and its reflection in the TBT and SPS 
Agreements regarding technical legislation. She said that the other significant reference point of 
Turkey's technical legislation is the CU, which cover s trade in manufactured products. Decision No 
1/95 of the EC -Turkey Association Council, on implementing the CU's final phase, provided for 
Turkey's obligation to incorporate the Union's instruments related to the removal of technical barriers 
to trade int o its internal legal order. Other important legal instruments were: (i)  the Association 
Council Decision 2/97 (laying down the list of the Union's legal instruments, including part of the 
"acquis" on industrial products related to the removal of technical barriers to trade and the conditions 
and arrangements governing their implementation by Turkey, as updated by the 2014 "procedural 
guidelines") and; (ii)  the Association Council Decision 1/2006 (providing for the assignment of 
Turkish conformity assessment  bodies and recognition of the test reports and certificates issued by 
those in Turkey). With respect to the Implementation  dimension, she stated that standardization 
was a key element to pushing  up exporting capacities and ensuring effectiveness as a way of 
reducing costs by minimizing waste and errors. Turkish Standards Institute became a full member 
of CEN/CENELEC in 2012 a nd 98% of its standards were harmonized with EU standards. She also 
described various improvements regarding Turkey's rules on CABs (in Turkey, there were about 
1782 accredited CABs) as well as on Metrology and Accreditation. The Turkish Accreditation Agen cy, 
she said, was a full member of ILAC and IAF as well as European co -operation for Accreditation. She 
also highlighted the many changes and improvements between Turkey's 1995 NQI framework  and 
the current one (2019), in terms of how they regulated accred itation, standardization, CAPs and 
metrology. With respect to Inspection , the third and last dimension, she referred to: (i) the import 
and export controls of various product groups carried out by Turkey's Trade Ministry through the 
"Risk-Based Trade Contr ol System (TAREKS)"; various aspects of Turkey's system for market 
surveillance (carried out by nine different public authorities, under the coordination of the Ministry 
                                                
20 Deputy Director General of Quality Development Bureau, State Administration for Market Regulation . 
21 Senior Trade Expert , Ministry of Trade . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 6 - 
 
  of Trade); and (iii) awareness -raising work undertaken in the areas of product safety,  market 
surveillance and conformity assessment project. She also gave an overview of Turkey's "Technical 
Cooperation Agreements", which aimed to remove technical barriers to trade and promote 
unhindered market access for its exporters. Finally, in conclusi on, she expressed the view that 
having a functional quality infrastructure at international level was crucial for the elimination of 
technical barriers to trade. Turkey, she said, was ready to extend its efforts to realize cooperative 
activities with the a im of exchanging information and experience on technical legislation, facilitate 
the solution of technical barriers to trade, and provide a basis to develop technical cooperation 
between the parties' bodies responsible for standardization, accreditation an d metrology.  
1.14.   Mr. Matías Bernocco22 (Argentina)  provided an overview of Argentina 's new National Quality 
System .23 
1.15.   Mr. Warren Merkel24 (United States)  presented an overview of the NQI in the United States, 
which follows a market -based approach. The US encourag es communication and competence in the 
use of NQI by US regulators, in order to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
1.16.   Metrology was recognized as vital for economic success in the United States 231 years ago, 
when fixing the standards of weights and measure s was included in the US constitution. NIST is the 
US national metrology institute, and it communicates and collaborates actively with regional 
metrology organizations and the BIPM. While policy makers often overlook the need for sound 
metrological infrast ructure, gaps therein undermine further activities of the QI and require significant 
resources and time to address.   
1.17.   Standardization in the US is market -driven and private sector led, supported by a 
longstanding public -private partnership between NIST and ANSI. The National  Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA ) and the Office of Management and Budget Circular A119 set 
out obligations for government use of voluntary consensus standards, and assign NIST to coordinate 
with the private sector,  and cooperate with other stakeholders (public, private, other governments, 
international organizations and private organizations) in setting standards. As part of the 
Interagency Committee on Standards Policy, Standards Executives in federal agencies are a key 
channel of communication on the latest developments in standardization and provide access to the 
appropriate competence when regulators within an agency are considering standards -related issues.  
1.18.   The US has a wide range of private sector conformity a ssessment bodies, and government 
policy is to use private sector conformity assessment where possible  and consistent with policy 
objectives. The NTTAA also calls on NIST to coordinate conformity assessment activities, to eliminate 
unnecessary duplication and complexity. However, the inherent complexity of conformity 
assessment poses challenges for regulato ry agencies developing conformity assessment 
programmes, as they must quickly access the required competence in the public or private sector. 
NIST provides support, practical information and guidance through the "NIST Special Publication 
2000-2, Conformity  Assessment Considerations for Federal Agencies".  
1.19.   Accreditation in the US also follows a market -based approach – there are seven US 
accreditation bodies that are signatories to the ILAC and/or IAF arrangements (six of which are 
private).  Many of these accreditation bodies are sector -specific and predate the ILAC/IAF 
arrangements. They provide effective, timely and relevant access to accreditation, which underpins 
commerce in the US.  
1.20.   One key challenge is communication and awareness on QI t hroughout government, and with 
the actual regulatory decision makers. A second challenge is ensuring that appropriate competence 
on QI is available and engaged by regulators in the development of technical regulations.  
1.21.   Mr. Alfredo Sitoe25 (Mozambique)  provided an overview on Mozambique's technical 
assistance needs in the area of quality infrastructure. Mr Sitoe gave an overview of Mozambique and 
the work of his country's national standards body, Instituto Nacional de Normalização e Qualidade  – 
                                                
22 Director of Technical Regulations and Quality Promotion . 
23 G/TBT/GEN/270 . 
24 Chief of Standards Services, Standards Coordination Office, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) . 
25 Director, Instituto Nacional de Normalização e Qualid ade (INNOQ) . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 7 - 
 
  INNOQ , a publi c institution created in 1993 under the supervision of the Minister of Industry and 
Trade with responsibilities in the area of standardization, metrology, certification, testing and 
inspection. Mr. Sitoe provided an overview of Mozambique's National Qualit y System Act (2018) and 
emphasized his country's need for technical assistance to effectively implement the Act, and to 
support demands from clients for accredited services in Metrology, Certification, Testing and 
Inspection.  In particular, there was a nee d, in the area of certification for: (i) training of 60 auditors; 
and (ii)  consultancy to design certification schemes  for products such as Soja, Tea, Bananas, 
Sesame, Peanuts, Tobacco, Peas, Macadamia, Maize, Cassava, Beans, Cotton and related products,  
including  "Global Good agricultural practices" (Global GAP) and organic certification. With respect to 
testing and inspection there was need for: (i) training of 20 technicians for testing and inspection; 
and (ii) equipment for testing (Chemical and Microbi ology) and inspection Labs. For metrology, there 
was a need for: (i) the training of 38 technicians in diverse fields; (ii) reference standards for 
verification of gas flow totalizers, ovens, digital readers, thermocouples, calibrators of gas flow, 
tempera ture meters, digital thermometers, climatic chamber, mass standards, standards for length, 
pressure, electrical, large volumes, strength. In addition, there was a need for technical assistance 
on accreditation with respect to management systems and product s, testing and inspection, and 
calibration of measuring instruments in various fields.  
1.22.   Léa Contier26 (Brazil)  described the background and organization of Brazil's National Quality 
Infrastructure. The Brazilian Association of Technical Standards ( ABNT ) is the sole standardisation 
body in Brazil, while the National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology ( INMETRO ) is 
responsible for legal and scientific metrology, including through the Brazilian Network for Legal 
Metrology and Quality. The INMETRO Coo rdenação Geral de Acreditação ( CGCRE ) is responsible for 
accreditation. Brazil's current product safety regulatory system is quite heavy and prescriptive, 
cover s only 12% of products, and is not aligned with international best practices, leading to low 
performance. The new regulatory model for products under the scope of INMETRO aims at increasing 
product coverage and performance, with reduced bureaucracy, greater resource efficiency, 
simplification and flexibility. It will include a General Regulation, and  transverse regulations for 
specific risks or product groups, with a focus on problem solving through a monitoring strategy. A 
public call for comments was notified in July 201927, and the development of the General Regulation 
is expected in 2020.  
Panel 6: Regional approaches to QI  
1.23.   Mr. Sbu Khumalo28 (South Africa)  described how quality infrastructure supports cooperation 
in the SADC  (South African Development Community) region on the development and 
implementation of technical regulations. The mandate is deri ved from the TBT Annex to the SADC 
Protocol on Trade and the relevant regional structures include, SADC Technical Regulations Liaison 
Committee ( SADCTRLC ). The SADCTRLC approach to cooperation on technical regulations is 
approximation of technical relation s to determine equivalence and hence accepting of each other 's 
conformity assessment results. This involves technical comparison of SADC members' national 
legislation in a specific sector to determine convergences and divergences. Aspects for comparison 
during approximation include: features of the legislation (name, type, enforcer, and responsible 
institutions), administrative provisions, legal or provisional requirements, conformity assessments 
procedures, and technical requirements.  The process entails a cknowledging each other 's technical 
regulations and where divergences are causing trade problems, the SADCTRLC provides the platform 
for discussion and cooperation thereof at SADC member states level.  The approximated technical 
regulations are on cement an d fish and fishery products, conformity assessment procedures, 
amongst others, while proposed projects covered sectors such as transportation, energy efficiency 
of electrotechnical products and labelling of wine. Some lessons learned were on the importance  of 
information sharing and transparency, understanding similarities in the use of standards, and 
managing differences in conformity assessment procedures. However, there are differences on 
conformity assessment procedures in the SADC region which  subject countries to double testing and 
non-acceptance of accredited test reports. The proposal is that further discussions and possible 
guidelines on conformity assessment procedures at the WTO level is sought.    
                                                
26 National Institute of Metrology Standardization and Industrial Quality (Inmetro) . 
27 G/TBT/N/BRA/890 . 
28 Deputy Director, Technical Infrastructure of the Indu strial Development Division of the Department of 
Trade and Industry of South Africa.  G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.24.   Ms Mere Falemaka29 (Vanuatu/Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat) gave an overview of the 
three components of the 2003 -2007 Pacific Regional Trade Facilitation Program ( RTFP), namely 
customs strengthening, biosecurity, and standards and conformance ( S&C). Studies as part of the  
RTFP highlighted the low to non -existent level of development of S&C among Pacific Island Countries 
(PICs) (notably only Fiji and Papua New Guinea have QI institutions and systems in place) and called 
for a regional approach.  Despite the recommendations o f the RTFP, work on S&C did not progress 
for a variety of reasons, including the lack of awareness as to the benefits of a QI system, high costs 
of QI investment, limited expertise, lack of regional institutions, and the nature of PICs trade being 
predomin antly raw and semi -processed products. As of 2019, the trading environment of PICs had 
evolved towards more diverse exports (value -added, processed goods) whilst consumers became 
more demanding on quality and standards. Nevertheless, QI development in PICs  has remained low, 
despite instances of non -compliance with standards hindering trade, which represents a missed 
opportunity to facilitate exports. In order to improve this situation and enhance international 
competitiveness, the promotion of a culture of quality through QI systems was deemed a priority, 
based on the nature of trade of each PIC, and via the incremental establishment of pathways for 
those lacking physical infrastructure. In order to determine the way forward, a Pacific Regional QI 
Workshop w as held in September 2019. The objectives of workshop included a stock -take of QI 
systems in PICs, experience sharing and the promotion of institutional partnerships on QI. The 
workshop bore several outcomes: (i) a Regional Quality Statement, committing PI Cs to develop QI 
systems; (ii) establishment of a network of national QI focal points; and (iii) development of a 
Regional Quality Policy and Concept Note to outline the Pacific QI Strategy, to be endorsed by Forum 
Trade Ministers in February 2020.  
1.25.   Ms Ilea na Martinez30 (United States) provided some background to the creation of the 
Quality Infrastructure Council of the Americas ( QICA), explaining that in 2011 the countries of the 
region of the Americas understood the need to have access to internationally re cognized QI services 
to foster competitiveness, innovation, trade, and consumer safety. The key elements of a quality 
infrastructure were identified as standards development, accreditation and metrology, because of 
their complementary and mutually supporti ve nature. This process led to the creation of QICA in 
2014, signed by leaders of the three regional IQ organizations ( COPANT31 – standardization, IAAC32 
– accreditation, and SIM33 – scientific and legal metrology). The main goals of QICA are the 
strengthenin g of each country's NQI, promotion of the importance of QI services, collaboration and 
information sharing among peers at the national level, organization of regional and national 
activities, and cross -functional training. Indeed, QICA has participated in awareness -raising 
activities, promotion of co -operation among national members, and provision of training across 
standardization, accreditation and metrology. More specifically, to better reach regulators, QICA 
initiated a programme of outreach in 2017 in smaller, more informal settings, allowing open dialogue 
among regulators/stakeholders and their national QI institutions. QICA will continue to raise 
awareness of NQI, and design more effective mechanisms to determine the needs of stakeholders 
and demonstr ate how QI services can meet those goals.  
COMMENT BY MODERATOR S 
1.26.   On a personal note, the Moderator s made the following remarks.   
1.27.   This thematic session explored the four main pillars of the quality infrastructure: accreditation, 
metrology, standards and conformity assessment procedures – and how they support one another. 
We discussed how these pillars function cohesively within an NQI system, its importance for trade 
facilitation, as well as regional efforts to cooperate on this area.  
1.28.   I would say that Nat ional Quality Infrastructure resembles a delicate ecosystem, where 
different actors and elements have a unique role and at the same time coexist and mutually 
complement each other.  
                                                
29 Permanent Representative and Ambassador, Permanent Delegation of the Pacific Islands Forum to the 
United Nations, WTO and Other International Organisations in Geneva . 
30 Principal, Standards, Accreditation and Trade Advisors, representing QICA . 
31 The Pan American Standards Commission . 
32 The Inter American Accreditation Cooperation.  
33 The Inter -American Metrology System . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.29.   Accreditation  is the highest level of confidence in the NQI chain. Members shared the efforts 
of the accreditation bodies to cooperate regionally and globally through ILAC/IAF MRA/MLA. 
Presentations underlined the importance of further promoting the mutual acceptance of accreditation 
and conformity assessment results from accredi ted conformity assessment bodies at international, 
regional and bilateral level.  
1.30.   On the other hand, Metrology  is essential for supporting innovation, conformity assessment 
activities and consumer protection, as well as the work of regulators. Sound measure ments are 
achieved by ensuring metrological traceability to internationally agreed standards with the 
appropriate measurement uncertainty.  
1.31.   A range of standardization  approaches are used to support the NQI, and speakers 
highlighted the importance of coheren ce with international standards, public -private partnerships, 
and broad stakeholder representation in standards development, including participation of SMEs.  
1.32.   Members shared case studies of conformity assessment  in specific sectors and highlighted 
the impor tance of applying good regulatory practices, such as public consultation and reviewing 
performance over time. Coordination between and amongst NQI bodies and regulators was 
important to ensure that regulatory objectives can be effectively met through natio nal technical 
capacities.  
1.33.   Through the sessions, we heard about several different NQI systems , and reforms and 
progress of these systems. Several points were mentioned , including: the importance of national 
legal and policy frameworks for governance of the QI; the need for stakeholder engagement and 
communication; and the role of market surveillance in the QI. We also discussed the need for 
sustained demand -driven technical assistance to support NQI improvement in developing and least -
developed countries.  
1.34.   Regional cooperation on QI  can help by pooling resources, promoting alignment of national 
regulatory approaches using QI, and information sharing and collaboration to facilitate trade. 
Challenges can arise with respect to differences amongst regional partner s in terms of diverse levels 
of NQI development, and lack of awareness of QI including amongst regulators.  
1.35.   In our view, this was a very rich session, with many important insights worthy of further 
reflection. There was some discussion about next steps in t he Committee to follow up. There was a 
suggestion that the Committee consider the principles and policy frameworks of QI. Another idea 
was for the Committee to study specific trade concerns  related to conformity assessment procedures, 
to better understand the types of procedures that most frequently give rise to concern. We notice 
that Members have showed strong common interests on NQI and believe there is scope for further 
work in this area. In this regard, we look forward to fruitful discussions in the Co mmittee.   
_______________  
 
  
 
 G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 10 - 
 
  ANNEX  
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMEN T PROCEDURES:  
NATIONAL QUALITY INF RASTRUCTURE  
12 NOVEMBER 2019 , 15:00 -18:00 – 13 NOV EMBER  2019, 10:00 -13:00  
Programme1 
At the Eighth Triennial Review, Members agreed to continue to hold thematic sessions in conjunction 
with its regular meetings during 2019 to 2021, with a view to further deepening the Committee's 
exchange of experiences on spe cific topics, and to hold a session on conformity assessment 
procedures (CAP) in November 2019 with a  focus on: National Quality Infrastructure  (NQI) .2 
 
_______________  
 
 
This thematic session  will be  moderated by:  Mr. BI Zhonglin (China) and Ms Lorena  Rivera 
(Colombia)  
 
Guiding q uestions:3 
• What approaches exist for the development of  NQI, including metrology, standardization, 
conformity assessment  and accreditation?  
• How can Members  encourage the use of NQI by  their regulators , in order to avoid 
unnecessary barriers to trade ? 
 
Speakers are invited to make presentations not exceeding 15 minutes.  
 
Panel 1: Accreditation  
a. Indonesia : Indonesia's experience on the use of Accreditation as a basis for conformity 
assessment acceptance , Mrs. Konny Sagala, Director of Implementation System for 
Standard and Conformity Assessment, BSN .  
b. European Union : Overview of the system for accreditation in the EU as part of National 
Quality Infrastructure , Mr. Andreas Steinhorst, Executive Secretary, European co -
operation for Accreditation.  
c. Egypt : Outline and brief on quality infrastructure development in Egypt , Eng. Hany El -
Desouki , Executive Director,  and Eng. Mohamed Abdelhalim , Head of International 
Relations Department , Egyptian Accreditation Council . 
Panel 2: Metrology  
a. International Bureau of Weights and Measures  (BIPM) : A common international 
approach to Quality Infrastructure – recent developments ", Mr. Andy Henson, Director of 
International Liaison and Communication Department, BIPM . 
Panel 3: Standard ization  
a. Japan : Standardization Process in Japan's Quality Infrastructure , Ms Yukiko Kotani, 
Japanese Standards Association Group.  
                                                
1 The d raft programme is contained in JOB/TBT/342/Rev.1 . 
2 G/TBT/41 , para. 8.2.a.iv, footnote 298; JOB/TBT/273/Rev.5 , para. 2.2.a.  
3 G/TBT/41 , para. 4.17.c.iv.  G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 11 - 
 
  b. United States : Standardization in the United States National Quality Infrastructure , Ms 
Leslie McDermott, Director, International Development, American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI).  
c. European Union : The role of standards in Quality Infrastructure , Mr. Gonçalo Ascen são, 
Manufacturing, Standardization & Digital Solutions, European Committee for 
Standardization (CEN) - European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization 
(CENELEC) . 
Panel 4: Conformity Assessment Procedures  
a. New Zealand : The Approach to conformity ass essment – the New Zealand experience , 
Mr. Adam Dubas, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.  
b. Australia : Matching conformity assessment procedures with NQI capacity – a case study 
in energy efficiency regulation , Ms Jennifer Evans, CEO, National A ssociation of Testing 
Authorities, Australia.  
c. Brazil : New conformity assessment framework for telecommunications products in Brazil , 
Mr. André Mota de Abreu Iwasa, Process Coordinator, National Telecommunications 
Agency (ANATEL).  
Panel 5: NQI systems  
a. Trinidad and Tobago : Steps in the Strengthening of the Quality Infrastructure - A 
Developing Country Perspective , Ms Jo -Anne Beharry, Standards Officer III, Trinidad and 
Tobago Bureau of Standards.  
b. China : China's quality infrastructure , Mr. WANG Y unsong, Deputy Director General of 
Quality Development Bureau, State Administration for Market Regulation . 
c. Turkey : Quality Infrastructure in Turkey , Ms. Sanem Yıldız, Senior Trade Expert , Ministry 
of Trade .  
d. Argentina : Regulatory Strategy of the Argentine Republic. The new National Quality 
System – the role of the Technical Regulators Commission and the harmonization of 
conformity assessment procedures. Presentation on Argentina's experience in the use of 
international standards as a tool to access internat ional markets , Mr. Matías Bernocco, 
Director of Technical Regulations and Quality Promotion.4 
e. United States : National Quality Infrastructure of the United States , Mr. Warren Merkel, 
Chief of Standards Services, Standards Coordination Office, National Insti tute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST).  
f. Mozambique : INNOQ's technical assistance needs , Mr. Alfredo Sitoe, Director, Instituto 
Nacional de Normalização e Qualidade  (INNOQ).  
g. Brazil : The Brazilian National Quality Infrastructure: an overview and recent 
developments , Léa Contier , National Institute of Metrology Standardization and Industrial 
Quality (Inmetro) . 
Panel 6: Regional approaches  to QI  
a. South Africa : Southern African Development Community (SADC) Quality Infrastructure 
in relation to coopera tion to demonstrate equivalence of technical regulations in the SADC 
Region , Mr. Innocent Sbu Khumalo, Deputy Director, Technical Infrastructure of the 
Industrial Development Division of the Department of Trade and Industry of South Africa.  
                                                
4 G/TBT/GEN/270 . G/TBT/GEN/278  
 
- 12 - 
 
  b. Vanuatu : Region al Quality Infrastructure: The Pacific experience, Ms Mere Falemaka , 
Permanent Representative and Ambassador, Permanent Delegation of the Pacific Islands 
Forum to the United Nations, WTO and Other International Organisations in Geneva.  
c. United States : Regional Perspective on NQI , Ms Ileana Martinez, Principal, Standards, 
Accreditation and Trade Advisors, representing Quality Infrastructure Council of the 
Americas (QICA).  
__________