G/TBT/GEN/155  
 
4 November 2013  
(13-6093)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original: English  
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 
29 OCTOBER 2013 
Chairman's Report1 
This statement was delivered by the Chairman  of the WTO TBT Committee at the meeting of 
30-31 October 2013.   
 
_______________ 
   
1.  At the Sixth Triennial Review, the Committee agreed to hold a thematic session on Conformity 
Assessment Procedures in response to specific decisions and recommendations contained in past and present triennial review reports.
2 During the Session, Members, and other organizations, 
shared experiences on Conformity Assessment Proc edures, including in the areas of international 
standards, guides and recommendations, facilitat ing the recognition of conformity assessment 
results, and approaches to conformity assessment. The final programme containing the names and 
titles of the presentations made during the thematic session is annexed to this statement. The 
Secretariat provided a background document contained in JOB/TBT/69. 
2.  The representative of the ISO presented the work of ISO Committee Conformity Assessment 
(ISO CASCO), including both its work on standard s development and on policies (e.g. on neutrality 
principles, or on ensuring that CASCO principles are reflected in other ISO standards). The 
standards developed by ISO CASCO, collectively referred to the ISO/CASCO toolbox, cover requirements for accreditation bodies and for a range of conformity assessment bodies including 
testing laboratories. Recently, ISO/CASCO has published standards on auditor competence, in 
order to promote consistent and harmonious certification results. 
3.  We next heard from the representatives of ILAC and IAF . They presented the benefits – for 
regulators, industry and consumers – of their global networks of laboratories and accreditation 
bodies, underpinned by the ILAC and IAF multilater al mutual recognition arrangements. The ILAC 
and IAF arrangements enhance confidence in co nformity assessment results, thereby reducing 
unnecessary duplication of certification and facilitating trade, towards achieving the vision of 
"tested, inspected, certified or accredited once, accepted everywhere". Under the arrangements, 
signatory bodies must recognize the certificates issued by all other members of the arrangements. However, the extent to which the ILAC and IAF a rrangements can facilitate trade in part depends 
on the use of these arrangements by regulators, and so it is important for signatory bodies to 
promote the use of ILAC and IAF arrangements in their markets. 
4.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  presented their experience on use of accreditation by 
regulators and by industry. While regulators were sometimes reluctant to rely on accreditation for 
fear of a loss of authority, accreditation in fact facilitates the work of regulators by providing technical support. It was noted that there are currently 620 accredited conformity assessment bodies accepted by various regulators of Chines e Taipei. The important role of accreditation in 
bilateral and regional trade relationships was stressed. For instance, the APEC Mutual Recognition 
                                               
1 Mr. Jingo Kikukawa (Japan). Th is Report is provided on the Chairman's own responsibility. 
2 The latest decisions and recommendations are contained in Section B of G/TBT/32.  Previous decisions 
and recommendations on Conformity Assessment Procedures are contained in Section II of G/TBT/1/Rev.10.  G/TBT/GEN/155 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Arrangement for Conformity Assessment of Teleco mmunications Equipment relied on accreditation, 
and included three phases: (i) mutual recognition of testing laboratories and mutual acceptance of test reports; (ii) mutual recognition of certific ation bodies and mutual acceptance of equipment 
certifications; and, (iii) MRA for equivalence of technical requirements. Finally, the representative 
emphasized the benefits of the use of accreditation for industry, including lower costs and faster 
time to market. 
5.  The representative of South Africa  provided an overview of the challenges that South Africa 
has faced in concluding Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) for conformity assessment. South 
Africa has yet to establish an operational MRA, although progress was being made on negotiations between conformity assessment bodies within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). South Africa has experienced two primary types of challenges to the conclusion of MRA: 
technical challenges, such as capacity constraints and institutional differences between parties; 
and political challenges, including bias toward domestic testing facilities and difficulties on agreeing on the products or sectors to be  covered. The representative noted a number of points to consider 
before negotiating MRAs, such as: trade volumes in sectors under consideration; differences in 
levels of development; the existing level of harmonization between technical regulations and regulatory cooperation; and, the alternative of pa rtial, voluntary or less formal types of mutual 
recognition – such as voluntary recognition arrangements between conformity assessment bodies. 
6.  The representative of the European Union  explained that the EU conformity assessment 
system follows a risk-based approach. The system  employs common selection criteria to promote 
consistency and coherence of conformity assessment procedures within a given sector. In this 
regard, EC Decision 768/2008 specifies basic principles for future legislation on product 
requirements, including with respect to the approach to conformity assessment procedures. Criteria for selection of conformity assessment procedures include the type of product and 
economic infrastructure of the sector (e.g. produc t characteristics, technology employed, type and 
size of manufactures), and the nature, type and degr ee of risk associated with the product in light 
of its intended use. The use of first party Supplier's Declaration of Conformity was preferred for 
low to medium risk products, and when third party assessment was mandatory, manufacturers 
were given the choice, whenever possible, between product verification and quality assurance. It was noted that options for conformity assessment were subject to a full impact assessment for measuring necessity and proportionality. 
7.  Finally, the representative of the United States  presented on the role of the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) in supporting US Federal Agencies in the area of conformity 
assessment. NIST’s responsibilities under the Na tional Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) were mentioned, including coordinating go vernment conformity assessment activities with 
the private sector to reduce unnecessary dup lication and complexity. While NTTAA does not 
prescribe any specific approach to conformity assessment, NIST recommends a risk-based 
approach, whereby the level of rigor of the system  is balanced against the risks associated with 
non-compliance. The representative shared a case  study on establishing a conformity assessment 
framework for IT systems used by cloud computing service providers. In response to a question 
from the floor on trends in US Federal Agency approaches to conformity assessment, the 
representative noted an increasing consideration of multilateral recognition arrangements amongst 
conformity assessment bodies, as well as increasing use of international systems for conformity assessment. 
8.  Some common themes  that I noted from this thematic session included the need to engage 
directly with regulators to ensure that they employ trade facilitative approaches to conformity assessment. This was apparent with regard to th e use of multilateral recognition arrangements 
between accreditation and conformity assessment bodies. Indeed, given the challenges of 
establishing government-to-government MRA, the use of such arrangements was mentioned as a worthwhile alternative. I also heard risk emphasized as a key consideration in the design and 
choice of conformity assessment. On a personal note , I think the session provided a good 
opportunity for Members to continue to exchan ge experiences in the area of conformity 
assessment. I thank Members for the active participat ion in this event, and look forward to further 
developments in this important aspect of our work. 
_______________ 
 G/TBT/GEN/155 
 
- 3 - 
 
  ANNEX 
FINAL LIST OF PRESENTATIONS1 
1.  Use of relevant international standards, guides or recommendations 
a. ISO: "The CASCO toolbox and importance of having harmonized consensus developed 
conformity assessment standards", Mr Sean Mac Curtain, Head, Conformity Assessment, 
ISO. 
2.  Facilitating the recognition of conformity assessment results 
a. Voluntary cooperation arrangements 
i. IAF/ILAC : "Accreditation – Facilitating Global Trade", Mr Randy Dougherty, IAF 
Chair and President, and Mr Peter S. Unger ILAC Chair. 
b. Use of Accreditation 
i. Chinese Taipei : "Accreditation: Facilitating the Elimination of Technical Barriers to 
Trade", Ms Wanji YANG International Affairs Manager, Chinese Taipei Accreditation Foundation (TAF).  
c. Use of MRAs 
i. South Africa : "South African experience on the difficulties in concluding MRAs", Mr 
Rudolf Brits, Director, International Trade and Economic Development Division, 
Department of Trade and Industry.  
3.  Approaches to conformity assessment procedures 
a. European Union : "Criteria for the choice of conformity assessment procedure in a given 
risk-management context", Mr. Fabrizio Sacchetti, European Commission. 
b. United States:  "Role of NIST in Supporting Agency Needs on Conformity Assessment", 
Mr. Gordon Gillerman, Director of Standards Services, Standards Coordination Office at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 
 
  
__________  
  
                                               
1 Draft programmes were circulated on 11 July 2013 (JOB/TBT/50), and, reflecting further input from 
Members, on 1 October 2013 (JOB/TBT/50/Rev.1), and again on 21 October 2013 (JOB/TBT/50/Rev.2).