G/TBT/GEN/213  
 
5 April 2017 
(17-1857) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade    
 
THEMATIC SESSION ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMEN T PROCEDURES1 
MODERATOR 'S REPORT2  
This Report  was delivered by the Moderator of this Thematic Session of the WTO TBT Committee at 
the meeting of  29-30 March 2017 .  
 
 
_______________  
 
 
At the Seventh  Triennial Review , Members  agreed to continue to hold thematic session s in 
conjunction with regular meetings of the Committee ,3 and agreed to dedicate the 28 March 201 7 
thematic sessions to the topics of conformity assessment (CA) procedures and good regulatory 
practice. T his report focuses on conformity assessment procedures.  The p resentations  summarized 
below  will be made  available through  the WTO website.4  
1.  Mr. David Hanlon (International Electrotechnical Commission, hereafter IEC) explained that 
global CA systems are composed of one or more schemes for certification of products, personal 
competencies and/or processes, operat ing worldwide, and coordinat ing commercial conformity 
assessment bodies (CABs) for testing and certification. The goal of a global CA system may be t o 
facilitate access to markets, and, in this case, the recognition of conformity assessment results 
from anywhere around the world within the CA system, is essential. When this is achieved the 
certificates being issued from within the CA system act as a "p assport to the world" for those 
certified goods. The IEC Global Conformity Assessment Systems (IECEE, IECQ, IECEx and IECRE) 
are membership - and rules -based, and are open to all qualifying certification bodies and testing 
laboratories. Their operational mo del has two pillars: (i) predefined, common operational rules and 
procedures, and harmonized interpretation of the standards used, which together achieve 
consistent, reproducible and comparable CA results; and (ii) peer assessment to ensure that the 
CABs a re competent and apply the common rules and harmonized interpretations when testing 
and certifying. Mutual recognition is a condition of membership to the IEC CA Systems. This 
implie s that member CABs ha ve sufficient confidence in the results coming from e lsewhere in the 
CA system to recognize those results, accept those products into their local market and therefore 
assume a part of the legal liability in case of any problems. Mutual recognition within the IEC CA 
systems is between the CABs. A recognizing CAB, being accredited, then has the authority to 
accept CA results for its own country.5  
2.  Mr. Sean MacCurtain (ISO) stressed the importance of common international standards, 
guides and recommendations as the basis for conformity assessment procedures to f acilitate 
international trade. The ISO/CASCO toolbox includes a risk -based set of conformity assessment 
standards for the operation of CABs, accreditation bodies and peer evaluation. ISO/CASCO 
develops conformity assessment policy in its three policy group s (e.g. the Strategic  Alliance and 
Regulatory Group – STAR), while standards development work is carried out by working groups of 
experts not involved in implementation. ISO/CASCO has recently developed new online tools that 
target and support regulators i n the development of conformity assessment schemes. These online 
                                                
1 The list of speakers is c ontained in JOB/TBT/ 221/Rev.1 . 
2 Mr. Fabrizio Sacchetti (EU) . This Report is provided on the Moderator 's own responsibility.  
3 G/TBT/37, para. 8.3.  
4 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ tbt_e/tbt_e.htm  
5 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/203 . G/TBT/GEN/213  
 
- 2 - 
 
  resources present key considerations for using conformity assessment in regulatory practices, the 
suggested steps for using conformity assessment in regulations, and case studies. In the 
discussion, it was pointed out that these online resources could be a useful tool for delegates who 
may wish to reach out to their regulators, to both explain key concepts of conformity assessment, 
and encourage the use of the ISO/CASCO toolbox.6  
3.  Ms Nicole He nry (Australia) asked whether global accreditation and conformity assessment 
organizations have evolved fast enough to meet the needs of international trade today. The rise 
and complexity of global value chains has increased the number of conformity assess ment 
activities in the supply chain, making confidence in conformity assessment and accreditation all the 
more essential for reducing trade barriers and costs. She described three main challenges in 
conformity assessment: the lack of knowledge by industry of applicable standards; the 
interpretation of standards; and fraud and non -compliance. She highlighted the importance of 
ILAC and IAF MRAs, which create a strategic framework to support international trade. However, 
she questioned whether a "peer evaluati on" process every four years is sufficient to maintain 
confidence in the results produced under the ILAC and IAF MRAs and whether the participation of a 
professional independent evaluator could help to wards  objectivity and impartiality in this process. 
There should be efforts to continuously improve confidence in global conformity assessment 
systems, and consumer needs should be a central consideration.7  
4.  Mr. Christopher O'Toole  (Canada)  and Ms Nike Bönnen  (European Union) presented the 
bilateral "Protocol on the mutual acceptance of the results of conformity assessment", part of the 
Canada -EU Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA). The Protocol relies heavily on 
accreditation to build confidence between Canadian and EU regulators, so as to facili tate the 
mutual acceptance of test results and product certifications by Canadian and EU -recognized CABs. 
Under the Protocol, Canada and the EU have agreed to work to mutually recognize the 
accreditation of CABs of the other party to test to their respecti ve requirements for the sectors 
covered. The Protocol includes product sectors like construction products, electronic and electrical 
equipment, and products used in explosive or hazardous atmospheres.  Products covered include 
machinery and equipment, radio  and telecommunications, and measuring devices. After three 
years of operation, the Protocol may be expanded to cover other priority sectors.8  
5.  Mr. Andreas Steinhorst  (European c o-operation for Accreditation, hereafter EA) explained 
that the CETA Protocol is underpinned by a Bilateral Cooperation Agreement between EA and the 
Standards Council of Canada (SCC). One key principle of the Protocol is non -competition between 
accreditation bodies, meaning that CABs should seek accreditation from the accreditation body in 
their jurisdiction (e.g. a Canadian -based CAB seeks accreditation from SCC; a European -based 
CAB seeks accreditation from its national accreditation body member of EA) against the relevant 
requirements of the other party. In order to build confiden ce within the context of this cooperation, 
SCC and EA have a pilot project to study each other's conformity assessment procedures, and 
observe each other's assessments, in certain product sectors.9  
6.  Mr. Martin von Lampe (OECD) presented the work of OECD on  International Regulatory 
Cooperation in relation to conformity assessment procedures. He said that conformity assessment 
procedures are an essential risk management tool, although they can impose trade costs due to 
additional efforts foreign suppliers hav e to make , e.g. for shipping test samples to the importing 
country. Conformity assessment can be categorized in terms of the methods applied (the "what"), 
and the actors in charge of conformity assessment systems (the "who"). There is a need to 
balance the  expected damage of non -compliant products against increased trade costs that stem 
from stricter conformity assessment procedures. From an economic theory perspective, products 
with a low damage potential would be addressed by flexible conformity assessmen t procedures 
with low costs, while for products with high damage potential , more restrictive and costly 
conformity assessment procedures would be applied. Market surveillance and information 
exchange can help to bring down the damage potential of non -compl iant products and, hence, the 
need for more restrictive conformity assessment procedures. Mutual recognition can be a useful 
tool to reduce conformity assessment costs, although it may shift costs to market surveillance and 
                                                
6 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/209 . 
7 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/204 . 
8 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/ 205. 
9 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/206 . G/TBT/GEN/213  
 
- 3 - 
 
  enforcement activities. In respe ct of production that takes place in global value chains, it is even 
more important to reduce trade costs from conformity assessment .10  
7.  Mr. Mat hieu Loridan (ITC) presented the results of ITC Business Surveys on non -tariff 
measures (NTMs) in connection with  conformity assessment procedures. Business Surveys are one 
part of ITC work on NTMs (the other two being data collection to map regulations, and follow up 
actions in developing Members), which seek to gather views from businesses on problematic NTMs 
to help designing and implementing technical assistance to the private sector. The surveys include 
phone interviews, and face -to-face interviews, with importers and exporters in 39 developing 
Members (plus the EU). The results show that conformity assessment pr ocedures are perceived as 
the number one most burdensome NTM faced by agricultural and manufacturing exporters, and 
that certification and testing are the two procedures most often cited as problematic. The results 
also show that exporters in developing Me mbers, LDCs and developed Members all face problems 
with conformity assessment. It is notable that most reported issues arise from the implementation 
of the related procedures in the domestic market rather than the requirements t hemselves. 
Procedural obsta cles include delays, high fees and lack of facilitates .11  
8.  On a personal note, the Moderator  highlighted the importance of a common vocabulary  for 
conformity assessment provided through international standards, guides and systems, which gives 
a common under standing of how accreditation of CABs is performed in function of the different 
activities carried out (testing, inspection or certification) and of the possible range of conformity 
assessment  procedures, such as  SDoC, type approval  or quality assurance. T his common 
vocabulary  is an essential prerequisite for developing mechanisms to facilitate the acceptance of 
conformity assessment results generated by CABs in other jurisdictions. Accreditation plays an 
indispensable role in building confidence in the rel iability of conformity assessment results and, 
specifically, between regulators in order to consider  acceptance of conformity assessment results  
generated by CABs outside their jurisdiction . However, it was not clear that international 
conformity assessmen t and accreditation systems always provide sufficient comfort or specificity to 
regulators to trust foreign testing, certification and accreditation. In some sectors, such as the 
electro -technical sector, there is a widely accepted source of international standards which has 
delivered a higher level of convergence of product requirements as set out in technical regulations 
and standards. This creates a common  basis for acceptance of conformity assessment results, and 
explains the success of global conformit y assessment systems in this sector. The moderator also 
underscored that changes in global supply chains ha ve given rise to new trade and compliance 
challenges  as multiple conformity assessment points can be identified across the chain, all of them 
contrib uting to the compliance of the final product with applicable requirements. The features of 
the supply chain must therefore be factored in when designing c onformity assessment procedures. 
The discussion showed that the topic of conformity assessment attract s great interest and the 
ideas discussed during the thematic session would now feed into the Committee's future work in 
this area. The moderator noted in particular the importan ce of further discuss ing relevant factors 
and criteria that regulators consider  when designing conformity assessment procedures, such as 
whether or not they need conformity assessment procedures  in support of specific technical 
regulations , and, if so, how to choose one approach over another.   
__________  
 
 
                                                
10 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/207 . 
11 The full presentation is contained in document RD/TBT/208 .