WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/263 
10 March 2006 
 
 (06-1082) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE 
 
Submission by Japan
  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 9 March 2006, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Japan . 
 
_______________  
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. For the Fourth Triennial Review of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 
(hereinafter, TBT Agreement), the TBT Committee reach ed a general agreement to include the area of 
conformity assessment as one of its topics at the mee ting held in November 2005.  In this regard, it 
would be beneficial for Members to further exam ine the following issues in the area of conformity 
assessment:  
(i) Use of suitable accreditation schemes for various types of regulatory or 
voluntary conformity assessment systems; and  
(ii) Facilitation of the use of relevant st andards, guides, and recommendations 
regarding conformity assessment issued by international standardizing 
bodies. 
2. Under the rapid advance of globalization,  and the heightened pace of new product 
development, it is necessary to introduce simplif ied conformity assessment systems to facilitate 
international trade.  "One standard, one testi ng, accepted everywhere" is considered as the most 
desirable and ideal approach which contributes to reducing technical barriers to trade.  In order to 
reduce such barriers and promote international trade, Japan’s position is that Members should 
implement the TBT Agreement in an efficient and ef fective way.  However, complete harmonization 
of technical regulations or standards among Members is found to be difficult in the present context, 
for instance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or fundamental technological 
problems.  Japan’s submission offers some ideas a nd suggestions based on such a current situation. 
II. ACCREDITATION 
3. As technical regulations and standards are not  fully harmonized among Members, it is often 
the case that regulatory or voluntary conformity asse ssment systems for the same product are different 
for every Member.   In accordance with conformity  assessment systems of individual Members, third-
party conformity assessment bodies (CABs) may also  be involved.  CABs must be technically 
competent in terms of the specific conformity assessment systems under which designation or 
accreditation will be granted, and designati ng authorities or accreditation bodies conducting G/TBT/W/263 
Page 2  
 
  designation or accreditation must also be familiar wi th the technical requirements of the conformity 
assessment system in question. 
4. Japan considers that the authority in charge of specific conformity assessment systems should 
only rely on the technical competence of CABs a ccredited by itself or accreditation bodies that are 
familiar with the specific conform ity assessment systems.  This mean s that authorities would be able 
to recognize only such a CAB as a CAB under their own systems. 
A. CROSS-BORDER
 DESIGNATION/ACCREDITATION 
5. From the point of view of exporters, when a CAB under a conformity assessment system of 
the importing Member exists in the exporting Me mber’s territory, the burden of conformity 
assessment procedures for exports would be  reduced.  Accordingly, a cross-border 
designation/accreditation system in which the d esignating authority or accreditation body of the 
importing Member can designate or accredit a CAB located in the territory of another Member would be a very useful system, which Article 6.4 of the TBT Agreement actually encourages Members to introduce.  The wide spread use of this system among Members would work as a more effective and 
practical alternative mechanism to mutual rec ognition agreements (MRAs) between governments. 
6. As Japan described in its submission (G/TBT/W/194), the Government of Japan has 
introduced cross-border designation systems under va rious regulatory or voluntary schemes, and in 
fact, several foreign CABs have already come in to existence in Member countries under some of 
these regulatory or voluntary schemes.  
7. Although the efficiency of the system which is stipulated in Article 6.4 of the TBT 
Agreement was mentioned in the Third Triennial  Review (G/TBT/13), the TBT Committee has not 
yet discussed situations in Member countries  regarding the introduction of cross-border 
designation/accreditation systems.  Therefore, Japan  would like to propose a survey on whether 
Members have introduced cross-border designation/ accreditation systems.  In order to reduce the 
burden of the survey, however, Japan also pr oposes to limit the scope of the survey.   
8. With cross-border designation/accreditation systems, it is a fact that language barriers and/or 
the distance from the designating authority or accreditation body are thought of as burdens for CABs 
that wish to be designated or accredited.  The bur den for the CABs, however, is lighter than one for 
the designating authorities or accreditation bodies sin ce such bodies must be familiar with a number 
of conformity assessment systems in different count ries.  On one hand the CABs’ burden concerning 
the designation or accreditation procedure may be reduced if the designating authorities or accreditation bodies which are familiar with the conf ormity assessment systems of several countries 
exist in the country in which the CABs are located, but on the other hand the CABs only need to have 
technical competence regarding those systems of countries in which the CAB wishes to conduct conformity assessments work, also accurate assessm ents are conducted by designating authorities or 
accreditation bodies familiar with the related systems.   
9. In addition, designating authorities or accreditation bodies may conduct assessments once 
every several years for each individual CAB, and the number of CABs is not so large in the country.  
On the other hand, CABs may receive applicati on for conformity assessments several times a year 
from each individual supplier, and the number of supp liers in each country is larger than the number 
of CABs in the country.  It may, therefore, be said that a cross-border designation or accreditation system is one of the most effective and practical methods.     G/TBT/W/263 
 Page 3 
 
 
  B. MUTUAL  RECOGNITION  AGREEMENTS  BETWEEN  GOVERNMENTS 
10. It was pointed out in the Third Triennial Review  that there are some difficulties faced in the 
negotiation and implementation of MRAs and there ar e various considerations for the conclusion of 
effective MRAs between governments, such as:  a sufficient volume of trade in specific sectors 
between the parties, interest of stakeholders, and support from key players.  These difficulties or 
issues are particularly serious when MRAs ar e concluded or implemented under non-harmonized 
technical requirements between parties.  Therefore Members may discover or make use of frameworks other than MRAs where technical require ments have not been harmonized, to ensure that 
conformity assessment procedures do not become trade barriers.   
11. Mutual introduction of cross-border designati ons or accreditation systems as described in 
II. A. in the same fields by two certain Members could bring the same effect on trade with an 
introduction of MRAs between the two Members for suppliers in their territories.  Moreover the 
cross-border designation or accreditation system woul d be able to greatly contribute to reducing the 
cost of negotiations and implementation by the d esignation authority and/or the accreditation body of 
each Member.  It would be a good practice for each Member not only to introduce cross-border 
designations or accreditation systems by it self, but  also to encourage other Members to do so. 
12. Japan has worked with some Members to in troduce cross-border designation systems in the 
electrical products field with an aim to conclude agreements such as "Cross-Border Designation-type 
MRAs".  If these are concluded, both parties of the MRAs will come to hold systems to designate CABs located in the partner’s territory. 
C. VOLUNTARY
 MUTUAL  RECOGNITION  ARRANGEMENTS  AMONG  
ACCREDITATION  BODIES 
13. Generally speaking, at present, it is difficult to  say that forums of accreditation bodies or their 
mutual recognition arrangements are effectively utilised in various conformity assessment systems.  
This is because it is impossible for all the partic ipants in the forums or their mutual recognition 
arrangement schemes to assess each other’s competen ce covering all the testing methods or product 
standards concerning conformity assessment systems which differ from country to country even if 
they are able to multilaterally check with each other whether the participating accreditation bodies 
have the competence to assess the CABs  conformity  with relevant international standards or guides 
such as ISO/IEC Guide 65 and ISO/IEC 17025. 
14. Therefore, it is a natural conclusion that an  accreditation body cannot rely on and accept the 
assessment result of another accreditation body that is not familiar with its own accreditation scheme, even if the accreditation body is a participant in  the mutual recognition arrangement in which the 
accepting accreditation body participates.  Besides, it is very difficult for participating accreditation 
bodies to maintain their knowledge of and competen ce for all the schemes of the other participants 
involved in mutual recognition arrangements so that  their own results may be acceptable to all the 
other participants of the mutual recognition arra ngement.  Moreover, Japan would like to point out 
another fundamental problem that there are many accr editation bodies that have not participated in the 
forums of accreditation bodies or their mutual recognition arrangements. 
15. Hence, it is difficult to mutually secure confid ence in the technical requirements of relevant 
standards and guides under mutual recognition arrangements among general accreditation bodies without a specific scope of accreditation activities.  On the other hand, mutual confidence in the 
accreditation of management systems could be secu red.  Therefore, if a mutual recognition 
arrangement regarding only management syst ems among accreditation bodies is established, the 
results of accreditation under such arrangements migh t be utilised by authorities of various conformity G/TBT/W/263 
Page 4  
 
  assessment systems.  The activity described in III. A. may lead to the estab lishment of such mutual 
recognition arrangements. 
16. On the other hand, there exists the IEC EE CB scheme, which is a mutual recognition 
arrangement among CABs, in which Member CABs mu tually accept each other’s test reports related 
to the electrical products field and confidence in technical competence of Member CABs is 
maintained through peer assessment among CABs.  The peer assessments are conducted by assessors 
that belong to the Member CABs on the assump tion that Member CABs commission other Member 
CABs to conduct product tests for their own product cer tifications on behalf of them.  The confidence 
of Member CABs’ technical competence is generally en sured in this way, and it is said that the level 
of peer assessment is high.  Additionally, th e IECEE CB scheme has adopted a peer assessment 
system based on ISO/IEC 17040 in order to gain further confidence of it.  This leads to raising 
confidence among Member CABs and results in active mutual recognition of test reports. 
17. When comparing mutual recognition arra ngements among accreditation bodies and the 
IECEE CB scheme, the scope of mutual recogniti on arrangements is not lim ited and the latter is 
limited, so Japan considers that this point is one of  the main differences between them.  If the scope of 
a mutual recognition arrangement among accreditati on bodies is limited, it is possible that a 
participating accreditation body would understand in further de tail systems in which other 
participating accreditation bodies are involved.  This  leads to enhancing confidence in technical 
competence, regarding the scope specified, of a CA B that is accredited by a participating accreditation 
body. 
III. STANDARDIZING ACTIVITIES ON CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT AND 
HARMONIZATION OF CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 
A. STRUCTURE
 OF STANDARDS  AND  GUIDES  TO PROVIDE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  
CONFORMITY  ASSESSMENT  BODIES 
18. Article 5.4 of the TBT Agreement stipulates that Members shall ensure that central 
government bodies use relevant guides or recommenda tions issued by international standardizing 
bodies as a basis for their conformity assessment pro cedures, therefore ISO/IEC standards and guides 
on conformity assessment are used in conformity assessment procedures of most Members.  These ISO/IEC standards and guides consist of require ments for management systems and technical 
requirements, however assessments for accreditation are conducted for both requirements together by 
an accreditation body. 
19. If accreditation according to these standards or gui des is given, respectively, namely, for 
management systems and for technical requireme nts, voluntary mutual recognition arrangements 
among accreditation bodies only for the management system part would be established easily as 
described in II. C. 
20. For the above purpose, standards or guides on conformity assessments should be modified so 
that accreditation results can be used respectively, such as dividing a standard or guide into two parts.  
Moreover, if management system requirements for all types of conformity assessment bodies are 
harmonized, the assessment results for the management system can be used in various ways. 
B. ENCOURAGING
 PARTICIPATION  OF DEVELOPING  MEMBERS  IN 
INTERNATIONAL  STANDARDIZING  ACTIVITIES 
21. The participation of developing country Member s in international standardization activity is 
becoming an important element as globalization of the world economy leads to shifting production 
bases to developing countries.  Japan recogni ses the Workshop on Different Approaches to  G/TBT/W/263 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Conformity Assessment, including the Acceptance of  Conformity Assessment Results to be held on 
16-17 March 2006 as an important chance to promote aw areness of the issues and find good practices 
jointly among Members. 
22. Each developing country Member should roll out such good practices and establish their 
appropriate conformity assessment systems.  On the other hand, develope d country Members should 
be encouraged to provide their knowledge and expe riences to developing country Members.  As a 
result, it is thought that conformity assessment mechanisms of each Member will be harmonized 
worldwide, and this will contribute to the reduction of technical barriers to trade. 
 
__________