SEE ALSO:
press releases
WTO news
Mike Moore's speeches
Renato Ruggiero's speeches,
1995-99
|
In order to further the objectives of the Agreement, the Committee decided to
organize a Symposium on Conformity Assessment Procedures to deepen its understanding of a
number of different issues, including: (i) relevant international guides and
recommendations for conformity assessment; (ii) the types of CAPs and the conditions for
their application; (iii) the various approaches for the recognition of the results of
CAPs; and (iv) the role of international and regional systems for conformity assessment.
Each of the above themes were taken up in a separate session, and a rapporteur assigned to
each of the sessions. This report is based on the contributions which I have received from
the rapporteurs. It will attempt to highlight the main issues that have been presented in
their reports. The Symposium began with a
brief presentation of the main provisions of the Agreement on CAPs, and presentations by a
number of speakers on the CAPs that are used for business transactions in the
market-place. It was recognized that CAPs should not create unnecessary obstacles to
trade, at the same time it was noted that effective CAPs are a necessary mechanism to
establish confidence between the different players in the market-place.
Session
I of the Symposium addressed the issue of Relevant International Guides and
Recommendations for Conformity Assessment. It focused on ISO/IEC Guides, Members'
experience in the use of relevant international guides, and the extent to which those
guides and recommendations have served as a basis for the recognition of CAPs by bodies in
their territories, and have helped ensure a harmonized approach to conformity assessment.
The Guides are widely used by developed and developing countries. It was noted that it is
important to develop guides reasonably quickly so as to meet the needs of the
market-place. It was also noted that while the same international standards could in
theory be used by different players of conformity assessment, variations in interpretation
(based on language and geographical differences for instance) could lead to different
applications. It was suggested that international trade could stand to benefit from CAPs
which are transparent, impartial and based on international standards.
Session
II of the Symposium dealt with the Various Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures
and Their Conditions of Application. It was noted that third party’s evaluation
of conformity is widely used, supported in many cases by national accreditation systems as
a tool for demonstrating the technical competence of conformity assessment bodies. It is
used for the assessment of conformity to both voluntary standards (for products and
quality systems) and to mandatory regulations. A number of issues were raised e.g., the
need for harmonized and consistent accreditation procedures, and a code of good practice
for conformity assessment bodies.
It
was indicated that some regulators accept supplier’s declarations of conformity
(SDOC) in certain sectors. In some instances, SDOC has to be underpinned by test results
obtained from an accredited conformity assessment body. It was recognized that while SDOC
is appropriate in some cases, it is not appropriate in areas of greater risk, and that it
has to be accompanied by appropriate legislation, for example, on liability, and effective
post-market surveillance. In this respect, concerns were raised regarding the
responsibility for products originating abroad.
Session
III of the Symposium addressed Approaches with Respect to the Recognition of the
Results of Conformity Assessment Procedures. It was noted that numerous mutual
recognition agreements (MRAs) had been concluded, and that several different types of MRAs
existed e.g., between regulatory (i.e. government to government) and non-regulatory bodies
(i.e. private sector). In addition, MRAs could be multisectoral or focus on a single
sector. It was recognized that the cost-effectiveness of MRAs was an issue that needed to
be carefully assessed. Costs tend to be particularly high when conformity assessment
systems are very different in participating countries. While the numerous benefits of MRAs
were stressed, it was explained that MRAs are not the only option for addressing
recognition issues, and may not be the appropriate option in a number of cases. It was
also noted that they do not remedy serious market access problems. Some concerns were
expressed with respect to the discriminatory trade effects of some governmental MRAs.
MRAs
in the non-regulatory sector were also discussed. It was stated that the principle of
national treatment for third party conformity assessment bodies from other territories
could enable those parties to participate in conformity assessment activities under
conditions no less favourable than domestic bodies. MRAs in the non-regulatory sector
could create a global network of organizations authorized to conduct conformity
assessments for different requirements imposed in a variety of markets, and facilitate
expeditious market access.
In
addition to MRAs, attention was drawn to the autonomous recognition of conformity as a
tool for the recognition of conformity assessment results, and in accordance with Article
6.1 of the Agreement. Although reciprocity should not be set as a precondition for
autonomous recognition, the establishment of confidence was essential. While participation
by relevant conformity assessment bodies in international or regional accreditation
systems could facilitate this process, other means, such as peer evaluation, could also be
employed.
Session
IV addressed the Role of International and Regional Systems for Conformity Assessment. A
number of international and regional bodies introduced their systems and work in the field
of conformity assessment. It was recognized that: (i) international guides are commonly
used by these systems; (ii) these systems play a useful role in coordinating conformity
assessment bodies; (iii) through these systems, technical assistance could be provided and
technical know-how could be transferred to developing countries; (iv) regional systems
could be tailored to address the particular situation of different regions; and (v) there
is the need to avoid duplication of work among different systems at all levels.
|
|
