Excerpt from TRADE/WP.7/GE.11/1998/7:

Other Business (Item 5)

26. PROPOSAL FOR A UN/ECE WORLD TRADE STANDARD MARK: After a short presentation by a member of the UN/ECE Transport Division on mutual recognition agreements and conformity assessment in the automotive sector, the delegation of the United Kingdom briefly outlined his delegation's proposal for a UN/ECE world trade standard mark. As concern was raised on legal issues; conformity assessment; and a common methodology, it was agreed that the Rapporteurs should review the issue at their next session.

Excerpt from TRADE/WP.7/GE.11/1999/8:

UN/ECE quality trade mark for meat

Background

38. The Secretary of the Working Party for Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (WP.6), Mr. Serguei Kouzmine gave a short presentation of the work done in this group. The group prepares an international agreement on technical harmonization issues especially conformity assessment. The goal is not to duplicate work done by WTO (e.g. TBT agreement) but to assist operators in areas not covered by WTO. There will be a general agreement supplemented by protocols for individual areas. These protocols could be used to upgrade voluntary standards to make their application mandatory.

39. It had been the idea of the specialized section to have a world quality trade mark for meat but it had been recognized that in order to provide a competitive advantage to operators using this mark some kind of accreditation and mutual recognition system was essential. This could be done in a protocol to the agreement on technical harmonization issues laying down what provisions of the standard need to be fulfilled and how organisations applying the trade mark need to be accredited. By signing such a protocol a country would automatically recognize the accreditation of national organizations accredited in another country.

40. Mr. Kouzmine also raised the issue of monitoring the application of standards. Many organizations develop standards but it is difficult to find out to what extend and where the provisions are applied. Countries could be obliged through a protocol to monitor the application of standards they adopted. If this information was collected and combined in a publication it could serve as a valuable document for trade facilitation.

41. Mr. Kouzmine invited the specialized section to discuss a possible cooperation with the standardization policy experts of WP.6. He suggested that as a possible way forward the Specialized Section prepare a draft protocol based on their standard and supply this to WP.6 where the experts would transform it into a legal document.

Discussion

42. In the discussion the following comments were made:

• Implementation could be a stage by stage process and dealing with the general requirements first.
• Use of a standard should have a commercial benefit.
• Australia has a quality assurance system into which AUS-MEAT is integrated.
• EAN International is interested in working with WP.6.
• A quality assurance system exists in the European Union based on Community regulation. If this discussion goes further then a representative of the European Commission should be invited. A specific definition of the mandate for the group of rapporteurs should be drafted

43. The Specialized Section agreed that cooperation with WP.6 could be useful. As a first step it was decided that a group within the rapporteurs should prepare a draft protocol. The delegations of Australia, United States and Russian Federation offered to provide input.

Excerpt from TRADE/WP.7/GE.11/2000/7:

28. Initial discussions on preparing a draft protocol on conformity assessment and a possible UN/ECE trade mark were held at the last session of the Specialized Section as well as at the meeting of rapporteurs. The principle of the cooperation between the Specialized Section and the Working Party on Technical Harmonization and Standardization Policies (WP.6) was agreed by WP.7.

29. At the meeting of rapporteurs text concerning the trade mark was drafted for inclusion into the general requirements in section 4.8.1.

30. It was clarified that the UN/ECE standards for meat intend to define a common trading language for buyer and seller to facilitate trade. The standards include only basic mandatory requirements (refrigeration, condition, packaging, labelling, etc.) and are not to be confused with veterinary requirements and other standards for meat which focus on meat quality.

31. The standards do not prescribe to the trading partners what has to be done but recommend how the trade could be organized in a comprehensive way. They define a standard product and allow for additional requirements to be included in the trade agreement (e.g. organic production, traceability).

32. In this context a UN/ECE trade mark would guarantee that the product traded is specified according to the language defined in the standard and complies with the specifications it is sold with. This could be simple conformity with the general requirements and the cuts specifications or also conformity with additional requirements (as described in the annexes to the standards). This would allow these products to be identified and give a competitive advantage to companies using the mark and thus promote the use of the standard.

33. In the discussion it was identified that a protocol for the creation of a trade mark needs to address the following items:

1. An enterprise intending to mark their products with the trade mark needs to be certified by an accreditation body to prove that:
   1. it complies with the standard (uses the specification language)
   2. the products conform to the specification.
2. The accreditation body certifying enterprises needs to prove (it still has to be clarified to whom) that it has a system in place that enables it to certify enterprises in a way that ensures a standard quality of accreditation (e.g. conforming to ISO 9002:1994 and ISO guide on certification)
3. How conflicts are resolved.

34. It was discussed how the accreditation bodies could be selected. Several suggestions were made:

• an accreditation body could be named by each country (the country guaranteeing the quality);
• the decision could be left to an agreement between buyer and seller who would agree on one of the established auditing companies for the conformity assessment;
• the UN/ECE could have a memorandum of understanding with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) on the choice of accreditation bodies as well as the resolution of conflicts.

35. It was mentioned by the delegation of Poland that one organization might not be enough to certify conformity with the standard. He suggested that for each country a contact address could be provided which would then provide a list of organizations who can certify different aspects of the standard.

36. It was suggested by the delegation of EAN that an auditor be contacted to review how the standard could be audited by an accreditation body.

37. It was questioned by some delegations whether the Specialized Section was the right body to take a decision on the use of the UN logo or whether higher bodies needed to be asked. In the discussion it was agreed that the Specialized Section could make a statement of intent which would then be transmitted to higher bodies for discussion.

38. The rapporteurs were charged to discuss the matter further and to propose a draft protocol to the next session of the Specialized Section.

For any comments: