Emanuele Riva
IAF Chair

Introduction to multilateralism

Multilateralism is a fundamental principle of international cooperation involving more than two nations. It is based on the idea that collaboration between economies is essential to address global challenges and promote common progress. Through multilateralism, economies seek to achieve common goals, such as peace, security, economic development and environmental protection, through international negotiations, agreements and institutions.

After World War II, the international community recognized the importance of establishing a global system of trade rules to promote free trade and prevent trade conflicts. This led to the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was later transformed into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. The WTO is a multilateral organization that deals with the rules of international trade, promoting trade liberalization and facilitating the resolution of disputes among its members.

In parallel, the need to establish global technical standards emerged to promote compatibility and harmonization of technical standards and regulations between economies. In response to this need, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) was founded in 1947. ISO is a non-governmental organization that develops and promotes internationally accepted technical standards in various sectors, such as industry, agriculture, health and safety.

Furthermore, multilateral trade agreements, such as the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), have played an important role in facilitating global trade. The TBT Agreement aims to ensure that technical standards, conformity assessment procedures and regulations do not become unjustified barriers to trade. To this end, the TBT Agreement highlights the importance of mutual recognition of compliance evidence and accreditation systems.

As we know, to facilitate mutual recognition of accreditation skills and capabilities, the IAF (International Accreditation Forum), which turned 30 in 2023, and ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) networks were established. These networks promote trust in international trade through mutual recognition of skills and harmonization of accreditation procedures.

Multilateralism has therefore led to the creation of international institutions such as the WTO and ISO, which promote international cooperation in the field of trade and the development of technical standards. Multilateral agreements, such as the TBT Agreement, have played a key role in facilitating global trade. The IAF and ILAC networks work to promote mutual recognition of accreditation skills and capabilities, thus helping to ensure the quality and compliance of products and services at an international level.

The current crisis of multilateralism

However, in recent years, multilateralism has been challenged by a number of factors, leading to a crisis in its functioning. This is due to several reasons.

First, the rise of nationalism and protectionism in many parts of the world has led to a greater emphasis on national or regional interests at the expense of multilateral cooperation. Some economies or regions have adopted unilateral policies that threaten existing multilateral agreements, or have withdrawn from international organizations. This attitude has weakened multilateralism and reduced willingness to collaborate on global issues.

Furthermore, geopolitical tensions, unfortunately very evident today in various parts of the world, and the erosion of trust between economies have further complicated multilateralism. Differences on key issues such as trade, climate change, human rights and security have made it difficult to reach consensus and advance multilateral solutions.

Implications for the certification and accreditation industries

The crisis of multilateralism at a global level is also clearly being reflected in the TIC (Testing Certification Inspection) sector.

To give some examples, some legislation is giving a different weight to the accreditations issued by some accreditation bodies compared to others i.e. some national authorities are no longer willing to automatically recognize the equivalence between IAF accreditations and those issued locally.

Giving some detailed examples, we could cite the US with its Inflation Reduction Act and the EU with its Carbon Border Tax (CBAM), or the regulations on GDPR, Due Diligence, Organic or Product Markings[1].

In short, there is an issue of international law on the extraterritorial effectiveness of the legislative provisions of an economic agglomeration with respect to third countries, which reflects on the validity of the certifications of these third countries.

There have already been at least two rulings recently that have attempted to clarify which certificates can be accepted by national authorities in certain contexts.[2]

Consequently, on the basis of the positions taken by these authorities, the differences between the regional MLAs are beginning to be highlighted, instead of the innumerable points in common, based on years of laborious harmonization achieved with international peer assessment checks, and with periodic alignment meetings.

This differentiation has several implications.

First, the lack of harmonization of accreditation standards and processes can lead to a lack of trust and mutual recognition between accreditation bodies. This can hinder international trade and create barriers to accessing foreign markets for certified businesses.

Second, differentiating the value of accreditation between different regions can create confusion and uncertainty for businesses seeking to operate internationally. The need for case-by-case assessments to determine equivalence between accredited bodies can be a complex and burdensome process.

Future scenarios and possible solutions: Multiregionalism as an alternative to the crisis of Multilateralism

From a geopolitical point of view, it is clear that multiple centers of interest are forming.

Other economic and political agglomerations are emerging from the traditional blocs of influence that we were used to after the Second World War (for example, the EU, US, Russia, China). For example, the New South[3], Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), BRICS, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), European Economic Area (EEA), Mercosur, Caricom, Central American Common Market, Eurasian Economic Union, Gulf Cooperation Council.

The same is also evident in the certification and accreditation sector, where in addition to the International Quality Infrastructure (INETQI) regional networks are also being formalized:

1. Asia – APEC SCSC SRB Forum https://www.apec.org/groups/committee-on-trade-and-investment/sub-committee-on-standards-and-conformance
2. America – QICA https://qica.site/en/
3. Africa – PAQI https://www.paqi.org/
4. European quality infrastructure

We must all be aware of the fact that IAF, like all other international organizations, could enter into crisis because tensions are emerging that are clustering around some Regions. While before there was a strong desire to focus on and defend international multilateral agreements (IAF MLA), now there is the temptation to defend regional MLAs, even making distinctions from a technical point of view, also creating new logos to underline the differences between regional MLAs.

We are therefore faced with a new scenario. No longer multilateralism but multiregionalism.

Will we have to get used to it?  Is it a bad thing?

The Regions independently developing documents and recognizing conformity assessment schemes could speed up these same processes at an international level, if mechanisms were developed for almost automatic recognition of the activities carried out between the regional MLAs and the IAF MLA to ensure broader and simplified mutual recognition of the certificates issued by the accreditation bodies.

While there would obviously be areas in which differences would be maintained, supported by different legislation, perhaps it is right and natural that this is the case.

But more productive and proactive regions could still be a help for the IAF.

Another possible future scenario could be the further development of multilateral agreements that promote the harmonization of accreditation standards and processes between different regions. These agreements could facilitate mutual recognition of accreditation certificates and promote greater coherence and cohesion in the accreditation system, if not internationally, at least interregionally.

In conclusion, the current crisis of multilateralism could transform market dynamics into multiregionalism. It’s up to us to decide whether to go in this direction.

Or we could take inspiration from this famous phrase “Everything must change for everything to remain the same”. This is the famous quotation taken from the renowned novel “The Leopard”, written by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, on which the 1963 film of the same name was based with Burt Lancaster and Claudia Cardinale.

Under this scenario, international organizations must try to live with the new multiregionalism, shedding their skins and transforming themselves into something new.

IAF is trying to change, together with ILAC, with a slow and participatory, transparent and inclusive path, which is leading us towards the birth of the Global Accreditation Cooperation (GLOBAC), a single international organization for accreditation.

[1]In addition to the CE (Conformité Européene) marking used in the European Union (EU) and the UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) marking used in the United Kingdom after Brexit, there are several other certification and marking systems used in different countries and regions of the world. Some examples of these systems are:

1. FCC (Federal Communications Commission): the certification system used in the United States for electronic equipment and wireless products.
2. CCC (China Compulsory Certification): the compulsory certification system used in China for various products, including electronics, motor vehicles, toys and safety products.
3. GOST-R (Gosudarstvennyy Standart): the certification system used in Russia to guarantee product compliance with safety and quality standards.
4. JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards): a standardization system used in Japan for a wide range of products, including electronic devices, building materials, vehicles and many others.
5. SABS (South African Bureau of Standards): the standardization and certification body used in South Africa to guarantee the quality and safety of products.
6. SASO (Saudi Arabian Standards Organization): the Saudi organization that establishes the technical standards and certification system for various products in Saudi Arabia.

[2] https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-142%252F20&for=&jge=&dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC% 252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&oqp=&td=%3BALL&avg=&lgrec=it&lg=&page=1&cid=94 987
https://www.giustizia-amministrativa.it/-/105486-138

[3] https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/2023-04/PP_05-23%20%28Jaldi%20%29.pdf