44

create trust but also to make accre-ditation transparent, worldwide.

Although ILAC exists alreadyfor almost twenty years, there isstill a lot of work to be done. Theadolescent years are past, real lifestarts. The workload and the exter-nal expectations call for a differentILAC organisation. ILAC has tobecome sharp and lean and has tobe dedicated to its prime task, ac-creditation. It has to make use ofexisting organisations in accredita-tion that operate on a regional lev-el. At the same time ILAC has tocoordinate and align these activi-ties.

It has to become a focal pointfor other organisations that wantto make use of accreditation orthat affiliate in any other way withaccreditation. It has to provide fa-cilities for less developed countriesthat need assistance in setting upan accreditation scheme.

Besides laboratories and inspec-tion bodies also certification bodiesplay their role in the conformityassessment process. These certifica-tion bodies need to be accreditedas well. This is where an importantco-player is entering into the accre-ditation arena and that is IAF, theinternational accreditation forum.

Because ILAC and IAF bothserve the conformity assessment in-dustry they have to seek close co-operation, or if possible evenmerge. I say this not only becauseI like mergers, but also because itwill make accreditation more trans-parent. Such a close cooperationwill also make negotiations withstake-holders easier. And evenmore important it will make accre-ditation of conformity assessmentbodies more efficient.

Such cooperations and mergersare already taking place at regionaland national level. In fact there isalready some form of linkage withIAF, because several of the dele-gates present here, meet in bothorganisations.

I understood from your chair-man that this weeks meeting is dif-

ferent, because a whole session willbe devoted to the creation of anew ILAC, one that could moreeasily perform the tasks I men-tioned. I sincerely hope that youwill succeed.

There is more. One of your sta-keholders, also your customer, or-ganise a symposium with a suspi-cious title ‘Who is afraid of the ac-creditor’. Also part of this confer-ence is a full day symposium opento all stakeholders that places ac-creditation and world trade togeth-er.

I am happy to see that you havethe possibility to discuss all theseitems without fear for confronta-tion. It clearly shows that you arepast the adolescent age.

I wish you all the wisdom youneed to make all these events fruit-

ful. I wish you all the flexibility increating the new ILAC, in settingits aims and making it strong.

I thereby challenge you– to make it the world organisa-

tion it deserves to be,– to make it the world organisa-

tion that trade and regulatorsneed,

– to make it also the world organ-isation that the developing coun-tries want to turn to for assist-ance in accreditation and confor-mity assessment,

– to make it the world organisa-tion that is respected for its in-tegrity.I hereby declare the 14th Inter-

national Laboratory AccreditationConference open and wish yougood fortune and success.

MEETING REPORT

Accred Qual Assur (1997) 2 :44–47Q Springer-Verlag 1997

J. G. Leferink

From ILAC to ILAC

Summary

From 8 to 13 September 1996 theInternational Laboratory Accredi-tation Conference (ILAC) held its14th biannual conference in Am-sterdam. Considering the tasks ofILAC and the importance of accre-ditation to world trade ILACneeded a restructuring from anopen conference with no membersto a co-operation with national ac-creditation bodies as the members.

On 13 September, 44 nationallaboratory accreditation bodiessigned a Memorandum of Under-standing. At the same time a for-mal liaison committee with the in-ternational laboratory communitywas established. One of the mainstakeholders, the World Trade Or-

ganisation (WTO), has a formalobserver seat in the InternationalLaboratory Accreditation Co-oper-ation.

Introduction

The 14th biannual conference ofILAC was held in Amsterdamfrom 8 to 13 September 1996. Thisconference was dedicated to the fu-ture of ILAC in an increasinglyglobalised trade environmentwhere ‘one stop conformity assess-ment’ is the final aim.

Up until September 1996 ILACwas a conference during which in-terested parties discussed varioussubjects related to accreditationand laboratory activities. ILAC hasbeen in existence since 1977. Dur-ing the period 1985 to 1994 variousregional accreditation co-opera-tions were created such as EAL,EAC, APLAC and PAC. Theseco-operations are dedicated totheir main task ‘accreditation’. Atthe same time they maintain liai-

45

sons with their customers and sta-keholders. Many of the subjectsdiscussed in the regions were alsodiscussed in ILAC.

To avoid duplication of effortsand to create an organisation thatcould become partner for interna-tional organisations as the WTO,ILAC had to be re-organised.

The main subject of the 14thconference therefore was the ‘newILAC’ and the relation with worldtrade. The start of this process wasgiven by adopting a resolution (32/94) during the 13th conference inHong Kong in 1994. Jos Leferink,chairman of ILAC during the peri-od 1994 to 1996, had been giventhe task together with committee 4,to transform ILAC.

Transforming ILAC

In the opening of the special com-mittee 4 meeting the need for thetransition was explained by thechairman.

Accreditation has as main taskto facilitate trade. In order to bringthat message across to all inter-ested parties at world level, ILAChas to become a recognizable or-ganisation with a clearly definedinterest. If we look around we seeregional accreditation co-opera-tions that perform the work ILACdid in a more efficient, structuredand involved way. Many of theworking group convenors knowhow difficult it is to get worldwidecomments on their proposals.

ILAC therefore has to makemore use of these regions, work asan umbrella that can coordinatework and avoid duplication.

In Fig. 1 ‘Levels of Accredita-tion’ the relations are clearly indi-cated. Work performed at each ofthese levels is extremely valuableand should be disseminated to allaccreditors at all levels throughILAC. Only in this way one canavoid duplication of work andavoid wasting of energy.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

It is important to allow at pres-ent a direct access of national ac-creditation bodies to the ILAC co-operation. Not every country isable at this moment to link withregional co-operations.

In order to look at ILAC withrespect to other world organisa-tions Fig. 2 ‘ILAC and Liaisons’ isnecessary. ILAC is representednow in the centre column.

At present ILAC is involved inwriting of many documents on po-litical implications, on accreditationissues, on testing aspects etcetera.Some of these issues are very tech-nical and are better dealt with bylaboratories.

One could see a simpler solu-tion with better involvement at alllevels and between the most ap-propriate partners. Laboratoriesshould initiate many of these tech-nical issues. Accreditors could giveinput when required or requested.

Accreditors should deal with ac-creditation issues and take their re-sponsibility to create a level play-ing field where the accredited labo-ratories are all equal with respectto their technical performance,thereby facilitating ‘one stop test-

ing’ as part of ‘one stop conformityassessment’.

At regional level, take for in-stance Eurolab and EAL, this op-erates well. Each one is dealingwith issues closest to their profes-sion. In such a way it is easier toget more and adequate involve-ment.

In fact also at national levelthese co-operations already exist.Given these existing national or-ganisations and given the enor-mous amount of work they do, thenext higher level should utilisethese efforts and make othersaware of it and, when necessary,persuade them to use the work.

The coordinator for the regionsis ILAC on the accreditors sideand, let us call it ‘ILAB’ on the la-boratory side. At that level liaisonsare for similar and obvious reasonsnecessary. In fact the whole storyapplies to all our stakeholders asrepresented by the right hand co-lumn in the figure.

The structure of the international

laboratory accreditation

co-operation

General AssemblyThe ILAC General Assembly isthe highest decision making bodyand consists of one Delegate nomi-nated by each full and associatemember. It will meet annually.

Voting, when required in theGeneral Assembly, will be con-ducted on the basis of one vote pereconomy represented. Voting is re-stricted to members, as was dis-cussed and decided in standingCommittee Meetings in Singaporein January 1996.

International organisations withinterests related or complementaryto laboratory accreditation will beinvited by the Chairman to partici-pate in General Assemblies as per-manent observers.

MembersFull members are bodies (recog-nised in their economy as) offering

46

a multi-disciplinary laboratory ac-creditation service conforming tothe requirements of the relevantISO/IEC Guides. The presumptionis that there will be one such bodyper economy. In the event of therebeing more than one such eligiblebody in a single economy, a priorcondition of membership of bodiesin that economy will be selection,by these bodies, of a single repre-sentative who will act as thespokesman for that economy andexercise the vote of that economyin the General Assembly.

Associate Members: Organisa-tions or economies which are inthe process of developing an eligi-ble accreditation system but havenot yet accreditation experience, orrepresentatives of economies whichhave in mind to set up such a sys-tem are eligible to join ILAC asassociate members. The conditionapplying to multiple membershipfrom a single economy also appliesto associate membership.

ObserversILAC will maintain a relationshipwith each of its stakeholder groupsthrough on-going dialogue, obser-vership at General Assemblies andperiodically by sponsoring interna-tional conferences open to all in-terested parties. Stakeholders/Ob-servers can be any truly interna-tional organisation with an interestin accreditation or interests relatedto accreditation.

At present several organisationshave expressed interest in observermembership or are identified aspotential observers. The list in-cludes WTO, ISO, IAF, BIPM,OIML, OECD, CODEX Alimen-tarius, OPCW, CITAC, AOAC,ISTA, Consumers and internation-al inspection organisations.

Executive CommitteeThe Executive Committee handlesthe day to day business of ILACand deals with the external rela-tions at world level. Decisions inthe Executive would be taken byconsensus.

The Chairpersons are elected bythe General Assembly. The ILACChair is for a period of 2 yearswith the Vice Chair being regardedas Chair elect. The Past Chair isprovided for maximum continuity.Members of the Executive Com-mittee are the following:

Chair, Vice Chair and Past ChairCommittee ChairpersonsChair of the Laboratory LiaisonCommitteeTwo members representing unaffil-iated countriesRepresentatives of Regional Ac-creditation Co-operations.

John Gilmour of NATA, Australiabecame the first chairperson of thenew ILAC on 13 September 1996.Belinda Collins of NIST, USA waselected as vice chairperson, andthus will become ILAC’s chairper-son in 1998.

CommitteesILAC has three committees andone liaison committee

Committee on Accreditation Policy(CAP)Committee on Technical Accredi-tation Issues (CTA)Committee on Public Relations(CPR)Laboratory Liaison Committee

The committees will take on boardall of ILAC’s present work items.The work items will be redistri-buted to the committees or will betransferred to regions.

The following chairpersons wereelected: Bill Henderson of UKAS,UK for CAP, Peter v. d. Leemputof RvA, Netherlands for CTA andPaul Davies of NATA, Australiafor CPR.

The Laboratory Liaison Com-mittee is chaired by Alan Brydenof LNE, France.

Members representing unaffiliatedcountriesTwo members representing unaffil-iated countries were chosen duringthe conference by the ILAC dele-gates. Unaffiliated members belong

to accreditation bodies in countriesnot participating in regional co-op-erations. These unaffiliated mem-bers have the task to create intheir region a new co-operation be-tween the national accreditationbodies. The regions to be createdby the elected members are SouthAmerica and Africa. The memberselected are: Mike Peet of SAN-LAS, South Africa and WilsonBarbosa de Oliveira of INME-TRO, Brazil.

Representatives of the regional co-operationsAs was earlier indicated ILAC’s(distant) future lies in its coordi-nating role over the regions. Thefinal target is to have all membersparticipate in regional co-opera-tions and have these regional co-operations work together in ILAC.The existing regions are repre-sented for the time being by BobKaarls for EAL and John Gilmourfor APLAC.

ILAC and the International

Accreditation Forum (IAF)

The two accreditation co-operationat world level have identical aims.The difference is lies in the organ-isations that their members accre-dit, laboratories, inspection bodiesand certification bodies. Given theaim ‘one step conformity assess-ment’ co-operation between ILACand IAF in the future is logical.Looking in Europe we see thishappening not only at the regionallevel between EAL and EAC butalso at national level. Several coun-tries already have national accredi-tation bodies that cover all fieldsof accreditation. Unfortunately therest of the world is behind in thisdevelopment. Nevertheless a reso-lution (10/96) was adopted werethe Executive Committee has toset up a working party to exploreareas of common interest betweenIAF and ILAC.

47

Conclusion

The International Laboratory Ac-creditation Co-operation is created.It is now in a stronger position tonegotiate with its stakeholders atworld level. It is in a stronger posi-tion to negotiate with IAF with theultimate goal to become one worldwide accreditor for all conformityassessment aspects. It is also in the

best position to deliver the WTOthe mechanism they require to ob-tain ‘one stop conformity assess-ment’. This obviously by creating‘one stop accreditation’ as well.

J. G. LeferinkChairman ILAC 1994–1996, RvA,PO Box 2768, 3500 GT Utrecht,The Netherlands

MEETING REPORT

Accred Qual Assur (1997) 2 :47–51Q Springer-Verlag 1997

B. King

Traceability and compara-

bility of “Amount of Sub-

stance” measurements:

report of a joint CITAC

EURACHEM workshop

held at Noordwijkerhout,

The Netherlands,

4–6 September, 1996

Abstract The workshop was or-ganised to review progress, to fur-ther develop a maturing debateand to set the agenda for futurework. This paper reports presenta-tion highlights, areas of agreement,areas of disagreement and propo-sals for further work.

Key words Traceability 7Chemical metrology 7 Primarymethods 7 Reference materials

Introduction

It has been clear for some yearsthat traceability is a concept thatapplies as much to chemistry as itdoes to other areas of measure-ment. It has, however, been lessclear how to “do it”. A great deal

Fig. 1 The technical committee responsible for the workshop at Noorwijkerhout dur-ing a break: Alan Squirrell, Paul De Bièvre, Bill Reed, Bernard King (from left)

of progress is currently being madeon both conceptual issues and onthe development of systems. It wasdecided in 1994 that as traceabilitywas gaining momentum in chemis-try circles the time was ripe for aninternational workshop to reviewprogress and set the agenda for fu-ture work. EURACHEM and CI-TAC combined forces to sponsorthe workshop which was organisedby the Laboratory of the Govern-ment Chemist, UK, under the di-rection of the following technicalcommittee:

Prof. Dr. Paul De Bièvre, IRMM,EUIr. Robert Kaarls, NMI, NLDr. Bernard King, LGC, UK(chair)Mr. William Reed, NIST, USAMr. Alan Squirrell, NATA,Australia

In putting together the programmewe were conscious that the inher-ent difficulties in making measure-ments are compounded by misun-derstandings arising from differentperceptions of the needs, underly-ing concepts and of terminology. Itwas therefore a primary aim of theworkshop to promote mutual un-derstanding between delegatesfrom different countries and back-grounds.

The aims of the workshop were

– To promote mutual understand-ing between delegates

– To review progress on the reali-zation of traceability of chemicalmeasurements

– To further clarify underpinningconcepts and terminology lead-