KANBrief 4/11
A new trend is emerging: numerous CEN Workshop Agreements (CWAs) and other specifications are being developed on safety-related topics. In a position paper, KAN has described the procedures for the creation of CWAs and PAS and the particular issues that they present for occupational safety and health. The paper serves OSH experts as a guidance document for dealing with these specifications.
CEN Workshop Agreements (CWAs) and Publicly Available Specifications (PAS; CWAs are developed by CEN; PAS only by ISO or national standards organizations (without harmonized rules)) are created under the auspices of standards organizations, but do not enjoy the same status as conventional standards. Their original purpose was to accommodate continual changes in fast-moving sectors such as that of information technology. These documents differ essentially from standards in that a consensus among all stakeholders need not be sought during their development. This leads to very short development times, which make this form of document attractive.
No occupational safety and health in CWAs
Provisions governing occupational safety and health impact upon the public interest, and frequently serve to transpose statutory requirements. It is therefore essential that all stakeholders be able to participate in their development. Standardization, with its proven procedures, is the proper instrument for this purpose. Conversely, CWAs fail to meet key requirements:
• A public inquiry is mandatory only when safety aspects are affected; no corresponding requirement exists for health aspects.
• Involvement is in principle open to any party, coupled in some cases with high fees for participation; this means, however, that experts from countries outside Europe are also able to participate, and that participation often entails expensive long-distance travel.
• The chairperson alone decides when a consensus has been reached. Participants who vote against the document are simply not named as co-authors.
Influence difficult to exert
The example of certain CWAs concerning biological safety in laboratories (CWA 15793, "Laboratory biorisk management standard" and CWA 16335, "Biosafety Professional) has shown how difficult it may be to exert influence upon specifications. OSH experts took part in the workshop and attempted to prevent safety aspects from being included in the specifications – in the majority of cases however without success.
One can only speculate why CWAs are increasingly being chosen for safety topics rather than fully consensus-based documents. CWAs are being used as a back door to standardization in some cases when the direct route through a standard presents little likelihood of success. For institutions outside Europe, in particular, a specification with a European seal, such as a CWA, is attractive. Since CEN workshops are open to anyone, these parties can use them to drive their interests and specifications through on the European market.
Practical guidance documents
The KAN position paper contains a checklist which provides guidance for the OSH lobby on how to respond to a newly announced CWA. Where a CWA contains explicit OSH requirements or provisions which overlap with European directives or national arrangements concerning OSH, or makes provision for certification, the involvement of an OSH expert is desirable. At the very least, however, a comment on the agenda or if applicable on the document itself should be issued during the public inquiry.
If, despite all efforts, the result is found to be unacceptable to the OSH lobby, the KAN stakeholders are called upon to make this fact known, and they will not support the CWA's adoption by DIN. During revision of the document, the case should be made for its withdrawal, and its direct adoption as a standard should be opposed.
KAN calls for CWAs which address safety and health to be withdrawn once their validity has expired. Where necessary and appropriate, the topic can be addressed by standardization. A public comments phase should be mandatory, not only for safety aspects, but also for health aspects. Only then can agreements reached quickly by a small group be prevented from having an impact throughout Europe. Parallel arrangements alongside standardization would make the body of regulations even more complex than is already the case.
Katharina von Rymon Lipinski
vonrymonlipinski@kan.de