Future of the CIPM MRA

Project Description

Issue:
The CIPM MRA, originally signed in 1999, will celebrate its 15th anniversary in 2014. Time has come for a critical review. In the last twelve months several stakeholders raised critical comments and it is possible that the 25th CGPM of 2014 will decide on a resolution. EURAMET is a very important RMO inside the context and the formal organisation of the CIPM MRA. Therefore, it should play an outstanding role in the revision and adaptation of the CIPM MRA.

Background
At the 2012 Meeting of Representatives of State Parties to the Metre Convention and Directors of NMIs a presentation was given by PTB and NIST on the strategic directions of the CIPM MRA. Although in number of CMCs and members the CIPM MRA is a success it has not accomplished what it was meant to do in certain aspects. For instance, CMCs do not always represent offered measurement services and the establishment of mutual trust comes at a price of high complexity. Thus, the idea was to make the CIPM MRA more efficient and sustainable in the future (e.g. through more "key" key-comparisons or a reduced set of key-comparisons, to publish only actual / key services, simplification of entries in the KCDB, improvement of the classification of services, ...).
In August 2013 EURAMET prepared for the annual meeting of the JCRB a paper entitled "Towards a sustainable CIPM MRA". It advocated for a top-down approach where the CIPM MRA should be designed according to the need of RMOs and NMI directors, for a simplification of the system and improvement of the efficiency.
At the 2013 Meeting of Representatives of State Parties to the Metre Convention and Directors of NMIs the CIPM presented a draft Resolution on the importance of the CIPM mutual recognition Arrangement for the 25th CGPM of 2014. The idea was to establish a sub-committee under the CIPM to conduct a review of the implementation and operation of the CIPM MRA.

What to achieve (mandate)
To develop
– a EURAMET member position, and
– good input for EURAMET members (NMIs) for their decision-making
for the discussion of a possible CGPM resolution on the CIPM MRA regarding issues relating to the CIPM MRA.

The work should be focused on, but not limited to, an improvement inside the actual CIPM MRA.

The work should be along the following considerations:
– a lighter and more cost efficient structure of the CIPM MRA,
– a top-down approach from RMOs and NMIs,
– a focus on fewer and more relevant ILCs,
– a matching of CMCs and actual / key services offered,
– a streamlined procedure to bring ILCs to a successful end in a much shorter period of time,
– a user friendly CMC database (KCDB),
– a more visible CIPM MRA among potential users,
– and to maintain the confidence and reliability of declared CMCs.

Risks and counter-measures
As this task is embedded in a complex environment there are some risks associated with it:
– number of interfaces: there are many interfaces (BoD, TCs, RMOs, JCRB, CIPM, future CIPM sub-committee on CIPM MRA, BIPM, CGPM, CCs, NMIs/DIs, ILAC, ...). The TC-IM task group can not manage all interfaces. However, at least within EURAMET (towards the BoD and EURAMET's representation in the JCRB), they must be clear. An important role has the future TC-IM chair who is a member of the task group, standing invitee in the BoD and participant in JCRB meetings.
– role of NMIs: the CIPM MRA is signed by the individual NMIs. An attempt to intervene into this responsibility of each NMI would be a breach of their sovereignty. Thus, the aim of this task should be to deliver a good input into the decision making of each NMI.
– input from specialists (bottom-up): the input from specialists (TC and CC level, task group health) is very important. Therefore, the group should be as transparent as possible (e.g. through an open data/document approach), inform proactively and keep in contact with these groups.
– stakeholder input: the lack of stakeholder input into the CIPM MRA is one of its shortcomings. The task group has neither the resources nor the power to overcome this but does – of course – not prevent the group to generate ideas in this respect.

Timetable
The timetable is defined by the decision of the CGPM and the JCRB. For 2014 the following results should be achieved:
– input for the proposed resolution of the 25th CGPM (in May 2014 presentation at EURAMET GA and by June 2014 for member states)
– input into extended EURAMET paper "Towards a sustainable CIPM-MRA"
– establishment of contact and flow of information with other EURAMET TC chairs and EURAMET CC members