Overview: The Dublin Accord is an agreement for the international recognition of engineering technician qualifications. In May of 2002, four professional organizations agreed to recognize those qualifications underpinning the granting of Engineering Technician titles in their four counties. The procedures of the Dublin Accord will be essentially the same as those of the Washington and Sydney Accords.
Signatories: Signatories have full rights of participation in the Accord; qualifications accredited or recognised by other signatories are recognised by each signatory as being substantially equivalent to accredited or recognised qualifications within its own jurisdiction. Currently there are nine signatories that make up the Dublin Accord.
- Australia - Represented by Engineers Australia (EA) (2013)
- Canada - Represented by Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT) (2002)
- Ireland - Represented by Engineers Ireland (EI) (2002)
- New Zealand - Represented by Engineering New Zealand (EngNZ) (2013)
- Korea - Represented by Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK) (2013)
- South Africa - Represented by Engineering Council South Africa (ECSA) (2002)
- United Kingdom - Represented by Engineering Council United Kingdom (ECUK) (2002)
- United States - Represented by Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) (2013)
- Malaysia - Represented by Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) (2018)
Mission, Goals, and Achievements: This accord aims at providing engineering technologist with some the the beneficial outcomes provided by the series of accords for engineering education, such as the Washington and Sidney Accords. A key aim is to increase international interest in mutual recognition initiatives for engineering technologists so that the same benefits of the other accords-such as professional recognition and mobility-can be achieved at the technologist level as well. The Dublin Accord is fostering the concept that for academic recognition, an accreditation system which remains independent of the institutions being accredited is essential. Critical issues-professional competency, accountability, benchmarked standards, quality assurance, and risk management-must be addressed; if not, then "such agreements will not get off the starting blocks, and mobility will remain a dream" (Alec J. Hay, 2003; see below).