Strengthening the Compliance of the OIC Member States
to International Standards
4
One variable that changes markedly across the three OIC case study countries is the role played by
regional initiatives. They are present for all three countries, but somewhat marginal in the case of
Bangladesh, in keeping with the relatively low degree of regional integration in South Asia. Egypt is an
intermediate case, where some regional arrangements deal with standards, but the overall impression—
perhaps due to Egypt’s size relative to the rest of its region—is that the agenda is largely national and
international in focus. Senegal, on the other hand, is clearly engaged on a regional track through UEMOA
in particular; the broader African initiative of ARSO has been relatively inactive for a significant period,
although it may be regaining momentum. The regional approach makes sense for a small economy like
Senegal, as creative arrangements for harmonization and mutual recognition can make it possible to
effectively share the cost of developing standards infrastructure across the West African region, rather
than each (small) country having to shoulder a disproportionately high bill itself. The regional approach
appears promising, although implementation on the ground remains key—and is linked to broader
issues of governmental capacity and reach within the region.
In addition to examining the issues generally and studying how they play out in OIC member states, this
report also examined three outside case studies: APEC, ASEAN, and the East African Community. The
rationale behind choosing three regional initiatives is that they could provide guidance for the OIC as a
diverse group of countries looking to deal with standards to some extent collectively. Evidence of that
collective approach is present in the form of the SMIIC, as well as the interest that COMCEC has shown in
supporting policy research on standards and harmonization.
The three outside case studies present very different approaches to collective work on standards and
harmonization. APEC favors consensus-based targets in relation to international harmonization of
national standards, but does not use legally binding instruments. ASEAN has included standards issues
in some of its international instruments, and has worked on both harmonization and mutual recognition
of conformity assessment. The EAC is the most formalist of the three groups studied, with a system that
is similar in design to the one operating in the EU: a centralized regional standards body is tasked with
developing harmonized regional standards, and national standards bodies are then supposed to
implement them as national standards, and withdraw any inconsistent norms. Each group of countries
has enjoyed variable success in terms of promoting harmonization.
This report’s review of the evidence and policy issues suggests that APEC’s approach might be the most
informative for OIC member states. Although the SMIIC is a formal, legal body of a type not found in
APEC, it has had difficulty in developing harmonized standards outside the halal food sector. It may
therefore be possible for OIC member states to advance international harmonization by adapting APEC’s
model of collective targets. For instance, member states could choose a group of important sectors, and