Strengthening the Compliance of the OIC Member States
to International Standards
124
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
collectively commit to achieve a given degree of international standards harmonization by a certain date.
The economic interest of doing so is clear, and the APEC example suggests that if countries are truly
convinced of the rationale, it is possible to move forward effectively even without legal instruments and
sanctions for non-compliance.
OIC member states can move forward on the international standards harmonization agenda in a variety
of different ways. There is clear scope to bring economic benefits in terms of improved market access
and export competitiveness by developing national and regional quality infrastructure, as well as by
relying on international standards as the basis for national norms. Concretely, member states could give
consideration to the following recommendations to improve their harmonization basis and reap these
economic gains:
National Agenda:
1) Conduct an audit on national quality infrastructure, leveraging outside assistance—particularly
from UNIDO—as appropriate;
2) Particularly in Africa and Asia, follow the global trend away from mandatory public standards
and towards private voluntary standards, notably in manufactured goods sectors including
electrical equipment and machinery;