Strengthening the Compliance of the OIC Member States
to International Standards
27
3.2 Current State of Play
The available data suggest that OIC members take markedly different approaches to standardization and
harmonization, based on regional considerations and level of development. Figure 5 shows the number
of internationally harmonized standards and non-harmonized standards in OIC members that
responded to inquiries for this project. The first point to note is the vast gap between the most
developed standards infrastructures, like Turkey with over 35,000 standards and Saudi Arabia with
nearly 30,000, and the small, less developed countries like the Gambia, with only 10 standards, or
Suriname with 22.
The second point to note is that the degree of harmonization differs substantially across countries, from
a low of just under 5% in Azerbaijan, to highs of 100% in Egypt (as of 2010) and the Gambia. Despite the
wide range, the OIC countries for which data are available typically make extensive use of
internationally harmonized standards. There is room to boost performance in most countries, but from a
reasonably strong baseline. Given issues of applicability in different climactic, geographical, and
developmental contexts, it is to be expected that the rate of harmonization might be less than 100% in
most countries. Nonetheless, the countries for which data are available are clearly making good use of
internationally harmonized standards.
Third, it is important to be aware of the fact that some countries, like Egypt and Senegal, allow goods
into their markets if they comply with international standards and there is no applicable local standard.
This is an added dimension of international standards harmonization that is important in at least some
OIC member states. It has the potential to boost trade by facilitating imports of compliant goods, in
particular in low capacity countries where the total number of standards is small. Suriname is a good
example of this dynamic: it is a very small, upper middle income country that lacks the ability to issue
standards in all sectors relevant from a consumption and input use point of view. It therefore allows
imports that comply with international standards, on the basis that there is a broad international
consensus to the effect that such goods are safe and fit for purpose, in the case where there is no local
standard in force.