International Electrotechnical Commission IEC Council Centennial Session

Ladies and gentlemen,

When I was first told that I had been invited by the IEC to deliver the keynote address at the Centennial Session, my immediate reaction was: Brilliant, since I desperately need them to do something for me. I need them to develop a “standard formula” for the conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations. Surely if they've been able to develop standards for some of the world's most complex electrical equipment, a formula for the Doha Round cannot be beyond their reach. But, of course, you have some time to reflect on this — from now till the end of my speech.

More seriously, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great admiration for your work that I have accepted this invitation, both as the head of the WTO, and as a humble consumer of electronic equipment who relies on you to simplify his world! This year you celebrate 100 years of electrification. Congratulations indeed for your contribution to this process.

International standards, no doubt, can bring enormous benefits to consumers and producers alike. In your area of work, ensuring the inter-operability of electrical appliances is one of the benefits that every consumer is grateful to you for. But international standards can also facilitate trade, bringing about important cost-savings to producers who are spared the need to comply with different, and sometimes even conflicting norms, in their export markets. This allows for economies of scale to emerge, and for the transfer of technology. In fact, because of our electronic interconnectedness, it is possible to say that the world has now shrunk into a global village.

Recognizing their potential for facilitating trade, WTO members have placed international standards at the heart of the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the “TBT” Agreement). In that Agreement, they issued a strong encouragement for countries to base themselves on international norms whenever possible. In fact, members are presumed to be in compliance with TBT rules if they use such norms. That is how important international standards are to the WTO — which does not itself have either the mandate or the capacity to set these standards. Rather, all it can do, is to recommend that they indeed be used.

Despite the important contribution that international standards can and have made to trade, I would nevertheless like to use this occasion to share with you some of the concerns that WTO members have raised. Some worry that international standards can fail to reflect a country's interests, particularly if designed through a process that either lacks transparency or is discriminatory. Others worry that international standards can sometimes come too late, so as to capture what may already be obsolete technology in their part of the world.

As WTO members have accumulated experience over the years in applying both the TBT Agreement and international norms, they agreed in the year 2000 on certain “principles” that they would work towards in international standards development. These principles were not intended to dictate to international standardizing bodies what they should do, but rather to give guidance to each and every WTO member on the values that they should be trying to promote.

I wish to share these principles with you, since for the trade community they constitute a set of “best practices” for international standardization if you will.

• The first principles, which will come as no surprise to you, are those of “openness” and “transparency”. An international standardizing body needs to be open to the participation of all interested bodies WTO members, and to provide them with all essential information.
  
  
• WTO members have agreed to promote “impartiality and consensus” as core values in the working procedures of standardizing bodies — meaning that all players should be provided with genuine opportunities to contribute to the development of international norms. Through these principles, members have sought to extend the “level playing field” that they enjoy under WTO rules to the field of standardization. They do not wish to see a country, an industry, or indeed a technology, excluded from consideration on unfair grounds.
  
  
• Through the principle of “effectiveness and relevance”, WTO members ask that international standards respond to regulatory and market needs, as well as to scientific and technological developments. The principle aims at encouraging up-to-date standards, that are attuned to market forces. For an international standard to be truly international, it must reflect a technology that is widely used. It would make no sense for it to capture a technology that only a few have access to, or which is, for that matter, obsolete.
  
  
• WTO members have also agreed to promote “coherence;” a principle intended to encourage greater coordination between different standardizing bodies, so as to avoid conflicting or duplicative norms. You can understand, of course, from a trade point view, why conflicting international norms are undesirable. The very purpose of these norms would be negated were they to multiply at the international level, confusing both producers and consumers.
  
  
• And, finally, is the “development” principle, aimed at ensuring effective developing country participation in standardizing bodies. This principle was insisted upon by many developing countries in the WTO, who felt excluded from the standardization process. To this principle, the IEC was swift in its response. I wish to congratulate the IEC on its “Affiliate Country Program” and would encourage it to continue to do more.

Now, were these principles or “best practices” to be followed, I have no doubt that international standards would indeed enhance global welfare. Standards that serve the interests of only a few can do quite the opposite.

This year, the TBT Agreement comes under one of its periodic reviews in the WTO. Conformity assessment procedures have come into focus. While international standards are important, the procedures that are used to assess compliance with them are equally important, since they too can obstruct trade. International assessment systems are therefore key. Such systems can reduce the need for complex recognition agreements between trading partners.

In this connection, I would like to draw the attention of this body to a problem that is particularly acute in developing countries; the fact that there are not enough internationally recognized conformity assessment institutions in these countries. This makes it more difficult for developing countries to prove that their products comply with the standards of their trading partners. It is a problem that we must all turn our attention to.

On that note, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to conclude by wishing you every success in your next 100 years. If any you have had any thoughts during this speech on the “standard” or rather “magic formula” that can be reached in our trade negotiations here in Geneva, will you please share it with me?

Thank you for your attention.