Plumbing Africa February 2018 | Page 7

NEWS 5 New standards executive to drive SABS progress On the back of the South African Bureau of Standards’ (SABS) Standards and Competition Law Indaba, Plumbing Africa spoke with Zingisa Motloba, newly appointed executive: Standards Division, on the way forward for the SABS. MOTIVATION BEHIND THE INDABA The Standards and Competition Law Indaba was trigged by the recent signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the SABS and the Competition Commission, underpinned by the case studies discussed at the indaba, among others. “The Commission cannot resign itself of its independence, so they cannot tell us how to fix our problems. But they can engage with us to the extent that they are able, and we are willing, to share our inefficiencies, and so the indaba was really to kickstart the co-operation envisaged in the MOU, to announce that it had been signed, but also to start giving teeth to it. Not just to put it in a drawer as a document that we acknowledge for the auditor general and then state we are addressing governance — which is very much a culture in some of our state-owned entities,” said Motloba. Also contained in the MOU is an intent to set up a joint working group between the SABS and the Commission. The attendees of the indaba were Technical Committee (TC) members, standards writers, and editors, because as a collective, they are the owners of the governance process. Also in attendance were members of the legal fraternity, critical in giving guidance to strengthen the efforts. The invitation was also extended to regional standards bodies as this is a challenge that is not unique to South Africa. The SABS was privileged to be supported in this initiative by the leadership of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), in the form of the president and president elect, as well as the secretary general. www.plumbingafrica.co.za Zingisa Motloba, executive: Standards Division at the SABS. The SABS had been called to answer on a number of discrepancies and risks that had been identified by the Competition Commission. In the process, it was acknowledged that a need exists to better understand the weaknesses in its processes to strengthen governance, which led to the MOU. This MOU is essentially premised on capacity building and information sharing. IMPACT ON STANDARDS GOING FORWARD The processes for the development of mandatory and voluntary standards are the same and so, any update or revision to these standards would not be treated independently. There is an acknowledgement that some of the processes at the SABS are lacking, both in diversity of represented stakeholders and consistency and in efficiency of participation on the TCs and how the committees support individuals — whether it is the secretariat or the standards writers taking ownership of the governance space. These challenges apply to mandatory and voluntary standards and need to be addressed through improved co-operation between industry, government, academia, and the SABS. “Where we find ourselves now means that there is not much we can do about the standards that are already published and implemented until they either come up for review or there is a need to review them. So, if it’s not at the trigger date, there must be a reason in the market or it must be raised by a regulator like the Competition Commission to bring it back to the committee for review. We would hate to withdraw standards on the basis that the ‘processes are generally flawed’, because that Continued on page 7 >> February 2018 Volume 23 I Number 12