This chapter examines how co-operation could help simplify compliance with information-intensive requirements and support evolving traceability needs. Through an analysis of arrangements that provide for cross-border recognition of conformity (International Regulatory Co-operation tools), it explores how relevant stakeholders facilitate reliance on assessments and evidence generated across jurisdictions in specific sectors. It also highlights the gap that can arise between formal co-operation frameworks and their practical integration into border processes, underscoring the importance of customs connectivity, inter-agency co-operation, risk management and accessible information.
Better Borders for Trade, Traceability and Enforcement
Abstract
As traceability-related requirements become more information-intensive, firms and authorities face growing risks of unfeasible data demands, duplicative procedures, repeated information requests and fragmented compliance processes. Information accompanying traded goods is progressively generated by multiple actors across supply chains and jurisdictions, creating challenges in determining when, and under what conditions, such information can be relied upon and accepted across borders. Building trust in compliance-related information therefore becomes important for both effective regulation and efficient trade.
This chapter examines examples of practical mechanisms that could help reduce unfeasible data demands, unnecessary duplication and facilitate the acceptance of compliance-related information across jurisdictions. It focuses in particular on conformity assessment, mutual recognition instruments and wider International Regulatory Co-operation (IRC) approaches that enable authorities to rely on information, testing, certification or verification conducted elsewhere. By strengthening trust and streamlining procedures, these mechanisms could support compliance with more complex requirements – particularly in key sectors – while limiting administrative burdens for firms and authorities.
Managing trade costs remains critical for competitiveness, resilience and diversification, particularly in sectors of strategic importance. Yet businesses continue to face significant costs associated with differences in regulatory requirements across markets and with the procedures needed to demonstrate compliance. These costs can arise from needing to identify applicable requirements, adapting products or production processes, and undergoing testing, inspection, certification or other conformity assessment procedures. They can be particularly significant where assessments undertaken in one market are not accepted in another, requiring firms to repeat tests, obtain additional certificates or engage different conformity assessment bodies before goods can be enter a new market (Correia de Brito, Kauffmann and Pelkmans, 2016[1]; OECD, forthcoming[2]).
The expansion of traceability-related requirements adds a further dimension to this challenge. As discussed in previous chapters, demonstrating compliance can gradually depend more on information on how goods are produced, processed or sourced, including attributes that cannot be directly observed at the border. Such requirements may therefore increase reliance on evidence generated upstream and on assessments undertaken by specialised public or private actors. In this context, the practical challenge is not only to trace relevant information back to a product or shipment, but also to establish sufficient confidence in the processes and actors through which that information has been generated, assessed or verified (OECD, forthcoming[2]). The growing role of traceability can thus reinforce the importance of trusted information along supply chains.
Against this backdrop, IRC tools can help address some of the frictions associated with demonstrating compliance across jurisdictions and can establish conditions under which conformity assessment results, accreditations or related evidence generated in one jurisdiction can be relied upon in another. In practice, this reliance is generally given effect through domestic regulatory frameworks governing market access, product compliance and conformity assessment, although recognised evidence may also be incorporated into border procedures where documentation is verified at import. IRC tools (Box 5.1) can lower compliance costs by reducing duplicative testing and certification, enabling firms to use recognised conformity assessment bodies closer to the point of production, and supporting confidence in foreign assessment systems.
International regulatory co-operation (IRC) refers to arrangements through which governments, regulators and other competent authorities seek to address cross-border regulatory challenges, reduce unnecessary regulatory divergence and achieve public policy objectives more effectively. IRC does not correspond to a single instrument. Rather, it encompasses a broad range of tools that differ in their degree of formality, institutionalisation and reliance on foreign regulatory systems. OECD (2013[3]) identifies eleven broad approaches to IRC:
1. Informal co-operation and regulatory dialogue, including exchanges of information, experience and good practices between regulators.
2. Formal bilateral or regional agreements on co-operation, which establish structured mechanisms for regulatory exchange and co-ordination.
3. Joint research and technical collaboration, allowing authorities to develop common evidence, methodologies or technical knowledge.
4. Adoption of international standards, whereby jurisdictions use internationally agreed standards as the basis for national regulations.
5. Participation in international organisations and regulatory networks, supporting ongoing dialogue and co-ordination among regulators.
6. Co-ordination of regulatory activities, including joint inspections, information sharing or alignment of implementation approaches.
7. Mutual recognition arrangements (MRAs), under which one jurisdiction recognises specified assessments, certifications, qualifications or decisions carried out in another jurisdiction.
8. Equivalence arrangements, whereby different regulatory approaches are recognised as achieving comparable policy outcomes.
9. Harmonisation of regulatory requirements, involving the alignment or convergence of substantive rules across jurisdictions.
10. Supranational regulatory frameworks, under which regulatory authority is exercised through common institutions or jointly agreed rules.
11. Integrated regulatory systems, representing the highest degree of regulatory integration and shared governance.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive and are often used in combination as economies consider appropriate. As a result, MRAs or mutual recognition instruments more broadly represent only one among many possible IRC tools. The relevance of specific IRC tools depends on diverse factors, including the policy objective, the level of trust among participating jurisdictions and the nature of the regulatory risks involved.
Source: OECD (2013[3]).
The relevance of these mechanisms extends beyond cost reduction alone. As regulatory requirements evolve, the ability to rely on trusted evidence generated elsewhere gains importance for managing complex compliance ecosystems without systematically reproducing assessments at the border or in the importing market (Box 5.2). This is especially relevant for key sectors characterised by complex regulatory requirements, cross-border supply chains and high levels of import dependency, such as pharmaceuticals and medical devices, chemicals, batteries, and certain advanced manufacturing inputs. IRC tools are not the only solution to emerging traceability challenges, nor does recognition of conformity assessment results necessarily imply acceptance for border purposes. They could nevertheless provide an established regulatory infrastructure for building confidence in foreign assessments and the actors that perform them, offering useful insights into how demonstration of compliance can be simplified as the information and verification demands associated with trade continue to evolve.
The factors below explain the gaps in bridging standards and market access, and illustrate the role of IRC tools in addressing constraints:
International standards can provide a common technical basis across jurisdictions, but they do not on their own ensure that conformity assessment results will be accepted across borders. Although many economies base their requirements on the same international standards, they often reference different versions, introduce national adaptations, or embed those standards differently in domestic regulatory frameworks. But, regulators can create a legal bridge that enables reliance on conformity assessment results issued by recognised bodies operating under agreed competence and trust frameworks.
Conformity assessment is not harmonised by default – the “what” (the standard) might match, but the “how” (testing modules, sampling plans, surveillance intensity, assurance levels) often differs. Domestic decisions typically specify which bodies are recognised, how competence is verified, and which results must be accepted. They can choose to reduce duplicative testing by employing IRC tools.
Divergent risk tolerance and regulatory objectives – jurisdictions can assign different risk classes or require extra safeguards under the same standard. IRC tools can tailor scope, carve-outs, and safeguard clauses to align outcomes while respecting domestic risk preferences.
Enforcement, liability, and market surveillance – trust hinges on how each side supervises CABs, conducts market surveillance, and handles complaints, recalls, and sanctions. IRC tools can help to co‑ordinate these aspects of post-market co-operation, which standards alone do not provide.
Coverage gaps in emerging areas – standards may lag on software, cybersecurity, and AI lifecycle controls (e.g., updates, data governance, human oversight). IRC tools can require additional process controls, documentation, and incident reporting to ensure ongoing safety beyond initial approval.
Quality infrastructure asymmetries – where accreditation systems vary in maturity, IRC tools can condition acceptance on peer evaluations, witnessed assessments, and capacity-building, creating confidence that competence is genuinely equivalent.
Source: OECD (forthcoming[2]).
The relevance of IRC tools to this discussion lies in the broader question of how information and evidence generated by one actor can be relied upon by another, according to the specific context. In practice, traceability systems may depend on private certification bodies, auditors, traceability providers or multi-stakeholder initiatives rather than government-to-government arrangements. A common issue is therefore not the governance model itself, but the mechanisms through which confidence in externally generated information is established and how that information is incorporated into regulatory and administrative processes.
Formal recognition of foreign conformity assessment results does not in itself ensure that goods will face simpler or faster procedures at the border. The extent to which recognised conformity assessment results are used at the border varies across regulatory systems. In some jurisdictions, compliance is demonstrated primarily through economic operator responsibility and market-surveillance mechanisms, while in others verification of conformity assessment documentation forms is an important part of the import process. The clearance of regulated products can depend on the presentation and acceptance of certificates of conformity, test reports, technical approvals or other evidence demonstrating compliance with importing-market requirements. For IRC tools to generate practical trade facilitation gains, customs and other relevant border agencies therefore need to be able to identify recognised evidence, understand its scope, and use it within applicable clearance and control processes. Yet the OECD mapping suggests that this operational connection remains limited: few mutual recognition instruments, for example, explicitly address customs or border procedures, even where they contain detailed provisions on conformity assessment and regulatory co-operation (OECD, forthcoming[2]).
The strength of this connection varies across instruments and sectors. Some IRC tools establish direct links between recognition and the documentation used in trade procedures. Agreements covering organic products, for example, can require recognised certificates to accompany imported consignments, while selected transport-related frameworks1 specify documentation, approvals or markings relevant to inspections during transport or at entry. In many other sectors, however, the border implications of mutual recognition remain largely implicit. Instruments covering areas such as electronics, vehicle type approval, Good Manufacturing Practice inspections or metrology may establish recognition of conformity assessment results without specifying how customs or market surveillance authorities should use those results in import procedures. Their practical effect can therefore depend on domestic administrative arrangements and co-ordination between regulatory and border authorities.
This points to a broader institutional gap. IRC tools and trade facilitation reforms have often developed through different policy communities and operational channels: the former through regulators, accreditation systems and conformity assessment infrastructures, and the latter through customs and other border agencies. As a result, formal recognition may exist without being fully visible or readily usable by border management systems. Where conformity assessment documentation is verified at import, limited awareness among border officials of the applicable instruments, products covered, recognised bodies or acceptable documentation can lead to requests for additional evidence or duplicative verification, potentially reducing the efficiency gains that recognition is intended to provide. The issue is therefore not only whether foreign evidence is formally recognised, but whether that recognition is translated into clear and usable instructions, information and procedures for the actors responsible for implementation.
The relationship between IRC tools and trade facilitation is also not always straightforward. In some digital trade and paperless trade frameworks, the acceptance of electronic signatures, digital credentials or electronic documents may depend on the existence of recognition or interoperability arrangements between jurisdictions. In essence, the private sector must wait until governments negotiate recognition agreements before they can access the benefits of digital trade tools. Traders from jurisdictions without such arrangements may be required to continue using paper-based documentation, manual verification processes or additional certification requirements (UNCITRAL, 2019[4]).2
Several established trade facilitation tools could potentially help strengthen this connection. Single Window environments and other interagency platforms can provide channels for submitting recognised certificates, test reports or approvals to the government once. Where technically feasible, the interagency system can automatically validate them against relevant registries or information systems and send a message back to border agencies indicating whether they can be accepted. Such systems can reduce reliance on manual verification and make recognition more visible in the border clearance process. Existing practice nevertheless remains uneven. While some systems enable electronic validation of selected certificates or regulatory documents, in many cases conformity-related evidence continues to be processed separately or manually, limiting the operational integration of recognition arrangements with customs procedures.
Inter-agency co-operation is equally important because IRC tools frequently involve responsibilities distributed across customs, sectoral regulators, market surveillance authorities, accreditation bodies and other parts of the quality infrastructure. Clear communication channels, shared protocols and defined responsibilities can help border agencies determine when recognised evidence is sufficient and when additional controls may be warranted. This can also support more coherent implementation where regulatory authorities hold the technical expertise needed to interpret conformity assessment results, while customs authorities manage the transaction-level information and controls associated with the movement of goods. In this sense, effective border facilitation depends on connecting regulatory trust established through an IRC tool with the institutional arrangements through which that trust can be acted upon.
Risk management provides a further avenue for operationalising recognition. Information that a product has been assessed by a recognised CAB, or that a certificate originates from an accredited body within an established recognition framework, could inform the differentiation of border controls where consistent with the applicable regulatory framework and risk profile. This may allow authorities to focus attention on higher-risk consignments, products or operators while avoiding unnecessary repetition of checks on evidence already subject to trusted assessment processes. The value of recognition for risk management, however, depends on border agencies having timely access to reliable information on the scope and status of recognised bodies, certificates and arrangements.
Finally, documentary simplification is central to ensuring that reductions in duplicative conformity assessment translate into reductions in administrative burdens. The benefits of recognition can be weakened if traders are still required to submit multiple or overlapping documents despite the acceptance of foreign test results or certificates. Clarifying which recognised evidence is sufficient for border or market-entry purposes, aligning documentary requirements with the scope of recognition instruments and, where appropriate, standardising formats can help translate regulatory co-operation into more tangible facilitation gains (OECD, forthcoming[2]).
These findings resonate with the broader implementation challenges identified for traceability-related requirements in earlier chapters. In both contexts, compliance depends more on information or evidence generated beyond the border and by a wider set of actors, while customs and other border agencies need mechanisms to determine when and how that evidence can be relied upon. The experience of mutual recognition shows that establishing trust upstream is only one part of the implementation challenge: facilitation gains also depend on making trusted evidence visible, accessible and operationally usable within border processes.3 Stronger links with Single Windows, risk management, inter-agency co-operation and streamlined documentary requirements can therefore help bridge the gap between formal recognition and practical implementation.4
The practical functioning of IRC tools depend on the institutional architecture that sustains confidence over time. Recognition is rarely a one-off decision to accept foreign conformity assessment results. Regulatory requirements evolve, standards and assessment methods change, and the competence or status of recognised bodies may need to be monitored. Effective implementation therefore requires mechanisms to maintain confidence between participating authorities and institutions, manage changes in scope or requirements, address implementation issues and ensure that recognition continues to operate as intended.
The MRIs mapping (OECD, forthcoming[2]) shows that many instruments establish dedicated governance and oversight mechanisms for these purposes. Communication mechanisms provide a complementary layer of the IRC tool architecture. Some instruments establish specific mechanisms for sharing updates between authorities or with relevant stakeholders, although explicit provisions of this kind remain relatively limited, appearing in around 13% of mapped instruments. Such mechanisms can support notification of regulatory changes, communication on the designation, suspension or withdrawal of recognised bodies, and the transmission of information relevant to implementation or enforcement. More broadly, timely communication can help ensure that recognition decisions remain aligned with changes in regulatory requirements and that authorities have access to the information needed to determine whether particular conformity assessment results can continue to be relied upon.
International standards also play an important role in sustaining confidence across different regulatory and institutional settings. Around one-third of mapped instruments promote, require or otherwise refer to the use or joint development of international standards. Common standards can provide shared reference points for testing, inspection, certification and accreditation, reducing uncertainty over the methods and competencies underpinning conformity assessment results. This role is particularly visible in transnational accreditation arrangements, where common criteria and peer-evaluation processes help establish confidence in the competence of accreditation bodies and, through them, the CABs operating within participating systems. International standards therefore contribute to an infrastructure in which trust can extend across institutional layers without requiring participating economies to operate identical regulatory systems.
These governance mechanisms also illustrate that regulatory trust depends on more than the formal recognition of a certificate or test result. Confidence rests on a broader chain of institutions and processes: the body that generated the assessment, the accreditation or oversight mechanisms supporting its competence, the standards and methodologies applied, and the authorities or arrangements through which its results are recognised. Weakness or uncertainty at any point in this chain can affect the usability of the resulting evidence. From this perspective, the institutional architecture surrounding IRC tools performs an important function by making the provenance, competence and oversight underpinning regulatory evidence more credible and predictable.
However, the existence of this architecture does not ensure that relevant information is readily accessible to those who need to use it. Information on IRC instruments remains fragmented across international, regional and national sources, and can be difficult to navigate. Traders may struggle to determine whether an instrument applies to a particular product, market or conformity assessment procedure; which bodies are recognised; and which certificates, reports or approvals can be used. Border agencies may face similar challenges where information on recognition arrangements is not integrated into operational guidance or border management systems. Limited awareness can therefore weaken the practical value of recognition even where robust institutional arrangements exist.
Improving awareness requires more than publishing the legal text of an IRC tool. Operational use depends on accessible and up-to-date information on product and sectoral scope, participating jurisdictions, applicable conformity assessment procedures, recognised or designated bodies, accepted certificates and relevant changes in status. Greater coherence across existing repositories and clearer links between recognition information, regulatory guidance and border procedures could help firms identify applicable requirements and enable authorities to use recognised evidence more consistently. Digital registries and other IT tools may also support implementation where they allow users to verify the status and scope of recognised bodies or evidence, although their value ultimately depends on the quality, accessibility and maintenance of the underlying data.
These findings have broader relevance for traceability-related requirements. As earlier chapters have indicated, demonstrating compliance ever more depends on information generated, transmitted and verified by multiple public and private actors across supply chains. The cross-border recognition experience suggests that trust in such information cannot rest on the data alone: it also depends on confidence in who generated, assessed or verified it, according to which methods or standards, under what oversight arrangements, and whether those actors and processes remain recognised and reliable over time. Joint governance mechanisms, consistent communication, common standards and transparent information on the status and competence of relevant actors therefore offer useful lessons for the wider compliance ecosystems emerging around traceability-related requirements.
The broader implication is that awareness and institutional architecture are complementary. Governance mechanisms can establish and maintain trust between participating systems, but awareness is needed to make that trust visible and usable by firms, regulators and border agencies. As compliance requirements become more information-intensive and involve a wider range of specialised actors, strengthening both dimensions will be important for translating trusted evidence into practical simplification at the border.
Several of the sectors discussed earlier in the report as facing growing traceability demands are also sectors in which various mutual recognition arrangements are relatively present. While MRIs represent only one form of IRC and are distinct from traceability systems, examining this overlap provides an illustrative perspective on sectors where authorities already make use of arrangements that allow them to rely on assessments, inspections or conformity assessment results generated beyond their own jurisdiction.
The relevance of IRC tools may become particularly pronounced in sectors where several trends intersect: i.e., conformity assessment requirements are extensive, supply chains are complex and internationally fragmented, traceability demands are increasing, and disruptions can have wider economic or strategic consequences. In such settings, firms and authorities may need to manage growing volumes of product, production and supply chain information while maintaining confidence in evidence generated by specialised actors across jurisdictions. The challenge is therefore not only to obtain relevant information, but also to determine when assessments, certifications or verification processes undertaken elsewhere can be relied upon without unnecessary duplication.
The OECD mapping suggests that mutual recognition arrangements, in particular, already have a significant presence in several sectors with these characteristics (Box 5.3). Electrical and electronics equipment, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, machinery and selected agri-food products feature prominently across mapped instruments, while broader arrangements covering testing, certification and accreditation can extend across multiple sectors (OECD, forthcoming[2]). Many of these sectors are also characterised by internationally fragmented production networks and significant regulatory requirements, in addition to being frequently identified in national and international discussions relating to economic security, resilience and supply chain diversification (OECD, 2025[5]). The examples discussed below are therefore illustrative rather than exhaustive.
This overlap does not imply that existing MRIs were designed to address emerging traceability requirements. It does, however, suggest that some of the institutional relationships, conformity assessment infrastructures and trust mechanisms that may become more important for implementing traceability-related requirements are already present in these sectors.
This box presents an illustrative perspective on sectors in which cross-border reliance on conformity assessment and related information appears relatively present, providing context for how increasingly information-intensive regulatory requirements may interact with existing International Regulatory Co-operation (IRC) tools.
Among other IRC tools, mutual recognition arrangements also operate across a broad range of regulatory and sectoral contexts. For instance, electrical and electronic goods, telecommunications equipment, agri-food and pharmaceuticals are among the sectors most frequently covered by such identified arrangements, followed by machinery, medical equipment, vehicles and vehicle components, and laboratory equipment (Figure 5.1). Several of these sectors also feature prominently in discussions of evolving traceability-related requirements, making them illustrative cases for examining the interaction between traceability and existing IRC tools.
Number of identified mutual recognition arrangements covering a specific sector by year, 1990‑2024
Note: The figure illustrates here the stock by year in the number of identified mutual recognition arrangements. A specific arrangement can cover one or multiple sectors.
Source: OECD (forthcoming[2]).
The scale of trade potentially associated with selected IRC tools is substantial. While allowing for the limitations inherent in mapping regulatory instruments to goods classifications, such tools appear to be potentially relevant for one-third of global exports in mapped sectors and approximately one-fifth of global merchandise trade, equivalent to about USD 4.8 trillion (Table 5.1). These estimates suggest that arrangements for recognising and relying on foreign regulatory evidence are already present across significant trade flows and in sectors where regulatory compliance is particularly important. As traceability-related requirements increase the volume and complexity of information that may accompany goods across supply chains, existing IRC tools may offer useful insights into the conditions under which authorities rely on information, assessments or evidence originating in other jurisdictions (OECD, forthcoming[2]).
Selected sectors across identified mutual recognition arrangements, USD billion in 2024
Table note: Sectoral trade values are based on an illustrative, best-effort HS6 mapping to the descriptions of sectors included in identified arrangements in the context of the mapping exercise. The number of distinct HS6 codes covered by each aggregate sector is: chemical products, 923 across HS 28‑38; construction materials and equipment, 199 across HS 25, 32, 39, 44, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76, 84 and 94; cosmetics, 23 across HS 33‑34; distilled spirits, 7 in HS 22; electric and electronical equipment, 322 across HS 84‑85; entertainment equipment, 40 across HS 85 and 95; feed additives, 17 across HS 23, 29 and 35; food additives, 38 across HS 13, 21, 29, 32, 33, 35 and 38; laboratory equipment, 47 across HS 38, 70, 84 and 90; machinery, 538 in HS 84; marine equipment, 37 across HS 63, 84, 85, 89 and 90; medical devices, 47 across HS 30, 38, 90 and 94; pharmaceuticals, 89 across HS 29‑30; telecommunications equipment, 37 across HS 85 and 90; toys, 1 in HS 95; tractors, 12 in HS 87; vehicles and vehicle components, 98 in HS 87. Global exports include those potentially covered by identified arrangements.
Notes: This does not represent the value of trade actually utilising such arrangements in place now, it represents the potential share that could be covered. Approximately 32.1% of global exports in the selected sectors potentially fall within the scope of such arrangements. This aggregate share is calculated by dividing the total value of exports potentially covered by such identified arrangements by total global exports across all selected sectors. Table 5.1 also reports sector-level shares, highlighting substantial variation across sectors.
Source: (OECD, forthcoming[2]).
Critical minerals illustrate one potential area of operational integration. Critical minerals and their processed forms are indispensable inputs into the energy transition, digitalisation, advanced manufacturing and defence industries (OECD, forthcoming[6]). Their supply chains can span extraction, processing, refining, component production, assembly, use and end-of-life stages across multiple jurisdictions, while upstream production may involve heterogeneous operators and, in some contexts, artisanal or informal activity. Emerging requirements can increase demand for information on origin, production conditions, environmental performance, recycled content or other attributes across these stages (a trend reflected in recent G7 traceability initiatives for critical minerals described in Box 5.4). At the same time, demonstrating compliance may require testing, certification, auditing or verification by specialised actors. The experience of mutual recognition is relevant here not because existing instruments necessarily provide recognition of all such traceability information, but because they offer established approaches for building confidence in the competence of bodies generating or assessing evidence across jurisdictions. This may gain prominence where critical supply chains depend on avoiding unnecessary repetition of assessments while maintaining credible assurance.
This box builds on the discussion in Box 1.3, which examined how traceability is being implemented across critical mineral supply chains and the practical challenges faced by firms. Here, the focus shifts to recent international efforts to strengthen interoperability, transparency and trust through co‑ordinated initiatives.
Recent G7 work on critical minerals places traceability at the centre of efforts to build more resilient, responsible and diversified supply chains. The 2025 G7 Roadmap to Promote Standards-based Markets for Critical Minerals identifies transparency, traceability, sustainable mining practices, trustworthiness and reliability as core principles for critical minerals markets. It calls for stronger traceability and transparency requirements in strategic supply chains, interoperable platforms, and digital credentials, as well as pilot studies to test data collection needs and interoperability between G7 members and partners.
The 2026 G7 Leaders' Declaration on Securing Supply Chains for Critical Minerals further strengthens this agenda by linking traceability to supply chain security, high standards, market transparency and action against illegal trafficking. It commits G7 members to work towards harmonised and interoperable mechanisms for tracing the origin of critical minerals, starting with lithium and nickel, with the intention to extend pilots to five additional minerals each year, with particular attention to rare earths.
These initiatives illustrate how traceability in critical minerals is moving beyond firm-level due diligence towards a broader policy infrastructure for market structuring, resilience and compliance. They also highlight key implementation challenges: avoiding fragmented systems, limiting excessive cost burdens, ensuring interoperability, protecting confidential data, and aligning traceability tools with standards, certification and conformity assessment frameworks.
A forthcoming OECD report highlights that around one-fifth of a total of 54 bilateral and plurilateral critical minerals agreements signed or in force between 2019 and February 2026 include transparency and governance issues relating to due diligence and traceability. Labour, by contrast, while also a uniquely important topic in relation to critical minerals, is not included as frequently (OECD, forthcoming[7]).
Source: Government of Canada (2025), Roadmap to Promote Standards-based Markets for Critical Minerals; G7 France (2026), G7 leaders' declaration on securing supply chains for critical minerals; OECD (forthcoming[7]).
Pharmaceuticals and medical products can provide a second illustration. These sectors combine extensive regulatory oversight with highly internationalised supply chains and significant consequences from disruption. Existing recognition arrangements already cover areas such as Good Manufacturing Practice inspections and selected conformity assessment procedures, demonstrating how authorities can establish confidence in assessments performed elsewhere while retaining their own regulatory responsibilities. Traceability needs in these sectors can extend across manufacturing sites, batches, distribution networks and supply chain actors. Although these recognition arrangements are distinct from traceability systems, they show how regulatory authorities have developed practical mechanisms for assessing, accepting and using information generated outside their immediate jurisdiction. These experiences may offer broader insights for the governance of increasingly information-intensive regulatory requirements. The relevant lesson is therefore not that existing recognition arrangements resolve traceability challenges, but that institutional mechanisms for relying on foreign inspections, competent authorities and conformity assessment processes can reduce duplication and offer practical experience in organising trust across borders.
Electrical and electronics equipment and related technologies are another area where traceability and trade facilitation aspects may intersect. These sectors are among the most frequently covered by existing mutual recognition instruments, reflecting long-standing needs to manage testing and certification for areas such as electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility and telecommunications equipment. At the same time, complex multi-tier supply chains and growing attention to environmental performance, circularity, product life cycles and the sourcing of key inputs can increase demands for traceability-related information. Existing recognition infrastructures may therefore provide useful foundations for considering how confidence in specialised assessments can be maintained as the range of information associated with products expands. This may be particularly relevant where multiple assessments apply to the same product and where duplicative testing or verification could increase costs or delay market access.
Selected agri-food value chains help illustrate a somewhat different form of potential integration. Traceability has long played an important role in food safety, animal and plant health, origin and organic production. Certificates and other official assurances frequently accompany cross-border movements. Recognition and equivalence arrangements in areas such as organic products demonstrate that recognition can, in some cases, be linked more directly to documentation used in trade and border procedures. As requirements relating to deforestation, land use, environmental performance or production practices evolve, these sectors may offer particularly useful experience in connecting upstream information, recognised assurance mechanisms and transaction-level documentation (as illustrated by the case of traceability initiatives in Colombia’s cocoa sector in Box 5.5). They also illustrate the importance of ensuring that new information demands remain workable for smaller producers and firms operating in fragmented supply chains.
OECD analysis of 14 environmental sustainability initiatives in Colombia’s cocoa sector shows that traceability has become a systemic priority, driven by both domestic sustainability objectives and evolving international market requirements. Eleven of the 14 initiatives reviewed explicitly refer to traceability, although only three have developed or are actively implementing dedicated traceability tools. These tools include GPS and polygon farm mapping, traceability platforms, and systems integrating farm-level biodiversity and soil information. Across initiatives, traceability is primarily used to monitor land-use change, verify deforestation-free sourcing, and support alignment with due diligence frameworks such as the EU Deforestation Regulation.
The Colombian case also illustrates that traceability is not only a technical issue. Digital platforms can link farm-level data, geo‑co‑ordinates, deforestation alerts, transaction records, certification and compliance documentation, but implementation remains uneven. Smallholders, especially in remote or post-conflict areas, may face barriers linked to connectivity, digital literacy, finance and technical assistance. The analysis therefore highlights the importance of combining digital tools with field-based support, co-operative engagement, co-financing and institutional co-ordination. It also points to risks of fragmentation, as multiple buyer- or importer-driven systems can increase costs for producers and co-operatives.
Source: Deuss, Du Bois and Angulo (2026[8]).
Across these sectors, the potential point of integration lies in a common implementation challenge. Traceability can establish links between a good and information concerning its origin, production, processing or movement through the supply chain; conformity assessment and related assurance mechanisms can help establish confidence in particular claims, attributes or processes; and recognition can, under defined conditions, enable actors in one jurisdiction to rely on assessments or competencies established elsewhere. Recent OECD work on Free Trade Zones (FTZs) similarly points to the importance of combining traceability, due diligence, verification and governance mechanisms to strengthen trust in supply chain information (OECD, 2025[9]). These functions remain distinct and should not be conflated. Yet as compliance advances to depend more on complex information generated across jurisdictions, their interaction may grow in importance.
This interaction also highlights the potential value of network effects. Recognition arrangements that connect multiple jurisdictions, accreditation bodies or conformity assessment bodies can extend the reach of trusted assessment infrastructures. In critical sectors characterised by concentrated production, complex supplier networks or dependencies on a limited number of markets, broader recognition networks may help diversify the locations from which trusted evidence can be generated and reduce the need to recreate assessment capacity in every market. The diverse participation observed in transnational accreditation arrangements may be particularly relevant in this respect, although further evidence is needed on how such networks interact in practice with emerging traceability-related requirements and border procedures.
At the same time, important limits remain. Recognition of conformity assessment results does not necessarily imply recognition of underlying regulatory requirements, acceptance of traceability data for border purposes or equivalence between different methodologies. Emerging requirements may involve information – such as embedded emissions, land-use history or conditions deep within supply chains – that differs substantially from the traditional product testing and certification functions covered by many existing conformity assessment protocols. Differences in methodologies, data quality, legal mandates, confidentiality rules and acceptable levels of assurance may therefore constrain the transferability of existing models. Any extension of recognition approaches to new compliance areas would need to reflect the specific risks, regulatory objectives and institutional capacities involved.
The experience of cross-border recognition nevertheless offers relevant lessons for critical sectors facing growing traceability demands. It shows that confidence in evidence generated elsewhere can be supported through layered institutional arrangements involving governments, regulators, accreditation bodies and CABs; that common standards and peer-evaluation mechanisms can help sustain trust across jurisdictions; and that formal recognition generates the greatest facilitation benefits when it is transparent and operationally connected to border processes. This suggests that, as traceability-related requirements evolve, policy attention could usefully focus not only on what information needs to be traced, but also on the infrastructure through which related evidence is generated, assessed, recognised and made usable for compliance.
With respect to mutual recognition instruments, their contribution is likely to be greatest where existing recognition infrastructures can complement, rather than substitute for, traceability systems; where the competence and oversight of relevant actors can be established with confidence; and where trusted evidence can be integrated into customs and other border management frameworks.
Generally, the facilitation effects of IRC tools depend on their design. Where a tool complements alternative compliance pathways, it can broaden access to trusted information and reduce costs without restricting participation. Where a tool becomes a prerequisite for access to specific procedures, digital channels or compliance mechanisms, benefits for participating may be accompanied by adjustment costs for firms in non-participating jurisdictions. Evaluating the net trade facilitation impact of specific IRC tools therefore requires consideration of both the efficiencies created within their networks and the potential costs associated with negotiating, maintaining and expanding those networks over time.
References
[1] Correia de Brito, A., C. Kauffmann and J. Pelkmans (2016), The contribution of mutual recognition to international regulatory co-operation, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/01/the-contribution-of-mutual-recognition-to-international-regulatory-co-operation_g17a2759/5jm56fqsfxmx-en.pdf.
[8] Deuss, A., O. du Bois and D. Angulo (2026), “Environmental sustainability initiatives in the Colombian cocoa sector”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 224, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1b5cf384-en.
[5] OECD (2025), OECD Supply Chain Resilience Review: Navigating Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/94e3a8ea-en.
[9] OECD (2025), “Report on the Implementation of the OECD Recommendation on Countering Illicit Trade: Enhancing Transparency in Free Trade Zones”, C(2025)49, https://one.oecd.org/document/C(2025)49/en/pdf.
[3] OECD (2013), International Regulatory Co-operation: Addressing Global Challenges, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2013/04/international-regulatory-co-operation_g1g2ebb3/9789264200463-en.pdf.
[6] OECD (forthcoming), Critical Minerals: Strenghtening International Trade and Economic Security.
[2] OECD (forthcoming), The evolving role of mutual recognition instruments in a trade facilitation context.
[7] OECD (forthcoming), Towards a better understanding of recent international agreements concerning critical raw materials.
[4] UNCITRAL (2019), A background note on mutual recognition mechanism for trade-related data and documents in electronic form, https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Mutual%20recognition%20Mechanism.pdf.
← 1. Examples include the Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), the Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) and the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC).
← 2. The trade facilitation benefits associated with mutual recognition can therefore be linked to the scope and participation of recognition arrangements. While participating jurisdictions may reduce compliance costs and duplicative assessments, firms operating outside recognition frameworks may continue to face the costs associated with alternative conformity assessment and administrative procedures.
← 3. At the same time, the ultimate effectiveness of recognition depends on how recognised evidence is incorporated into domestic regulatory and compliance systems more broadly, including through market surveillance and placing-on-the-market arrangements.
← 4. A recent example is the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) eFiling programme, which integrates product compliance information into the United States Single Window environment (Automated Commercial Environment, ACE). Under the system, importers can upload certificate data into a central registry and subsequently reference this information in customs declarations, reducing repeated submissions and supporting automated risk targeting. Developed in close co-operation with the United States Customs and Border Protection, the programme aims to improve the identification of higher-risk shipments while reducing burdens on compliant traders through the reuse of compliance information and flexible electronic submission options.