Expansion of the OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators in the area of environment

4. Trade facilitation efforts across the product lifecycle: Stylised patterns from the env-TFIs

This section presents initial, stylised patterns across OECD economies from the env-TFIs. The aim is to show the extent to which environment-related implementation requirements are already reflected in the trade facilitation systems that traders and border agencies use in practice.

The analysis draws on publicly available information across OECD economies, including customs websites, environmental agency guidance, legislation, regulatory portals, Single Window platforms and other border agency documentation. This provides an initial picture of how visible, accessible and operational these environment-related requirements are from a trade facilitation perspective. It also helps identify areas where implementation may be difficult to observe, fragmented across agencies, or not yet fully embedded in mainstream border processes.

The results suggest that on average OECD trade facilitation systems cover just over half (55%) of the border-related challenges linked to the environmental lifecycle of traded products. These efforts are most often plugged into the parts of trade facilitation systems that are already more advanced. In practice, this means that information for implementation of environmental requirements is increasingly available online, and that many related documents and procedures can be handled electronically. Progress is especially visible in transparency, basic automation and the streamlining of formalities, including tools such as advance rulings and basic electronic document submission. Deeper forms of integration, however, remain more uneven. These include bringing relevant environment-related documents into Single Windows, ensuring customs and environmental agencies share information and manage risks jointly, co-ordinating inspections, exchanging data across borders, and involving environmental authorities and traders regularly in trade facilitation governance. Overall, the picture is one of solid progress in making requirements more visible and procedures more digital, but slower and more uneven progress in ensuring that agencies, systems and controls are well integrated (Figure 3).

In addition, the areas relying more directly on regulatory frameworks within the env-TFIs, such as advance rulings, appeal procedures, procedures, and information availability, appear on average more strongly embedded in existing trade facilitation systems. In turn, more operational areas – including documentary requirements, agency co-operation, fees and charges, and consultation mechanisms – are around one-third less embedded than regulatory framework-oriented areas (or an implementation gap of roughly 25 percentage points on average).

Figure 3. Are environment-related border requirements included in trade facilitation systems?

Average env-TFI score as share of the corresponding economy-wide TFIs score (%), 2024

Notes: The economy-wide TFIs ask whether core trade facilitation tools exist, while the env-TFIs ask whether environment-related border requirements are included in those tools. A higher env-TFI score implies that environment-related information, documents, agencies and controls are more fully integrated into trade facilitation systems. A lower env-TFI score does not imply weaker environmental regulation. It may mean that environment-related procedures exist, but are handled through separate, fragmented or less visible systems. “Weakly integrated” areas refer to those requirements that on average are handled separately or for which information is hard to find. “Partly integrated” areas refer to those requirements where on average some information or documents are included, but systems remain fragmented. “Well integrated” areas refer to those requirements where on average related information, documents, agencies and controls are integrated into mainstream trade facilitation systems. Based on the compilation of measures for OECD economies drawing on publicly available information.

The embedding of relevant environmental border requirements within trade facilitation frameworks (Box 5) has been particularly dynamic (Figures 4 – 7) in the streamlining of formalities, where basic automation, document simplification and procedural improvements show some of the strongest gains across all areas – rising sharply during 2012‑17 and reaching comparatively high-performance levels by 2024. Information availability also performs well, with steady and substantial progress over the period, indicating that public transparency and access to regulatory information have strengthened meaningfully. At the same time, border agency co‑operation – both domestic and external – demonstrates clear catch‑up dynamics, with solid improvements that are closing the gap with the leading areas of formalities and information provision. In contrast, more technical or institutionally complex areas, such as appeal procedures, fees and charges, and involvement of the trade community, remain at lower levels, reflecting slower progress and the fact that improvements in these domains often require deeper legal, administrative, or stakeholder‑engagement reforms; they also tend to be harder for countries to document and report, which contributes to more limited visibility and slower measured improvement in the current dataset.

Box 5. How to read the env-TFIs across product lifecycle segments?

• The economy-wide TFIs ask whether core trade facilitation tools exist. The env-TFIs ask whether environment-related border requirements are included in those tools.

• A higher env-TFI score implies that environment-related information, documents, agencies and controls are more fully integrated into trade facilitation systems.

• A lower env-TFI score does not imply weaker environmental regulation. It may mean that environment-related procedures exist, but are handled through separate, fragmented or less visible systems.

Figure 4. Making environmental-related border requirements easier to find and anticipate

Average across OECD Members, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information across OECD Members.

Figure 5. Streamlining border formalities along the product lifecycle

Average across OECD Members, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information across OECD Members.

Figure 6. Strengthening cross-agency handling of environmental requirements

Average across all OECD Members, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information across OECD Members.

Figure 7. Improving oversight and impartiality in lifecycle-related procedures

Average across OECD Members, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information compiled across OECD Members.

This initial mapping also suggests that trade facilitation efforts relevant to environmental traceability are not evenly distributed across key product lifecycle segments (production, use, end‑of‑life). The analysis highlights a steady increase in efforts across all segments between 2012 and 2024, but the intensity and pace of improvement differ markedly across lifecycle stages. Trade facilitation measures of relevance to production start from the lowest baseline in 2012 yet exhibit one of the strongest upward trajectories by 2024, indicating accelerated efforts in upstream transparency and certification. Trade facilitation measures relevant to the use stage (targeting environmental goods) similarly show substantial improvement, reflecting a growing emphasis on improving clarity around the classification and treatment of such goods as well streamlining of procedures.

By contrast, the two end‑of‑life segments – goods destined for reuse and remanufacturing and waste destined for disposal or recovery – display a different pattern. While both start from comparatively modest levels in 2012, progress in relevant trade facilitation measures is more staggered: reuse and remanufacturing exhibit a strong rise by 2017 before levelling off, whereas waste and scrap (recyclable materials)‑related measures improve between 2012 and 2017 but show no significant progress subsequently, suggesting that regulatory, risk management, or capacity constraints may be slowing additional facilitation advances.

Overall, these differences indicate that the embedding of relevant issues related to the implementation of environmental requirements within general trade facilitation frameworks is advancing fastest in areas where procedural, informational, and classification reforms are more readily implementable, while segments linked to waste management and circular‑economy‑related flows face more persistent operational and regulatory challenges, resulting in a less uniform distribution of progress across the lifecycle (Figure 8). Efforts are roughly twice as visible in production and use segments, as well as for goods destined for reuse and remanufacturing, as in waste treatment activities, pointing to uneven progress in the integration of environmental considerations across lifecycle stages.

Figure 8. Progress in integrating environmental-related requirements across the product lifecycle

Average all OECD Members, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information compiled across OECD Members.

Stylised patterns for the production segment

Assessing trade facilitation implications for the production segment – linked to the enforcement at the border of environmental-related NPR-PPMs – is inherently challenging, as environmental-related NPR-PPMs measures are highly diverse in scope, design and implementation modalities across jurisdictions and sectors. In this context, env-TFIs do not aim to capture the operational details of individual measures. Rather, they provide stylised evidence of countries’ average readiness to implement such requirements, focusing on cross-cutting enabling dimensions such as the availability of information, the treatment of documents and processes, and the effectiveness of border agency co-operation. While transparency and digitalisation are more advanced, predictability, inter-agency co-ordination and cross-border interoperability remain key areas for further progress, reflecting the challenges in upholding environmental objectives without undermining the efficiency of trade facilitation systems. These observations help identify where indicator development is most feasible and where additional policy attention may yield the greatest gains, while underscoring the continued importance of complementary, in-depth analysis of specific measures – such as the parallel work on carbon-intensity requirements (explored in the companion technical paper) – to fully capture implementation challenges.

Across countries, basic transparency on production-stage environmental NPR-PPMs is relatively widespread but often shallow and fragmented in practice, with traders needing to consult multiple unconnected sources in many cases. Consultation processes for trade-related regulation are common but rarely embed production-stage traceability explicitly. Digitalisation is expanding, with electronic processing of NPR-PPM-related documents possible, but full Single Window integration remains limited, constraining interoperability and lifecycle-wide traceability, despite some benefits for risk management and post-clearance use of data. Enforcement is increasingly oriented toward downstream mechanisms, with customs risk management frameworks increasingly considering environmental NPR-PPMs, but this is less the case for other relevant agencies, and less so for feeding results back into risk profiling. Overall, constraints are most pronounced where requirements span multiple authorities: domestic co‑ordination is improving but single data entry remains limited, and structured cross-border co-operation on data movement and risk management is rarer still, pointing to largely institutional rather than purely technical bottlenecks, although some reticence may stem from data security concerns; while governance roles are generally defined, systematic public reporting on implementation is uneven, limiting benchmarking and peer learning over time.

Figure 9. Trade facilitation for production segment requirements is held back by institutional fragmentation

Average OECD economies, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information compiled across OECD Members.

Stylised patterns for the use segment

Information relevant to the use phase of environmental goods is generally available, but it is often dispersed across multiple authorities and policy domains, so traders frequently need to combine guidance from separate, unconnected sources to understand post-clearance use, monitoring, or reporting requirements. Predictability remains uneven, with enquiry channels not always complemented by clear service standards in this area. Consultation processes are widely established, yet they do not systematically incorporate the practical traceability challenges that arise during the use phase, and routine co‑ordination between trade facilitation and environmental authorities remains challenging. Digitalisation efforts are expanding to cover this segment – supporting electronic documentation and transactions – but full integration and interoperability across customs and sector-specific systems remain partial. Compliance oversight is increasingly oriented toward downstream mechanisms such as risk-based controls and post-clearance audits rather than border checks alone, but feedback loops from audit outcomes into risk management are not consistently embedded. Overall, effective traceability during use depends heavily on domestic and cross-border co‑operation and information sharing arrangements that remain uneven.

Figure 10. The use segment requires better interoperability between customs and sector-specific systems

Average OECD economies, 2012‑24

Notes: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information compiled across OECD Members.

Stylised patterns for the end-of-life segment

Traceability for waste destined for disposal is a particularly sensitive area where border procedures sit at the core of environmental enforcement and the prevention of illegal or non-compliant shipments. While formal transparency and procedural frameworks are often present – reflecting structured control regimes – information tends to be dispersed across customs, environmental agencies and other sectoral bodies, which can undermine accessibility and increase risks of misclassification. Regular, structured engagement on the trade facilitation implications of waste controls appears limited on average within broader trade facilitation frameworks. Digitalisation supports parts of the process, yet end-to-end electronic workflows and interoperable systems remain uneven, with digital tools commonly layered onto paper-based permit and consent regimes rather than redesigning procedures for seamless traceable data flows. Enforcement relies heavily on risk-based controls and audits, but approaches differ across authorities and feedback loops for shared risk profiling do not appear consistently embedded. Overall, the main constraints identified are institutional and co‑ordination-related: domestic data alignment, interoperable IT systems, co‑ordinated inspections and single-entry mechanisms remain irregular, with cross-border co-operation on harmonised data requirements and information sharing being among the most challenging elements.

For waste destined for recovery, traceability sits at the intersection of environmental control and the facilitation of legitimate circular economy flows, which makes the policy challenge more about managing high volumes and time-sensitive supply chains. Compared with waste for disposal – where border procedures operate under permit and PIC regimes – recovery streams face a more heterogeneous and case-specific mix of requirements (material type, contamination risks, and destination treatment standards), thus practical “decision support” becomes central: guidance can help to clearly distinguish recovery pathways from disposal, and to help operators resolve waste/non-waste determinations, classification questions, and documentary sufficiency consistently.

In practice, information is often available but not always granular or well-connected across customs and environmental authorities, which can translate into inconsistent treatment of similar recycling shipments and higher compliance costs. Consultation and appeal mechanisms typically exist, yet they do not always engage routinely with operational issues specific to recycling markets (e.g. contamination thresholds, recovery conditions, or how border procedures interact with domestic circular economy policies), and appeal pathways could be improved to be suited to the speed requirements of recycling chains. Fees, charges, and documentation frameworks are usually defined, but predictability and proportionality matter more in this segment because overly burdensome or non-transparent regimes can incentivise diversion to informal channels or inefficient destinations; similarly, streamlining measures that reduce duplicative submissions are especially valuable for compliant operators. Electronic workflows, interoperable systems, and co‑ordinated multi-agency risk management are not yet mature in this area despite the high potential to support data reuse across permitting, declarations, and downstream checks while easing frictions for low-risk recyclables. Where systems remain fragmented and cross-border interoperability is limited, duplicative controls and inconsistent decisions continue to undermine end-to-end traceability.

Figure 11. Trade facilitation efforts are most needed in the end-of-life segment

Average OECD economies, 2012‑24

Note: A score closer to 2 means that environment-related requirements are more fully embedded in the relevant trade facilitation area. Based on publicly available information compiled across OECD Members.

Compared with waste streams, the key frictions for goods destined for reuse and remanufacturing appear less about permit-heavy movement regimes and more about consistent application of tariff, valuation and origin rules for used and remanufactured goods, alongside clear evidentiary requirements (fitness-for-purpose, intent-to-process, condition testing, “cores” for remanufacture, returned goods for repair, refurbished parts etc.). In practice, transparency is often present but not always easily navigable: guidance is frequently scattered across customs, environmental and sectoral authorities and not framed as a coherent user journey for “used goods versus waste” determinations, which raises the risk of inconsistent treatment across entry points. Predictability gaps are particularly consequential here, and advance rulings emerge as a high-impact piece for providing ex ante certainty on classification, origin and valuation, yet it remains challenging to gather information on their use in practice in this area. Similarly, enquiry channels may exist without specialised expertise or clear response standards suited to technical, fact-specific remanufacturing cases. Consultation and appeal mechanisms are usually available on paper, but they do not always address recurring operational frictions (documentary burdens, testing requirements, admissibility decisions) in a routine way or in formats that are practical for time-sensitive supply chains.

Documentation streamlining and proportionate, cost-reflective fees matter more than in many waste contexts because circular business models can be undermined by repetitive evidence requests, duplicative submissions, and opaque charges that push firms away from formal pathways. Digitalisation is expanding, but end-to-end integration across agencies remains partial, limiting scalable data reuse and consistent validation across the chain; as with waste, risk management and post-clearance controls are becoming central, but their effectiveness depends on multi-agency alignment and trusted operator pathways that can differentiate compliant circular traders from high-risk cases.