Mutual Recognition in Halal Certification

Mutual recognition is the mechanism by which one halal authority agrees to accept certificates that were issued under another body’s or another country’s system. It exists because there is no single global halal regulator: more than 400 halal certificates circulate worldwide, each backed by a different authority, and a product cleared in one market is not automatically cleared in the next. Recognition is what bridges that gap, and it works on three distinct levels that are easy to confuse.

Getting the levels straight matters for a practical reason. A certifier that markets itself as internationally recognised, or an exporter reading a certificate, needs to know exactly whose acceptance is being claimed and whether it reaches the destination market. This guide sets out the three mechanisms, names the authorities that run them, and shows what each one means for a certification body and for the exporter relying on it.

Unilateral recognition: one authority lists a body

The most common form of recognition is one-directional. An authority assesses a certification body against its own requirements, and if the body passes, it goes onto a published list. There is no reciprocal obligation, and the listed body’s home country is not asked to accept anything in return.

JAKIM’s scheme is the reference case. Under Malaysian trade descriptions law, imported goods may only be described as halal if certified by a body JAKIM has recognised, and JAKIM publishes and periodically revises that list. Every certification body in this directory holds that status. MUIS in Singapore runs a parallel scheme through its Foreign Halal Certification Bodies list, recognising overseas bodies whose systems align with the Singapore MUIS Halal Standards after an application, a personnel assessment, and a risk-tiered review, with a three-year certificate. Each authority keeps its own list, and a listing on one does not carry to another. Our guide on what JAKIM recognition means walks through that assessment in detail.

Bilateral MRAs: two authorities sign

A mutual recognition agreement is the reciprocal step up. Here two authorities sign an instrument agreeing to accept each other’s certificates, so a product certified under either system can cross into the other market without being certified again. The obligation runs both ways, which is what distinguishes an MRA from a one-sided listing.

Two recent examples show the pattern. In May 2023, Saudi Arabia’s SFDA, through its Saudi Halal Center, and Malaysia’s JAKIM signed a Memorandum of Cooperation for mutual recognition of halal certificates on locally manufactured exports, alongside cooperation on conformity assessment, standards, and laboratory work. In November 2023, Indonesia’s halal agency BPJPH signed mutual recognition agreements with 37 overseas certification bodies, nine of them receiving full mutual recognition and acceptance and the rest set on a path to complete their assessments. Because BPJPH requires halal certification for products traded in Indonesia, these agreements are what let approved bodies’ certificates be accepted there.

Multilateral harmonisation: IHAF and SMIIC

The third level sits above individual certifiers, at the accreditation and standards layer. Rather than pairing two markets, it tries to make many systems interoperable by agreeing on common criteria.

The Standards and Metrology Institute for Islamic Countries (SMIIC), established in 2010 under the OIC, writes the standards, most notably OIC/SMIIC 2, the requirements for bodies providing halal certification. The International Halal Accreditation Forum (IHAF), founded in Dubai in 2016, is a network of accreditation bodies whose signatories sign an IHAF mutual recognition arrangement to accept one another’s accreditations against those criteria. Neither body certifies products or lists individual certifiers. A certification body accredited by an IHAF member, working to SMIIC standards, still has to secure recognition from each destination market’s own authority. Harmonisation narrows the differences between systems; it does not replace the market-by-market recognition decision. The distinction between these credentials is covered in our guide on recognition versus accreditation.

What the three levels mean in practice

For a certification body, the order of value is clear. Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17065 and OIC/SMIIC 2, backed by an IHAF member, builds the technical credibility that makes recognition easier to win, but it is unilateral listing on each target authority’s register that actually opens a border. A bilateral MRA between two governments can then broaden access across a whole market at once, which is why bodies pursue all three where they can.

For an exporter, the checking sequence follows from that. Confirm the certifying body appears on the published list of every authority governing your destination markets, because that listing is the binding constraint. Treat an MRA between your production country and the destination as a bonus that can simplify acceptance, and treat SMIIC-based accreditation as evidence of competence rather than proof of market access. Where several authorities are in play at once, our comparison of JAKIM, MUIS, and BPJPH shows how their recognition systems differ.

Where to verify recognition

Every level of recognition is verifiable from a primary source, and none of it should be taken from a certifier’s own marketing. For unilateral listing, go to the authority’s published register: JAKIM’s recognised bodies list and MUIS’s FHCB list are both public. For a bilateral MRA, look for the signed announcement from one of the two authorities rather than a third-party summary. For accreditation, check the accreditation body’s register and confirm the scope matches the certificate in question. In this directory, every listed body holds current JAKIM recognition, and you can browse the recognised bodies by country to confirm an entry and its scopes.