You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 23, 2012

One Area, One Rule: AEC Landscape for Regulatory Affairs

Informed Counsel

The formation of a single market and single production base by 2015 will permit companies within ASEAN member states to more freely move their capital and will serve to effectively break down existing trade barriers that currently stunt intra-regional trade within the ten-member bloc. The implementation of consistent standards within ASEAN countries for each product, including related rules and regulations that conform to international standards, will, in theory, ensure the removal of such trade barriers or obstacles.

“One Area, One Rule” is the term commonly used to describe the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), which will officially be implemented by 2015. For several years, regulatory authorities in each ASEAN country have been embroiled in discussions on the main rules to implement across a range of tightly regulated sectors—including cosmetics, food, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products—with a goal to achieving the objective of “One Standard, One Test, Implemented Everywhere.” But harmonization of the rules has not yet reached an advanced stage for all products.

An overview of the some of the harmonization rules that have already been implemented, along with those that are in the process of being put in place, is provided below.

One Harmonization Scheme for All

Cosmetics. On January 1, 2008, ASEAN member states implemented the ASEAN Harmonization Cosmetics Regulation Scheme. As a result, a streamlined system and an efficient registration process have replaced the previously chaotic system, and there is now just a solitary category for cosmetic products.

The Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implemented a new online cosmetic product registration system on November 1, 2010. Registrations are mostly conducted online, which is less time consuming, and there is now only one category of products to be registered, namely, notification cosmetics.

Pharmaceuticals. One of the main concerns of member states was that each local FDA had different requirements for registering pharmaceutical products in each ASEAN country. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry was one of the first industries pushing for the implementation of a harmonized regulatory scheme, to complement and facilitate the objective of developing an ASEAN Free Trade Area, and in particular, the elimination of technical barriers to trade posed by these regulations.

Following the ASEAN harmonization, on January 1, 2009, the Thai FDA implemented the ASEAN Common Technical Requirements and Dossier (ACTR/ ACTD) on Quality, Safety and Efficacy, which provides guidelines on analytical and process validation, stability studies, and bioavailability/bioequivalence.

Other amendments to local laws are also under consideration, so as to be in line with the upcoming AEC harmonization schemes. In addition, to facilitate the registration of products in each country, the Thai FDA is currently considering accepting bioequivalence studies that are conducted in foreign countries for generic products.

Agricultural products and livestock. Harmonization of the requirements for agricultural products is also well underway. For example, in 2006, the ASEAN Good Agricultural Practices for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables, or ASEAN GAP, was adopted as a standard for the production, harvesting, and post-harvest handling of fruits and vegetables in the region. Several other ASEAN harmonization standards have also been implemented, such as 13 criteria for the accreditation of livestock establishments and 3 criteria for the accreditation of livestock products.

Steps Toward Harmonization

Medical devices. Each member state has until 2014 to implement the new requirements established by the Medical Device Working Group, to finalize the harmonization process for all medical devices. This includes formulating a common definition for medical devices which is derived from the Global Harmonization Task Force definition, harmonizing the classification of the products (five classes based on the assessed risk of the products), developing a common list of international medical device standards to obtain similar quality assurance, and agreeing on a Common Submission Dossier Template (CSDT), among others.

In Thailand, discrepancies remain in the product registration process for medical devices, but these are now being addressed. For example, blood bags, which are usually classified in most other countries as medical devices, were previously categorized in Thailand as drugs. Due to a recent change in legislation, however, a blood bag will be classified as a medical device moving forward.

The Thai FDA has also announced that it will be considering the CSDT by 2012–2013, and preparations are underway for the implementation of the ASEAN Medical Device Directive (AMDD) in the next four years. The Thai FDA is now requiring local manufacturers’ facilities to obtain a Good Manufacturing Practice Certification, which is equivalent to international standards like ISO 13485.

Food. Food safety is the one of the main objectives of the AEC. Thus, in 2009, the AEC adopted the ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework and Strategy Plan of Action for ASEAN Food Security.  The AEC is also considering using the Codex General Standards for Food Additives (GSFA) as the basis for harmonization.

The Thai FDA also intends to establish the Food Alert System of Thailand (FAST), in order to be linked up to the ASEAN Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (ARASFF), when the AEC is implemented in 2015.

Conclusion

Implementation of the AEC will have a broad impact on ASEAN countries. Therefore, each ASEAN country needs to prepare itself for the implementation of both regulations and quality standards of goods in order to gain substantial economic benefits and show that it should be considered as a strong and open player in the ASEAN market. In the meantime, it will be important to monitor whether the AEC will move toward a more general harmonization system, such as the systems that have already been planned, with a view to becoming more like the European Union in regard to the protection of intellectual property rights.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 13, 2026
Indonesia’s Halal Product Assurance Agency (BPJPH) has issued new regulations establishing clearer procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on businesses that violate halal product assurance requirements. BPJPH Regulation No. 2 of 2026 on the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions for Violations of Halal Product Assurance Implementation, issued on June 5, 2026, strengthens Indonesia’s halal compliance framework, as mandated under Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance and Government Regulation No. 42 of 2024 on the Implementation of Halal Product Assurance. BPJPH Regulation No. 2/2026 also supports the upcoming mandatory halal compliance deadline of October 17, 2026, which will apply to a broad range of products and services, including imported food and beverages, slaughtering products and services, natural and quasi-drugs, health supplements, cosmetics, chemical and genetically engineered products, clothing and accessories, household goods, prayer equipment, stationery, and class A medical devices. Scope BPJPH is authorized to impose administrative sanctions for violations of halal product assurance requirements committed by businesses, halal inspection agencies (LPH), halal auditors, halal product process companion institutions (lembaga pendamping PPH), and halal product process companions (pendamping PPH). The head of BPJPH has authority to determine, cancel, or amend the imposition of administrative sanctions, including upon receipt of objections. This authority covers revocation of Halal Certificates (including foreign halal certificate registration numbers), withdrawal of goods from circulation, freezing of LPH operations, freezing of halal product process companion institutions, revocation of PPH companion institution registration numbers, revocation of halal auditor registration numbers, and revocation of LPH accreditation status. Administrative Sanctions Businesses may be subject to any of the following administrative sanctions: Written warning; Administrative fine; Revocation of the halal certificate, including revocation of foreign halal certificate registration numbers; and Withdrawal of goods from circulation. The regulation sets out the types of violations that may trigger these sanctions, with each
July 1, 2026
Obtaining marketing authorization is a fundamental requirement for bringing pharmaceutical products to the Thai market. Companies must navigate the Thai Food and Drug Administration’s registration procedures while also complying with post-approval pharmacovigilance obligations, licensing requirements for manufacturing and importation, data protection rules, and other regulatory requirements. This guide provides an overview of Thailand’s regulatory framework for pharmaceutical marketing authorization, including available registration pathways, review timelines, application fees, postmarketing surveillance obligations, licensing requirements, exemptions, data exclusivity, freedom of information, and parallel import considerations. It is intended as a practical reference for pharmaceutical companies, regulatory affairs professionals, and others involved in bringing medicinal products to the Thai market. Download the guide below for a concise overview of the current requirements and procedures governing pharmaceutical marketing authorization in Thailand.
June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
June 19, 2026
For the first time, Thailand’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a consolidated list identifying all substances that have successfully passed its novel food safety evaluation process. The list is a step forward in regulatory transparency, but it also highlights a feature of the Thai regime that food companies often overlook: each approval is tied exclusively to the company that applied for it. A substance’s appearance on the list does not give other companies the green light to use it. This article examines the structure of Thailand’s novel food approval framework, the implications of applicant exclusivity, and the strategic choices it requires of food companies looking to bring novel ingredients to the Thai market. Thai FDA Food Safety Evaluation Framework Notification No. 376 of the Ministry of Public Health requires novel food substances to undergo a food safety assessment, with an exemption only for novel foods manufactured exclusively for export. The framework also encompasses “foods that do not qualify as novel foods” but which present characteristics warranting a safety evaluation, such as differing quality standards, increased serving sizes, or applications in specific food categories, where such changes affect consumption levels, nutritional value, or consumer safety. The recently published list of foods that passed the safety evaluation by the Thai FDA is structured by substance category and identifies the approved company (domestic manufacturer or importer), country of origin, substance name and trade name, approved purpose of use, and date of the Thai FDA’s approval notification certificate. A notable feature of Thailand’s novel food regime is that the approval result is tied exclusively to the company that submitted the application. Publication of the consolidated list does not constitute a general authorization to use the approved substances. The Thai FDA’s approval certificate specifies the approved conditions of use and the requirements