This section explores the implementation of trade facilitation measures in ASEAN using the OECD TFIs to assess performance across key policy areas. By examining transparency and predictability, the automation and streamlining of trade-related documents and border procedures, border agency co‑operation, and governance and impartiality, the analysis provides a more granular view of how AMS have translated commitments into practice. This approach highlights areas where implementation has been particularly strong, identifies remaining bottlenecks, and reveals differences in reform trajectories across the region. Together, these insights help clarify the specific components of trade facilitation that are driving ASEAN’s progress – and those requiring continued attention.
Facilitating Trade in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AMS have made notable progress in improving transparency and accessibility of trade-related information. All AMS now maintain functional customs portals or trade information portals that publish key regulations, procedures, and documentary requirements for import, export, and transit; tariff schedules and related legal texts; as well as practical guidance, often including links to procedural manuals or FAQs. Several of these websites are regularly updated and increasingly offer bilingual access (in English), which supports greater predictability for traders.
Improvements in transparency have also been underpinned by the ASEAN Tariff Finder. The ASEAN Tariff Finder is an online searchable tool that provides comprehensive trade-related information, including tariffs, rules of origin, non-tariff measures, customs regulations, import procedures and formalities, and internal taxation measures. It covers newly concluded and upgraded trade agreements such as the ATIGA, ASEAN+1 trade agreements, and bilateral trade agreements concluded by AMS. The portal is regularly updated and free of charge. It allows users to search trade information by HS code or specific product, as well as to compare tariffs, NTMs, rules of origin, and other trade-related provisions across various trade agreements. Complementing these key platforms, ASEAN Customs also provide Informed Compliance publications,1 which offer non-binding guidance on customs procedures and regulatory requirements. These publications aim to assist traders in the region by providing clear and accessible information, thereby encouraging voluntary compliance. In parallel with web-based information, trade enquiry points have been strengthened across several AMS. These channels enable businesses to obtain clarifications on formalities and procedures, reducing uncertainty.
Challenges remain in the depth and comprehensiveness of information (Figure 4.1): for instance, many websites still lack detailed legislation, fee schedules, decisions and examples of Customs classification, penalty provisions, judicial decisions on Customs matters, or average clearance times. In addition, not all information is always fully available in English. For example, in some cases, the content on the list of authorised traders and court rulings is made available only in the national language, which limits accessibility for foreign traders. As regards draft notification of draft measures, some progress has been made in notifying draft laws and proposed rule changes to the WTO, but the practice is not yet systematic across the region, primarily due to limited technical capacity and human resource constraints.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI A on Information availability.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24648823/).
ASEAN countries have also made important progress in developing guidelines and institutional mechanisms for public consultations on trade-related measures. Most Member States have issued formal, structured procedures to involve stakeholders in trade policymaking, reflecting a growing recognition of the value of transparency, accountability, and inclusiveness in trade-related regulatory design.
At the regional level, ASEAN has emphasised public-private dialogue as a pillar of trade facilitation. This has been carried out through the ASEAN Business Advisory Council and consultations with the Joint Business Councils (JBCs). Country examples illustrate emerging good practices: Singapore publishes proposed regulatory changes on its REACH e-consultation portal, allowing businesses to provide inputs before measures are finalised; Thailand has structured consultation processes for stakeholders to provide feedback on draft regulations; while Malaysia engages regularly with industry associations and chambers of commerce when drafting trade regulations, and in some cases publishes summaries of feedback received. Regionally, ASEAN regularly conducts consultations with the JBCs to discuss and address private sector concerns, as well as to develop trade facilitation initiatives, studies, and capacity building activities.
Despite these advances, consultation practices remain uneven across the region (Figure 4.2). In many cases, draft regulations are not consistently published in advance of their entry into force, or they only cover selected new or amended trade-related measures, which limits predictability for businesses. Feedback mechanisms also remain weak, as public comments are not always reviewed systematically or reflected in final measures, and only a few countries publish summaries of stakeholder input. Structured notice-and-comment systems are largely absent, with only selected AMS providing clear timelines, platforms, or procedures for notifying changes to customs, border agency operations, or technical regulations. Moreover, engagement often remains ad hoc and sector-specific, with SMEs frequently underrepresented in the consultation process.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI B on Involvement of the trade community.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683466/).
ASEAN Member States (AMS) have advanced the implementation of advance ruling systems in line with commitments under the WTO TFA. AMS now issue rulings on classification, origin, and valuation. The development of the ASEAN-Wide Self-Certification (AWSC) Scheme (Box 4.1), which empowers certified exporters to make origin declarations directly, has also reinforced progress on advance rulings mechanisms by encouraging greater consistency and transparency in the application of origin rules across AMS, and thereby creating synergies between certification practices and rulings on origin.
Several AMS stand out for the accessibility and transparency of their advance rulings systems. Several AMS have published guidelines detailing eligibility, required documentation, and timelines for responses on advance rulings: for instance, Singapore Customs allows online requests for rulings and publishes clear procedural guidance. Thailand similarly issues rulings in a timely manner, supported by internal systems that ensure consistency and centralised management, particularly for classification and origin. Malaysia and Indonesia have also established structured procedures, including online forms and contact points for businesses seeking rulings.
Several challenges continue, however, to limit the effectiveness of advance ruling systems in ASEAN (Figure 4.3). In many countries, awareness among businesses – especially SMEs – remains low, reducing uptake of the available mechanisms. In addition, the scope of rulings is uneven: while classification rulings are widely available, rulings on origin and valuation remain more limited in many AMS.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI C on Advance rulings.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683515/).
Implementation is also inconsistent. In some cases, rulings are not issued within the prescribed timeframes, or are applied unevenly across different customs offices, creating uncertainty for traders. Furthermore, transparency gaps persist, as many AMS do not publish anonymised rulings (for instance, in Lao PDR or Myanmar), which could otherwise serve as useful guidance for the broader trading community.
The AWSC is a trade facilitation initiative under the ATIGA that allows certified exporters to self-declare the origin of their goods using commercial documents (such as invoices, billing statements, delivery orders, or packing lists), rather than obtaining a traditional Certificate of Origin (Form D) from a governmental authority. The self-certification mechanism entered into force in September 2020 and is intended to:
Reduce export-related administrative burdens and costs,
Speed up intra‑ASEAN trade,
Offer exporters the flexibility to issue origin declarations at their convenience,
Streamline procedures for both exporters and customs authorities.
All AMS are currently part of the AWSC Scheme, having ratified the necessary protocol and operationalising the scheme within their territories. Each Member State has designated its national competent authority where exporters may apply to become certified exporters under the AWSC Scheme.
Several ASEAN countries have made progress in establishing formal mechanisms for appeal on customs and trade-related matters. Countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand have enacted legal frameworks allowing traders to contest decisions on issues concerning classification, valuation, or origin. These systems often include multiple tiers of appeal – starting with internal review by the customs administration and extending to independent tribunals or courts – providing traders with avenues for redress and legal certainty. For instance, Singapore has implemented a transparent and accessible appeal process, underpinned by published procedural rules, defined timelines, and the availability of judicial review. In Malaysia, customs decisions may be appealed through an internal administrative process and, if necessary, escalated to the judiciary. Thailand offers a similar structure, with internal review mechanisms and access to the Administrative Court, ensuring that appeals are treated impartially and with legal oversight.
Nonetheless, this policy dimension is one of the most heterogeneous in ASEAN and one where improvements have stalled in recent years (Figure 4.4). In several AMS, appeal mechanisms are not always clearly defined or consistently applied. Information on the right to appeal, procedural steps, and timelines is often challenging to access. In some cases, appeal rights are limited to a narrow set of administrative decisions, and there is no guarantee of independent review. These shortcomings weaken the overall transparency and predictability of the trade environment and can discourage traders from using these mechanisms.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI D on Appeal procedures.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683528/).
In line with commitments under the WTO TFA, most AMS now publish basic information on fees and charges imposed on imports and exports. In several cases, these are available on customs websites or national trade portals, allowing traders to access information before engaging in cross-border transactions. Efforts have also been made in most countries to align charges with the cost of services rendered, as encouraged under international good practice.
Some AMS stand out for their transparency and administrative discipline in this area. Singapore provides a detailed schedule of customs fees and service charges online and maintains a clear legal basis for all charges imposed. Malaysia and Thailand have also made substantial progress by consolidating customs-related fees and publishing them in official gazettes and online platforms, ensuring that traders are aware of the applicable costs in advance. In these countries, the process for fees payment is generally streamlined and electronic.
Despite these improvements, in several AMS, the full range of fees and charges applied by all border agencies – not just customs – are not comprehensively published or consolidated in a single source. Traders may face uncertainty due to opaque or fragmented information, particularly when charges are levied by other ministries or agencies involved in border controls. In some cases, fees may be introduced or adjusted without prior notice or clear justification, which undermines predictability and raises concerns about cost recovery principles and potential overcharging (Figure 4.5). However, this issue has been increasingly mitigated through the ASEAN Tariff Finder, which provides comprehensive information on fees and charges for all HS codes.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI E on Fees and charges.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683534/).
Making trade-related information available:
Customs websites or trade information portals could benefit from more in-depth and comprehensive information on related legislation, fee schedules, decisions and examples of Customs classification, penalty provisions, judicial decisions on Customs matters, average clearance times.
More trade-related information could be made fully available in English (e.g., the content on the list of authorised traders and court rulings is made available only in the national language in several AMS).
Ensure the practice of publishing draft laws and proposed rule changes is systematic across the region.
Involvement of the trade community:
Ensure draft regulations are released before entering into force for all new and adjusted trade-related regulations.
Ensure that public comments are reviewed systematically and reflected in final measures; more countries could publish summaries of stakeholder input on these issues.
Ensure all AMS have clear timelines, platforms, or procedures for notifying changes to customs, border agency operations, or technical regulations.
Ensure that consultations are regular and cover a wide range of stakeholders, including representation from SMEs.
Conduct more outreach programmes to the private sector on the information available through the ASEAN Tariff Finder.
Advance rulings systems
Widen availability of advance rulings on origin and valuation issues.
Increase awareness on advance rulings systems among businesses.
Ensure advance rulings are issued within prescribed timeframes, where these exist, and applied consistently across different customs offices.
Ensure publication of anonymised rulings to serve as guidance to businesses.
Appeal procedures mechanisms
Publish detailed procedural guidance online on appeal procedures.
Establish clear timeframes for decisions and ensure that appeals can be heard by independent bodies outside of customs administrations.
Simplification and streamlining of fees and charges
Publish systematically all fees and charges applicable to import, export, and transit operations, including those imposed by other agencies than customs. Centralise fee information on customs and/or national trade information portals.
Make electronic payment systems fully operational.
Ensure through legal safeguards that fees, where they exist, correspond to the cost of services provided.
Many AMS have simplified and streamlined trade documentation requirements by reducing the number of mandatory documents for import, export, and transit, and shifting towards internationally recognised formats and data requirements. The expansion of electronic submission platforms in several countries has further supported this simplification, reducing paperwork and enabling faster processing of cross-border transactions. These reforms not only lower compliance costs for traders but also facilitate closer alignment with global standards, such as those promoted by the WCO Data Model.
Several good practices can be observed in the region. For instance, Singapore has established highly streamlined documentation processes, with many permits and customs declarations submitted electronically through integrated systems that link multiple border agencies. Thailand and Malaysia have also advanced in adopting electronic Single Window platforms. In these countries, the number of documents required for customs clearance has been brought close to or in line with regional and international benchmarks, and the use of electronic certificates – such as phytosanitary or origin documents – is increasing.
Despite these improvements, in some AMS, traders are still required to submit multiple paper-based forms to different agencies. There is also duplication of information requests between authorities. Documentation requirements may vary by commodity or port of entry, creating complexity and unpredictability for businesses. Limited interoperability between the systems of different agencies also hinders the seamless exchange of data, slowing clearance processes and reducing the benefits of digitalisation (Figure 4.6).
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI E on Formalities - Documents.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683547/).
The acceptance of copies of trade-related documents has become an important element of trade facilitation in ASEAN. The COVID‑19 pandemic accelerated reforms in this area, as governments allowed scanned or electronic copies of key documents such as certificates of origin, permits, and licenses to sustain cross-border trade. In several countries, such as the Philippines, this shift revealed both opportunities and challenges: while businesses benefited from faster and more flexible procedures, limited inter-agency coordination, uneven recognition of electronic documents, and variable uptake among border agencies constrained the full benefits of reform.
Since the pandemic, many administrations have sought to institutionalise such practices, moving from temporary crisis measures towards more permanent systems. Notably, Singapore has fully digitalised the issuance and verification of certificates of origin through its TradeNet platform, while Malaysia has expanded the use of its electronic Preferential Certificate of Origin (ePCO) system to streamline cross-border transactions. These experiences highlight the potential for ASEAN to build on national good practices and strengthen region-wide interoperability of digital trade documentation.
Several challenges continue to limit efficiency and predictability across the region. Many border agencies still require paper copies alongside electronic submissions, reducing the benefits of automation, and in some AMS overlapping documentation requirements place a disproportionate burden on businesses. Concerns about the verification and authenticity of electronic signatures and scanned documents further create duplication of checks and clearance delays. In addition, inter-agency procedures often remain fragmented, with customs and other border authorities relying on differing standards and platforms for submitting and processing documents. This leads to inconsistent requirements, higher transaction costs, and limited interoperability, as divergent data formats and submission channels persist across the region.
Progress in digitalising border procedures and automating trade processes builds on commitments under the ASW initiative. All AMS have exchanged e-Form D and ACDD, while three AMS, namely Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, can exchange e-Phyto certificates. The ASW has served as a regional network for electronic data exchange since its live operation began in 2018. Since then, usage has expanded significantly, with 1.38 million e-Form Ds and 3.35 million of ASEAN Customs Declaration Document (ACDD) exchanged by all AMS in 2024. In addition, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines have started exchanging electronic Phytosanitary Certificates (e-Phyto), around 15 000 certificates exchanged in 2024.2 Beyond intra-ASEAN exchanges, the ASW is also being positioned to connect with partners such as the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”); Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; and the United States, supported by a generic legal template for Single Window co-operation and new common technical specifications to harmonise system architecture and enable G2G connectivity beyond the region.
Several AMS illustrate how regional co-operation in this area has catalysed domestic reforms. Singapore, building on its ASW commitments and its National Trade Platform, operates advanced systems for electronic declarations, automated clearance, electronic payments, and real-time inter-agency data sharing. Thailand has leveraged the ASW to expand pre-arrival processing and strengthen integration between customs and other border agencies. Malaysia has aligned its national data standards with regional frameworks, enhancing interoperability with both ASEAN partners and external trading partners.
Implementation remains uneven across the region (Figure 4.7). In several AMS, automation systems are still only partially operational, with manual steps persisting – especially at smaller ports / border posts or for specific goods. Interoperability gaps remain both across countries and within them, as not all border agencies are fully integrated into NSW platforms, slowing data sharing and undermining the benefits of regional exchange. The level of participation by government agencies varies significantly, and countries such as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar or the Philippines need to take further steps to ensure Single Window platforms can become fully functional.
Not all AMS have been able to implement effectively the use of automated risk management, electronic payment systems, and streamlined clearance procedures. Bridging the gap between domestic automation reforms and regional interoperability requirements will be essential to ensure that the benefits of platforms like the ASW are fully realised.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI G on Formalities - Automation.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683560/).
Several ASEAN Member States have demonstrated effective implementation of streamlined border procedures that reflect both national reforms and ASEAN-level guidance. For instance, Singapore and Thailand have adopted fully operational pre-arrival processing systems that allow traders to submit customs declarations and supporting documents before goods arrive. Malaysia has strengthened coordination between customs and other border agencies to reduce clearance times, while Viet Nam has leveraged the ACTS to harmonise transit procedures with its neighbours.
Pre-arrival processing is now available in some form across all AMS, although implementation remains uneven. Cambodia is still developing an electronic system, with current procedures largely manual. In Indonesia, pre-arrival processing is operational at sea and air borders, but not yet fully at land borders, while in Thailand it remains limited to air and sea. In Malaysia, integration of certain national systems with the NSW and subsequently the ASW is still ongoing.
Risk management practices are now applied in almost all AMS, but full integration across agencies remains limited. One example is Indonesia’s Single Risk Management system, established in 2018 under the National Single Window. This system consolidates risk assessments from customs and quarantine agencies into a unified platform, reducing redundancies and granting trade facilitation preferences to low-risk companies. Similarly, Indonesia applies selective inspections, with red-channel checks kept below 10%, often conducted jointly by Customs and the Quarantine department through an online application.
Other AMS face implementation challenges. In Lao PDR, outdated risk profiles can lead to overriding automated green or yellow channel clearances and undertaking additional physical inspections. In Viet Nam, the risk management system faces limitations due to incomplete and outdated data, insufficient fraud alerts, and weak integration between the e-manifest and core systems (VCIS and VNACCS). Carriers and agents often provide incomplete information, further reducing the system’s effectiveness.
Progress has also been made in establishing Authorised Economic Operators (AEO) programmes across the region. All AMS implemented respective national AEO programmes as of May 2023.
ASEAN is also adapting to new challenges in cross-border trade, particularly the rapid growth of e-commerce and parcel shipments. In July 2025, the region endorsed the “Guidelines on the Exchange of Information on E-Commerce Data between Customs Administrations and E-Commerce Platform”. These aim to provide practical guidance for AMS to establish co‑operative frameworks and data-sharing mechanisms, enabling customs to access advanced shipment information for improved risk management and more effective regulatory compliance.
Several challenges remain in streamlining border procedures and implementing ASEAN-wide trade facilitation commitments (Figure 4.8). Key streamlining tools such as pre-arrival processing and post-clearance audits are not yet fully operational in all AMS, with manual steps persisting in some countries, and the incomplete integration of national systems into the ASW continues to slow regional interoperability. Risk management frameworks also face obstacles, as systems are often not integrated across border agencies, leading to duplication and inefficiencies; outdated or incomplete data and weak IT linkages – for example between e-manifests and customs platforms – further reduce the effectiveness of risk targeting. The rapid growth of e-commerce and parcel trade adds new challenges, requiring updated approaches and stronger data exchange with operators. Finally, while AMS operate certified trader programmes, access and integration of businesses to the programmes remain uneven across the region, with costs and certification timeframes varying significantly for traders.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI H on Formalities – Procedures.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683580/).
Beyond the deployment of digital trade facilitation tools at the border, there are persistent challenges in creating a truly paperless environment. This involves a broader ecosystem of enabling policies and regulations that establish comprehensive frameworks for conducting transactions electronically, including the legal recognition of electronic transferrable records, e-authentication, e-signatures, e-payments, and e-invoicing. It also extends to the smooth cross-border exchange of data, which is shaped by national policies on data storage, retention, and archiving, as well as rules on cross-border data flows and cybersecurity (Box 4.3) (OECD, 2025[2]).
Despite the rapid pace of digitalisation, international trade in goods remains heavily reliant on paper-based processes. The enabling regulation underlying the implementation and operationalisation of the going paperless ecosystem – involving the digitalisation of trade-related documents (both commercial and official documents) and trade-related processes – spans a wide range of areas (OECD, 2025[2]):
Frameworks for conducting transactions electronically. This includes the policy and regulatory environment relevant for electronic transferrable records, e-authentication, e-signatures, e-payments, or e-invoicing.
Digitalising border processes. These are trade facilitation elements such as pre-arrival processing of trade-related information, automated risk management, electronic payments of duties and charges, and digital trade Single Windows. Digital tools for border agency co-operation, such as coordination of computer systems and data requirements, are also of relevance.
Cross-border exchange of data. The exchange of data between different actors which can be affected by policies on data storage, retention, and archiving, cross-border data flows, and cybersecurity.
In addition to the developments highlighted by the OECD TFIs on digital tools for trade facilitation at the border, the OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (DSTRI) and the OECD Index of Digital Trade Integration and Openness (INDIGO) show increasing adoption of frameworks for enabling electronic transactions in the region, with AMS moving quickly to adapt their regulations to enable going paperless (Figure 4.9).
That said, more progress is needed on domestic frameworks for e-payments. The DSTRI data also show that barriers related to interconnection on communication infrastructure and restrictions impacting connectivity (e.g. measures affecting cross-border data flows) are increasing. This is driven by limitations on cross-border data flows, data localisation requirements, and lack of pro-competitive regulations on interconnection across communications networks. Similar to uneven implementation of trade facilitation tools, there is wide heterogeneity in the regulations affecting digitally deliverable services across the region (Figure 4.10).
ASEAN average by policy area, 2014‑24
Note: The DSTRI takes values between 0 and 1, with 1 being the highest level of restrictiveness. Data are not available for Myanmar. Infrastructure and connectivity cover the regulations and restrictions shaping digital communication networks, cross-border data flows, and the seamless use of services needed for digital trade. Electronic transactions look at the regulatory environment for e-commerce, including online registration, recognition of electronic contracts and signatures, and the availability of effective dispute settlement. Payment systems address access to electronic payment methods, the alignment of domestic security standards with international norms, and restrictions affecting internet banking.
Source: OECD DSTRI, 2025. Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24757505/).
Note: The DSTRI takes values between 0 and 1, with 1 being the highest level of restrictiveness.
Source: OECD DSTRI, 2025. Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24757597/).
Implementing the right regulatory frameworks can generate important benefits. A 10% improvement in the bilateral TFIs score for automating border processes, when accompanied by streamlining of documents and processes and increased co-operation among border agencies, delivers an increase of up to 18% in global goods exports. But the domestic and international regulatory landscape also matters: a 0.1-point reduction in the DSTRI for electronic transaction frameworks, e-payments and connectivity is associated with an increase in global exports of 37%.
The ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA), launched in 2023 and expected to be concluded in 2026, represents a landmark effort to build regionally interoperable digital infrastructure and harmonised rules across areas such as digital trade, cross-border e-commerce, digital payments, data flows, and cybersecurity. A central objective is to enable seamless cross-border paperless trade, including B2B, B2G, and G2G transactions through the wider use of electronic documents. Supporting initiatives, such as the Roadmaps on Unique Business Identification Numbers (UBIN) and Digital Trade Standards Roadmap, together with discussions on adopting the Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records (MLETR), aim to unlock the use of electronic signatures, verifiable credentials, and blockchain for wider paperless trade exchanges.
Simplification and streamlining of trade-related documents
Enhance the use of electronic processing systems for trade-related documents, which would allow not requiring any more hardcopies alongside digital submissions.
Avoid overlapping documentary requirements. Enhance the use of interoperable platforms of border agencies for submitting and processing documents, avoiding divergent data requirements, formats, and processing channels.
Automation of border processes
Ensure automation systems are available and operational at all border posts and for all goods.
Enhance the participation of relevant government agencies into NSW platforms.
Enhance automated risk management systems.
Streamlining of border processes
Ensure pre-arrival processing and post-clearance audits become fully operational in all AMS.
Implement operational risk management frameworks also in other border agencies than customs to increase the effectiveness of risk targeting.
Reduce the costs of accessing certified trader programmes and enhance awareness of the programmes to increase coverage of businesses.
Effective trade facilitation requires seamless coordination among domestic and cross-border agencies. ASEAN countries have made steady progress in domestic border agency co-operation, supported by regional commitments under ATIGA as well as the work of the ATF-JCC.3 In this context, all AMS have introduced measures to improve coordination among customs, quarantine, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) authorities, and transport regulators.
NSWs and ASW have been key enablers in allowing multiple agencies to share information electronically and coordinate clearance procedures. Countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand initiated early on institutionalised inter-agency committees and standard operating procedures for coordinated inspections, helping reduce duplication and accelerate the release of goods.
Challenges remain, however, in ensuring comprehensive and consistent inter-agency coordination across ASEAN (Figure 4.11). Coverage of agencies and formalities is still incomplete, with not all goods benefiting from the full integration of related documents, permits, and licences into NSWs, often obliging traders to interact with multiple agency systems. In several countries, operational coordination remains fragmented, with overlapping inspections and duplicative document checks persisting in certain sectors or at specific border posts. Progress toward seamless information exchange is also slowed by differences in IT systems, data standards, and legal mandates across agencies, while smaller or less advanced Member States face capacity gaps in maintaining the infrastructure, expertise, and institutional arrangements required for sustained inter-agency co-operation.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI I on Internal border agency co-operation.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683584/).
Progress in external border agency co-operation – that is, co-operation between border agencies of different ASEAN Member States – has largely built on these domestic foundations. Effective cross-border collaboration depends on strong and predictable co-operation within each country’s agencies. Many AMS have strengthened coordination among customs, quarantine, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agencies, health agencies, and transport regulators, supported by progress in the ASW and ACTS. Countries such as Viet Nam, Thailand, and Malaysia first aligned their national systems and internal coordination protocols before integrating into regional platforms such as the ACTS (Box 4.5), which allows customs authorities in multiple Member States to share and recognise transit guarantees and documentation electronically.
While the OECD TFIs do not include a standalone measure on transit, ASEAN’s advances in this area are nevertheless relevant for the TFI dimensions on procedures and border agency co-operation, for which efficient transit regimes are highly complementary. The ASEAN Customs Transit System (ACTS), launched in 2020 with EU support through the ARISE Plus programme, is a computerised system that allows goods to move across multiple countries with a single customs declaration, a regional guarantee, and mutual recognition of control measures that would avoid repeated inspections and duties at borders. By simplifying procedures and harmonising requirements such as vehicle registration, insurance, and border formalities, the system aims to reduce delays and transaction costs while improving predictability and enforcement.
Since its operationalisation on 20 November 2020, a total of 691 movements of transit cargo across the land borders of six Participating Member States (PMS), namely Cambodia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Efforts are underway to increase the utilisation of the ACTS through outreach activities and symposiums, as well as to facilitate the commencement of ACTS operations from Myanmar by the end of 2025
Challenges remain in implementation. While not all AMS have fully operationalised the system, in some AMS, ACTS is also still restricted to selected routes or goods, delaying consistent application across the region. In addition, operational challenges such as the use of manual fallback procedures, varying levels of familiarity with ACTS processes among border officials, and weak coordination between customs and other border agencies also reduce the efficiency of ACTS. Investments in IT infrastructure, technical expertise, and training remain critical for long-term sustainability.
ASEAN is currently undertaking a Study on the Next Generation of ACTS, which seeks to upgrade the existing system, analyse operational challenges, and recommend practical solutions to improve utilisation. The study will also examine the potential expansion of ACTS to other modes of transport, assess the feasibility of extending participation to the remaining ASEAN Member States – Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, and the Philippines – as well as to interested non-ASEAN countries, and develop a long-term sustainability plan for ACTS operations. In parallel, ASEAN is preparing to conduct a pilot ACTS rail transit initiative in 2026, which will serve as a reference for the future rollout of ACTS in the rail sector.
Source: https://acts.asean.org/acts and ASEAN Secretariat.
Advancements in national AEO programmes culminated in the 2023 signing of the ASEAN AEO Mutual Recognition Arrangement (AAMRA). The initiative, aligned with the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade (SAFE Framework), aims to streamline customs clearance, reduce inspection times, and ensure compatibility of national certification standards across AMS. Under the AAMRA, certified AEOs are set to benefit from expedited customs clearance and priority treatment during inspections. By February 2025, six AMS – Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand – had implemented the arrangement, with Lao PDR and Cambodia commencing the 2nd Pathfinder Pilot in July and September 2025, respectively. Myanmar and Viet Nam are expected to join at a later stage, ahead of the implementation of AAMRA across ten AMS towards 2025‑26. Looking ahead, ASEAN plans to conduct a feasibility study in 2026 on extending AEO MRAs to selected partners and to explore the possibility of negotiating recognition agreements with ASEAN as a bloc starting in 2027 (ASEAN, 2023[3]).
External border agency co-operation across ASEAN and with external partners remains uneven and faces several challenges (Figure 4.12). Not all AMS have fully operationalised regional platforms such as the ASW for all document types, which limits their ability to exchange information seamlessly with neighbouring customs administrations. Asymmetric implementation, with some AMS still partly relying on manual processes, undermines joint controls and the regional interoperability of systems. Cross-border risk management is also limited, as joint risk profiling, coordinated inspections, and shared enforcement mechanisms remain at an early stage, leaving gaps in detecting fraud, smuggling, or diversion. Divergent legal and procedural frameworks – including variations in the ratification and application of regional protocols, data standards, and border procedures – further reduce predictability for traders moving goods across multiple AMS. While ASEAN is exploring the exchange of trade documents with partners such as China; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; and the United States, technical and legal arrangements for interoperability remain under negotiation and are not yet operational. Finally, infrastructure and operating constraints, such as unsynchronised border post operating hours, differing inspection practices, and uneven ICT capacity, continue to slow cross-border goods movement.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI J on External border agency co-operation.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683631/).
Domestic border agency co-operation
Ensure all relevant documents and formalities are integrated into NSWs.
Ensure agency coordination remains is regular and concerns issues across all border posts and sectors.
Enhance progress towards technical and legal interoperability through coordinated border agencies’ IT systems, data standards, and legal mandates across agencies.
External border agency co-operation
Expand the ACTS and ASW to connect with partners and enhance trade volume leveraging relevant trade agreements with respective partners.
Enhance regional interoperability of systems, also in view of supporting joint controls at the border.
Further build on country-specific risk management systems to operationalise cross-border risk management, in support of joint risk profiling and coordinated enforcement mechanisms.
Reduce variations in the ratification and application of regional protocols, data standards, and border procedures.
Further address infrastructure and operating constraints, such as unsynchronised border post operating hours, differing inspection practices, and uneven ICT capacity across border agencies.
ASEAN countries overall perform relatively well on the governance and impartiality dimension of the OECD TFIs. This reflects the continued efforts to ensure accountability in border administration agencies. Most AMS have established ethics policies, codes of conduct, and transparent organisational structures for customs and other relevant border agencies. These measures provide businesses with confidence that trade regulations are applied consistently and predictably, and they help reduce opportunities for corruption or discretionary decision making.
The majority of AMS also report effective internal communication channels and functioning internal audit mechanisms. These mechanisms ensure that policies are consistently applied within agencies. Provisions on non-compliance penalties and sanctions against misconduct are generally in place and, in many cases, proportionate. Several countries, including Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand, publish annual customs reports or similar performance reviews, further strengthening transparency and public accountability.
Despite these advances, some gaps remain in this policy area (Figure 4.13). In certain AMS, customs financing mechanisms and the publication of performance data are not yet fully institutionalised and sustained. Differences in the stringency and enforcement of ethics policies can also affect trust in border procedures. Moreover, while average scores are high, the variation across countries suggests that some administrations have yet to embed these practices as systematically as regional leaders.
Average and standard deviation by measure, 2024
Note: These measures are covered by indicator TFI K on Governance and impartiality.
Source: OECD TFIs database, 2025 (https://sim.oecd.org/default.ashx?ds=TFI). Created with Flourish (https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/24683649/).
Ensure that sanctions and accountability mechanisms are applied uniformly across customs and other border agencies in the region.
Deepen peer learning on transparency tools such as annual reporting and audit practices.
← 1. Information available at: https://asean.org/our-communities/economic-community/asean-customs/informed-compliance/ .
← 2. Based on 2024 statistics compiled by the ASEAN Single Window Steering Committee.
← 3. The ATF-JCC was revived by the 21st AEM Retreat in 2015 to support the ATFF. Its key functions include: coordinating with ASEAN sectoral bodies on trade facilitation and its implementation; engaging with stakeholders (private sector, academia, international organisations, development partners) to exchange information and generate feedback; monitoring ATFF implementation through trade facilitation indicators at national and regional levels; supporting deeper and faster implementation of trade facilitation measures in AMS; and acting as the focal point for regional co‑operation, promoting, coordinating, and collaborating on policies, action plans, and mechanisms related to trade facilitation.