RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/74  
 
20 May 2020  
(20-3740) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 5 MARCH 2020  
CHAIRPERSON: MRS UMA  MUNIANDY (SINGAPORE ) 
Subjects Discussed1 
 
1   WORK OF THE TECH NICAL COMMITTEE ON R ULES OF ORIGIN (TCRO ) – 
2019  REPORT  BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS  ORGANIZATION  ...........  2 
2   "ORIGIN FACILITA TOR", A JOINT INITIA TIVE BY THE WTO, ITC  AND WCO – 
UPDATE  BY THE WTO AND THE I TC SECRETARIATS  ................................ ..........................  2 
3   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI AND THE N AIROBI MINISTERIAL D ECISIONS 
ON PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN FOR LEAST D EVELOPED COUNTRIES 
(WT/L/917  AND WT/L/917/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ .................  4 
3.1   Review of Recent Developments Regard ing Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – 
Report  by Preference -Granting Members  ................................ ................................ .................  4 
3.1.1    Implementation of the REX  System – Updat e by the European Union ...............................  4 
3.1.2    Implementation of Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Preferential Rules  of Origin for 
Least  Developed  Countries (G/RO/LDC/N/RUS/2) - Report by the Russian Federation  ..................  5 
3.1.3    Report of Recent Developments Related to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs 
by Other  Preference -Granting Members  ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
3.1.4    Bilateral Meetings Between the LDC  Group and Certain Preference -Granting 
Members  - Report by the LDC  Group  ................................ ................................ ......................  6 
3.2   Notifications of preferential rules of origin and preferential tariffs and import 
statistics  – Report  by the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
3.3   Utilization of Preferential Trade Arrangements by Least Developed Countries – 
Revised  Report  by The Secretariat (G/RO/W/187/Rev.1)  ................................ ..........................  8 
3.4   5th Anniversary of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision: Review of Implementation, 
Identification  of Gaps and the Way Forward - Communication from the LDC  Group  ......................  9 
4   NOTIFICATIONS  UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II 
OF THE AGREEMENT  ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/187 T O G/RO/N/194)  .................  9 
5   ENHANCING TRANSP ARENCY IN NON -PREFER ENTIAL RULES OF ORIG IN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.3) – DRAFT DECISI ON ................................ ................................ .... 10 
6   INFORMAL SESSION  ON THE 25TH ANNIVER SARY OF THE AGREEMEN T ON 
RULES  OF ORIGIN – REPORT BY T HE CHAIR  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
7   UPDATE OF CRO AC TITIVITES FROM THE C RO CHAIR TO THE CHAI R OF THE 
COUNCIL  FOR TRADE IN GOODS F OR INFORMATION OF MI NISTERS AT TH E 
12TH MINISTERIAL CONFEREN CE (G/RO/W/193)  ................................ ...........................  13 
8   HOW TO RETRIEVE INFORMATION AND DOCU MENTS RELATED TO RUL ES OF 
ORIGIN:  THE WTO WEBSITE, E -SUBSCRITIONS AND DOCS  ONLINE, LATEST 
DEVELOPMENTS – INFOR MATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  ................................ ................  14 
 
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/RO/1 1. G/RO/M/74  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9   REQUEST FOR OBSE RVER STATUS FROM THE  INTERNATIONAL CHAMB ER OF 
COMMERCE (ICC)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  15 
10   ELECTION OF OFF ICERS  ................................ ................................ ...........................  15 
11   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 
_______________  
 
The Committee on Rules of Origin (the Committee, or CRO) adopted  the agenda of the meeting as 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/R O/11 with one modification: item  9 was removed from the agenda 
and therefore not considered . 
 
1  WORK OF THE TECHNICA L COMMITTEE ON RULES  OF ORIGIN (TCRO)  – 2019 REPORT 
BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS  ORGANIZATION  
Mrs Mette Azzam of t he World Customs  Organization  (WCO) Secretariat delivered a report on 
the activities conducted by the WCO and the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin  (TCRO) in 2019 . 
She informed Members that the TCRO had held its 38th Session on 3  February  2020 at the 
WCO Headquarters , under the  chairpersonship of Mr Aseem  Nanda (India) , at which the TCRO had 
adopted the 21st Periodic Report and the 21st Annual Review on technical aspects and 
implementation of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin for 2019.  The Review had be en brief, since 
the Agreement ha d not been implemented in practice and no questions had been referred to the 
TCRO in relation to harmonized non -preferential rules of origin . At this meeting, the WCO  Secretariat 
had also informed the TCRO about the state of play of the  origin part of the WCO  Revenue Package 
Action Plan. The Revenue Package Phase  IV Action Plan had been adopted in June  2019. It consisted 
of initiatives intended to ensure an effective and efficient collection of revenue by Customs 
Administrations.  The lack of harmonization remained a major challenge for all stakeholders. For this 
reason , the WCO had been  promoting procedural harmonization through the implementation of 
"guidelines " (on origin certification;  origin verification;  advance r ulings; and c ustoms infrastructure ). 
These guidelines aim ed at simplifying and streamlining procedures linked to rules of origin. 
The WCO Secretariat had also developed a Practical Guide to the WTO  Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
on Rules of Origin for LDCs , which was  available on the WCO 's website , along with other guidelines . 
In addition, a workshop had been organized back to back with the 38th Session of the TCRO  in order 
to afford  workshop participants an opportunity to share their experience s and views on the ongoing 
process to review Annex  K of the Revised Kyoto Convention . Annex  K dealt with origin requirements 
and had remained unchanged since the initial 1974 Kyoto Convention . She explained that , as part 
of this review , certain WCO Members were discussing possible modifications to modernize and 
expand the provisions of the Annex . Finally, she invited all delegations to attend the 2nd WCO Global 
Origin Conference , in the Dominican Republic,  on 15 -16 April 2020.  
The Committee took note  of this  report . 
2  "ORIGIN FACILITATOR" , A JOINT INITIATIVE  BY THE WTO, ITC AND  WCO – UPDATE 
BY THE WTO AND THE I TC SECRETARIATS  
The Chairperson  reminded delegations that the WCO and ITC  Secretariats had officially 
presented the "Origin Facilitator " (https://findrulesoforigin.org ) to Members in October  2019.2 
During the presentation , delegations had suggested ways to improve and promote this to ol. She 
invited the Secretariats of the WTO and ITC to update Members on latest developments.  
The Secretariats of  the WTO and the ITC explained that the main priority remained expansion 
of the Facilitator 's coverage , with the intention to continue data ent ry until the Facilitator covered  
the preferential rules of origin of all preferential trade agreements in force (both reciprocal regional 
trade agreements (RTAs) and non -reciprocal preferential trade arrangements (PTAs)). In the case 
of PTAs, the relevant information had been sourced primarily from  WTO notifications. For RTAs, the 
information had been taken from the WCO  database of preferential rules of origin and sourced from 
publicly available sites. About 75% of all preferential rules of origin had already been integrated into 
 
2 https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/roi_17oct19_e.htm  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 3 - 
 
  the Facilitator . In addition, the ITC had tried to gather publicly available information on 
non-preferential rules of origin for Switzerland, the European Union,  and the United States . These 
efforts had not prove n entirely successful and, as a result, non -preferential rules of origin were 
currently not available  for these Members . These rules  would be added to the Facilitator if updated 
and standardi zed notifications to the CRO became available. Two additiona l initiatives were also 
under way : first , the Facilitator would be translated into French and Spanish ; and second , tariff lines 
subject to anti -dumping duties (or other trade remedies) would be flagged to alert users of possible 
changes in the applicable o rigin criteria . 
The representative of Indonesia  confirmed that the Facilitator was a very useful and 
user-friendly platform.  His government had organi zed a training activity on the Facilitator in 
October  2019 for relevant m inistries, agencies , and other stakeholders, including business 
associations. At the sa me time, he noted that information regarding his government should be 
updated to indicate that Indonesia had been implementing the ASEAN/Japan Free Trade Agreement  
(FTA) since March  2018. 
The representative of the Russia n Federation  said that transparency was one of the key 
principles of the multilateral trading system  (G/RO/W/195 ). However,  the information notified  to the 
CRO was not always identical to that notified to the  Committee on Trade Facilitation ; indeed, her  
delegation had noticed discrepancies in notification s submitted by Members to both committees . 
In addition, her delegation had realized that the Internet links notified by Members were often out 
of date or imprecise, making it difficult to retrieve specific  information. For example , according to 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement database, 90  Members  had notified their legislation on rules of 
origin by providing mainly an Internet link as prescribed by Article  1.4 of the Agreement on Trade 
Facilitation. At the same time, according to the 25th Annual Review of the Implementation and 
Operation of the Agreement on Rules of Origin (G/RO/90) , only 50  Members had notified to the 
Secretariat that they applied n on-preferential rules of origin, and 59 Members had informed the 
Secretariat that they did not apply any non -preferential rules of origin ; for the remaining Members, 
these notifications were missing. Also, concerning  the 50  notifications on non -preferentia l rules of 
origin, 18  had been  submitted between 1995 and 2000, 11  between 2001 and 2010, and only 
21 after 2011 ; most  had never been updated and did not contain an Internet link. This situation 
diminished the value of notifications and hindered the correc t presentation of up -to-date information 
through  the Facilitator. She urged Members to consider updat ing their notifications and to verify that 
the information that they had submitted to the CRO remained valid . 
The representative of Tanzania  confirmed that the F acilitator was very useful  and could cut 
trading costs, in particular for firms in least developed countries ( LDCs). For this reason, he  thought 
that more effort s were needed to raise awareness  and increase the number of possible users  in 
Capitals . 
In response, the WTO Secretariat  (Mr Darlan Martí) agreed  that keeping the information in the 
Facilitator up to date was indeed a challenge. Preferential rules of origin did not  change frequently ; 
nevertheless, to avoid misunderstandings, it was important to reflect the correct information as 
quickly as possible. In this regard , he noted that updates on preferential rules of origin could be 
sourced from the information submitted by Members under the  transparency mechanisms of the 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) and the Committee on Trade and Development  
(CTD) or could be sent to the CRO  directly . He invited  delegations to reflect upon possible 
improvements to notifications in order to ensure that the Secretariat would always be kept informed 
of the most recent changes to preferential rules of origin. He noted  that the Secretariat could prepare 
a document summarizing notification obligations with a view to review ing current pr ocedures and  
discuss ing possible improvements  to them . On outreach, he noted that any Member could make a 
request for technical assistance activities to the Secretariat s of the WTO, the ITC, or the WCO, and 
that a number of  training activities were already taking place . In addition, a n e-learning course was 
available to help to train officials on matters relating  to rules of origin and the Facilitator. This course 
was currently being revised and updated.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  proposed to keep this item on the agenda of the CRO and to 
hear a further update at the Committee's next meeting. In addition, she proposed to hold specific 
discussions on the existing provisions for the  notification of preferential rules of ori gin used in RTAs. 
She also invited Members to reflect upon any improvements necessary to keep the Facilitator always 
up to date.  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 4 - 
 
  
The Committee took note  of the report and agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
3  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI AND THE NAIRO BI MINISTERIAL DECISION S ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN FOR LEAST D EVELOPED COUNTRIES ( WT/L/917 AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
Review of Recent Developments Regarding Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – 
Report by Preference -Granting Members  
3.1.1   Implementation of the REX System – Update by the European Union  
The Chairperson  recalled that the REX  system of self -certification for registered exporters was 
being implemented by the European Union,  Norway , Switzerland , and Turkey. She recalled that the 
main difficulty previously reported had concerned certain LDCs that were not yet implementing this 
system despite their transition period being over ; as a result, exporters in these LDCs had been 
unable to claim preferences in Members  implementing the REX  system . She asked the EU to update 
the Committee on recent developments  in this regard . 
Mr Hervé Godin of the Commission of the European Union  (RD/RO/86) explained  that the 
REX system had been applied since 1  January  2017 in the context of the EU GSP scheme by 
exporters in beneficiary countries; by exporters in the EU, Norway, Switzerland,  and Turkey,  for 
bilateral cumulation; and by operators in the EU, Norway,  and Switzerland,  for the reconsignment 
of goods or for th e replacement of proofs of origin. All GSP  beneficiary countries were expected to 
move away from certificates of origin and to use only statements of origin by the end of 2019. 
Several beneficiary count ries had already completed their transition to, and we re using , the 
REX system  (for example,  Afghanistan ; Angola ; Benin ; Congo ; Mali; Nepal ; Tanzania ; The Gambia ; 
and Togo ; among others) . Other LDCs remained covered by a transition period ( for example,  
Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lesotho,  and Senegal). However, certain LDCs were not applying the 
REX system despite their transition period  having ended . As a result , these LDCs were unable to 
receive preferences ( for example, the  Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, and Haiti). He noted that these countries nevertheless 
remained eligible for preferences in the EU and that they would continue to receive preferences once 
they had complete d certain  procedures to move to self -certificat ion under the REX  system . The EU 
had been reaching out to these countries to explain what was required of them.  
The representative of Chad asked if  the European Union could share information concerning 
the type of difficulties that were being faced by thos e LDCs that had not yet completed the 
preliminary procedures to move to the new REX  system. Similarly, he asked if  those beneficiary 
countries that were already using the system had assessed it  positive ly. 
The representative of Tanzania  thanked the European Union for regularly updating the 
Committee and for helping LDC  delegations to raise these issues with colleagues in Capital s. He 
asked if the EU had assess ed the impact of its suspension of preferences on the LDCs concerned.  
The representative of Mali noted that her country faced challenges in complying with 
territoriality requirements because  certain goods had to undergo certain  additional processes while 
in transit through  neighbouring Côte d'Ivoire  or Senegal . She asked if  there were any excepti ons in 
the rules or flexibilities for such cases . She also noted that LDC  delegations needed training and 
capacity -building to enhance their  understanding of rules of origin and diverse national requirements 
in this area.  
In response, the European Union  representative clarified that the difficulties that had been 
experienced by certain  LDCs could be very quickly resolved once certain simple steps had been 
completed. All that beneficiaries needed  to do was to communicate to the EU the details of the local 
authorities responsible for registering firms , and the names of th e local authorities that would reply 
to any requests for administrative cooperation , because the  difficulty in this regard concern ed 
identifying these institutions and communicating their names to the EU. Concerning those countries 
that were already apply ing the system , he reported that  their feedback had been very positive 
because self -certification saved time . After the initial imp lementation phase, use of the REX  system 
had run  smoothly  in all cases . In addition, the EU had also set up a monitoring mechanism to ensure 
that all beneficiary countries receive d any necessary  training and support. He reiterated that the EU G/RO/M/74  
 
- 5 - 
 
  had not exclu ded any LDC from its preferences ; rather, all LDCs remained eligible for preferences , 
but certain LDCs had been temporarily denied preferential treatment for a technical reason. Finally, 
in relation to landlocked countries, he explained that EU rules did n ot require goods to be directly 
consigned ; rather, the rules authorized goods to transit, be stored, split , or labelled , in a 
third country. However, goods should not be further processed in a third country. At the same time, 
for processing in third  countries, cumulation would be required , and this option was available in free 
trade agreements being negotiated between the EU and African countries.  He added that, as a last 
resort, the rules in the EU's GSP also allowed beneficiary countries to request waivers or temporary 
derogations from the rules to take account  of particular situations . 
The representative of Djibouti  asked the European Union  to clarify how the deadlines for 
transitioning into the REX system  worked. She also requested  the EU to share the template 
document that LDCs were required  to complete . 
The representative of the European Union  explained that a single deadline had been decided 
for all beneficiaries. Certain beneficiaries had asked for longer time -frames and hence had extended 
their transition period ; other LDCs had not met the original deadline but had not requested an 
extension. Nevertheless , these deadlines did not entail a definitive loss of preferences and the 
situation could easily be reversed upon completion of certain procedu res. In addition, he confirmed 
that the templates could be shared with the delegation.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  encouraged LDC  delegations and the European Union  to discuss 
specific difficulties  and to identify possible solutions together . 
The Committee  took note  of the update and statements made . 
3.1.2   Implementation of Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Preferential Rules  of Origin for 
Least Developed Countries (G/RO/LDC/N/RUS/2) - Report by the Russian Federation  
The representative of the Russian Fede ration  highlighted the key elements of preferential 
rules of origin for LDCs, as notified  in document  G/RO/LDC/N/RUS/2 . She recalled that t he Eurasian 
Economic Union (E AEU)'s Common System of Tariff Preferences had entered into force on 
16 January  2019. It  contained revised preferential rules of origin that aimed at implementing the 
provisions of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  The rules stipulate d that goods being substantially 
transformed would be considered as originating in a beneficiary LDC if the value -added content of 
non-originating materials did not exceed 50 %. To implement the Nairobi Decision , that maximum 
allowance would be gradually increased to 60 % (in 2025) . Moreover, the syste m of preferences 
introduced the possibility of accumulation of materials originating from either least developed 
countries or EAEU countries . Chapter  IV of the rules contained additional conditions for granting 
tariff preferences , such as administrative co operation, direct consignment , and purchase. Goods had 
to be directly transported to the Russian Federation and, in the case of transit through a 
third country, the goods had to remain under customs control during transit . Transport documents 
were used as a proof of direct consignment. In addition, qualifying goods had to be directly 
purchased by a person of  an EAEU Member State or from a person registered as a legal entity in the 
beneficiary country from which such goods originate d. The rules also included  the obligation to 
present an  original certificate of origin , following a specific format , which had been signed by the 
relevant authorized bodies . In addition, beneficiary LDCs were required  to communicate to the 
EAEU  Commission the n ames and addresses of the ir competent authorities in case of a request for 
origin verification . The EAEU  Commission kept an electronic database of authorized certifying bodies. 
Administrative cooperation requirements were deemed to have been fulfilled from the date  of receipt 
by the Commission of this information. No tariff preferences could be granted in the case of a failure 
to comply with these administrative requirements.  As for other flexibilities, a  certificate of origin was 
not required for consignments with a value that did not exceed an amount equivalent to EUR 5,000. 
For such requirements, a declaration of origin  was sufficient . She concluded by inviting any 
interested LDC  beneficiaries to engage  bilaterally with her delegation for any clarifications . 
The r epresentative of Tanzania  thanked the delegation of the Russian Federation for sharing 
the details of its revised rules of origin and noted the positive and incremental steps taken to reflect 
the provisions of the Ministerial Decision, in particular the higher allowance for the use of 
non-originating materials and the introduction of bilateral cumulation. He said that the LDC  Group 
would examine the notification further and raise any questions in the Committee , if necessary . G/RO/M/74  
 
- 6 - 
 
  
The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3.1.3   Report of Recent Developments Related to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs by 
Other Preference -Granting Members  
The Chairperson  offered other preference -granting Members an opportunity to update the 
Committee on any rec ent developments. These updates would be compiled in the Committee's report 
to the General Council  by the end of the year . 
The representative of the United Kingdom  (UK) reminded Members that his delegation had 
ceased to be a Member state of the EU on 31  January  2020 (WT/GC/206 ). His government  and the 
EU had agreed a withdrawal agreement that provide d for a time -limited transition period, during 
which EU Law, as implemented through the withdrawal agreement, would  continue to apply to and 
in the UK. This period extended until 31 December  2020.  As a result, his government would continue 
to apply the existing non -preferential rules of origin, generali zed scheme of preferences , and other 
existing preferential trading arrangements. No change of documentation or proof of origin would 
occur during the transition period . His delegation looked forward to engaging with all WTO  Members 
to take forward the important work of th e CRO to ensure stable and predictable rules for in ternational 
trade . 
The representative of Thailand  reminded Members that Thailand's PTA for LDCs was valid 
from April 2015 to December  2020. In view of the upcoming expiration of the scheme, Thailand's 
authorities had initiated stakeholder consultations wit h a view to extend ing the duration of the 
scheme, expanding the coverage of eligible products , and improv ing the rules of origin.  
Her delegation would keep Members abreast of any developments in this regard and, in the 
meantime, welcome d bilateral discussions with any interested LDCs.  
The representative of Tanzania  thanked both the UK and Thailand for their updates. In relation 
to the UK's statement, he emphasized  that it was important to avoid any trade disruption. He also 
said that it w ould be important to learn from existing best practices and, in particular, to consider 
that goods originating in LDCs often transited through the European Union before being consigned 
to the UK.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  encouraged  preference -grantin g Members to update the CRO 
when ever they deemed it convenient  to do so . 
The Committee took note  of these reports . 
3.1.4   Bilateral Meetings Between the LDC  Group and Certain Preference -Granting 
Members – Report by the LDC  Group  
The Chairperson  reminded Members t hat the LDC Group had presented the results of a 
detailed examination of utilization rates under Switzerland's and China's preferential arrangements. 
In addition, the Group had expressed concerns over certain  product -specific rules of origin , based 
on a ch ange of tariff classification , with exceptions. Finally, the Group had also expressed concerns 
over certain  requirement s relating to the direct consignment of goods. She had recommended that 
the LDC  Group  follow up on these specific concerns through bilateral consultations between the 
delegations concerned. She wished to know if  such bilateral meetings had taken place and if any 
progress could be reported.  
The representative of Tanzania  reported , on behalf of the LDC  Group, that the Group had 
raised concerns in the Committee  and had made several recommendations on the  simplification of 
origin requirements. He confirmed that some  of these concerns had been discussed in bilateral 
meetings with China, the Europ ean Union,  and Switzerland. He thanked these delegations for 
engaging positively in these meetings. He noted that the  Group had not yet been able to meet with 
the delegation of Japan. The Group would hold additional meetings in the coming months. 
Neverthel ess, he explained  that, for the LDC  Group, the Committee remained the preferred forum 
for the discussion of matters relating  to the implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial 
Decisions. The LDC  Group believed that progress would be possible through  a two -track approach: 
namely, through the active engagement of all delegations in the Committee,  complemented by more 
specific or detailed discussions at bilateral level.  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 7 - 
 
  
The representative of China  reported that he had indeed held a productive meeting with the 
LDC Group and the Secretariat , at which he  had shar ed a comprehensive analysis of preference 
utilization , conducted by his colleagues in Capital . He clarified that many of the low utilization rates 
reported in the LDC  paper had result ed from an incorrect interpretation of the data.  Low utilization 
of China's PTA  for LDCs  could be explained by the fact that  LDCs were trading with China under 
more than one preferential scheme ( such as  RTAs). Acco rding to the analysis provided by  his 
colleagues in Capital , exports from most of the top 27  exporting LDCs displayed a utilization rate 
higher than 80%. Hence, China's preferences were consistent and robust. However, he conceded 
that utilization rates wer e low for certain  LDCs. In conclusion, he stated  that his delegation was 
committed to collaborating with the LDC Group and to support ing LDCs in  optimizing their utilization 
of China's PTA. 
The Chairperson  thanked the LDC  Group and China for these reports , and other 
preference -granting Members for having taken part in the bilateral meetings. She encouraged 
delegations to continue to meet so that Member -specific concerns could be discussed and addressed . 
She asked all delegations concerned to keep th e Committee  informed of any developments.  
It was so agreed . 
Notifications of preferential rules of origin and preferential tariffs and import 
statistics – Report by the Secretariat  
The Secretariat  explained that there had been few developments since the Committee's 
previous meeting ( G/RO/W/163/Rev.7 ). On preferential rules of origin , all preference -granting 
Members had notified their requirements using the agreed template (G/RO/84) except for Armenia 
and Iceland. On preferential tariffs,  the Secretariat rep orted that no information or only partial 
information had been received from the following Members  (with years for which tariff information 
was missing indicated in brackets ): Armenia (2017; 2018; 2019); China (2018; 2019); Iceland 
(2010; 2011; 2012; 2019); India (2011; 2017; 2018; 2019); the Kyrgyz Republic (2011; 2014; 
2015; 2016); Russian Federation (2015; 2017; 2018) ; and Tajikistan (2018; 2019). Finally, for 
preferential import statistics, he reported that no information was currently available fo r Armenia ; 
Iceland ; Kazakhstan ; the Kyrgyz Republic ; Montenegro ; New Zealand ; the Russian Federation ; 
Tajikistan ; and Turkey. In the case of both China and India, data was available for only one year 
(2016). Some d ata was missing for Norway (2018) and  Switzerland ( 2010 and 2011 ). 
The representative s of Switzerland  and Norway  reported that their delegation s had recently 
submitted preferential tariffs and import statistics for 2018. The data was being verified  and would 
be available soon.  
The representative o f the Russian Federation  said that her delegation would prefer  that 
notifications be monitored only from the date of entry into force of each Member's PTA , and not 
since 2010 , when the PTA  Transparency Mechanism  had been adopted . Her delegation would 
continue to work towards preparing the relevant data and submitting it to the Secretariat.  
The representative of China  reported that his colleagues in Capital were working on 
completing China's notification.  
The representative of Canada  drew Members' attention to the updated Integrated Database 
(IDB)  Decision, recently adopted by the Committee on Market Access. Paragraph  8 of that Decision 
gave Members an opportunity to e xplore whether or not an automatic transmission of tariff data, 
including preferential tariff information, was possible. He explained that his delegation and the 
Secretariat had tested automatic data transmission. In practice, information had been automatically 
collected from Canadian public websites and his government ha d been given an opportunity to verify 
the data. This arrangement had worked very well and so his delegation would formalize it. 
In conclusion, the Chairperson  proposed  that the Committee take note of th ese updates . 
She also encouraged all delegations to sp eak to the Secretariat to explore the possibility of setting 
up mechanisms for automatic data collection to simplify Members' notification obligations. 
In addition, she urged those delegations that had been identified as having notification  gaps to work 
with their Capitals to ensure that any missing information would be submitted as soon as possible.  
Finally, she asked the Secretariat to provide an update to the Committee at its next meeting.  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
The Committee agree d to proceed accordingly.  
Utilization of Preferential Trade Arrangements by Least Developed Countries – 
Revised Report by The Secretariat ( G/RO/W/187/Rev.1 ) 
The Secretariat  highlighted the main revisions to its latest note on utilization rates and direct 
consignment (G/RO/W/187/Rev.1). The note explored the relationship between preference 
utilization and different variations of the direct consignment requirement. The report had found a 
direct correlation between both ; that is, preferences with stricter direc t consignment requirements 
were more likely to be under -utilized . In addition, the note had associated under -utilization and 
specific requirements, such as the obligation to present a certificate of non -manipulation. In the 
document's  revision, the Secreta riat had corrected or clarified the requirements of 
preference -granting Members  (Table  1), following comments received from Canada; 
the European  Union;  Norway ; Switzerland ; and Turkey. The revisions  introduced to the document 
had not alter ed the note's findings or other substantive elements. In conclusion, the Secretariat 
invited preference -granting Members to review the note to  ensure that their requirements had been  
correctly described. In addition, the Secretariat encouraged  preference -granting Members to 
examine their own import statistics to check if under -utilization rates varied according to whether 
goods had been consigned  directly or indirectly  and report this analysis to the Committee . This would 
assist  the Committee in advancing  its understanding of linkages between direct consignment 
obligations and preference utilization.  
The representative of Switzerland  report ed that his delegation had indeed initiated an 
investigation of preference utilization for both directly and indirectly co nsigned goods. 
Direct  consignment was understood as the importing of goods into Switzerland either directly by air 
transport  or following transit procedures through third countries, such as EU  countries. In both 
cases, a good would qualify for preferences as long as it had remained under customs control. 
Indirect importation happened when goods originating in LDCs were cleared by customs authorities 
in the EU and then re -exported to Switzerland,  and that were therefore goods that had not always 
remained under customs control. Differences in utilization rates were significant in both scenarios. 
Indirectly consigned goods displayed utilization rates of zero for all L DCs. By contrast, directly 
imported goods displayed high utilization rates , as foll owed : 98% for Bangladesh and Tanzania; 
96% for Benin and Mozambique; 95% for Myanmar; 88% for Uganda; 85% for Côte d'Ivoire and 
Nepal; 83% for Cambodia; 80% for Lao  People's Democratic Republic ; and so on . In a few cases, 
utilization rates were low even for directly imported goods. He reported that the investigation would 
be pushed further in order to analyse trends at the tariff sub -heading level for the following 
four LDCs: Ethiopia; Haiti; Madagascar; and Togo. A preliminary analysis of these statistics 
suggested that other variables also influenced utilization rates, including, in particular, preferential 
margins and the value  of imports . However, a  more extensive analysis of the data would  require 
more time.  
The representative of Canada  thanked the Secr etariat for taking his delegations ' comments 
into consideration in the revised note.  
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, thanked the Secretariat for the 
note and the Swiss delegation for its investigations and report. He encouraged other 
preference -granting Members to conduct similar work and likewise to share their findings with the 
Committee.  
The representative of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for revising the note and 
encouraged the Committee to continue its research and analysis in this area.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  proposed that the Secretariat continue undertaking research 
in this area so that Members would have a  clearer understanding of the precise requirements that 
were hinder ing the ability of LDCs to utilize trade preferences  more fully . Finally, she encouraged 
preference -granting Members to collaborate with the WTO  Secretariat, if possible, by sharing the ir 
own findings and analysis in this area.  
It was so agreed . G/RO/M/74  
 
- 9 - 
 
  
5th Anniversary of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision: Review of Implementation, 
Identification of Gaps and the Way Forward - Communication from the LDC  Group  
The representatives of Yemen  and Cambodia  presented the communication to Members on 
behalf of the LDC  Group  (RD/RO/87) . They expla ined that 2020 marked the 5th Anniversary of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision and thus provided a good opportunity to reflect upon the spirit and 
achievements of the Decision. They noted that, despite the specific reforms undertaken by certain 
preference -granting Members, a wide gap remained between Members' practices and the provisions 
of the Ministerial Decisions, in relation , for example,  to the following: cumulation; complex rules 
with exceptions, including the calculation of the percentage criterion; and direct consignment. 
In addition, despite significant improvement s in transparency, several Members still had gaps  in 
their notifications , particularly with regard to import statistics. The LDC  Group expected  Ministers to 
take note of these achievements and gaps at the 12th Ministerial Conference. The Group also 
expected Ministers to strengthen the mandate and role of the CRO in monitoring the implementation 
of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions.  
The representative of  the Russia n Federation  asked LDC  delegations if they could clarify what 
precisely their expectations for the 12th Ministerial Conference were , and if the Group would consider 
describing their expectations in a written document.  
The represe ntative of Cambodia  replied that the LDC  Group preferred  to consult 
preference -granting Members in order to develop the language jointly . The representative of 
Tanzania  added that Members should have a shared sense of responsibility for the implementation 
of the Ministerial Decisions ; they should therefore seek solutions together. In this regard, he believed 
that the CRO had already identified best practices in several areas. And he  thought that 
preference -granting Members could give their consider ation to  such practices and possible reforms 
to their rules. In addition, Ministers could empower the Committee with a work programme dealing 
with additional aspects of origin requirements.  And he considered  that it was the responsibility of all 
Members, n ot only the LDCs, to identify areas in which greater  efforts could be made to implement 
the Decisions. To this end, LDC delegations stood  ready to engage with other Members to identify 
suitable language to be forwarded to Ministers.  
The Chairperson  reminde d Members that the General Council would meet at the end of May 
in order to take stock of any files to be forwarded to Ministers. As such, she believed that delegations 
should work swiftly in order to identify any possible Ministerial outcomes. She asked if the LDC  Group 
had foreseen any timelines for this work.  
The representative of Tanzania  clarified that the Group would begin its  consultations 
immediately with a view to formulating draft language in time for discussion s by end-April.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  asked the LDC  Group to propos e draft language for the 
consideration of other Members , which she  thought should happen as soon as possible ; she would 
then convene follow -up consultations.  
It was so agreed . 
4  NOTIFICATIONS  UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAP H 4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE  
AGREEMENT  ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/R O/N/187 TO G/RO/N/19 4) 
The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to the latest notifications received by the Secretariat  
under the following symbols : G/RO /N/187; G/RO/N/188; G/RO/N/189; G/RO/N/190; G/RO/N/191; 
G/RO/N/192; G/RO/N/193 ; and G/RO/N/194 . These notifications covered  non-preferential rules of 
origin  (Article  5 of t he Agreement ) and preferential rules of origin (under RTAs, originally circulated 
to the CRTA ). Further to  these notifications, she noted that all WTO  Members appl ied at least one  set 
of preferential rules of origin.  In addition, 50 Members  had informed the Secretariat that they appl ied 
non-preferential rules of origin , and 60 Members had informed the Secretariat that they did not 
apply such rules. Twenty -seven  Members had never submitted a notification under Article  5 of the 
Agreement.  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 10 - 
 
  
The representative of the Russian Federation  referred to her delegation's earlier  statement 
(paragraph  2.4, above) , and urged Members to ensure greater  coherence and consistency in their 
notifications (G/RO/W/ 195). 
The representative of Indonesia  reported that his delegation had identified the regulations that 
needed to be notified, covering both non-preferential and preferential rules of origin , and that his 
delegation would submit its notification  soon. 
The Committee  took note of this update and the statements made.  
5  ENHANCING TRANSPAREN CY IN NON -PREFERENTI AL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.3) – DRAFT DECISION  
The Chairperson  reminded Members that the draft decision on "enhancing transparency in 
non-preferential rules of origin"  had been considered by the Committee  during its informal 
consultations in December  2019. Her impres sion was that a wide range of delegations had expressed 
support for the objectives of this proposal. She drew Members' attention to the proposal 's 
third revision . And she believed that the text was stable,  and that Members could consider it for 
adoption.  She therefore invited Members to express their views on the text , in particular  concerning  
any provisions that might need further clarification or explanation . 
The representative of Switzerland  highlighted the main changes that had been introduced to 
the proposal since it had been  first considered by the Committee. He explained  that, in this 
third revision, the changes introduced had been only editorial in nature . And in light of the 
discussions  that had taken place at the Committee's informal meeting of December  2019, and the 
absence of any concerns expressed subsequently , the proponents consider ed the  proposal to be 
mature and ready for adoption.  
The representative of India reiterate d that his delegation had raised  concerns in earlier 
meetings , especially regarding the need for effective special and differential treatment ( S&D) for 
developing countries, including LDCs . In addition, he  explained that enhanced transparency on rules 
of origin shoul d translate in to enhanced  notification obligations in other areas, such as under 
Article  66.2 of the TRIPS  Agreement . 
The representative of Indonesia  said that the draft proposal had to be compatible with the 
ability of developing and least developed Members to comply with their notification obligations. 
In this regard, he propose d to replace the words "shall endeavour" with "are encouraged  to" in 
paragraph  7. Second, his delegation was still examining the requirement to inform national 
procedures relating  to advance rulings  and reserved its right to make comments on this aspect  at a 
later stage.  
The representative of Thailand  considered  that the proposal was good in many respects . 
However, his delegation wondered if the review of notifications could be quicker  in future . In this 
regard, his delegation proposed that the review of notifications should be undertaken  only upon 
request.  He indicated that his delegation would be able to consider supporting the proposal  if the 
proponents agreed to modify the text in this sense . 
The representative of the European Union  stated  that his delegation supported the proposal as 
it stood in its third  revision . The EU considered that ther e was a pressing need for greater 
transparency in non -preferential rules of origin  because exporters  needed to have easy access to 
this information to be able to cope with t he multiplicity of national non-preferential rules of origin.  
The representative of  Canada  agreed with the EU's comments and  said that his delegation  
supported  the decision . 
The representative of Turkey  said that her delegation favour ed increasing transparency and 
that it also supported initiatives that would allow for the gathering of s tructured information, 
especially since such initiatives would benefit developing and least developed countries . 
The representative of Colombia  said that her delegation support ed this proposal , as it stood , 
in its third revision.  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 11 - 
 
  
The representative of  the Republic of Korea  thanked Members for their positive engagement 
on this proposal. He said that, as one of the co -sponsors of the proposal, his delegation was open 
to discussing Members'  concerns. He recalled t hat the goal of this prop osal was to simplify and to 
facilitate exporters ' operations , and not to place any extra burden on WTO Members. He reminded 
all delegations that t he benefit s of the notification template would also accrue to their own exporters . 
The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was please d to co-sponsor  
this proposal , and he  urged other interested Members to join the effort. Non -preferential trade 
represent ed a large segment of global  trade and concerned all WTO Members. Therefore , the results 
of this initiative would be substantial . 
The representative of Chile said that , while his delegation was not one of the co -sponsors, it 
did support the objective of enhancing transparency on non -preferential rules of origin. 
His delegation believe d that this would be  in the interest s of all Members  and would help exporters 
to deal with the uncertainty and increase d levels of unpredictability in international trade . 
The Chairperson  noted that, while there seemed to be wide support for the proposal, t hree 
delegations had expressed reservations or concerns. Before concluding, she wished to hear more 
from these delegations in order to identify their specific concerns. Therefore, she invited these 
delegations to explain their concerns more precisely and, if possible, to suggest changes to the text 
that could accommodate them. 
The representative of India noted that the proposal contained  two types of notification 
provisions: one mandatory , for non -preferential rules of origin used for the determination of 
MFN duty rates ; and another, voluntary, for rules of origin used in the context of trade remedies 
and other trade measures . He stated  that his delegation would prefer to align both obligations and 
to use best -endeavour language only. In addition, he said that the notification template would still 
be beneficial and offer standardized information even if it were to be used only on a voluntary basis. 
The Committee co uld thus follow the same approach as that which had been adopted  in the 
Committee on Import Licensing.  In conclusion , he explained that his delegation wished to match 
additional notification obligations on rules of origin with enhanced notification obligations  in other 
areas, such as TRIPS.  
The representative of Indonesia  reiterated that his delegation preferred to use the wording 
"are encouraged" instead of "shall endeavour" in paragraph  7. In addition, his delegation required 
there to be  further discussions among Members about the notificat ion of advance ruling  procedures.  
The representative of Thailand  explained that her delegation proposed to insert the wording 
"upon request by a Member"  to paragraph  9. 
The representative of Switzerland  thanked other delegations for engaging actively in the se 
discussions. He noted  that the co -sponsors were aware of the resource constraints of developing 
and least developed countries. Indeed, he believed that this had been  well reflected in the provisions 
and that only a few boxes would need to  be ticked as concerned the majority of developing and least 
developed country delegations . He agreed that WTO  notification obligations could represent an 
administrative burden for small delegations, although he did not think this to  be the case of this 
proposal. Furthermore, he  did not see any substantial difference between the two wordings  proposed 
by Indonesia . However, he remained  open to discussing further the implications  of both of these 
options , as well as  to discussi ng advance rulings. Concerning  the suggestion by Thailand, he noted  
that Article 5 of the Agreement already read  as followed:  "the Committee on Rules of Origin shall 
examine, upon request by Members, existing rules of origin and related documentary requirements". 
The proposal only covered how notifications should be presented , not what should be notified or how 
the Committee should  review those  notifications. And the examination of notifications was a standard 
item on the Committee's agenda, even in the absence of any specific request from any delegation. 
Finally, in relation to India's request for more flexible notification obligat ions, he said that he had 
not understood which were the aspects of the proposal that India could not meet. He observed  that 
the proponents had shown openness to accommodating specific concerns, as long as those concerns  
could be identified precisely and be substantiated. He reiterated  that completing the template was 
simpl e. As for India's other comments regarding notifications under Article  66.2 of the 
TRIPS  Agreement, he said that his delegation was open to discussing any possible shortcomings in 
this reg ard, but that these discussions had to take place in the TRIPS  Council . G/RO/M/74  
 
- 12 - 
 
  
The representative of Hong Kong, China  explained that her delegation was also confused by 
some of the concerns raised and she invited delegations to be more specific  regarding their co ncerns . 
For example , she explained that the review of notifications under paragraph  9 did not concern the 
review of Members' individual notifications but was rather a work programme assessing  Members' 
practices  in general . Similarly, she argued that India should not be discouraged by a perceived lack 
of transparency under the TRIPS  Agreement ; rather , India should seek to enhance transparency in 
all areas.  
In response, India clarified that he had suggested that  the proponents had not  shown  a similar 
keenness regarding transparency in certain other areas. Of course, any issue relating to TRIPS would 
have to be discussed in the TRIPS  Council . All his delegation was seeking  was a recognition that 
transparency and a notification template were useful in othe r areas too. In relation to the mandatory 
or best  endeavour nature of notification obligations, he noted that the draft decision had already 
established this distinction . And since  the draft decision had introduced more flexible language for 
the notificati on of a large subset of non -preferential rules of  origin, he argued that the same language 
could also be used for developing countries . Finally, he reiterated  that the voluntary use of a 
template by Members in the Committee on Import Licensing had proven  useful.  
The representative of Thailand  said that his delegation had experienced difficulty in 
understanding the mechanism s behind the Committee's review  of notifications . For example, he 
wondered how a review would be organized, and how often it would take place. The proponents had 
not been sufficiently specific on these questions  and had simply explained that it was up to Members 
to decide. As a result, his delegation felt that it was nat ural to add the wording "at the request of a 
Member" to this paragraph.  
The representative of Australia  understood India's position  but thought that the voluntary 
notification of information would be ineffective and would detract from the benefit of this p roposal , 
particularly for  developing Members . 
The representative of Switzerland  explained that the different treatment given to the 
two types of non -preferential rules of origin had to do with format  only. Members applying different 
rules of origin for different non -preferential purposes needed to report this information with some 
flexibility in order to be able to adapt the format of the information to be notified . However, Members  
still had a clear obligation to notify these rules under paragraph  5 of the  Agreement. Furthermore, 
this obligation was not diminished by the proposal since t he flexibility referred only to the use of the 
template, and not to the actual scope of Members' notification obligations. At the same time, he  
understood India's concerns about additional notification obligations. And while  the draft decision 
had kept new notifications to a minimum, he did agree that there were certain new elements , 
specifically those of paragraph  8 (notification of substantive changes made to rules of origin ), and 
those of  paragraph  4 (the notification of documentary requirements , although it was subject to 
different interpretations by different Members). Nevertheless , these relatively modest  new elements 
had been introduced into this proposal to fill a  gap, and their implementation would translate into 
concrete benefits.  
The representative of Indonesia  clarified that his delegation did not question  the importance 
of notifications and their potential benefit s to business es. However, he  explained that translating 
legal documents had a concrete financial and administrative implication for his government. As a 
result, he simply wished  to clarify  the obligations that Members were being asked to accept. 
Similarly, it  was important to clearly define the scope of obligation and the scope of documents to 
be notified. In relation to advance rulings, his delegation did not  have a specific concern  but rather 
only questions about that provision . 
The representative of Switzerland  clarified that the documents to be notified were those 
referred to by  a delegation itself when it completed the annexes of the draft decision.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  noted that no delegation had objected to the goals being 
pursued by Members in th is proposal. All delegations shared the assessment that there was a 
significant transparency gap in this area . A key element of this draft decision was that it contained 
a commitment by all Members to engage in a fresh and updated notification  exercise. Wh ile the 
Agreement on Import Licensing required Members to submit a new notification every year, the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin had not foreseen the need for updating notifications because it had G/RO/M/74  
 
- 13 - 
 
  assumed that national practices would be replaced with harm onized non -preferential rules of origin. 
In Import Licensing, the question Members had to consider was whether or not to use a template 
(and not whether or not to updat e notifications ). Based on  the collaboration with ITC and businesses 
to build the Origin  Facilitator, it had become very clear that businesses needed to access updated 
and standardized information ; this made the discussions in the CRO quite different from those in the 
Import Licensing Committee . Without a clear commitment by Members to notify  and to keep their 
notifications updated, the value of the template would be diminished. She noted that the Committee 
had been discussing the notification template for some time and that it was largely stable. 
Finally,  she noted that Members had identified  more specifically what the remaining concerns were. 
She therefore proposed to continue discussions as soon as possible , perhaps after a round of bilateral 
consultations between the proponents and those  delegations that had raised concerns. She would 
call for another open -ended meeting as soon as possible to hear a report on these consultations and 
to discuss next steps . 
The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
6   INFORMAL SESSION ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY  OF THE AGREEMENT ON  RULES OF 
ORIGIN – REPORT BY THE CHAIR  
The Chairperson  reminded delegations that  the Committee on Rules of Origin  had held its first 
meeting 25 years ago (in April  1995) and that, 30 years ago  (in December  1990), negotiators of the 
Uruguay Round had finalized a text for the new WTO  Agreement on Rules of Origin. The Agreement 
and th e Committee  were the fruit  of hours of negotiations , which had led to hours of negotiations 
and discussions over the years . This anniversary  had been marked by an event organized by the 
Secretariat  one day p rior to this meeting, on 4 March  2020. The event had brought together a mix 
of delegations , ex-Chairs of the CRO, business representatives , the International Chamber of 
Commerce , UNCTAD , and the WCO, among others . The programme, the presentations, a summary 
(G/RO/W/196) , and video recordings of the event were available in the "events" section of the rules 
of origin page of the WTO  website.  She encouraged all delegations to share that link and those 
materials with co lleagues in Capital s. In fact, many interesting recommendations and messages had 
come  out of the event, some of which could be considered by Members when  deciding how to 
advance the work of the Committee . For example , one question raised had been  whether Members 
could us e the results of the harmonization work programme as a reference for origin negotiators , 
which could encourage the use of best practices and ultimately result in some degree of convergence, 
including on preferential rules of origin. Another question raised was whether Members should be 
discuss ing the simplification of rules of origin on a sectoral basis and building on Members' current 
practices . Research showed that convergence of rules of origin was already happening in practice 
for some se ctors and that it concerned a greater  number  of rules than one might  imagine. Lastly, 
speakers had asked whether the Committee should be promoting more actively the use of new 
technologies to cut trade costs, for example through electronic certificat ion or  blockchains . 
She invited delegations to consult the website and presentations and to reflect further on these and 
other questions.  
The representative of the United States  said the event had been well organi zed, with a number 
of compl ementary presentations on a range of subjects that had helped him to understand, in greater 
detail, the historical work of th e CRO , as well as to identify some new issues  that the Committee 
had yet to take up.  He said that the presentations had contained many hidde n gems , which Members 
could  consider.  
The Committee took note  of the Chair's report and the statement made.  
7  UPDATE OF CRO ACTITI VITES FROM THE CRO C HAIR TO THE CHAIR OF  THE COUNCIL 
FOR TRADE IN GOODS F OR INFORMATION OF MI NISTERS AT THE 12TH MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE (G/RO/W/193)  
The Chairperson  explained that the annual report of activities that the Committee  had 
submitted to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) at the end of 2019 w ould not cover all of the 
Committee's activities leading up to the 12th Ministe rial Conference , scheduled to take place  in 
June 2020. As a result, t he Chairs of the General Council and of the Council for Trade in Goods ha d 
invited the Chairs of regular bodies to update their reports , if necessary.  She had therefore prepared 
a brief update concerning the work of the Committee  (G/RO/W/193 ). While these updates would be G/RO/M/74  
 
- 14 - 
 
  sent to the CTG on the Chair's responsibility and did not  need to be adopted, she would  welcome 
any comments on it from delegations . 
The representative of the Russia n Federation  asked the Chair to consider adding to the report 
that her delegation had raised an issue in relation to notifications  concerning the la ck of coherence 
in the information notified to different WTO  Committees.  
The Chairperson  agreed and said that a revised copy of the report would be circulated.  
Members took note  of the report and statements made.  
8  HOW TO RETRIEVE INFO RMATION AND DOCUMENT S RELATED TO RULES OF O RIGIN: 
THE WTO WEBSITE, E -SUBSCRITIONS AND DOCS  ONLINE, LATEST DEVE LOPMENTS – 
INFORMATION BY THE S ECRETARIAT  
The Secretariat  explained that, under this agenda item, it would update delegations , first, on 
improvements made to the rules of origin page of the WTO  website and , second, on tools recently 
introduced to make it easier for delegations to access WTO documents ("e -subscription" and  
e-registration").  
First, the Secretariat  (Darlan F. Martí) clarified that the CRO did not have an official list of email 
addresses for the dissemination of documents. All invitations or communications were sent by email 
to the central email address of permanent missions and it was up to the missions to disseminate 
these communications i nternally. In addition, all documents were distributed only through  
automated systems ( using e -registration and e -subscription ) or through documents online . 
The Secretariat reported that it had added new features to the rules of origin page of the 
WTO website to convert it into a single stop  for delegations , making it easier to retrieve background  
information , informal documents (not available through documents  online) , and links . For example , 
the page now displayed  a link to the joint WTO-ITC-WCO Origin Facilitator. The page also contained 
a link to recent and future "meetings" . Through that link, delegations could easily access the 
documents to be discussed at formal CRO  meetings. In addition, the page contained a link to past 
"events" to make it e asier for delegations to retrieve informal documents, such as presentations, for 
example . The text of the page had also been updated and streamlined to offer a more updated 
overview of the work of the Committee. The page contained a direct link to Members'  notifications 
and any information, weblinks or legislation contained in those  notifications. Delegations could also 
access notifications through documents  online. Nevertheless, files on documents  online often did not 
contain the attachments or copies of t he legislation referred to in the notifications  themselves , so 
this feature was a useful complement. Moreover, a new section on technical assistance had been 
added, referencing the WTO e -Learning course on rules of origin and other capacity -building  tools 
relating  to rules of origin. Finally, the page also contained the name of the current Chairperson and 
the contact details of the Secretary of the Committee. This last feature was not public, meaning that 
it was  only visible once delegations had logged in u sing their "e -registration".  
Second, the  Secretariat  (Rajesh Patavardhan) explained how the "e -subscription" system  
operated (RD/RO/88) . Under that function, delegations could register  and personalize their 
preferences  to receive automated daily email dige sts with updates every time a new document was 
issued that was of interest to them . Conveniently, the documents could be access ed directly through 
hyperlinks contained in the emails. To access the system, delegates needed to contact their 
delegation coordinator to be validated and to create a personal account.  
The representative of Australia  commended the Secretariat for facilitatin g delegations' access 
to documents. He said that it meant that Capital -based colleagues could also access new documents 
directly, which removed some pressure from the work of Geneva -based delegates. In addition, he 
said that documents could also be downloa ded in Word format, which facilitated taking notes (for 
instance in the meeting agenda). He asked the Secretariat to confirm that the system logged off 
users after 30  minutes of inactivity.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  also expressed apprec iation for these efforts by 
the Secretariat and said that the notifications function in the webpage was particularly useful and 
straightforward . Regarding e -subscriptions, she mentioned that she had received some  documents 
in error for which she had not su bscribed.  G/RO/M/74  
 
- 15 - 
 
  
The representative of the Dominican Republic  asked if it was possible to use the email address 
of the delegation, instead of personal emails, to create a user profile in e -subscriptions.  
The Secretariat  confirmed that, as a security measure, user s were automatically logged off 
after 30  minutes when a computer stood  idle. In relation to the problem mentioned by the 
Russian  Federation, he asked the delegation to send an email to the Secretariat so that the matter 
could be  investigate d further . Final ly, he explained that it was recommended to create personal 
profiles, using user -specific emails , rather than general email addresses. In doing so, each profile 
could be personali zed to the user's language preferences, preferred thematic areas , and committ ees 
of interest.  
The Chairperson  thanked the Secretariat for updating Members on these matters and 
recommended that delegations approach the Secretariat in case of questions . 
The Committee took note  of the presentations and statements made.  
9  REQUEST FOR OBSERVER  STATUS FROM THE INT ERNATIONAL CHAMBER O F COMMERCE 
(ICC)  
This item was not considered.  
10  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
The Chairperson  explained that the Committee's rules of procedures envisaged the elec tion 
of the Committee's new Chairperson  at the close of the Committee's first meeting of each year. 
However, consultations were still ongoing on a slate of names of candidates interested in taking up 
the chairpersonships  of the subsidiary bodies of the Cou ncil for Trade in Goods. As a result, there 
had not yet been agree ment on a  nominee to be the next Chair person  of the CRO. She proposed to 
inform all delegations by email  once a nominee had been  recommended . If no objections to the 
name of the proposed new  Chairperson  were received within a short-prescribed  time-frame, the new 
Chairperson  would be deemed to have been elected by acclamation by the Committee as of that 
date. 
It was agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
11  OTHER BUSINESS  
No issues were raised under this agenda item.  
__________