RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/W/58
21 July 2000
(00-3017)
Committee on Rules of Origin Original:  English
STATUS OF THE HARMONIZATION WORK PROGRAMME
Submission by Brazil
The following submission, dated 14 July 2000, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Brazil.
_______________
The objective of this submission is to provide for an input to the discussions on the process of
harmonization of rules of origin, currently under way in the Committee of Rules of Origin.  It will be
structured in two parts:  (a) overview of the status of the discussions and (b) the presentation of
suggestions for future work.
The programme for the harmonization of rules of origin: an overview
Article 9 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin established the guidelines to be observed in the
process of Harmonization of Rules of Origin.  Basically, the Working Group is discussing rules of
origin for around 480 specific products as well as rules for the general architecture of the system.  The
items under discussion are those about which the Technical Committee of Rules of Origin could not
find a consensus during its extensive deliberations in Brussels.
The Government of Brazil is of the opinion that this two-track approach (architecture, on one
side, and specific rules, on the other) is highly convenient for the successful completion of the work,
since it contributes for the coherence of the whole exercise.  Moreover, we regard architecture as the
basis on which the whole structure should be based upon.
The question is whether it is necessary to discuss both types of question simultaneously.
Until now, there was certain logic in pursuing the analysis of architecture and specific rules, in
parallel.  Many of the specificities of determined areas were not known before and, therefore, it was
useful to have initial rounds of discussions as far as all of them are concerned.  This exercise provedto be useful in terms of mapping the situation and putting all the options for a certain issue, in a table.
There was the hope that the number of options for each item would progressively dwindle and so
would the number of outstanding issues.  There was also the hope that some of the unsolved issues of
Brussels could have been solved by means of this cr oss-reference to architecture rules, already in the
initial rounds.
The results of the activities conducted so far were not, however, as substantial as could have
been envisaged. It is true that some progress has been achieved in Brussels, but the Geneva phase of
the activities (designed specifically to deal with the unsolved issues of Brussels) was not as fruitful.
The document prepared by the Secretariat “Status of the Harmonization Work Programme”, dated
27 June 2000, presents a very useful factual assessment of the current situation.  From the dataG/RO/W/58
Page 2
collected, one can verify, for instance, that out of the 481 outstanding issues from Brussels, only 21
were resolved since September 1997, which accounts for less than 5 per cent.
The lack of effectiveness of the exercise becomes even more evident when the number of
days devoted to these discussions is considered: 65 days for specific issues and 14 for architecture.
 This sort of questions inevitably leads to th e assessment of the timing for the completion of
the work programme.  In this respect, the mandate was very clear: it should have been completed
within three years of initiation of the activities.  Those three years expired on 20 July 1998.
As that deadline was not met, members agreed  to “commit themselves to make their best
endeavour to complete the Harmonization Work Programme by November 1999”, and the Council forTrade in Goods agreed with this goal.  As it is known, this second deadline was not also met.  There
was no significant change from the situation depicted in November 1999.
The lack of definition of the exercise also poses other questions.  Delegations, especially
those from developing countries, might be increasingly faced with difficulties in explaining internallythe low speed of development of the activities related to the Programme.  There might arise mounting
pressures of both governments, which are, after all, investing substantial resources in the process and,
the private sector, which would duly expect a timely solution to problems that affect directly their
activities.  The lack of progress in the Work Programme does not contribute to trade facilitation
purposes.
In view of the preceding arguments, it follows that the Committee must provide a quick
response as regards the completion of its mandate.
Further work of the Harmonization Work Programme
In this section, some suggestions will be presen ted, in terms of how to better accomplish the
task that was assigned to the Committee, maximizing the resources of the Members.
In terms of modalities for the negotiations, the Government of Brazil firmly believes that
there is a clear need for a sequencing of the future negotiations.  The initial rounds of discussions of
both architecture and specific rules were sufficient to clarify the situation.  There is, now, enough
knowledge of the different positions of the Members and the group should move one step further.
The core of the problem lies in the definition of a focus to the negotiations.  In the opinion of
the Government of Brazil, this focus should rest on what is the basis of the structure: architecture.
There should be an effort to advance substan tially the negotiations in architecture, in the
coming months.   Many of the issues that are still pending in  terms of the specific rules could be more
easily solved if referred to a general architecture rule.  This would entail the reduction of the number
of issues to be concluded and contribute for the general coherence of the process .
We believe that if there is substantial involvement of delegations in dealing with architecture,
the issue could be concluded, or, at least, be almost finalized in the next months.  One could envisage
the first quarter of 2001 as a target date for the completion of this task.
 During the period where the focus of the task would be in architecture, all the meetings would
be devoted to this issue, in order to maximize th e available resources. The discussion of the specific
rules would be only resumed as a following stage, in line with this idea of sequencing.G/RO/W/58
Page 3
In the opinion of the Brazilian Government, th is approach has a double advantage:  on one
hand, it allows for a more rational approach to the whole exercise, since it is becoming evident that
the current approach is inadequate to guarantee reasonable developments.  On the other hand, the
architecture exercise tends to be of a more political nature than the “product-specific” one.  This
political nature of architecture is better suited for breakthroughs in the negotiations.
Another problem that is starting to emerge from the current model of negotiations is that the
longer it takes to agree on issues, the more difficult it is to bring officials from the capitals to take part
in the discussions.  The whole exercise starts to face a situation of discredit, which is very detrimental
to the accomplishment of the mandate.
The key words of our proposal are, therefore, focus and sequencing.  We believe that if the
activities are pursued in a more focused way (and now there is enough critical mass to allow for it,
contrary to what happened in the near past), all the significant work that has been conducted in
Brussels and in Geneva can mature in a reasonable period of time.  The mandate that was assigned to
the group can, then, be fulfilled.
__________