RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/RO/W/37
23 October 1998
(98-4135)
Committee on Rules of Origin
FOURTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
OPERATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN
Background Document by the Secretariat
This background document is circulated by the Secretariat in preparation for the fourth annual
review of the implementation and operation of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, to be conducted atthe meeting of the Committee on Rules of Origin on 5 November 1998.
_______________
Article 6:1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin provides that "the Committee shall review
annually the implementation and operation of Part II and Part III of this Agreement having regard toits objectives".  The main objectives of the Agreement are those listed in the preambular paragraphs.G/RO/W/37
Page 2
The contents of this document are as follows:
Page
1. Members and Ob server status.............................................................................................3
2. Officers of the WTO Commit tee on Rules of Origin .........................................................4
3. Meetings of the Committee on Rules of Origin ..................................................................44. Harmonization of Rules of Origin.......................................................................................4
5. Trade Facilitation ........................................................................................................... ....11
6. Notifications of rules of origin ...........................................................................................11
7. Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods ..........................................................11G/RO/W/37
Page 3
1. Members and Observer status
(a) WTO Members (132)
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austria
BahrainBangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
BeninBolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
BulgariaBurkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
Central African RepublicChad
Chile
Colombia
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic of theCosta Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
DjiboutiDominica
Dominican Republic
EC
Ecuador
EgyptEl Salvador
Fiji
Finland
France
GabonGambiaGermany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea BissauGuinea, Republic of
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong, ChinaHungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
IrelandIsrael
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
KenyaKorea
Kuwait
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
LuxembourgMacau
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
MaltaMauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Mongolia
MoroccoMozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Netherlands
New ZealandNicaraguaNiger
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New GuineaParaguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
PortugalQatar
Romania
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint LuciaSaint Vincent & Gren.
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak RepublicSlovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
SpainSri LankaSuriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Thailand
TogoTrinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
ZambiaZimbabweG/RO/W/37
Page 4
(b) Observer Governments (33)
Albania
AlgeriaAndorraArmeniaAzerbaijanBelarusBhutanCambodiaCape VerdeChinaCroatiaEstoniaEthiopia
GeorgiaFormer YugoslavRepublic of MacedoniaHoly SeeJordanKazakhstanKyrgyz RepublicLaos, P.D.R. ofLatviaLithuaniaMoldovaNepal
OmanRussian FederationSaudi ArabiaSeychellesSudanTaipei, ChineseTongaUkraineUzbekistanVanuatuViet Nam
(c) Observer International Organizations (9)
1
ACP
EFTAIADBIMFITCBOECDUNCTADWCOWorld Bank
2. Officers of the WTO Committee on Rules of Origin
Chairman: Mr. Ric Wells (Australia)
Vice-Chairman:Mr. Rossman Ithnain (Singapore)
3. Meetings of the Committee on Rules of Origin
During the reporting period, the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) has held [eight] formal
meetings between 2-6 February, 16-27 March, 27 Ap ril-1 May, 25-29 May, on 19 June, 1 and 6 July,
15 October and 5 November 1998.  The minutes of these meetings are contained in documentsG/RO/M/13-19.
4. Harmonization of Rules of Origin
4.1 The Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO) submitted to the Committee, on
22 January 1998, the Tenth Report(G/RO/22), on 20 April 1998, the Eleventh Report (G/RO/23), on20 July 1998, the Twelfth Report (G/RO/27) and on […] 1998, the Thirteenth Report (G/RO/….)
4.2 At the meeting on 2-6 February 1998 (G/RO/M/13), the CRO:
                                                     
1 These organizations have official observer status following agreement in the Committee (G/RO/M/9) and
agreements between the World Bank and the IMF with the WTO (WT/L/195).G/RO/W/37
Page 5
- in accordance with Article 9.3(a) of the Agreem ent, endorsed the rules of origin for products
classifiable in Chapters 25, 27, 28-32, 41, 44-49, 50-58, 65-67, 68-70, 71, 72-73 and 92 which
were indicated as basket 1 decisions in paragraph 4.A of the Ninth Report to the CRO
(G/RO/19) and the template (G /RO/19/Add.1), as amended by th e TCRO.  It was also agreed
that the following footnote be added to the split heading ex3005(b):  "During the review for
overall coherence, specific consideration will be given to the question as to whether a separaterule is needed for "adhesive dressings and other articles having an adhesive layer, not
impregnated with pharmaceutical substances".";
- confirmed that these basket 1 items should not be reopened at the level of the CRO, keeping in
mind however that, in accordance with Article 9.3(b) of the Agreement, the CRO would finally
consider the results of the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP) in terms of their overall
coherence;
- examined unresolved issues concerning chapters 1-24 (agricultural products) submitted to the
CRO by the TCRO.  There was a growing c onsensus on Issue for Decision No. 14 toward
Option B, on Issue for Decision No. 26 toward Option A, and on Issues for Decision Nos. 27,
34, 38, 41 and 42, toward Option B.
4.3 At the meeting between 27 April - 1 May 1998 (G/RO/M14), the CRO:- in accordance with Article 9.3(a) of the Agreement, endorsed the rules of origin for products
classifiable in Chapters 2-12 and 17-24 which were indicated as basket 1 decisions inparagraph 5 of the Tenth Report to the CRO (G/RO/22) and the template (G/RO/22/Add.1),
as amended by the TCRO.  The CRO confirmed that these basket 1 items should not bereopened at the level of the CRO, keeping in mind however that, in accordance withArticle 9.3(b) of the Agreement, the CRO would finally consider the results of the HWP interms of their overall coherence;
- examined unresolved issues on Chapters 1-24 (agricultural products) submitted to the CRO by
the TCRO :
(1) The CRO reached consensus on Option A in Issue for Decision No. 26, on Option B
in Issues for Decision Nos. 34, 38, 41  and 52.
(2) There was emerging consensus on Option C in Issue for Decision No. 14, and on
Option B in Issues for Decision Nos. 27 and 42.
(3) As concerns sugar:
- many delegations indicated that they would like to show flexibility on Issue for
Decision No. 51 but were reluctant to do so in light of the implication this may haveon other issues.  Many delegations expressed interest in a proposal suggesting thatMembers show flexibility on this issue, in exchange for flexibility in Issues forDecision Nos. 55  and 56;
- most delegations saw no need for the two split headings, 1702(b) and 1702(c).
(4) As concerns coffee and tea:
- some questions regarding this issue have been clarified.G/RO/W/37
Page 6
(5) As concerns dairy products:
- there was consensus that Option B in Issue for Decision Nos. 16  and 18, and
Option C in Issue for Decision No.96 should be deleted.
(6) As concerns fish:
- there was consensus that Issue for Decision No. 8(III) concerning a proposal for
value-added test and Option B in Issue for Decision No.4 (ii)  should be deleted;
- there was a growing consensus on headings  1603-1605 towards "CTH" and on Issue
for Decision No.7 (concerning split headi ngs ex 0305(e), ex0306(d) and ex0307(d))
towards Option A.
(7) As concerns live animals and meat:
- five delegations were able to agree to the formulation of one common criterion for
Option A in Issue for Decision No. 1.  The final formulation of that criterion iscurrently under examination.  One delegation declared to be prepared to examine thepossibility to join that one common criterion at a later stage;
- in relation to Issue for Decision No. 2, the same five delegations expressed flexibility
to examine the formulation of a common criterion for Option B and to restrict theadditional requirement to only a fattening period;
- on Issues for Decision Nos. 7 and 43, flexibility was expressed by several delegations
to examine other options;
- on Issues for Decision Nos. 3 and 5, examination is going on as to whether Option A
presents a different approach than Option B, or whether this might be a question ofterminology.
(8) As concerns wine:
- some questions on Members positions were clarified.
- The representative of India proposed that the Secretariat prepare a paper which briefly
analyzes the impact of the major proposals concerning origin criteria of textile products on the
rights and obligations of Members under the WTO Agreements, such as the Agreement onTextiles and Clothing, the Agreement on S ubsidies and Countervailing Measures, the
Agreement on Implementation of Article  VI of GATT 1994, and origin-marking
requirements.  The representatives of the Dominican Republic, Pakistan
 and Sri Lanka
supported India's proposal.  The representative of Malaysia stated that India's proposal
merited further consideration.
4.4 At the meeting between 27 April – 1 May 1998 (G/RO/M/15), the CRO:- examined unresolved issues on Chapters 50-63 (textiles) submitted to the CRO by the TCRO:
Group 1 (fibre and yarn production)G/RO/W/37
Page 7
- there was emerging consensus on Issue No. 1 toward Option A.  Argentina,
Colombia and Costa Rica reserved their positions on this issue;
- Issues Nos. 2, 3, 14 and 15 remained unresolved, with a  number of delegations
supporting the various options in these issues.
Group 2 (yarn processing)
- Issues Nos. 5-8, 17 and 21-23 remained unresolved, with a number of delegations
supporting the various options in these issues;
- as concerns Issue No. 6, some delegations stated that core spinning and slub yarn
processing were part of the spinning process outlined in Issue No. 3, and requesteddelegations supporting Option B to reconsider this issue.
Group 3 (yarn and fabric finishing)
- the CRO reached consensus on Option B for Issue No. 68;
- issues Nos. 4, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-20, 24, 25, 29, 37, 44 and 57 remained unresolved,
with a number of delegations supporting the various options in these issues;
- as concerns Issues Nos. 24 and 25, since some delegations shifted their positions from
Option A to Option B, there was wide support for Option B.
Group 4A (made-up goods)
- Issues Nos. 26-28, 30-32, 55-56, 59-67 and 69-71 remained unresolved, with a
number of delegations supporting the various options in these issues;
- as concerns Issues Nos. 30-32, one delegation stated that its position in these issues
was also related to the dyeing/printing processes;
- as concerns Issues Nos. 55, 56 and 59-65, it was observed that these issues were
linked with the issues concerning apparel.
Group 4B (sp eciality goods)
- Issues Nos. 10 and 38-43 remained unresolved, with a number of delegations
supporting the various options in these issues.
Group 4C (embroidery)
- there was wide support for Option A in Issue No. 33;- there was consensus that Option C in Issue No. 34 should be deleted;
- Issues Nos. 35, 47, 52 and 58 were not discussed since the TCRO Report concerning
these issues had not been officially submitted to the CRO.
Group 4D (other)G/RO/W/37
Page 8
- the CRO reached consensus on Option A in Issue No. 72.  It was also agreed  that the
square brackets around the word "last" should be deleted.  It was noted that the
"Ottawa" definition should be reconsidered in light of overall coherence andconsistency of language when work on product-specific rules for all Chapters hadbeen finished;
- Issue No. 36 remained unresolved, with a number of delegations supporting various
positions.
Group 5 (apparel)
- the CRO agreed to narrow down various positions in Option A of Issue No. 46.
- Issues Nos. 45, 46, 48-51, 54 and 73 remained unresolved, with a number of
delegations supporting the various options in these issues.
- as concerns the issue “implications of the implementation of the harmonized rules of origin on
other WTO Agreements”, the CRO noted that there was agreement on the importance of theissue raised by India in regard to the major proposals on rules of origin in the textile sector,but that there was no consensus on India’s proposal to request the Secretariat to prepare ananalytical paper on this issue. Many Members expressed concern that it would be unavoidablefor the Secretariat to face the problem of interpreting the provisions of various WTOAgreements in such an analysis.  These Members also stated that the analytical work shouldbe carried out by the CRO itself and that this should not only be confined to textile products,but extended to all other products.
4.5 At the meeting between 25-29 May 1998 (G/RO/M/16), there was a common understanding
that, in light of the complexity of issues and the remaining heavy workload, the deadline of20 July 1998 for completion of the HWP could not be met;
- as concerns the issue "implications of the implementation of the harmonized rules of origin on
other WTO Agreements", the CRO agreed that delegations should submit to the Secretariat,by 19 June 1998
2, any issues that they wish to be discussed, formally or informally, at a
future meeting of the CRO.  The Secretariat would compile the list of issues and circulate it toMembers.
4.6 At the meeting on 19 June 1998, the CRO discussed its future work in connection with the
HWP.
4.7 At the meeting on 1 and 6 July 1998 (G/RO/M/18), the CRO accepted its report to the
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) (G/RO/25).  The report contained the following recommendationsand proposals:
-" Continuation of the Harmonization Work Programme
Members commit themselves to make their best endeavour to complete the HWP by
November 1999, and  in this context, the CRO recommends that:
                                                     
2 The deadline was extended until 30 September 1998 at the meeting on 19 June 1998.G/RO/W/37
Page 9
- the CRO, in cooperation with  the TCRO, should continue the work identified in Articles
9.2(c) and 9.3 of the Agreement, in accordance with the indicative future work programme set
out below;
- the Chairman of the TCRO shall report to each meeting of the CRO on the progress achieved
in the TCRO;
- the TCRO shall submit the results of its work on overall architecture to the CRO in January
1999.  It shall submit the final result of its work to the CRO by the end of May 1999 for final
consideration by the CRO;
- the CRO shall report to the CTG on the progress of work in February, June and October 1999.
In June 1999 the CRO shall review the status of the HWP and make a recommendation on adeadline for completing that work.
Future work programme
With regard to the future work on the HWP, the CRO recommends the following guidelines:
- the overall architecture of the harmonized rules of origin (including general rules) should first
be addressed in order to ensure consistency of the relevant horizontal rules;
- section/chapter rules and residual rules should subsequently be established;- with a view to refining and clarifying further technically unresolved issues, and in light of the
discussions on overall architecture, the CRO may request the TCRO to review further certain
templates with specified reasons for its request and also with definite guidelines on how the
TCRO should conduct its review; and
- the Secretariats of the WTO and WCO should provide technical assistance, where requested,
to Members in order to facilitate their work.
With a view to keeping up the momentum in the work concerning the HWP, and on the basis
of the above guidelines, the CRO proposes the following indicative future work programme:
(a) September – December 1998
TCRO:
- Overall architecture
- Section/chapter rules and residual rules
CRO:
- Implications of the implemen tation of the harmonized rules of origin on other WTO
Agreements
- Discussion on product-specific rules which are not directly affected by overall architectural
considerations, in particular also relating to Chapters 72 to 81 (Metals )
- Discussion on criteria for requesting the TCRO to review templates- Discussion of Article 2 of the AgreementG/RO/W/37
Page 10
(b) January-May 1999
TCRO
- Product- specific rules which the CRO has requ ested the TCRO to revi ew in light of the
outcome of the discussions on overall architecture
- Outstanding product-specific rules- Outstanding issues concerning definitions of goods wholly obtained- Outstanding issues concerning definitions of minimal operations
(c) January – July, September – October 1999
CRO
- Overall architecture
- Section/chapter rules and residual rules
- Definitions of goods wholly-obtained- Definitions of minimal operations- Any outstanding product-specific rules
- Issues related to trade facilitation, pending agreement by the CTG
- Review of the status of th e HWP and recommendation of a deadline for completion of the
HWP
- Consideration of the results of the HWP in terms of their overall coherence."
The recommendations and proposals were approved by the CTG at its meeting on 8 July 1998 and
adopted by the General Council at its meeting on 15 July 1998.
4.8 At the meeting on 15 October 1998 (G/RO/M/19) the CRO:- considered about 250 draft product-specific rules of origin of goods which had been
transmitted to it by the TCRO.  Due to some techni cal difficulties the CRO could not reach consensus
and agreed to continue the examination of these items at the next meeting;
- considered submissions from India and Korea concerning implications of the implementation
of the harmonized rules of origin on other WTO Agreements.
4.9 At the meeting on 5 November 1998 (G/RO/M/20), the CRO:
- [to be finalized in light of discussions at the meeting in November 1998].G/RO/W/37
Page 11
5. Trade Facilitation
5.1 At the meeting on 15 October 1998 (G/RO/M/19), the CRO discussed the implementation of
Article 2(h) and paragraph 3(d) of Annex II of th e Agreement on Rules of Origin (i.e. the assessment
of origin by authorities prior to the importation of goods).  It was agreed that the CRO would continue
the discussions at its next meeting based, in particular, upon information received from 32 Members
to date, concerning ongoing practices applied by them with regard to their assessments.
5.2 At the meeting on 5 November 1998 (G/ RO/M/19), the CRO:
- [to be finalized in light of discussions at the meeting of the CRO in November 1998].
6. Notifications of rules of origin
(i) Non-preferential rules of origin
6.1 Notifications relating to non-preferential rules of origin under Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the
Agreement have been received from [64] Members of which [29] Members notified that they do nothave non-preferential rules of origin.  [53] Members have not notified (see Annex).
(ii) Preferential rules of origin
6.2 Notifications relating to preferential rules of origin under paragraph 4 of Annex II to the
Agreement have been received from [69] Members, of which one Member notified that it does nothave preferential rules of origin.  [48] Members have not yet notified their preferential rules of origin
(see Annex).
7. Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods
[The CRO adopted its report to the CTG (G/RO/W/35) at its meeting on 5 November 1998.]
[Report to be finalized in light of discussions  at the meeting of the CRO in November 1998.]G/RO/W/37
Page 12
ANNEX
1. Members that have notified Non-Preferential Rules of Origin
Argentina (G/RO/N/2, 10 & 16)
Australia (G/RO/N/1)Brazil (G/RO/N/14)Burkina Faso (G/RON/19)Bulgaria (G/RO/N/17)Canada (G/RO/N/1)Colombia (G/RO/N/1)Cuba (G/RO/N/3)Cyprus ((G/RON/19)Czech Rep. (G/RO/N/2)EC (G/RO/N/1)Hong Kong, China (G/RO/N/1)Hungary (G/RO/N/2)
Israel (G/RO/N/13)Japan (G/RO/N/1)Korea (G/RO/N/1)Madagascar (G/RO/N/11)Malta (G/RO/N/4)Mexico (G/RO/N/12)Morocco (G/RO/N/2)New Zealand (G/RO/N/1)Niger (G/RON/19)Norway (G/RO/N/8)Peru (G/RO/N/4 & 5)Poland (G/RO/N/8)
Romania (G/RO/N/1)Senegal (G/RO/N/10)Slovak Republic(G/RO/N/1)Slovenia (G/RO/N/5 & 7)South Africa (G/RO/N/3)Switzerland (G/RO/N/4)Tunisia (G/RO/N/7)Turkey (G/RO/N/8)US (G/RO/N/1 & 6)Venezuela (G/RO/N/1 &10)
2. Members that have notified that they do not have Non-Preferential Rules of Origin
Bolivia (G/RO/N/9)
Brunei Darussalam(G/RO/N/5)Chad (G/RO/N22)Chile (G/RO/N/6)Costa Rica (G/RO/N/1)Dominican Rep.(G/RO/N/9)El Salvador (G/RO/N/10)Fiji (G/RO/N/17)Haiti (G/RO/N/20)Honduras (G/RO/N/3)
Iceland (G/RO/N/5)India (G/RO/N/1)Indonesia (G/RO/N/16)Jamaica (G/RO/N/4)Kenya (G/RO/N/9)Malaysia (G/RO/N/6)Maldives (G/RO/N/22)Mauritius (G/RO/N/1)Mongolia (G/RO/N/20)Nicaragua (G/RO/N/10)Pakistan (G/RO/N/16)
Panama (G/RO/N/23)Philippines (G/RO/N/6)Singapore (G/RO/N/3)Thailand (G/RO/N/1)Trinidad & Tob. (G/RO/N/7)Uganda (G/RO/N/12)United Arab Emirates(G/RO/N/17)Uruguay (G/RO/N/12)
3. Members that have not notified Non-Preferential Rules of Origin
Angola
Antigua & BarbudaBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelizeBeninBotswanaBurundiCameroonCentral African Rep.CongoCôte d'Ivoire
D.R. of CongoDjibouti
DominicaEcuadorEgyptGabonGambiaGhanaGrenadaGuatemalaGuinea BissauGuinea, Rep. ofGuyanaKuwait
LesothoLiechtenstein
MacauMalawiMaliMauritaniaMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNigeriaPapua New GuineaParaguayQatarRwanda
Saint Kitts & NevisSaint Lucia
Saint Vincent &GrenadinesSierra LeoneSolomon IslandsSri LankaSurinameSwazilandTanzaniaTogoZambiaZimbabweG/RO/W/37
Page 13
4. Members that have notified Preferential Rules of Origin
Argentina (G/RO/N/16)
Australia (G/RO/N/1)Bolivia (G/RO/N/1, 22&23)Brazil (G/RO/N/12)Brunei Darussalam(G/RO/N/4)Bulgaria(G/RO/N/15, 22&23)Burkina Faso (G/RO/N/19)Canada (G/RO/N/1, 6 & 8)Chad (G/RO/N/22)Chile (G/RO/N/6)Colombia (G/RO/N/1)Costa Rica(G/RO/N/20/Rev.1)Côte d'Ivoire (G/RO/N/11)Cuba (G/RO/N/3)Czech Rep. (G/RO/N/2, 22& 23)Dominican Rep.(G/RO/N/5)EC (G/RO/N/1)Ecuador (G/RO/N/12)El Salvador (G/RO/N/10 &11)
Fiji (G/RO/N/17)
Guatemala (G/RO/N/21)Haiti (G/RO/N/20)
Honduras (G/RO/N/3 & 10)
Hungary (G/RO/N/2, 22 &
23)
Iceland (G/RO/N/15, 22 &
23)
India (G/RO/N/1)
Indonesia (G/RO/N/4)Israel (G/RO/N/13)
Jamaica (G/RO/N/4)
Japan (G/RO/N/6)
Kenya (G/RO/N/9)
Korea (G/RO/N/7)Liechtenstein (G/RO/N/22)
Madagascar (G/RO/N/11)
Malaysia (G/RO/N/4)
Maldives (G/RO/N/22)
Malta (G/RO/N/4)Mauritius (G/RO/N/1)
Mexico (G/RO/N/12)
Mongolia (G/RO/N/20)
Morocco (G/RO/N/2)
New Zealand (G/RO/N/1)Nicaragua (G/RO/N/10)
Niger (G/RON/19)
Norway (G/RO/N/8, 22 &
23)
Pakistan (G/RO/N/16)Panama (G/RO/N/23)
Paraguay (G/RO/N/12)
Peru (G/RO/N/1)
Philippines (G/RO/N/4)
Poland (G/RO/N/8, 22 & 23)
Romania (G/RO/N/14, 22 &
23)
Senegal (G/RO/N/10)Singapore (G/RO/N/3 & 4)
Slovak Republic (G/RO/N/1,
22 & 23)
Slovenia (G/RO/N/5, 7, 22
& 23)Switzerland (G/RO/N/6, 22
& 23)
Thailand (G/RO/N/1 & 4)
Trinidad &Tob. (G/RO/N/7)
Tunisia (G/RO/N/7)Turkey (G/RO/N/8)
Uganda (G/RO/N/12)
United Arab Emirates
(G/RO/N/17)
US (G/RO/N/1 , 6 & 18)Uruguay (G/RO/N/5)
Venezuela (G/RO/N/1)
Zambia (G/RO/N/15)
5. Members that have notified that they do not have Preferential Rules of Origin
Hong Kong, China (G/RO/N/1).
Macau (G/RO/N/21)
6. Members that have not notified Preferential Rules of Origin
Angola
Antigua & BarbudaBahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
BeninBotswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Cent. African Rep.
CongoCyprus
D.R. of Congo
Djibouti
Dominica
EgyptGabon
GambiaGhana
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea Bissau
Guinea, Rep. ofGuyana
Kuwait
Lesotho
Mali
MauritaniaMozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Niger
NigeriaPapua New Guinea
QatarRwanda
St. Kitts & Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent & Grenadines
Sierra LeoneSolomon Islands
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Suriname
SwazilandTanzania
Togo
Zimbabwe
__________