RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/78  
 
18 May 2022 
(22-3820) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 7 APRIL  2022  
VICE-CHAIRPERSON: MS  LAURA GAUER (SWITZERLAND)  
Subjects Discussed  
 
1   PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
(WT/L/917  AND WT/L/917/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ ...............  2 
1.1   Review of Recent Developments in Relation to Preferential Rules of Origin for Leas t 
Developed Countries (LDCs): Report by Preference -Granting Members Wishing to Share 
Any Developments  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  2 
1.2   Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import 
Data (G/RO/W/163/Rev.10) – Report by the Secretariat  ................................ .........................  3 
1.3   Examination of Existing Origin -Related Documentary Requirements (Paragraph  1.8 of 
the Bali Decision and Paragraph  3.1 of the Nairobi  Decision) – Submission by the 
LDC Group  (G/RO/W/211)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
1.4   Stocktaking of Implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial De cisions on 
Preferential  Rules of Origin for LDCs (Paragraph for the Ministerial Conference) – Report by 
the Vice-Chairperson  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
2   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF 
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/228 -G/RO/N/238 AND 
G/RO/N/232/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
3   ACTIVITIES OF THE WCO  TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (TCRO) 
IN 2021 – REPORT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WCO ................................ .................  7 
4   WEBINAR ON "WHAT DRIVES THE UTILIZATION OF TRADE PREFERENCES?" – 
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................  8 
5   ELEC TION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
6   DATE OF THE COMMITTEE'S NEXT MEETING  ................................ ...............................  9 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 
 
_______________  
 
 
The Committee on Rule s of Origin (hereafter "the Committee", or "CRO") adopted  the agenda 
(WTO/AIR/RO/15). Delegations attended the meeting either in person or remotely via the 
"Interprefy" platform.  
 
_______________  
 
 G/RO/M/78  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917 AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
1.1  Review of Recent Developments in Relation  to Preferential Rules of Origin for Least 
Developed Countrie s (LDCs):  Report by Preference -Granting Members  Wishing to Share 
Any Developments  
1.1.  The Vice-Chairperson  reminded de legations that the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions 
had instructed the Committee  to monitor preference -granting Members' efforts to implement both 
Decisions. In this regard, she invited preference -granting Members to take the floor to report on any 
recent  developments in this area.  
1.2.  The representative of the European Union  reported that improvements had been made to the 
Rules of Origin Self -Assessment (ROSA) tool, an integral part  of the European Union's  
"Access2Markets  portal ".1 He reported  that a warning had been added to the portal informing users 
about sanctions in place as a response to the Russia n Federation' s invasion  of Ukraine. As the 
Russian aggression in Ukraine was still ongoing, the EU sanctions had been  stepped up , with further 
import and export bans, and restrictions on Russian banks and maritime vessels. These sa nctions 
aimed at restoring peace and the international legal order of which the WTO was an integral part.  
1.3.  The representative of Canada  condemn ed the Russia n Fed eration 's unjustified and unprovoked 
invasion of Ukraine. She said that t he attacks were causing widespread humanitarian consequences 
and the senseless death of innocent people. This was not an attack on Ukraine  only, but also on 
international law, includi ng the United Nations (UN) Charter, democracy, freedom , and human 
rights.  
1.4.  The representative of Switzerland  condemn ed the Russian Federation's military aggression 
against Ukraine  as a flagrant violation of international law , including the prohibition o n the use of 
force, and a violation of the principle of the territorial integrity  of states . He called on Russia to 
respect its international obligations, withdraw its troops , and de -escalate. Moreover, he called on all 
actors to respect international law, including international humanitarian law.  
1.5.  The representative of the United States  reiterated strong US support for Ukraine and called 
upon the Russia n Federation  immediately to cease its use of force against Ukr aine, and refrain from 
any further unlawful threat or use of force against any UN Member State.  
1.6.  The representative of Japan  condemned the Russia n Federation 's aggression  in the strongest 
terms , as it clearly infringed Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, constituted a serious 
violation of international law , and was a  grave  breach of the UN Charter. He strongly urged Russia 
to cease its attack and withdraw its forces back to Russian territory.  He stated that Japan stood in 
solidarity with Ukraine  and its people, together with the international community.  
1.7.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  strongly condemned the Russia n Federation 's 
armed invasion of Ukraine,  it being a violation of the principles of the UN  Charter , and called on 
Russia to respect Ukraine ' sovereignty, territorial integrity , and political independence . He reaffirmed 
Korea's commitment to a rules -based global trade order under the WTO and  expressed concern over 
the serious impact  of Russia's actions on  the humani tarian situation in Ukraine,  on global supply 
chain s, and on food security. He called on Russia to suspend all military action in Ukraine.  
1.8.  The representative of the Russian Federation  explained  that global security concerns and 
UN Charter compliance did no t fall under the Committee 's mandate  and went far beyond the agenda . 
He called on the Vice -Chairperson to moderate the discussion,  accordingly , including by  disallowing 
interventions from delegations that neglected this basic consideration. In addition, he  requested that 
statements not correspond ing to the Committee's mandate be excluded from the meeting's minutes . 
He urged delegates to exercise self -restrain t in this regard.  
1.9.  The representative of Australia  echoed the concerns of others in relation to the Russia n 
Federation 's unjustif ed invasion of Ukraine , which Australia considered to be a breach of international 
law, the UN Charter , and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbouring state. Australia 
 
1 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access -to-markets/en/content/presenting -rosa G/RO/M/78  
 
- 3 - 
 
  strongly supported Ukraine in opposing Russia's hostilities  and called on Russia to withdraw its forces 
from the Ukrainian territory and to seek a diplomatic solution. Russia's war in Ukraine was exacting 
a catastrophic humanitarian toll  and Australia support ed collective action  by the international 
community to impose costs and increase leverage on Russia and those in Russia who bore 
responsibility . 
1.10.   The representative of New Zealand  stated that her government could not deny the impact of 
the Russia n Federation 's invasion both on Ukraine and on multilateral trade , which was relevant to 
the WTO's Committees . Therefore, New Zealand stood with the international community in 
condemning Rus sia's unjustified and illegal attack on Ukraine. Moreover, New Zealand was alarmed 
at the human rights abuses inside Ukraine, the  worsening humanitarian crisis, and the targeting of 
humanitarian corridors, densely populated areas , and civilian infrastructu re. Indeed, she was deeply 
saddened to see reports of mounting casualties and widespread damage. New Zealand was united 
alongside the international community in support of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity 
and, in this sense, had been applyin g tough sanctions on Russia as a means of crippling Russia's 
ability to continue waging war on Ukraine and harming its civilians , at the same time noting that 
there was no victor in an unjustified and unprovoked aggression. Finally, New Zealand noted that it 
had been assisting international humanitarian efforts as the scale of the civilian impact of Russia's 
aggression became apparent.  
1.11.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined other Members in raising serious concerns about 
the war , which ha d led to a large number of civilian  losses , including women and children. A timely 
end to the war was also important to allow the WTO to move forward and prepare the  upcoming 
Ministerial Conference in a smooth and successful manner. He condemn ed the unjustified military 
attacks and call ed on the m to be immediately  stopped . 
1.12.   The representative of Albania  strongly  condemn ed the Russian Federation's aggression 
against Ukraine, which  was a blatant breach of international law and the UN Charter , upon whose 
principles the international rule s-based system had been built. In contrast, Albania  supported the 
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recogni zed borders, including  
its territorial waters. Furthermore, Albania stood in full solidarity with  Ukraine and remained 
concerned by the exponentially deteriorating humanitarian situation there.  
1.13.   The representative of Georgia  condemned , in the strongest possible terms, the Russia n 
Federation 's unprovoked, unjustified, and premeditated military aggressio n against Ukraine, leading 
to death, destruction , and humanitarian disaster. Russia's attacks on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure 
were a flagrant violation of the key principles of the UN Charter. Georgia  called upon the Russian 
Federation immediately  to cease , without any preconditions, its military aggression against Ukraine,  
and to withdraw its military forces from a sovereign and democratic state. He reiterated Georgia's 
unwavering support for Ukraine's independent sovereignty and territorial integrity  within its 
internationally recognized borders.  
1.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1.2  Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Import 
Data (G/RO/W/163/Rev. 10) – Report by the Secretariat  
1.15.   The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan F.  Martí) reported that most preference -granting Members had 
already notified their preferential rules of origin used for LDCs , except for Armenia, Iceland, and 
Morocco. In this respect , there had been no change since the update that had been given in 2021.  
In addition, since it had already been a few years since most notifications had been received, he 
invited preference -granting Members to verify that the information that they had submitted, 
particular ly internet links, were correct  and up to date.  
1.16.   In relation to preferential tariffs and import statistics, he emphasized  the importance of having 
complete datasets so that the Secretariat could monitor the utilization of preferences. In this regard, 
he reported that a comprehensive noti fication had been submitted by India (2015 -2020) , which had 
already been incorporated into the WTO  Integrated Database (IDB). The Secretariat had also 
received notifications from China (2010 -2020), Iceland (2013 -2020) , and Turkey (2010 -2020). 
These recent notifications were still being verified prior to their integration into the IDB. In addition, 
notifications from the Russian  Federation and the United Kingdom were also being analysed by the G/RO/M/78  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Secretariat. Finally, the Secretariat noted that some Members had  not yet provided information 
regarding their preferential imports from LDCs ( namely, Armenia ; Kazakhstan ; the Kyrgyz Republic ; 
Montenegro ; Morocco ; New Zealand ; and Tajikistan).  
1.17.   The representative of the United Kingdom  mentioned that this agenda item concerned a 
shared priority to support the rules-based international trading system. He stated that the 
Russian  Federation's invasion of Ukraine could not be ignored when considering the rules -based 
international order. The UK and its internat ional partners stood united in condemning the Russian 
government 's reprehensible actions, which were an egregious violation of international rules and 
norms.  As a Permanent Member of the UN  Security Council, Russia had a particular responsibility to 
uphold  international peace and security. Instead, Russia was violating the borders of another country 
and its actions were causing widespread suffering. Moreover, he stated that the Russian government 
had shown that it had never  been serious about engaging in di plomacy – and that it had deliberately 
worked to mislead the world, in order to mask its carefully planned aggression. As the 
UN Secretary -General had said, such unilateral measures conflicted directly with the UN  Charter: 
the use of force by one  country a gainst another was the repudiation of the principles that every 
country had committed to uphold. He called on Russia to urgently de -escalate and withdraw its 
troops  from Ukrainian territory . He also mentioned that the United Kingdom had submitted 
preferent ial import data for 2020 and tariff data for 2022.  
1.18.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Secretariat for the report and confirmed that 
New Zealand's information systems did not yet allow for the collection of data concerning the 
utilization of pref erences by LDCs.  However, her government was exploring possible solutions to 
notify the necessary information to the Secretariat.  
1.19.   The representative of India thanked the Secretariat  for reflecting its notification  made in 2021 
in its revised report.  
1.20.   The representative of Australia  commended the delegations of China , Iceland,  India, and 
Turkey for having submitted comprehensive notifications. In addition, he noted that Australia's 
import data had been submitted in late March and would be reflected in f uture reports.  
1.21.   The Vice-Chairperson  requested delegations that had not yet submitted all the necessary 
information to prepare their notifications as soon as possible and, if necessary, to seek the assistance 
of the Secretariat to do so.  
1.22.   The Committee took note of the report and statements made.  
1.3  Examination of Existing Origin -Related Documentary Requirements (Paragraph  1.8 of 
the Bali Decision and Paragraph  3.1 of the Nairobi Decision) – Submission by the 
LDC Group (G/RO/W/211)  
1.23.   The representative of Senegal  presented the paper on behalf of the LDC Group.2 He recalled 
that more than six  years had passed from the adoption of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision  and noted 
that good p rogress had been made in relation to transparency  and preference utilization. However , 
implementation of the substantive paragraphs of the D ecision  could be accelerated and would benefit 
from a more constructive  and proactive  dialogue in the Committee. In this regard, the LDC  Group 
urged preference -granting Members to step up their engagement  in the CRO to share best practices 
and lessons learned. The LDC  Group had been bringing to the attention of the CRO information about 
national practices that could be considered best practices , as well as other practices that did no t 
meet the objectives of the Ministerial Decision and which, as a result, could be improved  upon. 
The goal was to enable  fuller utilization of the Duty -Free Quota -Free (DFQF)  schemes and to 
contribute  to the attainment of the  Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s). In this regard, 
Target  17.12 required that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs be 
transparent , simple , and contribute to facilitating market access.  He explained that 
document  G/RO/W/211  assessed existing practices in relation to self-certification of origin  in light of 
these objectives . In addition, the note reviewed the availability of flexibilities for small consignments.  
Finally, as highlighted  in the note , some preference -granting Members already accepted 
self-certification as a proof of origin (Canada ; the EU ; Norway ; Switzerland ; and the US) , while 
 
2 The presentation was circulated in document  RD/RO/98 . G/RO/M/78  
 
- 5 - 
 
  others did so only partly (Japan) , or not at all (Chile ; China ; India; the Republic of Korea ; 
the Russian  Federation ; Chinese Taipei ; and Thailand).  
1.24.   The representative of Canada  pointed out  that Canada 's preferential rules of origin for LDCs  
fully met the commitments set out in the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial decisions  and that Canada had 
implemented  a trade -facilitative approach to documentary requirements: it allowed  for the 
self-certification of exporters (without prior exporter registration) and did not requir e proof of 
non-manipulation.  Certificate s of origin were only required for certain  goods ( namely, textiles and 
apparel)  and, under special circumstances,  the bill of lading could also be required by customs 
authorities.  
1.25.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand did not rely on certificates of origin 
to substantiate claims of preference ; nevertheless , in certain cases supporting commercial 
documents could be required to verify compliance . The  Generali zed System of Preferences (GSP) 
and respective rules of origin had been under review  over the past few years  to align them with  best 
practices  and recent approaches adopted in New Zealand's  Free Trade Agreements ( FTAs). The 
major changes would relate  to the origin criteria , which would be based  on a liberal  interpretation 
of the  Change in Tariff Classification (CTC) criterion , as well as an alternative to the Regional Value 
Content (RVC) criterion . 
1.26.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  referred to Article  11 of the "Regulations Governing the 
Determination of Country of Origin of Imported Goods"  and acknowledged that Chinese Taipe i 
accepted certificates issued or certified not only by the LDC  authorities, but also by their authorized 
agencies. At that time, Chinese Taipei did not implement a self-certification regime and expressed 
its readiness to provide further clarification to LDCs if requested to do so. He mentioned that Chinese 
Taipei's practice s in this regard  were fully compatible with the language of the Ministerial Decisions.  
1.27.   The representative of Australia  noted that Australia's practice had not been cove red in the 
paper , and noted that, u nder the Australian Systems of Tariff Preferences (ASTP), the main 
documentary requirement was a declaration of origin (self -certification) , whereas certificates of 
origin were accepted as an alternative . In addition,  a GSP Form A was equally acceptable (but not 
required ). The main requirement was the exporter's declaration and a  normal commercial invoice. 
There was n o prescribed for mat for the declaration , but a set of minimum information was 
prescribed: the name of the p erson signing the certificate or declaration, their position, and the 
company or entity they represente d. The relevant requirements were available on the website of the 
Australian Border Force .3 
1.28.   The representative of the European Union  thanked  the LDC  Group for its contribution to the 
discussion, as well as for its presentation and note.  
1.29.   The representative of China  said that the LDC paper did not accurately reflect China's 
practices and noted that the language of the Ministerial Decision s was not mandat ory. In 2017, 
China had issued "Measures of the Customs of the People's Republic of China for the Administration 
of the Origin of Imported Goods under Special Preferential Tariff Treatment to the Least Developed 
Countries " (Order No.  231 of the General Adm inistration of Customs).  Article  17 of the Order 
stipulate d that if the consignee or its agent ha d obtained an advance ruling of origin made by the 
Customs  of China, the consignee had the possibility to  use a  self-declaration  of origin . The validity 
period  of the advance ruling was three  years , and  within that period , the consignee or its agent 
could  issue unlimited self -declaration s for the same kind of goods. In addition, the s ignature and 
seal of the certifying authorities were not  required. Regarding small consignments, he referred to 
Article  20 of the same Order , and clarified that goods with a dutiable value below  RMB 6,000  were 
exempted from the obligation to present a certificate o f origin or self -declaration.  Finally, he 
indicated that his delegation would be ready to work with the LDC  Group to revise the paper so that 
it correctly reflect ed China's legislation . 
1.30.   The representative of Senegal , on behalf of the LDC  Group , thanked the  Members for their 
comments and statements. He requested a copy of Chinese Taipei's regulations and expressed the 
LDC Group's readiness to work with China to further improve the document.  
 
3 https://www.abf.gov.au/ .  G/RO/M/78  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.31.   In conclusion, the Vice-Chairperson  encourage d all preference -granting Members to review 
their requirements relating  to proof of origin and  to consider simplifying them , whenever possible , 
bearing in mind the objectives of the Ministerial Decisions. Moreover,  she encourage d LDCs and 
preference -grantin g Members to meet together to clarify any requirements that seem ed unclear.  
1.32.   The Committee took note  of the presentation  and statements made.  
1.4  Stocktaking of Implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on 
Preferential Rules of Origin  for LDCs (Paragraph for the Ministerial Conference) – Report 
by the Vice -Chairperson  
1.33.   The Vice-Chairperson  reminded Members that, in October  2021, the LDC  Group had proposed 
a paragraph taking stock of the implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions 
(G/RO/W/210). The paragraph, once endorsed by the Committee, would be sent to the General  
Council so that it could be reflected in the outcome d ocument of the 12th Ministerial Conference. 
After discussions in the Committee and a series of consultations, the proposed paragraph had been 
revised, and its most recent version had been circulated in a communication from the 
Vice-Chairperson dated 23 November  2021. One Member had expressed its reservations over the 
revised paragraph and, as a result, the paragraph  had not been endorsed. With this background in 
mind, the Vice -Chairperson wished to hear Members ' views about the status of the paragraph in 
question, and possible next steps.  
1.34.   The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDCs, thanked all Members for their 
engagement in the discussions. He said that the paragraph in question had been drafted with a view 
to reinvigorating the work of the Co mmittee towards a full implementation of the Nairobi Decision. 
He confirmed that the LDC  Group still wished to maintain the paragraph for the 12th Ministerial 
Conference . He also expressed the LDC  Group's willingness to continue consultations with any 
Memb er that still had concerns regarding the text.  
1.35.   The representative of India reiterated that India was committed to providing effective market 
access to LDCs and remained committed to the Hong Kong and Bali Ministerial Decisions. India had 
introduced its Dut y-Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme for LDCs in 2008 , and as of  
November  2021, 35  LDCs could benefit from the scheme, with Sierra Leone being the latest addition. 
The DFTP  scheme provided duty -free market access on 94.2% of tariff lines, and preferential access 
on an additional 3.2% of tariff lines. Only 309  tariff lines (2.6%) were on the exclusion list. In 
addition, India was the fourth  biggest export destination for LDCs and remained committed to 
supporting LDCs in their integration into th e global trading system. He also stated that the rate of 
utilization of India's preferences was adequate  and confirmed that India was willing to look into any 
specific rule of origin with which a n LDC Member found it difficult to comply.  
1.36.   The representative  of the European Union  noted that the EU continued to support  the text, 
including  in its latest version . 
1.37.   The Vice-Chairperson  proposed  to circulate the paragraph one more time to give delegations 
a few additional days to consult and confirm that there were  no pending  comments. If no objections 
were received within the prescribed time-period, the text would  be considered to have  been endorsed  
and become a decision by the Committee.  In case of any objections or comments during the 
prescribed period, she would inform delegations in writing and  instruct the LDC  Group to continue  
with its  consultations.  
1.38.   The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/228 -G/RO/N/ 238 AND 
G/RO/N/232/REV.1)  
2.1.  The Vice-Chairperson  drew Members' attention to the latest notifications received by the 
Secretariat : G/RO/N/228 -G/RO/N/ 238, and G/RO/N/232/ Rev.1. Considering  these  notifications, she 
noted that 22 Members had not yet submitted a notification under Article  5 of the Agreement , 
53 Members had notified the Secretariat that they applied non -preferential rules of origin , and 
62 Members had informed the Secretariat that they did not apply such rules.  G/RO/M/78  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.2.  The Committee took note  of this report.  
3  ACTIVITIES OF THE WCO  TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (TCRO) IN 
2021 – REPORT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WCO  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the WTO  Agreement on Rules of Origin had established 
two distinct committees: the Committee on Rules of Origin at the WTO , and a Technical Committee 
on Rules of Origin (TCRO) at the World Customs Organization (WCO). Given their complementary 
nature, it was customary to promote an exchange of information concerni ng the work of each 
Committee. To this end, she invited Mr  Demba Seck, a Technical Officer in charge of origin matters 
at the WCO  Secretariat, to report on the activities of the TCRO in 2021.  
3.2.  The representative of the World Customs Organization (Mr  Demba S eck) explained that the 
TCRO and the Secretariat of the WCO had been working on non -preferential rules of origin, 
preferential rules of origin, and technical assistance.  
3.3.  Regarding non -preferential rules of origin,  the TCRO had held its 40th Session virtual ly, in 
two phases , in January and February  2022. The meeting had been chaired by  Ms Nan Ding (China) . 
The TCRO had adopted the 23rd Periodic Report and the 23rd Annual Review on technical aspects and 
implementation of the WTO  Agreement on Rules of Origin for 2021. The Review had once again been 
brief since  the Agreement on Rules of Origin had not yet been fully implemented in practice and no 
specific questions had been referred to the TCRO.  
3.4.  On preferential rules of origin, he n oted that the Revenue Package Phase  IV Action Plan had 
been completed in 2021 and consisted of initiatives intended to ensure an effective and efficient 
collection of revenue by customs administrations. The lack of harmonization of practices remained 
a maj or challenge for all stakeholders. For this reason, the WCO had been promoting procedural 
harmonization through the implementation of various sets of g uidelines (such as Guidelines on Origin 
Certification ; Guidelines on Origin Verification ; Guidelines on Advance Rulings ; Guidelines on 
Customs Infrastructure for Classification , Origin and Valuation ; and a Practical Guide to the Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision on Rules of Origin for LDCs). These guidelines were intended to help simplify 
and streamline procedures  linked to rules of origin.  
3.5.  In addition, the WCO  Guide for Technical Update of Preferential Rules of Origin had been 
updated with a new Annex , in two  parts, Annex  IV–A (Table correlating HS  2017–HS 2022)  and 
Annex  IV–B (Impact of HS  2022 Amendments on Rules of Origin (Origin Criteria )). 
3.6.  Regarding technical assistance, the WCO  representative reported that the WCO  Secretariat had 
carried out a number of activities on the harmonization of non -preferential rules of origin as well as 
on preferential rules of origin. The WCO highlighted two  recent programmes in relation to the African 
Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA ): the WCO-European Union Programme on the 
"Implementation and Application of Rules of Origin to Enhance African Trade"; and  the 
WCO/JICA  Master Trainer Programme intended to provide increased AfCFTA  Rules of Origin 
implementation capabilities to African Members . 
3.7.  The representative of Ukraine  thanked the W CO for its comprehensive report and recalled that 
Ukraine had been a full y-fledged member of the W CO since 1992. She recognized the importance of 
the WCO's work, and its efforts to address challenges relating to the Russian aggression against 
Ukraine. On 9 March, the WCO  Secretary -General , Dr Kunio Mikuriya , had issued a statement 
announcing that the WCO was monitoring the situation in Ukraine with special attention given to the 
war's implications for customs  administrations . On 1 April, Ukraine had circulated a communication 
to all customs administrations of  WCO members indicating that the full -scale war launched by 
Russia, with the involvement of Belarus, had caused unprecedented damage to Ukraine's economy 
and customs service. As a result of the active hostilities, customs operations had been suspended in 
Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Kherson, and the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. She thanked 
the international community for its prompt response and measures taken to preserve peace and 
border integrity, and to prevent a humanitarian crisis and the illicit trafficking of Ukrainian cultural 
property. She once again called upon WCO  members to implement the necessary WCO  instruments 
and tools that would allow for the efficient and expeditious delivery of humanitarian supplies to the 
Ukrainian population. She a lso underlined the importance of the joint communication from the 
International Narcotics Control Board and the WCO calling for the adoption of the simplified control G/RO/M/78  
 
- 8 - 
 
  measures for medicines containing internationally controlled substances. Ukraine was utterly 
convinced that Russia and Belarus should not have access to the international systems of cooperation 
and that their membership should be suspended from all international fora, including the 
WCO customs enforcement network, until the sovereignty and ter ritorial integrity of Ukraine had 
been restored.  
3.8.  The representative of Senegal  thanked Mr  Seck for the quality of his report.  
3.9.  The Committee took note  of the report and statements made.  
4  WEBINAR ON "WHAT DRIVES THE UTILIZATION OF TRADE PREFERENCES?" – 
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
4.1.  The Vice-Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a second  webinar on "What Drives the 
Utilization of Trade Preferences ", taking place immediately after that day's CRO meeting . This would 
be a follow -up webinar to the eve nt that had taken place  in May  2021. She invited delegations to 
attend this event and to share information about it with their colleagues in capitals.4 
4.2.  She explained that the Secretariat had been organizing information sessions under an 
"Educational Exercise" since 2015 , at the request of Members . The goal of these sessions was to 
share national experiences  and to better understand the impact that existing rules of origin were 
having  on international trade.  Such sessions complemented the work of the Committee and benefited 
from the expertise of Members, the Secretariat , and outside speakers . She invited Members to share 
their views about the usefulness of such events and future topics and speakers.  
4.3.  The repre sentative of Australia  commended the Secretariat for organi zing such events and 
stated that these were highly relevant to the Organization . He mentioned that the data on preference 
utilization represented a "health check " on the accessibility of Regional T rade Agreements ( RTAs) to 
businesses. Hence, Australia fully supported the continuation  of work in this area and on other topics 
of interest to the CRO.  
4.4.  The representative of the United Kingdom  mentioned that the CRO had a high value as a forum 
where Members could share knowledge on a complex area of trade policy. The ability to learn from 
other Members and experts from across the globe was extremely helpful. The UK had found the 
information ses sions to be informative and supported their continuation.  
4.5.  The representative of Indonesia  appreciate d the Secretariat 's efforts in organizing the webinar.  
He said that , in Indonesia,  internal research had been conducted to study  preference  utilization rates 
and identify issues influencing  the utilization of trade preference s. The m ain issues affecting 
utilization rates include d lack of awareness , complex procedures to obtain certificate s, and 
overlapping rules of origin  of competing schemes. A  public servic e agency , namely the "FTA Centre " 
had been established in 2018 t o address those  issues . Indonesia was looking forward to the 
upcoming webinar , especially in respect of lessons learned from other Members ' experiences , which 
would contribute to improving kno wledge of preference utilization in Indonesia.  
4.6.  The representative of Switzerland  had found the information sessions to be relevant and 
comprehensive, and encouraged the Secretariat to continue organizing them . He also proposed the 
organization of a session on the background to the work of the Committee.  
4.7.  The representative of Uruguay  thanked the Secretariat for organizing the previous year's 
session , as it had contributed to a better understanding of the impact of rules of origin on 
international trade. Uruguay supported such events and thought they strengthened the work of the 
Committ ee. 
4.8.  The representative of Japan  thanked the Secretariat for organizing the previous year's webinar, 
as well as for the other information sessions held since 2015. Japan found such events to be very 
beneficial. To further understand the factors influencing the utilization of trade preferences, he 
 
4 The programme, presentations and a video recording of the 2021 and the 2022 webinars are available 
in the "events" section o f the Rules of Origin page of the WTO  website.  G/RO/M/78  
 
- 9 - 
 
  proposed that the Secretariat also organize an information session to consider the possible effect s 
of domestic tax exemption regimes on preference utilization.  
4.9.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Secre tariat for organizing the second  Webinar 
on "What Drive s the Utilization of Trade Preferences". As trade agreements continued to expand in 
number , origin requirements became more and more complex. He thought that the webinar would 
be helpful not only for p olicymakers, but also for the private sector , and he supported the idea of 
future information sessions.  
4.10.   The representative of the United States  was looking forward to the webinar and encouraged 
the Secretariat to consult with Members about topics for future sessions with a view to identify ing 
those topics of greatest mutual interest.  
4.11.   The representative of Chile congratulated the Secretariat for its organization of what promised 
to be a very interesting webinar and strongly supported t he continuation of such activities.  
4.12.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU would also be delighted to be 
involved in discussions about topics for future events.  
4.13.   In conclusion, the Vice-Chairperson  encouraged the Secretariat , in consultat ion with the 
Committee's chairperson and with input from delegations , to continue organizing similar events in 
the future.  
4.14.   The Committee  took note  of the statements made and  agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
5  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
5.1.  The Vice-Chairperson  explai ned that the Committee's rules of procedures envisaged the 
election of the Committee's new c hairperson  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 tak ing 
up the chairpersonships  of the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods. Therefore, she 
proposed to inform all delegations by email once a nominee had been  recommended  to chair the 
CRO. If no objections to the proposed name were received within a  prescribed  time-frame, the new 
Chairperson  would be deemed to have been elected by acclamation by the Committee as of that 
date. 
5.2.  The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
6  DATE OF THE COMMITTEE'S NEXT MEETING  
6.1.  The Vice-Chairperson  noted that the CRO 's next  meeting would take place on  13 October  2022.  
6.2.  The Committee took note  of this date. 
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  No items were raised under "Other Business".  
__________