RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/75  
 
1 February  2021 
(21-0832) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 13 NOVEMBER  2020  
CHAIRPERSON: MR HAN-MING HUANG (CHINESE TAIPEI)  
Subjects Discussed1 
 
1   UPDATE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING THE "ORIGIN FACILITATOR", A 
JOINT INITIATIVE BY THE WTO, ITC AND WCO – STATEMENT BY THE WTO AND THE 
ITC SECRETARIATS (RD/RO/92)  ................................ ................................ .....................  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND THE NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISIONS ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917 AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
 Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential Imports and 
Tariffs (G/RO/W/163/Rev.8) – Report by the Secretariat  ................................ ..........................  3 
 Review of Recent Developments Regarding Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – Report by 
Preference -Granting Members  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
2.2.1    Implementation of the REX  System – Update by the European Union (RD/RO/93)  ............  4 
2.2.2    Report of Recent Developments Related to Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs by Other 
Preference -Granting Members  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
 Developments Regarding Methods Using the Ad Valorem  Percentage Criterion to Determine 
Substantial Transformation (Paragraph  1.1 of the Nairobi Decision) (G/RO/W/202; RD/RO/91) – 
Submission by the LDC Group  ................................ ................................ ..............................  5 
 Utilization of Preferential Trade Arrangements by Least Developed Countries: Analysis of 
Mineral and Metal Products (G/RO/W/203; RD/RO/89)  – Note by the Secretariat  ........................  8 
 Implementation of the WTO Ministerial Decisions on Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs: 
Achievem ents and Gaps (G/RO/W/198) – Submission by the LDC  Group ................................ ...10 
 Draft Report (2020) of the CRO to the General Council on Preferential Rules of Origin  
for LDCs (G/RO/W/201)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......12 
3   NOTIFICATIONS UN DER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/195 TO G/RO/N/206) .............................  12 
4   DRAFT TEMPLATE  FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF NON -PREFERENTIAL  
RULES OF ORIGIN AND ORIGIN REQUIREMENTS (G/RO/W/182/REV.3) –  
STATEMENT BY SWITZERLAND  ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
5   INFORMAL SESSION ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF 
ORIGIN – UPDATE BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ...... 15 
6   ORIGIN -RELATED MEASURES TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE COVID -
19 PANDEMIC – INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  ................................ ...................  16 
7   "UNITED STATES: REVISED ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT FOR GOODS PRODUCED 
IN HONG KONG" – STATEMENT BY HONG KONG, CHINA  ................................ ................  17 
 
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/RO/12.  G/RO/M/75  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   TWENTY -SIXTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF  
THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/199)  ................................ ................  17 
9   DRAFT REPO RT (2020) OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/RO/W/200)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  18 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 
 China – Update on a New System for Issuing and Printing Certificates of  
Preferential Origin  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 
 EU's Access2Markets Portal and Rules of Origin Self -Assessment (ROSA)  ......................... 19 
_______________  
 
The Committee on Rules of Origin (the Committee, or CRO) adopted  the agenda of the meeting as 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/RO/1 2 with one addition: the item  "Electronic Issuance of 
Preferential Certificates of Origin " was added at the request of the delegation of China. Subsequently, 
the EU also asked to raise the item " Access2Markets"  under "Other Business ". Delegations attended 
the meeting virtually via the "Interprefy" platform.  
 
1  UPDATE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING THE "ORIGIN FACILITATOR", A JOINT 
INITIATIVE BY THE WTO, ITC AND WCO – STATEMENT BY THE WTO AND THE 
ITC SECRETARIATS  (RD/RO/ 92) 
The Chairperson  reminded delegations that the Secretariats of the WTO, the World Customs 
Organization (WCO) , and the International Trade Centre (ITC) , had been collaborating on an online 
tool to facilitate access to information on rules of origin and product -specific ori gin requirements. He 
invited the Secretariats to update the Committee on recent efforts to expand and further develop 
this tool.  
The WTO Secretariat  (Mr Darlan F. Martí) informed Members (based on his report circulated in 
document  G/RO/ 92) that the Origin Facilitator was a publicly available , online platform , through 
which users could access information on origin requirements at the tariff line level 
(https://findrulesoforigin.org ). The tool was free of charge a nd did not require prior user registration. 
New features had been added since its launch and presentation to the CRO in October 2019 .2 First, its 
coverage  had been expanded : 371 preferential trade agreements were now covered, including both 
reciprocal  trade agreements  (regional trade agreements  (RTAs)), and non -reciprocal trade 
agreements (preferences for least developed countries (LDCs)). Other agreements would be 
incorporated as they became available (such as those of the United Kingdom (UK) , or the African 
Continental Free Trade Area). Non -preferential rules of origin were not currently covered because 
there was as yet no standardized and up -to-date information about the m. They would be added if 
and when the Committee agreed to update the rel evant notification s. Second, the platform had been 
translated into French and Spanish at the level of glossary and search fields , although actual origin 
criteria  remained in English . Third, upon the request of some delegations, a new "flag" had been 
added to tariff lines subject to trade remedies. These flags alert ed users that non-preferential rules 
of origin may apply in such cases . A link was provided for additional investigation to identify the 
applicable rule of origin . These flags were based on the information available in the ITC's MacMap 
database. Fourth, the Secretariats had begun to use the Facilitator in technical assistance and 
capacity building activities as a tool for training business operators and government officials on origin 
requirements. In this addition , a new online course on "rules of origin and preference utilization" 
had been launched .3 Going forward, the Secretariat indicated that the intention was  to continue to 
expand the Facilitator until all preferential trade agreements  were covered  by it. Finally, he invited 
delegations to review the information in the Facilitator  and to contact the Secretariat if any correct ion 
were needed. 
The representative of Sri Lanka  thanked the Secretariat for its work on this important  tool. 
In respect of trade remedies, she asked the Secretariat to clarify whether anti -circumvention 
 
2 See: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/roi_17oct19_e.htm  
3 The course is available on the WTO's eLearning portal: https://wtolearning.csod.com . G/RO/M/75  
 
- 3 - 
 
  legislation was also available. She also asked if the applicable non -preferential rules pertaining to 
those particular cases were likewise  available.  
The representative of the United States  (US) said that her delegation would review the changes 
introduced to the Facilitator and revert back with any questions if necessary.  
The Secretariat , in response to Sri Lanka's question,  clarified that the Facilitator indicated only 
that anti -dumping duties were in place . It then offered users the possibility to check the MacMap 
database for further information. The Facilitator did not display any non-preferential rules of origin.  
The Chairperson  thanked the WTO  Secretari at for its report and the three  Secretariats for their 
recent work on the Facilitator. He invited all Members to check the information contained in the 
Facilitator and to update or correct it as necessary.  
The representative of the United States  clarified that her delegation could not commit at that 
time to self -validating all of the data in the Origin Facilitator related to the United States . 
The Committee took note  of the report  and statements made . 
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALI AND THE NAIROBI MINISTERIAL DECISIONS ON 
PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (WT/L/917 AND 
WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
Status of Notifications of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs and Preferential 
Imports and Tariffs (G/RO/W/163/ Rev.8) – Report by t he Secretariat  
The Chairperson  recalled that the Secretariat had been asked to reach out to delegations to 
help them to bridge notification gaps  where these remained . In this regard, he requested  the 
Secretariat to present document  G/RO/W/163/ Rev.8, concerning the latest status of notifications.  
The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan F. Martí) reported that most Members had already notified the 
preferential rules of origin used in preference programmes for LDCs , and that some Members had 
updated their notificatio ns in 2020 . Only Armenia and Iceland had not yet notified the rules of origin 
applicable to LDCs under their preferential duty schemes. In a previous meeting of the CRO, the 
representative of Iceland had explained that the government was revising the appli cable rules and 
that a notification would be made as soon as the new legislation be came  available.  In relation to 
preferential tariffs , he noted that, d espite new notifications by some Members , several gaps 
remained , including for a number of very signific ant markets for LDC  exports.  
The representative of the Russian Federation  explained that her delegation would prefer the 
document prepared by the Secretariat to report only on notifications from 2015 onwards to reflect  
the date  of adoption of  the Nairobi M inisterial Decision. In addition , she asked that calculations of 
utilization rates likewise be based on data notified after 2015, and that the calculation take into 
account the fact that the implementation date of the Ministerial Decision may differ betwee n 
Members.  
The representative of Tanzania  thanked those Members that had updated or submitted new 
notifications. In relation to import data, he highlighted that , having comprehensive information for 
all markets was important because it allowed the CRO to consider how preferences were being 
utilized. He therefore encouraged all delegations to submit the necessary notifications as soon as 
possible.  
The Secretariat , in response to the Russian Federation,  confirmed that the format of the report 
could indeed be adjusted and clarified . He stood ready to work with the Russian Federation's 
delegation to that end.  
The Chairperson  thanked all those delegations that had updat ed their notifications. At the same 
time, he requested those 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 in order to do so. Finally, he asked the Secretariat to report back to the Committee , at 
its next meeting, on any new developments in this area.  G/RO/M/75  
 
- 4 - 
 
  
The Committee took note  of the report and statements made.  
Review of Recent Developments Regarding Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – 
Report by Preference -Granting Members  
2.2.1   Implementation of the REX  System – Update by the European Union (RD/RO/93)  
The Chairperson  recalled that the REX  system of self -certification for registered exporters was 
being implemented by the European Union, Norway , Switzerland , and Turkey. He recalled that the 
EU had previously reported that some LDCs had not yet completed the necessary steps to move to 
this system , and that, in consequence , they could not claim tariff preferences either in the EU market  
or in the markets of other Members  implementing the REX  system . He invited the EU to update the 
Committee on recent developments  in this regard . 
Mr Hervé Godin of the Commission of the European Union  (RD/RO/ 93) reminded Members that 
the REX  system was a system of self -certification that allowed registered exporters themselves to 
attest the origin of their goods as opposed to having to obtain a certificate of origin from an authority. 
This system would replace ce rtificates of origin ("Form  A") and would be used for all preferential 
exports to the EU ; Norway;  Switzerland;  and Turkey. In addition, it was used by  operators in  
Overseas Countries and Territories as well as by EU exporters under preferential trade agree ments 
(such as those , for example,  with Canada;  Côte d'Ivoire; Ghana; Japan;  and Viet Nam , as well as 
countries that had signed Economic Partnership Agreements with the EU). The REX system already 
had more than 54,000  users in beneficiary countries ( includ ing large numbers in India and Pakistan) 
and over 48,000  users in the EU, Norway, Switzerland,  and Turkey. Regarding the system's current 
state of implementation , Mr Godin explained that 21  beneficiary countries had requested an 
additional extension of the  transition period , until 31  December  2020. The extension had been 
granted on the following condition s: (i) they could demonstrate the difficulties that they faced ; they 
prepared a workplan of steps to introduce the system ; and (iii) they submitted a progress report. 
After the deadline, all beneficiary countries that had not implemented the REX  system would no 
longer be eligible to receive preferences under the EU's general ized system of preferences.  
Some  LDCs were not covered by this  new extension period and were therefore ineligible to claim 
preferences at present.  Mr Godin explained that the EU  Commission continued to reach out to 
beneficiary countries to offer them training programmes to assist them in implement ing the 
REX system . 
The representative of Tanzania  thanked the EU for its comprehensive report and for engaging 
favourably with those LDCs that required additional time to move to the REX  system . He asked if an 
additional extension of the deadline might be warranted, particul arly in light of the difficulties caused 
by the COVID -19 pandemic. He asked the EU to continue raising awareness about the REX  system 
among LDCs to ensure that more companies in LDC s could register for self-certification  and thereby 
benefit from the prefer ences  available . 
The European Union  clarified that the EU  Commission did regularly organize awareness -
raising campaigns to train economic operators and government officials. In addition to face -to-face 
and virtual training activities, the EU had prepared guidance notes and an e -learning course 
explaining in detail how the system worked. Nevertheless , he agreed that more work was needed. 
Regarding  a further extension of the implementation deadline, he explained that all the countries 
that had requested an extension seemed to be well on track to implementing the system ; for this 
reason, there appeared to be no need for an extension at that  time. 
The Committee took note  of the update and statements made.  
2.2.2   Report of Recen t 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 recent developments. These updates would be compile d in the Committee's 
end-year report to the General Council . 
The representative of the United Kingdom  confirmed  that his government was committed to 
the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions and that it supported the efforts of LDCs towards their G/RO/M/75  
 
- 5 - 
 
  implemen tation. The  UK intended to notify its non -reciprocal preferential rules of origin for LDCs at 
the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, he clarified that the UK was in a transition period with 
the European Union until 31  December  2020, at which point the European Union's Generalized 
System of Preferences ( GSP) would cease to apply and the U K's independent GSP would come into 
force. The UK's GSP had been designed to ensure maximum continuity of effect from the EU's GSP. 
As such, after the end of the transit ion period, LDC  businesses would be able to export to the UK 
under conditions similar to those that applied currently. As of 1 January  2021, the UK's GSP would 
provide continuity through both replicating trade preferences for the same Members, as well as the 
three -tiered framework of the current EU  system. It would also be governed by the same 
product -specific rules of origin as those currently in force between the EU and GSP  beneficiary 
Members. Many of the general provisions would remain unchanged , including rules relating to 
tolerance and non -manipulation. Additionally, the possibilities for cumulation would also be largely 
similar. One  notable point of difference , he explained, was that the independent UK  scheme would 
require  a valid proof of origin. Th is would need to be made out and signed by the exporter in the 
GSP country and take the form either of a GSP  Form A, which could be accepted unstamped, or an 
origin declaration. These changes would maintain a low administrative burden on LDCs in line with 
the commitments made as part of the 2015  Nairobi Decision. Further details had been published on 
10 November  2020 ( www.gov.uk ). 
The representative of Tanzania  expressed appreciation to the government of the UK for taking 
early action to avoid any interruption to its trade preferences. He also appreciated the efforts being 
made to ensure that the new rules of origin would be in line with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  
The Chairperson  thanked the UK and  invited all other p reference -granting Members to 
examine their rules in light of the provisions of the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions with a 
view to further simplifying their rules if and when possible. He also invited all delegations to keep 
the CRO abreast of a ny developments in this area.  
The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
Developments Regarding Methods Using the Ad Valorem  Percentage Criterion to 
Determine Substantial Transformation (Paragraph  1.1 of the Nairobi Decision) 
(G/RO/W/202 ; RD/RO/91 ) – Submission by the LDC Group  
The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to document  G/RO/W/202 from the LDC  Group, 
containing the Group's examination of rules of origin based on the " ad valorem  percentage" criterion. 
Before requesting to hear the v iews of other delegations, he first invited the LDC  Group to present 
its paper.  
The representative of Tanzania  explained that the proposal was a contribution by the 
LDC Group to efforts to implement the Ministerial Decision by examining current practices and 
compar ing them to the provisions of the Nairobi Decision and other best practices. 
The COVID -19 pandemic had disrupted the economies of LDCs in unprecedent ways, including by 
causing a drop in exports and a collapse in global prices. For these reasons, the economic recovery 
of LDCs would require the support of the international community. Simple and transparent rules of 
origin that facilitate d trade from LDCs would also be of critical  importance . 
The representative of Afghanistan  prese nted the LDC Group's communication circulated in 
document  RD/RO/91. He recalled that paragraph  1.1. of the Nairobi Decision contained three  distinct 
elements : first , a commitment by preference -granting Members to adopt a method of calculation 
based on the value of non -originating materials ; second , when doing so, the commitment to allow 
for the use of non -originating materials for up to 75% of the total value of a good ; and third , a 
commitment to consider allowing for the deduction of the costs of transport ation and insurance from 
the value of non -originating materials. Regarding  the first element , he said that all 
preference -granting Members used a method based on the value of non -originating materials except 
for Australia;  New Zealand;  Chinese Taipei ; and the US , despite the fact that these same Members 
were using this method in their RTAs. On the second  element , only Canada allowed for the use of 
up to 75% of non -originating materials. However, he acknowledged that provisions relating to 
cumulation could be influencing this assessment for other preference -granting Members. Finally, in 
relation to the third  element , he reported that no preference -granting Member currently allowed for 
the deduction of the transport and insurance costs. For these reasons, he urged preference -granting G/RO/M/75  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Members to align their practices to the elements defined in the Nairobi Decision. Alternative methods 
had several disadvantages , he explained . For example , the concept of "direct processing costs" used 
by the  US was imprecise, entail ed complex accounting to calculate unit costs , and requir ed a large 
number of supporting documents. Similarly, allowing LDCs to deduct transportation and insurance 
costs from the value of non -originating materials  would facilitate LDC compliance , in particular 
landlocked and island LDCs. In conclusion, he said that the LDC  Group expected preference -granting 
Members to reform their rules , where necessary , and to adopt the best practices  illustrated in the 
LDC communication . In partic ular, he noted that those Members that were not using the value of 
non-originating materials should review their calculation methods, and that all preference -giving 
countries should allow the deduction of insurance and freight costs, where applicable.  
The representative of Chinese Taipei  clarified that , contrary to what had been indicated by 
the LDC  Group, her government used a methodology for the calculation of the ad valorem  
percentage criterion based on the value of non -originating materials. The calcula tion formula was 
"f.o.b. value – value of non -originating materials/ f.o.b. value". This, she said, was similar to the 
methodology used by Chile and Thailand.  
The representative of New Zealand  reported that her government was committed to upholding 
the Nairobi Decision and was therefore reviewing New Zealand's GSP  scheme and the associated 
rules or origin provisions. New Zealand's practice in its recent RTAs had been to use rules based on 
a cha nge of tariff classification (CTC) or value -based rules that deducted the value of non -originating 
materials from the f.o.b.  value of goods. She explained that her government would therefore review 
its GSP rules of origin to align them to best practices in  New Zealand's RTAs. 
The representative of Australia  said that his country had been the first to provide preferences 
for developing countries , in 1966 , through the Australian System of Tariff Preferences. 
This long-standing scheme reflected Australia's com mitment to supporting LDC  engagement in the 
global trading system. He noted that the LDC  Group submission had omitted part of the language of 
the Nairobi Decision. While the Decision indeed asked preference -granting Members to adopt a 
method of calculation  based on the value of non -originating materials, it also provided Members with 
flexibility to apply another method. It was important that the LDC  Group acknowledged the text  of 
the Decision . He noted, in addition, that the Australian preferences allowed f or cumulation between 
LDCs and to other developing countries: it required only 25% originating content from LDCs , with a 
further 25% from other developing countries. As such, Australia could work with the LDC  Group to 
reflect this aspect of the Australian System of  Tarif Preferences in the LDC  Group's documentation.  
The representative of the United States  said that her delegation appreciated the analysis of 
the LDC  Group. The submission called out the United States, among other Members, for basing its 
calculation method on the value of originating materials. According to the submission, this approach 
was not in conformity with the spirit and the letter of the Nairobi Decision. Her delegation disagreed 
with this assessmen t. In fact, the Decision provided  that: "preference -granting Members shall adopt 
a method of calculation based on the value of non -originating materials. However, preference -
granting Members applying another method may continue to use it". Her delegation also disagreed 
with the assertion that the concept of "direct cost of processing" in US  Customs Regulations was 
complicated. Evidence for this conclusion in the LDC  paper stemmed from a search in the 
US Customs rulings online database  that revealed that there were around 375 -800 rulings on the 
definition of direct costs of processing.  That conclusion failed to consider  that the database housed 
over 207,526  rulings since 1989. The fact that 400 -800 importers had obtained rulings on direct 
processing costs swiftly and directly from the US  Customs and Border Protection, and for free, was 
not indicative of a complicated rule. In fact, the opposite conclusion could be drawn: that the 
US advanced ruling system made it very easy to get a definitive answer to the question of whether 
a good would qua lify for duty -free treatment under one of the US  preference programmes quickly 
and cheaply, prior to shipment. On the insurance and freight issue, the US had already explained in 
its notifications that the issue of whether to deduct these costs was only re levant for calculations 
based on non -originating materials. For rules based on originating material, as was the case in the 
US, it was instead advantageous for LDCs to add such costs to the value of inputs. Her government  
allowed the cost of freight insura nce packing and all other costs incurred in transporting materials 
to the manufacturers plant to be added to the value of the originating materials. 
The LDC submission , she continued,  called on the United States to introduce the necessary reforms 
in its ru les of origin to adhere to such best practice s. This was characterized as the initial expectation 
of the LDCs. However, this initial expectation did not take account of the clear text of the Nairobi 
Decision, which allowed preference -granting Members apply ing another method to continue to do G/RO/M/75  
 
- 7 - 
 
  so. With that text in mind, the US respectfully submitted that it had no plans at this time to introduce 
reforms to its rules of origin for LDC  preference programmes. Nonetheless, her delegation  was open 
to discussions with the LDC  Group regarding the submission.  
The representative of Canada  confirmed that the LDC  paper had correctly identified Canada 
as not allowing the deduction of freight and insurance costs from the value of non -originating 
materials. However, she recalled that the Nairobi Ministerial Decision did not require 
preference -granting Members to do so. Hence, she reiterated that Canada was fully compliant with 
the Nairobi Decision in this regard.  
The representative of the European U nion reaffirmed her delegation's commitment to the 
Nairobi Decision and sought a clarification of the information in Table  1 of the LDC  submission . 
She wished to know why the regulations concerning the deduction of transportation and insurance 
costs were m arked as "unclear" for the EU. She also wondered why this provision had been marked 
"not applicable" for certain preference -granting Members.  
The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation was still analysing the submission. 
In the meantime, he  wondered if the LDC  Group could clarify what the expected  next steps should 
be and whether they foresaw a process to discuss the submission . 
The representative of the Russian Federation  reported that her delegation had consulted with 
the LDC  Group bilater ally in order better to understand the Group's expectations. She clarified that , 
under the Eurasian Economic Union  (EAEU) , the percentage of allowed non -originating materials 
could reach up to 60% by 2025; not 55% , as mentioned in the document. She also re iterated that 
her delegation was open to discussing bilaterally any specific challenges being faced by LDCs.  
The representative of Afghanistan , in response to Members' comments and questions, first 
thanked the delegation of Chinese Taipei for having clarified their requirements. He also thanked the 
delegation of New Zealand for its report  and added that the LDC  Group would be interested to discuss 
New Zealand's reforms in detail. He also thanked Australia for its clarificati on and reiterated that the 
Group was simply asking Australia to extend to LDCs the same rules as those it already applied in 
its RTAs. 
The representative of Tanzania,  in response to the questions raised by the US, clarified that 
the LDC  Group was not dispu ting the fact that preference -granting Members were allowed flexibility 
in the Ministerial Decision . However, the Group was reiterating its preference for a method based on 
the value of non -originating materials, as had been clearly acknowledged in the Min isterial Decision. 
This was the calculation method which was best understood and handled by LDC  exporters and small 
and medium -sized enterprises. The Group was asking preference -granting Members to consider the 
constraints and lack of resources of business es in LDCs. His delegation was willing to meet the US 
bilaterally to further explain and illustrate those challenges.  Moreover, the US had already been 
using other, more trade -facilitating requirements in its RTAs. In response to the comment by 
Canada, he confirmed that Canada already had flexible rules of origin. However, he reiterated that 
Canada's rules would be made even more  flexible if they  allowed for the deduction of insurance and 
transportation costs from the value of non -originating materials. To illustrate his point, he referred 
to the additional costs of transporting materials from India for further processing in Tanzania as 
opposed to Bangladesh or Cambodia. These additional costs meant that producers in Tanzania would 
be disadvantaged when comp lying with a ceiling value for non-originating materials. In relation to 
the comments by the Russian Federation, he appreciated that the EAEU's new allowance for use of 
non-originating materials would be gradually increased to 60%, bringing it closer to th e 75%  target 
of the Ministerial Decision. Finally, in relation to Switzerland's question, he said that the Group's 
second  submission would clarify next steps, and that ultimately what the Group was seeking was to 
identify best practices and to convince  preference -granting Members of the benefits of reforming 
their rules to implement such practices.  
The Chairperson  thanked the LDC  Group for the work they had put into this paper and 
presentation. He invited de legations to consult each other on the points raised . If possible, he 
recommended  an exchange of questions and answers in writing so that the Committee could 
continue to monitor the points being discussed . 
It was so agreed . G/RO/M/75  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
Utilization of Preferential Trad e Arrangements by Least Developed Countries : 
Analysis of Mineral and Metal Products (G/RO/W/203; RD/RO/89) – Note by the 
Secretariat  
The Chairperson  referred to  paragraph  4.3 of the Nairobi Decision , which  stated that the 
Secretariat may calculate utilizat ion rates. The purpose of these calculations was to identify trade 
flows that were not fully utilizing trade preferences to assess whether origin requirements could be 
hindering fuller utilization. To this end, the Secretariat had prepared a new report looking at 
utilization rates for the mineral s and metal s sector (G/RO/W/203).  
The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) explained that the note built on earlier Secretariat 
calculations, which had shown that all preference -granting Members  had LDC  preferences that were 
to some extent  unused . These previous calculations had shown that underutilization affected sectors 
in different ways , and that its impact  also extended to exports subject to simple origin criteria, such 
as fresh fruits and vegetables. The Secretariat had sought to test some of these findings on a new 
sector. Minerals and metals  was interesting  in this regard  since it represented about a quarter of all 
exports from LDCs to preference -granting Members. Of that amount, preferences in this sec tor 
represented about 6.5% of all exports from LDCs to preference -granting Members (about 
US$10  billion). In 2018, the largest destinations of these exports had been China;  India;  the EU ; 
and the Republic of Korea. The biggest exporters were Zambia (copper ) and the Democratic Republic 
of Congo (cobalt, copper , and diamonds). Other major exporters were Mozambique (aluminium); 
Tanzania (gold); Myanmar (copper, nickel, precious stones , and jewellery) ; and Angola (natural gas 
and diamonds). Copper was the singl e most important product in this sector, making up 45% of all 
preferential exports from LDCs, followed by aluminium, gold, jewellery, cobalt, precious stones, 
granite , and articles of steel. As a result, the majority of the traded goods were raw commoditie s. 
He explained  that, overall, the majority of exports in this sector had not received tariff 
preferences: 66% of all preference -eligible imports  had not used preferences . However, there were 
significant variations for different product  groups and for different preferential schemes . Hence, the 
note had explored different reasons that might help to explain underutilization rates and these 
variations. First, descriptive analysis revealed that preferential margins seem ed not to affect 
underu tilization rates (one might have imagine d that the higher the duty savings, the lower the 
underutilization rates , because operators would have a greater incentive to fulfil the origin criteria. 
However, the underutilization was highest where preference mar gins were greatest  in this sector ). 
Second, preliminary analysis suggested that there was no clear pattern between underutilization 
rates and the complexity of the products exported  (assuming that more complex  products would be 
subject to more complex orig in criteria). In fact, a more detailed examination of exports of jewellery 
and precious stones did not reveal any clear variation in utilization for simpler or more strict origin 
criteria. Exports of jewellery from Niger and Nepal, examined in the note,  illustrated this point. 
Third,  the note had tested the effect of direct consignment obligations and noted that underutilization 
was slightly  higher for landlocked LDCs ( the overall underutilization rate was 62% for LDCs wi th sea 
access , and 76% for landlocke d LDCs). Fourth, the note explored  the hypothesis that underutilization 
rates could b e linked to the fact that operators were not aware that a preference was available. 
However, such a hypothesis would be impossible to test with the annual statistics notif ied by 
Members to the Secretariat.  
In conclusion, he said that further  analysis was needed, to test the role that fixed costs might 
play in individual shipments , for example . In addition, a more detailed examination of direct 
consignment and certification obligations could also help to advance Members' understanding of the 
reasons for underutilization.  
The representative of Canada  thanked the Secretariat for its report and sa id that her 
delegation was still reviewing it.  
The representative of Switzerland  said that his government had been examining import 
statistics in detail to identify the possible causes for the high underutilization rates reported by the 
Secretariat for min eral and metal imports. The most plausible explanation, he said, related to 
Switzerland's landlocked nature and its direct consignment requirements. In fact, goods directly 
consigned to Switzerland always , or almost always , received preferences ; however, g oods imported 
indirectly almost never did . In Switzerland, indirect shipment was deemed to take place when 
imported goods had already been cleared by another customs authority ( for example,  a member 
State of the EU ). In other words, imported goods could no t be granted preferential tariff treatment G/RO/M/75  
 
- 9 - 
 
  in Switzerland if they had already been cleared by the customs authority of a transit country. 
He reported that internal discussions were under way to relax  this requirement , and that it was one 
of the points bein g considered for a reform of Switzerland's GSP. His delegation would keep the CRO 
informed about the results of these internal discussions.  
The representative of Senegal , commenting on the Secretariat's findings, wondered how a 
lack of awareness that a tariff preference was available could impact  upon the utilization of 
preferences. In fact, he explained, preferences were claimed by operators in the importing 
preference -granting Member, so it was surprising to learn that those operators might not be fami liar 
with the preferential market access opportunities  available in their own countries . 
The representative of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for its calculations and said 
that her delegation was also still analysing the note.  
The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for submitting its note. 
She said that this type of detailed, fact -based information was useful in identifying effective 
strategies for addressing underutilization. The note assigned that pref erences were almost fully 
utilized in the United States for these sectors, thereby helping to focus attention on where the 
problems exist ed. Her delegation would continue to review this paper.  
The representative of Tanzania  said that the LDC  Group attached  great importance to the 
issue of utilization rates. He acknowledged the efforts being made by the Swiss delegation to 
examine its requirements in order to better understand the causes of underutilization. This really 
was, he explained, the spirit in which  all preference -granting Members should approach the 
Committee's discussions. Even if the language of the Ministerial Decision was flexible enough to 
allow for a variety of rules of origin and practices, its intention was clear: to improve market access 
opportunities for LDCs. He therefore invited other preference -granting Members to analyse their own 
imports to identify possible reforms that could unlock the  fuller utilization of existing tariff 
preferences. In doing so, he highlighted the importance of as sessing the impact of direct 
consignment and certification obligations.  
The Secretariat , in response to the question raised by Senegal,  clarified that it was not 
possible to measure the impact that a possible lack of awareness  might have on the ability of 
operators to claim tariff preferences. Indeed, it was not even possible to affirm that this was actually  
an impediment. However, it was plausible that this could play a role and hence it was important for 
Members and international organizations to conduct awareness -raising and training activities. 
The Secretariat had been able to exclude some factors that could be causing underutilization in this 
sector, such as the lack of incentives to use a preference (preferential tariff margins) or the 
application of s trict origin criteria (most products were wholly obtained). However, it had not been 
able to identify with precision the causes of underutilization. Additional research would be needed  
to understand with greater precision the impact of direct consignment a nd certification obligations , 
for example . Moreover, preference -granting Members themselves could analyse their import 
statistics and test different hypotheses to explain underutilization. In particular, preference -granting 
Member s could analyse their stat istics to distinguish cases in which a preference had not been 
claimed from cases in which the preference had been claimed but subsequently refused. 
In conclusion, the Secretariat stood ready to continue in its analysis and to engage more closely 
with pref erence -granting Members to advance it further . 
The Chairperson  thanked the Secretariat for its report and calculations. He asked the 
Secretariat to continue updating and expanding its studies on preference utilization in order to 
support the CRO in this area. Finally, he invited preference -granting Members to conduct  their own 
calculations and examinations, particularly on those aspects for which their data was more detailed 
than that of the Secretariat.  
The representative of the United States  reiterated that her delegation was still reviewing the 
information that had  been provided in the note by the Secretariat. As a result, her delegation was 
not in a position to agree to this latter suggestion. Her delegation would review its resources and 
capabilities and revert back on this matter in the next meeting of the Commit tee. 
The Committee agreed  to ask the Secretariat to continue in its analysis and took note  of the 
report and the statements made . G/RO/M/75  
 
- 10 - 
 
  
Implementation of the WTO Ministerial Decisions on Preferential Rules of Origin for 
LDCs: Achievements and Gaps (G/RO/W/198) – Submission by the LDC  Group  
The Chairperson  reminded delegations that, at the last Committee meeting, the LDC  Group 
had suggested that the Committee could take stock of what had been achieved and what needed 
more work in order to achieve the objectives of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision (G/RO/W/194). 
When  considering this suggestion, Members had asked the LDC  Group to be more specific about the 
steps and the language that they wished the Committee to consider. He reported that the LDC Group 
had prepared document  G/RO/W/198 for consideration.  
The representative of Tanzania  introduced the document on behalf of the LDC  Group. 
He acknowledged that the Nairobi Ministerial Decision was a fundamental component in the efforts 
by the international communi ty to better integrate LDCs into the multilateral trading system. 
It reaffirmed the overall objective that preferential rules of origin for LDCs should be transparent , 
simple , and facilitate market access. Implementation  had been successful in certain respects, 
including greater transparency concerning the existing rules through the use of an agreed notification 
template; better monitoring of the use of preferences with the notification of preferential imports 
and the calculation of utilization rates; and better examination of specific practices with specific 
analyses prepared by the LDC  Group. In addition, he acknowledged  that a few preference -granting 
Members had reformed and simplified certain aspects of their rules ; some  had also committed to 
reviewing t heir requirements  in order  to better understand the possible causes of underutilization.  
Nevertheless, despite these achievements, a number of trade -restricting rules of origin and 
origin requirements continued to be applied. With few exceptions, preferenc e-granting Members had 
not engaged in a comprehensive review of their requirements. Consequently , the LDC  Group invited 
preference -granting Members to reform their rules of origin , to adopt best practices , and to remove 
those requirements that could be cau sing underutilization. For example , the non -alteration principle 
provided a good alternative to the obligation to provide a "certificate of non -manipulation" in case 
of transit. Under this principle, additional documents could still be required by customs to prove that 
the goods had not been altered during transit, but  these  documents would only be presented when 
customs had concerns about a possible alteration , rather than in all cases. In addition, the Group 
had provided sufficient evidence of the difficu lties created by rules of origin based on the change of 
tariff classification criterion when such rules contained several exceptions and restrictions. The Group 
invited the Members that applied such rules to justify why such restrictions were needed. 
He explained that the implementation of the Nairobi Decision  was the shared responsibility of all 
Members. As such, Members could reaffirm their commitment to  enhanc ing their efforts, for 
example , by agreeing to a work progra mme under which they would examine additional aspects 
covered by the Ministerial Decision; identify best practices; and report  to the next Ministerial 
Conference on  progress being made.  
The representative of the European  Union  said that her delegation was not entirely clear about 
the precise objectives and real purpose of the LDC  submission. Her delegation would welcome and 
require further clarification before it could engage in a discussion of the document  itself. 
The representative of Switzerland  stated t hat his government had fully implemented the 
Nairobi Decision and that it had also submitted comprehensive notifications. While his delegation 
was still studying the submission by the LDC  Group, he said that its nature and objectives were not 
entirely clea r. He would welcome more information about the expected outcomes.  
The representative of Australia  reiterated his government's long -standing commitment to the 
provision of preferences , not only to LDCs, but also to developing countries. He noted that any 
proposed work programme should be consistent with the Nairobi Decision.  
The representative of India stated that his colleagues in Capital were still examining the 
LDC paper.  
The representative of Canada  said that her delegation was also still analysing the s ubmission. 
Her delegation supported the objective as set out: namely, to promote transparency and to explore 
best practices. In this context, she reiterated that her government fully met the commitments set 
out in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. In order  to move forward with the proposed workplan, she G/RO/M/75  
 
- 11 - 
 
  encouraged the LDC  Group to pursue an informal dialogue with preference -granting Members and 
the Chair.  
The representative of the United States  said that her delegation would have welcomed some 
outreach on the proposal prior to the meeting, given that the submission raised significant concerns. 
First, the document was entitled "submission" but contained  a proposal for a workplan. If the 
submissio n was intended to represent the specific views of the LDC  Group, that should be made 
clear. If, however, the submission was intended to reflect the views of the full Committee, the United 
States would not be in a position to associate itself with its conte nts. Second, the submission 
appeared to interpret the Nairobi Ministerial Decision in a manner that was not supported by the 
text of the Decision. For example, the Decision provided that preference -granting Members shall, 
"As a general principle, refrain f rom requiring a certificate of non -manipulation for products 
originating in a LDC but shipped across other countries unless there are concerns regarding 
transhipment, manipulation, or fraudulent documentation" (paragraph  3.1(a)). However, the 
proposal call ed for the abolishment of requirements for a certificate of non -manipulation or any other 
similar form of documentary evidence. "Abolish", she explained, was clearly not the same as 
"refrain", indicating that significant liberties had been taken with the t ext of the Decision. Third, this 
submission made assumptions and assertions about the Decision that did not reflect the mutual 
understanding of Members. In particular, the US took issue with the underlying assumption that it 
needed to "align its rules of o rigin with the Nairobi Decision". Her delegation had explained many 
times that it had already taken every measure necessary to implement the Decision. She referred 
Members to document  G/RO/83 for a full explanation of U S preferential rules of origin in lig ht of 
Nairobi Decision commitments. Fourth, the submission asserted that Members that had not adopted 
the best  practices identified in the proposal were not in alignment with the Nairobi Decision. 
That, she explained , was blatantly not the case , since some  of the best  practices mentioned in the 
submission mischaracterized the commitments Members had made in the Decision. In effect, the 
submission substituted non -negotiated, unilaterally determined measures, labelled as "best 
practices", for the actual text Members had negotiated in Nairobi. Fifth, this proposal called on 
Members to "reaffirm their commitment" to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)  17.12. However, 
her delegation thought it inappropriate to refer to SDG  targets in a WTO  proposal. The SDG  langua ge 
had been negotiated in a separate institution with different members and different rules. 
The 2030 Agenda did not contain commitments; rather, it was a framework for sustainable 
development that could help countries work toward s global peace and prosper ity. The proposal 
mischaracterized the nature of the SDG s by assuming commitments that did not exist. Similarly, the 
contents of the submission seemed to reflect UNCTAD  initiatives. She explained  that, while UNCTAD 
may hold its own views on certain WTO  Ministerial Decisions, it was solely for WTO  Members to 
interpret those decisions and UNCTAD should not steer the work of the Committee. In conclusion, 
she said that the US believed the Decisions taken in Nairobi and in Bali were valuable and important. 
Her d elegation understood the significant implications that these issues had for LDC  utilization of 
unilateral preference programmes. That was precisely the reason why her delegation had been 
surprised about the approach that the LDC  Group had put forward in th is submission. The Group 
had asked for an examination of the rules of origin currently adopted by preference -granting 
Members. She asked whether that was not exactly the work that the CRO had diligently undertaken 
for the past five  years. The Group had ask ed the Committee to identify best practices. She wondered 
whether that was not exactly what the LDC  Group had done in the several papers cited in the 
submission itself. The Group had asked for a report from Members and argued that this had already 
been mandated in the Nairobi Decision. She reiterated that her delegation had serious concerns with 
document  G/RO/W/198 and wished such concerns to be reflected in the minutes of the meeting as 
well as in the three  reports listed on the agenda.  
The representative of Tanzania  appreciated the engagement by preference -granting Members 
on the LDC  submission. He clar ified that the original intention of the LDC  Group had been to propose 
draft language for the consideration of Ministers at the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12). However, 
in light of the uncertainties regarding the dates of the Conference, the Group had preferred to discuss 
options to strengthen the work of the CRO and accelerate reforms to facilitate the use of preferences 
by LDCs. The proposal was intended to strengthen and revitalize the mandate given to the CRO so 
that it would pursue its discussions with the greater and shared engagement of all Members. 
The challenges that LDCs faced were well known and many had already been discussed. 
That renewed commitment could be reflected in a Committee document, on the basis of language 
agreed to by all Members . He noted with concern that the US was not comfortable with this approach. 
In addition, he had been surprised by the US  doubts about quoting the SDGs. The SDGs were 
relevant in this context and were agreed to at the highest level. In relation to the asser tion that the G/RO/M/75  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Group had mischaracterized the text of the Ministerial Decision, he explained that what ultimately 
mattered was to find common solutions to simplify rules of origin to ensure that LDCs could meet 
them and fully utilize the trade preferences  available . There would be no harm in Members 
reaffirm ing their commitment to this objective and strengthen ing their work. This was the spirit in 
which preference -granting Members should  approach the LDC  Group submission.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  thank ed the LDC  Group for its submission. He thought that all 
Members recognized that the implementation of the Ministerial Decisions was their shared 
responsibility. He recognized that the Committee had made substantive progress in implementing 
the Decision s, including by adopting a notification template, by improving transparency , and by 
engaging in focused discussions about utilization rates. He asked the LDCs and preference -granting 
Members to consult with each other in order to identify how best to advance these discussions.  
It was so agreed . 
Draft Report (2020) of the CRO to the General Council on Preferential Rules of Origin 
for LDCs (G/RO/W/201)  
The Chairperson  recalled that the CRO had to report every year to the General Cou ncil on 
recent developments regarding preferential rules of origin for LDCs and the implementation of the 
Ministerial Decisions. The Secretariat had prepared a draft for consideration (G/RO/W/201). He 
sought to hear Members' views on that draft with a view  to finalizing it for adoption.  
The representative of the United States  proposed specific revisions to the draft report ( under 
the sections "Examination of current rules of origin" , and "Annual review of implementation"). 
These  proposals had been notified to the Secretariat. In light of these proposed changes, she 
requested a written procedure for Members to review the text of the draft report before its adopt ion. 
The representative of the European Union  said that the draft report summarized the 
discussions  that had taken place in the CRO in 2020. However, she asked if  the LDC  Group planned 
any specific follow -up actions to any of the issues discussed.  
The representative of Tanzania  said that the LDC  Group would assess what specific steps 
would be needed but anticipated further discussions and further investigations on the matters raised. 
In particular, the Group would encourage preference -granting Members to examine their own 
preferences and requireme nts. In addition, the LDC Group would engage with Members informally 
and bilaterally to identify possible next steps.  
The Chairperson , in light of Members' comments, proposed that the Committee request the 
Secretariat to revise the draft report and to circulate a revised version  to Members. If no objections 
were received by the Secretariat within a prescribed time -frame, the report would be adopted.  
It was so agreed . 
The report of the CRO to the General Council was revised  and adopted  through written 
procedures on 18  November  2020 (G/RO/91).  
3  Notifications under Article  5 and under Paragraph  4 of Annex  II of the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin  (G/RO/N/195 TO G/RO/N/206)  
The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention  to the latest notifications received by the Secretariat  
under the following symbols : G/RO/N/ 195; G/RO/N/ 196; G/RO/N/ 197; G/RO/N/19 8; G/RO/N/19 9; 
G/RO/N/ 200; G/RO/N/ 201; G/RO/N/202; G/RO/N/203; and G/RO/N/20 4. 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 Committee on Regional Trade Agreements ( CRTA )). 
They included a first -time notification under Art icle 5 by Cambodia,  and revised notifications by 
Indonesia;  Montenegro;  North Macedonia;  Norway;  and the Kyrgyz Republic. Further to these 
notifications, he reported that all WTO  Members appl ied at least one  set of preferential rules of 
origin.  In addition, 51 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 -five Members had not yet submitted a notification under Article  5 of the Agreement.  The full  G/RO/M/75  
 
- 13 - 
 
  list of notifications received was available in the annex to document  G/RO/W/199 and on the rules 
of origin webpage of the WTO  website.  
He thanked the delegations that had submitted these notifications and encouraged all Members 
to ensure that the informa tion contained in their notifications was up -to-date and complete.  
The Committee took note  of this report . 
4  DRAFT TEMPLATE FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
AND ORIGIN REQUIREMENTS (G/RO/W/182/REV.3) – STATEMENT BY SWITZERLAND  
The Chairperson  referred to past discussions on information gaps and outdated notifications 
made under Article  5 of the Agreement. At the last Committee meeting, Members had considered 
the third  revision of a proposal to address such challenges ( G/RO/W/182/Rev.3 ) and the Chairperson 
had noted that the proposal  was largely stable. The Chairperson had also concluded that no 
delegation had objected to the objectives of the proposal. All delegations  had shared the assessment 
that there was a significa nt transparency gap in this area and that it was important to find solutions 
to improve the current situation. Several delegations had also noted that a fresh and updated 
notification exercise was needed in order to make this information available to econo mic operators, 
for instance through the Origin Facilitator. However, three  delegations had expressed some concerns 
or had asked for clarifications. It was then  agreed that delegations would hold consultations on these 
questions and reservations. He therefo re asked the proponents to update the Committee on the 
latest status of the proposal and on their preferred  next steps.  
The representative of Switzerland  recalled that Members had been considering this proposal 
for the past two  years already. Proponents ha d shown flexibility and incorporated changes to the 
text as needed. The language of the third  revision, he said, was stable. Despite very significant 
support for the proposal, it had not proven possible to adopt the decision at the Committee's 
March  2020 m eeting. He reported that, following bilateral consultations, the concerns expressed by 
one delegation could still be addressed by clarifying certain aspects of the proposal , but without 
amending it. The difficult working conditions that Members had experie nced since March because of 
the COVID -19 pandemic did not allow for the resolution of the concerns expressed by two  other 
Members. In light of the stability of the text, the proponents wished  Members to reconsider the 
proposal for adoption.  
The representat ive of Indonesia  thanked the Swiss delegation for the consultations on the 
proposal. Following Indonesia's own domestic consultations, he reported that his government was 
of the view that the proposal served a positive purpose , namely,  to increase transpar ency in this 
area. Nevertheless, any proposal setting up new notification obligations should be practicable and 
not create additional burdensome measures for Members, especially for developing and 
LDC Members. In this context, paragraph  7 of the draft prop osal had the potential to create  an 
additional burden: it required Members to provide legal references, websites, explanatory 
documents, and any other documents, in an official WTO  language. For Indonesia, whose national 
language was not English, Spanish , or French, fulfilling this obligation could constitute a challenge. 
Moreover, his delegation welcomed a clarification about  the precise scope of the wording "any other 
documents" under the same paragraph. To move forward with this proposal, his delegation 
suggested that the words "shall endeavour" be replaced by "are encouraged to". In addition, he 
reported that his delegation was flexible with the current draft concerning advanced rulings and did 
not have any  reservations on this provision. He hoped that the proponents could accept the 
pragmatic approach preferre d by his delegation.  
The representative of Chinese Taipei  reiterated her delegation 's support for the proposal and 
highlighted that notifications were the backbone of the work of the CRO. Updated and comprehensive 
notification s by Members would ensure that  traders could access the relevant information to arrange 
their shipments in advance. He therefore encouraged Members to seriously consider the proposal.  
The representative of the United Kingdom  agreed with the value and importance of 
transparency on non-preferential rules of origin. Increased transparency helped to keep costs down  
and simplify red tape for all global businesses. His delegation agreed with the co -sponsors, and other 
Members that had expressed an interest in improving the current practice ar ound these notifications. 
Consequently, his delegation supported this proposal and would co -sponsor it. He said that, from G/RO/M/75  
 
- 14 - 
 
  the perspective of a Member that was preparing to make its notifications for the first  time following 
the end of the transition perio d between the UK and EU, his government had found this template 
useful. If provided clarity, had helped to streamline internal processes, and would help to ensure 
that complete and accurate information would be notified. In fact, it was the UK's intention to use 
the proposed template to notify its non-preferential rules of origin.  
The representative of Hong Kong, China  reminded Members that, according to the Secretariat's 
records, only 51  Members applied non -preferential rules of origin and would need to re port them 
under this proposed template. The remaining 60 Members did not maintain any rules of this type 
and could hence notify their practices very simpl y. She also emphasized that a notification obligation 
already exist ed. The proposed template would fac ilitate the presentation of information in a clear 
and user -friendly manner and would make it possible to search non -preferential rules of origin on 
the Origin Facilitator. She thought the template was easy to use and would not require more than a 
few minu tes or a few days to complete depending on Members' practices. For this reason, the 
benefits of the template outweighed any possible administrative burden. Her delegation encouraged 
Members to see this template as a tool to significantly enhance the transp arency of origin 
requirements, hence creating new opportunities for traders in global markets , and helping them to 
recover from the pandemic. She thanked the delegation of Indonesia for its suggestion on the text 
and looked forward to working with Members to resolve any remaining concerns.  
The representative of Ecuador  said that his delegation had certain reservations regarding this 
proposal. The requirements of paragraphs  4 and 8 would, he said, create transparency obligations 
that currently did not exist in the Agreement on Rules of Origin. In this regard, his delegation 
considered that the use of Annex  II of the draft decision should be voluntary.  
The representative of the European Union  confirmed that the EU supported the draft as it stood. 
At the same t ime, the EU wished to promote transparency in all areas where non -preferential rules 
of origin were used. Hence the EU believed that the notifications should not be limited to the rules 
used for the application of MFN  duties only, as was the case under the draft proposal, but should 
also cover other rules of non -preferential applications of origin , for which  the stakes for businesses 
were much higher.  
The representative of Japan  said that his delegation supported the ad option of this proposal by 
the Committee.  
The representative of Turkey  said that her delegation supported transparency efforts in the 
WTO and believed that this proposal would provide a meaningful contribution to the collection of 
much needed, structured d ata in the area of non -preferential rules of origin, which covered a large 
segment of trade. This would translate into more transparency and predictability for traders, and 
thus facilitate market access, which was in the interest s of all Members.  
The repre sentative of India reiterated the concerns that his delegation had already raised in 
previous meetings of the Committee. His delegation 's concerns were that the proposal introduced 
new notification obligations and that it lacked effective special and diffe rential (S&D) treatment for 
developing countries and LDCs. Moreover, introducing transparency obligations in this area did not 
match transparency obligations in other areas of interest to developing countries, particularly the 
LDCs. As a result, his delega tion was not in a position to support the adoption of this draft decision.  
The representative of Canada  reiterated his delegation's support for this initiative and its 
willingness to engage with Members to try to find a solution so it could be adopted.  
The representative of Switzerland  thanked all delegations for their interventions and their 
support. In particular , he thanked  the delegations of Ecuador , Indonesia , and India for explicitly 
raising their concerns . He thought that  this facilitated finding com mon ground on this proposal. 
He clarified that the proposal dealt with how to submit information to the Secretariat, not what to 
submit. He said that the scope of the notification was already defined  by Article  5 of the Agreement. 
The template only clarifi ed how to structure notifications and addressed information gaps in a very 
pragmatic manner , as most Members had recognized . The only additional or new obligation was 
contained in paragraph  8, which required that Members update their notification when  substantive 
changes were made to their rules of origin. The Agreement required the publication, but not the 
notification, of such changes. All other aspects of the proposed notification template were already G/RO/M/75  
 
- 15 - 
 
  contained in the Agreement. He also welcomed the UK' s statement about using the template.  In 
relation to the concerns raised by Indonesia, he believed a solution could be found in order to avoid 
overburdening Members for whom the ir official language was not a WTO  language. He said that the 
template had been designed to minimize any administrative burden, in particular by allowing many 
Members to report information by simply ticking a few boxes. In relation to the concerns raised by 
India, he asked if  India could el aborate on and substantiate its need for S&D treatment , because 
only then  could a constructive dialogue take place to design specific solutions  to solve specific 
challenges . Indeed, this was the approach that had led to the revisions in the current proposa l. India 
did not apply non -preferential rules of origin and did not require a mandatory certificate of origin. 
As a result, reporting this information with the template would be extremely simple for the Indian 
delegation. If this was indeed the case, he wo ndered what specific difficulties would be resolved by 
additional S&D  provisions. The adoption of this template, he concluded, would allow Members to 
access product -specific requirements using the Origin Facilitator, making it a truly comprehensive 
tool. I n order to address the remaining concerns, he requested the Chairperson, with the help of the 
Secretariat or a facilitator, to establish a small group to finalize the proposal with a view to it s 
adoption . 
The Chairperson  thanked Switzerland for the suggest ed next steps. Before concluding, he 
called on those Members that had expressed concerns over the proposal to elaborate on them further 
and, in particular, to suggest specific changes to the text that could address those concerns . 
The representative of India did not agree that the concerns expressed by his delegation lacked 
clarity . His delegation had discussed the se concerns  with the proponents during Committee 
meetings, and in informal and bilateral  consultation s. He said that Article 4 and Annex  II of the 
proposal contained new notification obligations. And even if India did not use any non -preferential 
rules of origin, it would still need to complete Annex  II and report information about any certification 
requirements  in case it applied any docum entary requirements.  
The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegation 's support  for the proposal. 
After years of consultations and discussion, almost all Members of the Committee now supported 
the proposal. The adoption of the decision and  use of the template would bring the kind of 
transparency and organization already established for preferential rules under the Nairobi Decision, 
with great approval, to the realm of non -preferential rules, affecting more trade and more Members. 
The result s of this proposal would be positive and substantial, just as they had been in the area of 
preferential rules. Her delegation supported the Swiss delegation in its consistent and accessible 
efforts to find consensus on this proposal and was happy to join w hatever steps were needed to 
finalize and adopt  it. 
In conclusion, the Chairperson  noted again that there was significant support for the 
objectives of the proposal, and perhaps even a consensus on the need for greater transparency in 
this area. He also no ted that the majority of Members considered that this proposal was a very good 
step in that direction. No delegation had questioned the benefits of the draft template and the draft 
decision. He noted, however, that there still remained some questions or co ncerns about the text  
itself. He proposed to invite delegations for a small group follow -up consultation on this template, 
at which he would seek to hear specific concerns and suggestions to improve the language of the 
decision.  
The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
5   INFORMAL SESSION ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF 
ORIGIN – UPDATE  BY THE CHAIR PERSON  
The Chairperson  referred to the 25th Anniversary of the WTO  Agreement on Rules of Origin and 
the event organized by the Secretariat to celebrate it, on 4 March  2020. He informed delegations 
that the Secretariat had updated the Internet page of the event and added all relevant materials to 
the page, including the pr ogramme, video recordings, presentations , and a summary of the 
discussions (G/RO/W/196). Since many interesting points had been raised concerning the work of 
the Committee during the event, he invited delegations to consult the webpage and the materials 
found there in order to reflect further on these matters . 
The Committee took note  of the Chair person 's update . G/RO/M/75  
 
- 16 - 
 
  6  ORIGIN -RELATED MEASURES TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE COVID -19 PANDEMIC 
– INFORMATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  
The Chairperson  informed the Committee that some of the measures taken by governments to 
fight the COVID -19 pandemic related to origin. He had therefore asked the Secretariat to share this 
information with delegations in case they had an interest in knowing more about such measures.  
The Secretariat  (Mr Darlan F. Martí) explained that this point had been added to the agenda 
for delegations' information only (RD/RO/90). The purpose was to bring to delegations' attention the 
fact that some of the measures taken by governments to fight the COVID -19 pandemic related to 
origin requirements. In fact, several governments had temporarily closed businesses and 
government agencies , and had severely restricted the movement of persons , in order to fight the 
spread of the pandemic . Consequently , some administrative procedures, such as the preparation of 
certificates of origin,  and the addition of official  seals or their consularization , had become more 
difficult or even impossible. It was in that context that some governments had sought to temporarily 
simplify their documentary requirements. For example , Argentina and the Eurasian Economic Union 
had allowed the electronic submission of preferential certificates of origin under certain conditions. 
Japan had simplified and relaxed certain customs procedur es to take into account the difficulties of 
opposing a seal on a certificate of origin. Finally, the EU had authorized the following measures, 
among others: (i)  the electronic submission of certificates of origin ; (ii) the acceptance of copies of 
certifica tes; (iii) the relaxation of the way certificates  had to be made ; and (iv) the encouragement 
of the use of approved exporter status. Members interested in learning more about these measures 
could consult the relevant notifications made to the Trade Facilit ation Committee or the 
COVID -19 pages of the WTO  website.  
The European Union  confirmed that the EUROPA  site contained some information on measures 
taken in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic , and that some  of those measures concerned proofs 
of origin. He  noted that it could be difficult  during the pandemic  to go to customs offices and obtain 
signed, original certificates. For this reason, the EU had decided to accept copies of original 
documents , as well as  electronic versions. Such an arrangement was imp lemented on a strictly 
reciprocal basis (that is, with states that implemented the same measures on a mutual basis).  
Furthermore, he confirmed that a wider use of the authorized exporter status could facilitate trade , 
because operators enjoying that status  would  not need to go through customs authorities to obtain 
signed certificates of origin. In this sense, the REX  system had also proven itself to be useful during 
the pandemic , because registered exporters could rely upon self -certification and preserve their 
preferential market access.  
The representative of Canada  stated that her government had also implemented facilitative 
measures in response  to the COVID -19 crisis and to ens ure that rules of origin were not a barrier to 
trade. For example, Canada did not require a certificate of origin at the time of importation. 
Several  other market access measures had been implemented, including the elimination of customs 
duties on medical supplies. Document  G/MA/W/153 contained a description of such measures.  
The representative of India brought to the notice of the Committee that his government had 
likewise taken trade facilitative measures during the COVID -19 crisis. Details of these measu res had 
been notified to the Committee on Trade Facilitation in document  G/TFA/W/26. Of particular 
relevance to the work of the CRO was the fact that India had temporarily allowed for the provisional 
clearance of goods under preferences without the product ion of an original certificate of origin. On 
the export side, India had also begun to issue electronic certificates of origin for exports. He 
requested that this notification be taken into consideration  in future updates . 
The Russian Federation  confirmed t hat her authorities allowed the importation of goods without 
regional certificates being submitted at the date of customs clearance. Operators could submit the 
relevant documents at a later date, but not later than six  months from the date of customs clear ance, 
to preserve  their tariff preferences under the EAEU  scheme.  
The Committee took note  of the report and statements made.  G/RO/M/75  
 
- 17 - 
 
  7  "UNITED STATES: REVISED ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT FOR GOODS PRODUCED 
IN HONG KONG" – STATEMENT BY HONG KONG, CHINA  
The representat ive of Hong Kong, China  informed the Committee that, on 11  August  2020, the 
US Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) had announced a revised origin marking requirement. 
Under the new requirement, goods produced in Hong Kong and imported to the US could no longer 
be marked "Hong Kong" as their origin but had to be marked "China" instead for purposes of 
Section  304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1304. The revised origin marking requirement had 
come into effect on 10 November  2020. Her delegat ion strongly objected to this revised origin 
marking requirement and requested that it be withdrawn immediately. By unilaterally and arbitrarily 
dictating the name of the place of production or the identification to be shown on Hong Kong 
products, the US h ad disregarded the obvious fact that Hong Kong was a separate customs territory , 
with its own trade policies and origin rules , as well as being a full Member of the WTO. 
The US requirement had also resulted in difficulties and an additional burden to the b usiness 
communities of both sides , as well as confusion to consumers in the US. Hong Kong, China was 
concerned that the US  measure was inconsistent with the US' obligations under multiple provisions 
of the WTO  Agreements , including the rules set forth in t he Agreement on Rules of Origin (ARO) , 
which aim ed to ensure that WTO  Members' rules of origin did not create unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. In particular, with respect to the ARO, the US  measure was inconsistent with, inter alia , the 
following provisions : first, Article  2(c), because the US required the fulfilment of a certain condition 
not related to manufacturing or processing, as a prerequisite for the determination of the origin of 
goods produced in Hong Kong , China ; second , Article  2(d), because the US discriminated between 
Hong Kong, China and other WTO  Members in respect of the rules of origin that it applied to imports ; 
and third , Article  2(e), because the US did not administer its rules of origin in a consistent, uniform, 
impartial , and reasonable  manner. Over the past months, her delegation had been trying to resolve 
the matter with the US through bilateral engagement, but to no avail. The clear and strong objection 
raised at the October  meetings of the General Council, the Committee on Trade Faci litation, and the 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade , had also not resulted in any concrete response. 
Consequently , on 30  October, her government had requested consultations with the US , in 
accordance with the rules and procedures of the WTO  dispute settlement mechanism and the 
relevant provisions of the WTO  Agreements, with a view to resolving the matter through bilateral 
efforts. In conclusion, she noted that Hong Kong, China  was a staunch supporter of the rules -based 
multilateral trading system ; it took the rights and obligations of the WTO seriously and expected all 
WTO Members likewise to respect the WTO rules and to honour their WTO commitments. She again 
urged the US immediately to withdraw its revised origin marking requirement on Hon g Kong 
products.  
The United States  delegation confirmed that, on 30  October  2020, Hong Kong, China had 
requested consultations under the Dispute Settlement Understanding regarding what it characterized 
as "certain measures affecting marks of origin". The U nited States had replied to that request on 
9 November  2020. As had been reflected in the U S response, the President had determined that the 
situation in Hong Kong, China was a threat to the national security of the United States. 
Without  prejudice to whet her the consultations request raised issues of national security not 
susceptible to review or capable of resolution by the WTO  dispute settlement  mechanism , her 
delegation had accepted the request to enter into consultations. As such, her delegation did no t 
understand why Hong Kong, China was raising this issue in this Committee.  
The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  TWENTY -SIXTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/199)  
The Chairperson  recalled that Article  6.1 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin stated that "the 
Committee shall review annually the implementation and operation" of this Agreement and "annually 
inform the Council for Trade in Goods of developments". To help the Committee condu ct this review, 
the Secretariat had prepared a background note describing the activities of the Committee under 
Parts II and III of the Agreement (G/RO/W/199).  
The representative of the United States  requested a written procedure for Members to review 
the text of this report and proposed revisions, in light of this meeting, before the report was finalized 
and approved. Her delegation expected changes to be made to the following paragraphs: 
Paragraph  10.1 (which indicated that there were no disputes with res pect to the Rules of Origin G/RO/M/75  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Agreement); and Paragraph  12.1 (to indicate that the Council for Trade in Goods ( CTG) Report was 
not in fact adopted during the meeting , but through written procedures).  
The representative of Hong Kong, China  also asked for paragraph  10 of the report to be 
updated in light of the discussions held during the meeting.  
The Chairperson  proposed , in light of Members' comments,  that the Committee request the 
Secretariat to revise the draft report before circulating it to Members. If no objections were received 
by the Secretariat within a prescribed time -frame, he would deem that the report had been adopted 
and that the Committee had concluded its 26th Annual Review of the implementation of the 
Agreement.  
It was so agreed. 
The report was  revised  and adopted  through written procedures on 20  November  2020 
(G/RO/92).  
9  DRAFT REPORT (2020) OF THE CRO TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/RO/W/200)  
The Chairperson  explained  that the Committee was required to report on its activities to  the 
Council for Trade in Goods. To this end, the Secretariat had prepared d ocument  G/RO/W/200 for 
Members ' consideration.  
The representative of the United States  informed Members that it had notified the Secretariat 
of changes  to be made  to paragraph  8 of the draft report. As a result, her delegation requested a 
written procedure to review the text of this report and to propose revisions to the Membership before 
the report was finalized and approved.  
The Chairperson  therefore proposed to request the Secretariat to revise the report in light of 
the comments made during the meeting and to circulate it  to Members . If no objections were 
received within a given time -frame, the report would be deemed to  have been adopted.  
It was so agreed.  
The report was  revise d and adopted  through written procedures on 20  November  2020 
(G/L/1378).  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
The Chairperson  informed Members that China and the EU had each requested to  make a 
statement under " Other Business ". 
China – Update on a New System for Issuing and Printing Certificates of Preferential 
Origin  
The representative of China  updated the Committee on China's recently launched "System for 
Issuing and Printing Certificates of Origin for Preferential Tariff Treatment". The system, 
implemented by China Customs on 10  September  2020, was an effort to further promote the 
implementati on of special preferential tariff treatment measures for LDCs. The system allowed to 
issue certificates of origin online and was being piloted for imports from Niger;  Ethiopia;  and 
Mozambique. Competent authorities in the exporting beneficiary country coul d directly log onto the 
system through the Internet to issue a preferential certificate of origin. The system would 
automatically save the electronic information and send it to Chinese Customs for clearance 
management. Through this system, the certificate data and import declaration data were 
automatically compared, thereby facilitating operations, preventing origin fraud , and improving 
customs efficiency. During a transition period, the system allowed, in addition, for printing blank 
certificates of origin . For the next step, based on the experience of the trial operation of the system, 
China Customs would consider launching the online Issuing System for other beneficiary countries. 
He concluded by explaining that the system would effectively promote the im plementation of the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decisions.  G/RO/M/75  
 
- 19 - 
 
  
EU's Access2Markets Portal and Rules of Origin Self -Assessment (ROSA)  
The representative of the European Union  updated the Committee on the EU 's new 
"Access2Markets Portal" which had been launched on 13  October  2020. She explained that the Portal 
was a very practical tool and guide for European companies on how to export from , and how to 
import into , the EU. It consolidated two  very successful EU databases (the Trade Helpdesk and the 
Market Access Database)  and had been developed in response to feedback and requests from 
stakeholders. It responded to the need of operators to access user -friendly and clear information in 
order to seize opportunities created through the EU's trade agreements. Hence, the Portal  translated 
the often-complex  legal terminology of free trade agreements into a user -friendly and more 
accessible format. The Portal was easily searchable and provided specific information concerning 
trade -related regulations, such as tariffs, rules of ori gin, and internal taxes. In addition, it provided 
access to a database containing data on exports from the EU to over 120  export markets, and 
included information about import tariffs, and internal taxes , as well as a practical overview of 
formalities and procedures to be respected by exporters. The Portal also offered a database with 
trade statistics on import and export volumes. The section relating to rules of origin was well 
designed and very informative. It contained summaries of the most important provisions relating to 
the origin protocols of every EU  free trade agreement. It described specific requirements and also 
included an interactive and se archable database of terminology, definitions , and explanations. 
It included direct links to the applicable provisions , including guidance documents developed over 
time. In this respect, an innovative feature , which complemented the Portal , was an interact ive, 
self-assessment tool to check compliance with origin requirements. The Rules of Origin 
Self-Assessment (ROSA) tool already covered the requirements of the EU  RTAs with Canada, Japan , 
the Republic of Korea , and Canada. Information about the agreements with Central America , 
Colombia , Peru,  Ecuador and Viet Nam would be available before the end of the year , and others 
would follow , until all the EU's RTAs had been covered. ROSA was not only a source of information , 
it was also an interactive guide and che cklist for exporters , which was product specific , and covered 
not only the rules, but also procedures , and any available flexibilities (for example, tolerance). 
Finally, ROSA also allowed operators to compare and check product -specific rules of origin unde r 
different RTAs, in order to know which preferential markets their products could access. As such, it 
was an important pillar of the EU's efforts to support small and medium -sized enterprises.  
The Chairperson  noted that there were no further requests unde r "Other Business ". 
Before  concluding the meeting, he reminded Members that two  dates had been identified for the 
Committee's formal meetings in 2021: 20  May and 14  October.  
__________