RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/76  
 
5 July 2021 
(21-5309) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 20 MAY  2021 
CHAIRPERSON: MR  HAN-MING HUANG (CHINESE TAIPEI ) 
Subjects Discussed  
 
1   WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULES OF ORIGIN (TCRO) –  
2020  REPORT BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION  ...........  1 
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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 
 Review of Recent Developments Regarding Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – Report  
by Preference -Granting Members  ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
 Stocktaking of Implementation of the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on  
Preferential Rules of Origin for Least Developed Countries (G/RO/W/198) – Statement by the 
LDC Group  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
 Utilization of Trade Preferences by Least Developed Countries: 2015 -2019 Patterns and 
Trends – Note by the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .........................  4 
 UNCTAD Database on GSP  Utilization – Presentation by UNCTAD  ................................ ...... 7 
 Webinar on "What Drives the Utilization of Trade Preferences" – Report by the Chairperson  . 8 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF  
THE AGREEMENT  ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/207 TO G/RO/N/225)  ......................  8 
4   ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.3) – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................  9 
5   DATES OF THE NEXT MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE  ................................ .................  10 
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
7   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ............................  10 
 
_______________  
 
 
The Committee on Rules of Origin ( hereafter " the Committee ", or "CRO") adopted  the agenda of the 
meeting as circulated in document  WTO/AIR/RO/1 3. Delegations attended the meeting virtually via 
the "Interprefy" platform.  
 
1  WORK OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON RULE S OF ORIGIN (TCRO)  – 2020  REPORT 
BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION  
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 C ommittee 
on Rules of Origin (TCRO) at the World Customs Organization (WCO). Given their complementary 
nature, it was customary to promote an exchange of information concerning the work of each 
Committee. To this end , he invited Mr  Demba Seck, Technical Officer in charge  of origin matters at 
the WCO  Secretariat, to report on the activities of the TCRO in 2020 . G/RO/M/76  
 
- 2 - 
 
  
The representative of the World Customs Organization (Mr  Demba Seck)  explained  that the 
TCRO and the Secretariat of the WCO had been work ing on non -preferential rules of origin , 
preferential rules of origin , and technical assistance.1 
Regarding non -preferential rules of origin, the T CRO had held its 39th Session in two  phases: a 
document -based discussion , from 5 to 19  January  2021, followed by a live online meeting , via the  
KUDO  platform , on 3 February  2021. The meeting had been chaired by Ms  Nan Ding (China). 
The Annual Review had once again been brief, since the Agreement on Rules of Origin had not yet 
been implemented in practice  and, in consequence , no specific questions had been referred to the 
TCRO  as yet . 
On preferential rules of origin, the TCRO had taken  note of the origin part of the Revenue 
Package Action Plan. The Revenue Package Phase  IV Action Plan, adopted in June  2019, would be 
completed in June  2021, and consisted of a set of initiatives aimed at ensuring an effective and 
efficient collection of revenues by customs administrations. In this respect, the lack of harmoni zation 
in origin requirements was a major challenge  faced by different stakeholders. To palliate such 
challenges, the WCO had been promoting procedural harmoni zation to facilitate trade through 
WCO Guidelines, including  in the following areas : origin certification; origin verification; advance 
rulings (for origin, HS , and valuation); and c ustoms infrastructure for classification, origin , and 
valuation . In addition, the WCO Secretariat had prepared a "Practical Guide to the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision on Rules of Origin for LDCs " and had also up dated a "Comparative Study on Origin 
Certification ", in June  2020. 
In addition to these activities, the WCO  Secretariat had also assist ed delegations during  
discussions to comprehensively update and review the Revised Kyoto Convention  (RKC) . A group of 
delegations had made a j oint proposal  for the comprehensive review of RKC  Specific Annex  K (on 
origin) . The Secretariat had also been compiling the various practices by Members in response to 
the COVID -19 pandemic (available at the COVID -19 page on the WCO  website). Finally, he reported 
that the second  WCO Global Origin Conference had been held , from 10 to 12  March  2021, in a virtual 
format, with funding from the Korea Customs Service .2 
Regarding technical assistance, the WCO  representative reported that th e WCO  Secretariat had 
delivered a large number of remote activities. An increasing focus had been placed on building the 
capacity of customs administrations in relation to  origin infrastructure and advance rulings. 
He encouraged Members to submit their technical assistance request s to the WCO through the 
formal process at the beginning of each year.  
The Committee took note  of this report . 
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)  
Review of Recent Developments Regarding Preferential Rules of Origin for LDCs – 
Report by Preference -Granting Members  
The Chairperson  reminded delegations that the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions  had 
instructed the CRO to monitor preference -granting Members' efforts to implement both Decisions. 
On the basis of the information shared by the preference -granting Members, the CRO had adopted 
a written report to the General Council , and the Secretariat  had presented an oral report to the 
Sub-Committee on Least Developed Countries. He invited preference -granting Members to take the 
floor to inform the Committee of any recent developments in this area.  
The representative of the United Kingdom  recalled  that her government had successfully 
launched its General System of Preferences (GSP) , allowing 70  eligible developing countries to trade 
under a preferential rate. More than half of the beneficiaries had been LDCs. She reported  that her 
government had wished  to introduce improvements to the scheme, including by simplify ing origin 
requirements in order to make it more generous and less burdensome for beneficiaries. 
 
1 The report was circulated in document  G/RO/W/205.  
2 https://na.eventscloud.com/ehome/wcoorigin2021/1020325/ . G/RO/M/76  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Simplified  rules of origin would make it easier for LDCs to qualify for zero  import tariffs and would 
help facilitate market access, which, in turn, would promote increased exports and utilization rates. 
The UK's GSP  scheme would continue to be guided by the provisions set out in the Nairobi Decision. 
She invited members of the Committee –LDC partner s, in particular  – to share their valuable insights 
into how to make improvements to rules of origin, and to feed these insights into a consultation 
process to be launched through the UK  government website . The intention was to implement these 
changes to the scheme in 2022.  
A representative  of the European Union  (Mr Christophe Fontaine) presented an update on the 
implementation of the REX  System.3 He reminded delegations that the REX  System was a system of 
self-certification of the origin of go ods for registered firms that , since 1  January  2017, had gradually 
replaced certificates of origin (Form  A). It was a trade facilitating reform and its practical benefits 
could already be noted. Exporters that had registered in the System could declare the  origin of their 
goods themselves , without requesting certificates from their authorities. They had to prepare a 
"statement on origin" , which indicated their individual REX  number , and which also referenced other 
commercial documents , such as the invoice a nd the packing list. With the expiration of the transition 
period, Form  A certificates were no longer  accepted , meaning that exporters that had not registered 
under REX would no longer be admissible for GSP  benefits in the EU. To ensure continuity, the EU 
had financed and delivered 17  three-day face -to-face training sessions to GSP  beneficiary countries , 
in addition to a number of training events via video conference , in 2020 and 2021. Owing to these 
trainings, the REX  System had been  utilized by almost 60,000  firms in 67  GSP beneficiary countries , 
with only  seven  countries not yet introducing the system , namely : Central African Republic; Chad; 
Democratic Republic of the Congo;  Djibouti; Somalia; South Sudan; and Syria. It was not clear wh y 
these seven  countries were not applying the REX  System , despite outreach efforts by the EU. 
He explained that these countries had not been suspended or withdrawn from preferences in the EU 
and that they would continue to receive preferences as soon as th ey met the technical requirements 
of the GSP. Training was available upon request.  
The representative of Tanzania,  on behalf of the LDC  Group, thanked both delegations for their 
reports. He welcomed the UK's decision to seek to simplify rules of origin in light of the provisions 
and sprit of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions. He also welcomed the opportunity to provide 
comments and inputs into that consultative process and encouraged the UK to disseminate 
information about it. He also thanked the E U for its continued efforts in reaching out to LDCs to 
make sure that they could  successfully  transition to the REX  System and continue to receive 
preferences.  He encouraged the EU to continue reaching out to those few beneficiaries that had not 
yet implemented the necessary requirements.  
The Committee  took note  of the update and statements made . 
Stocktaking of Implementation of the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions on 
Preferential Rules of Origin for Least Developed Countries  (G/RO/W/198)  – Statement by 
the LDC  Group  
The Chairperson  reminded Members that , at the last CRO  meeting, the LDC  Group had 
proposed to initiate  a work programme to examine gaps in the implementation of the substantive 
provisions of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions (G/RO/W/198). The Group had also proposed 
that preference -granting Members justify their situation whenever they were not in  a position to 
align their practices with the Ministerial Decisions. Finally, the Group had proposed that this work 
programme would lead to the identification of best practices. In response, several 
preference -granting Members had argued that their rules w ere already fully aligned with the legal 
requirements of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decision s. Some had also explained that the 
language used in the Decisions had been carefully negotiated , and that it was important to interpret 
that language correct ly. Several delegations had also asked the LDC  Group to clarify the objectives 
of the proposal and the work programme.  After these discussions, the LDC  Group  had been asked 
to consult preference -granting Members to clarify their proposal and identify possi ble next steps.  
It was the Chairperson's intention to hear an update from the LDC  Group . 
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, recalled that the Group had tabled 
document  G/RO/W/194 on the anniversary of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. The document had 
summarized the Group's sentiments about the last five  years of implementation of the Nairobi 
 
3 The presentation was circulated in document  RD/RO/95.  G/RO/M/76  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Decision. It had also recognized that progress had been made in relation to tra nsparency 
(for example, a notification template, better coverage of import statistics, and a calculation of 
utilization rates). Success in this area had in fact inspired Members to propose a notification template 
also for non -preferential rules of origin, a proposal on which the LDC  Group had also hoped to make 
progress. However, as noted in the document, there were still several examples of complex and 
restrictive rules of origin and origin requirements. As had been noted in the presentation made by 
the Se cretariat at the 19  May webinar , "during the period from 2015 -2019, there were no major 
reforms of rules of origin, so it [was] difficult to identify the specific impact that product -specific 
rules of origin might have had." The LDC  Group, he explained, ha d made a total of 18  submissions 
identifying restrictive rules of origin and suggesting best practices. However, preference -granting 
Members had not conducted a self -assessment of their own rules and had not provided any 
justification about why the more re strictive or complex rules had been needed. Many of the 
submissions made had not received any response. Thus, there existed an imbalance between the 
efforts deployed by LDC  countries in the Committee since the Nairobi Decision , in terms of 
submissions, and analysis, and the level of the response received from preference -granting 
Members. Yet multilateral deliberations to reform rules of origin and identify best practices were a 
public good that should be genuinely pursued by WTO  Members to realize a better multilateral 
trading system. With this objective in mind, the Group's intention was to work towards the 
elaboration of a text that could be included in the Ministerial Declaration to provide the Committee 
with the necessary impetus to complete this work. T he point was not to agree to a further decision , 
but rather to find the language that could keep the Committee and preference -granting Members 
engaged on these issues. In this respect, he also urged those preference -granting Members that had 
not yet notified their import data to the Secretariat to do so as soon as possible.  
The Chairperson  encouraged the LDC  Group to share a specific text with Members so that 
consultations with preference -granting Members could be organized as soon as possible.  
It was  so agreed . 
Utilization of Trade Preferences by Least Developed Countries: 2015 -2019  Patterns 
and Trends  – Note by the Secretariat  
The Chairperson  referred to the Nairobi Decision, which had instructed the Secretariat to 
calculate utilization rates for non -reciprocal preferences for LDCs. He recalled that the purpose of 
such calculations was to identify rules of origin that were simple, transparent , and facilitated 
preferential trade from LDCs. In line with this objective, the Secretariat had prepared a new  
background note , which reviewed trends and patterns in utilization rates from 2015 to 2019 
(G/RO/W/204). He asked the Secretariat to present the note.  
The Secretariat  (Mr Simon Neumueller) explained that the note described the results of 
calculations of u tilization rates for the 2015 -2019 period to identify patterns and trends regarding 
utilization (RD/RO/94). This multi -year approach was important to confirm that previous findings 
were not contextual , and specific to a single year , but rather structural. The calculations had, in fact, 
confirmed and consolidated previous findings by the Secretariat and had allowed the Secretariat to 
identify additional areas of research. Calculations had been made for all Members for whom statistics 
were fully available. Da ta for China had only been available for 2016 and 2018 , and data for India 
had only been available for 2015. Data for Turkey had been received recently but could not be 
integrated into the WTO databases in time to be considered. He recalled that the data that had been 
notified to the Secretariat concerned consolidated annual imports (as opposed to transaction -level 
data). A total of almost 102,000  observations had been examined.  
He explained that under utilization rates had remained rather stable for preference -granting 
Members in the 2015 -2019 period. One interesting pattern emerged from the difference s in 
under utilization rates between the European Union , Norway , and Switzerland. In fact, even though 
these three  schemes applied identical product -specific rules, they had increasingly divergent 
patterns of under utilization. This  highlighted the need for a closer examination of other 
requirements , such as transportation and certification obligations. Another interesting pattern 
concerned Chile, which cle arly illustrated that firms "learnt by doing", improving  their capacity to 
utilize trade preferences over time.  G/RO/M/76  
 
- 5 - 
 
  
He noted that greater fluctuations could be observed  on the exporting side . LDCs  could be 
split into three  different groups: (i) those that had improved their ability to utilize trade preferences 
since 2015 ( for example,  Afghanistan and  Rwanda ); (ii)  those whose ability to utilize trade 
preferences had diminished (for example, Chad, Guinea , Lesotho , Niger , and Sierra Leone) ; and 
(iii) those for wh om annual variations in trade preference utilization were such that no clear pattern 
could be observed. The annex to the note provided the details for each LDC. Further analysis would 
be needed to better identify the reasons for such annual variations. In  fact, fluctuations could not 
be explained by a change in product -specific rules of origin since no major reforms of the rules of 
origin  had been implemented in the 2015 -2019 period. In this sense, the case of Rwanda was 
particularly interesting: not only h ad its preferential exports increased , from only USD  3 million in 
2015 to USD  28 million in 2018, but  its under utilization rates had dropped in the same period , from 
38% to only 9%.  
A sectoral analysis showed that under utilization rates had been consistently high, about 50%, 
in several sectors , such as animal products, machinery, fruits and vegetables , and wood and paper. 
Surprisingly, under utilization rates were low in some sectors known for having restrictive or complex 
rules of origin , such as clothing, textiles, leather and footwear, and fish and fish products. In the 
textiles and clothing sectors, the good performance of LDCs was largely explained by the intense 
use of trade preferences by Bangladesh and Cambodia. This seemed to suggest that t he capacity of 
economic operators to comply with rules of origin influenced their ability to utilize preferences to a 
larger extent than the actual type of rule applied. In fact, calculations had confirmed that 
under utilization rates could be very high for  products subject to simple rules of origin, such as certain 
agricultural products or minerals and metals. As a result, it was reasonable to conclude that there 
were structural factors which explained the low utilization of preferences in some sectors. 
Direct consignment obligations, certification requirements , or other factors not related to origin 
might explain these challenges, which highlighted the importance of strengthening the capacity of 
economic operators and ensuring that the preferential origin r equirements  were being properly 
understood . It also highlighted that more detailed analysis by preference -granting Members would 
be useful to better understand the linkages between direct consignment obligations and utilization.  
With respect to consignment  obligations, the note had also confirmed that landlocked LDCs 
had greater difficulties utilizing preferences compared with LDCs with sea access. While LDCs with 
sea access had slightly improved their ability to utilize trade preferences since 2015, in the  same 
period  under utilization rates had significantly increased for landlocked LDCs. However, in the 
absence of data for all preference -granting Members, these results were strongly influenced by 
imports into the EU  market.  
In conclusion, the Secretariat n oted that , despite annual fluctuations and sectoral variations, 
under utilization was significant for LDCs , and there remained ample scope to improve preference 
utilization across schemes. He suggested  undertaking a closer examination of those LDCs whose 
ability to utilize preferences had improved in order to identify whether certain policy measures had 
been used to promote preferential opportunities and build the capacity of businesses. Moreover, he 
also suggested  an examination by preference -granting Membe rs of their own import statistics to 
better understand the impact of direct consignment obligations and, in particular, the specific 
challenges of landlocked LDCs. Finally, he also suggested  engaging with businesses, both on the 
importing and exporting sid e, to obtain additional insights that might complement the statistical 
analysis.  
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, thanked the Secretariat for its 
analysis and presentation. He said that it had confirmed that rules of origin and administrative  
requirements were the main cause for the under utilization of trade preferences by LDCs . He asked 
the Secretariat to continue its research and to identify more precisely the factors that hinder ed full 
utilization, both in exporting and in imp orting countries. Before jumping to any conclusion regarding 
whether or not rules of origin , and in particular origin criteria,  were a main factor determining 
under utilization, a full analysis must be made. In fact, importers had a particularly crucial rol e, since 
they claim ed the preference and receive d the benefits. In  this regard, he agreed that greater 
engagement with the private sector could offer useful insights. In addition, preference -granting 
Members could also find out why some importers did not claim preferences , or why some preferences 
were denied by customs. In any event, preference -granting Members should analyse their own rules 
to identify those aspects and rules that could be reformed and simplified. Such efforts would not 
only strengthen the  multilateral trading system but also support the attainment of the 
UN Sustainable Development Goals.  G/RO/M/76  
 
- 6 - 
 
  
The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for its paper and for the interesting 
inputs on Members' understanding of preference utilization . He thought that such analysis was useful 
and that it contributed to the Committee 's discussions. He mentioned that Switzerland had been 
taking steps to improve utilization rates since 2015. As a result, he was puzzled by the figures , which 
showed a decre ase in the utilization of Swiss preferences. Switzerland , together with the EU ; 
Norway;  and Turkey, had introduced the REX  System in January  2017. Moreover, the note had 
pointed to direct consignment obligations as a hypothetical cause of under utilization.  He recalled 
that Switzerland had analysed the utilization of its preferences in 2017 and had confirmed that most 
of the imports directly consigned into Switzerland had benefitted from preferences , while imports 
indirectly consigned had not. He reported th at he had asked his colleagues to also examine the 
utilization rates for 2018, 2019 , and 2020. He would share possible findings with the Committee 
once the analysis was ready. In addition, he recalled that more than 90% of imports from LDCs 
entered Switzer land under duty -free treatments (either under preferences or under tariff lines with 
an MFN rate of duty). Finally, he agreed that greater engagement with the private sector would be 
useful, in particular to test the role that preferential margins played in the decision by businesses to 
utilize preferences  or not . 
The representative of China  also thought that the Secretariat study was very helpful in helping 
Members to identify problems relating to implementation of preferences for LDCs. He thought, 
however, that the report had failed to take into consideration some elements in relation to Ch ina's 
tariff policy, such as bonded warehouse trade, temporary tariff exemption , and duty drawback 
programmes. Under such programmes, there was no need for companies to pay import duties. 
His delegation had brought these programmes to the attention of the LDC Group and the Committee 
in document  G/RO/W/197 . China had also clarified that USD  750 million of minerals  from the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo and USD  1.75 billion of copper from Zambia had been imported 
under MFN  regimes in 2015. Therefore, China 's LDC  preferences had a good level of utilization. 
Indeed, the  utilization rate for the top 27  LDCs was over 80 %. However, some LDCs  did experience 
challenges in utilizing their trade preferences, and his government was now actively studying these 
cases with a view to better understand ing the reasons  for this . He reiterated that his government 
was committed to ensuring that LDCs could fully utilize their trade preferences with China.  He also 
said that his delegation was willi ng to work together with the LDC  Group to identify specific problems  
and explore possible solutions to them. He also asked the Secretariat to review its study to take into 
account these elements.  
The representative of Bangladesh  recalled that this was a cr ucial matter for the LDC  Group 
and for his delegation. Tariff preferences were a fundamental issue as they offered lower  prices to 
consumers and ensured the comparative advantage of LDCs.  He explained that it was important to 
ensure that preferences were s erving their purpose and, if not, to understand what factors were 
obstructing full utilization. There was no good reason why an exporter would choose not to use a 
preference and the Secretariat presentation had confirmed that more in -depth analysis would b e 
required, particularly by preference -granting Members themselves. In relation to the comment by 
China, he thought that the methodology used by the Secretariat for the calculation of utilization 
rates already excluded zero -rated MFN  duties. In relation to  Switzerland's comments, he disagreed 
that preferences were being entirely effective because several companies were paying MFN  duties 
on imports for which preferences were available. In terms of next steps, he agreed that importers 
could shed additional li ght on the reasons why preferences were being claimed or not, and why they 
were being granted or not. He suggested that informal sessions should be organized with groups of 
large importers to hear more about their experiences on the ground. Finally, he als o said that his 
delegation would be interested in engaging bilaterally with other delegations to discuss possible 
hurdles and solutions.  
The representative of Switzerland  confirmed that despite low utilization of trade preferences, 
90% of LDC  imports enter ed Switzerland under duty -free treatment. This was explained by the fact 
that more than 80% of imports originating in LDCs concerned tariff lines with a n MFN rate of zero. 
As a result, the calculation of utilization rates concerned only approximately 20% of the total value 
of imports from LDCs.  
The Secretariat  clarified that all the utilization or under utilization rates calculated by the 
Secretariat excluded MFN -zero duties (preferences could not be utilized or not on those lines since 
a preference could not be offered on them). He invited delegations that would like to know more 
about the methodology used to get in touch with the Secretariat for a more detailed explanation. 
In addition, he clarified that the Secretariat had not affirmed t hat rules of origin did not matter for G/RO/M/76  
 
- 7 - 
 
  utilization. What the Secretariat note indicated was that there was no clear relationship between 
different types of rules of origin and utilization rates. The sectoral breakdown was quite telling in 
this respect. The se observations called for further analysis of all the factors that could impact upon 
utilization, and not only product -specific rules of origin. In addition, the note by the Secretariat 
recognized that the reform of rules of origin could lead to an improv ement in utilization within a 
given preferential scheme. In response to Switzerland, he said that the Secretariat had also been 
surprised by some of the results and noted that the increase of under utilization rates had also 
concerned Norway. As a result, t he Secretariat believed that specificities in the application of the 
direct consignment obligation might help explain these patterns, so further analysis by Switzerland 
on its own data would indeed be very welcome. In addition, he noted that the REX  System  had only 
been fully implemented recently so the statistics could not yet reflect these changes. Finally, in 
relation to the comments made by China, he agreed that duty concessions could play a significant 
role in some sectors . At the same time, he clarifi ed that the data used in the calculations had been 
provided to the Secretariat by China. He invited the delegation to get in touch with the Secretariat 
to assess whether revisions to the data were necessary . Finally, in relation to the possible impact of 
preferential margins, he said that several speakers at the webinar on 19  May had referred to 
business margins to also playing a role ; in other words, preferential tariffs could be more or less 
attractive to businesses depending on the profit margin of the specific products and imports  
concerned . 
In conclusion, the Chairperson  asked the Secretariat to continue its research and to keep the 
Committee informed about its findings. In addition, he urged those Members that had gaps in the 
notification of their impo rt statistics to submit the necessary data to the Secretariat as soon as 
possible. Not only was this crucial for a comprehensive analysis , it was also necessary for the smooth 
functioning of the Committee. Lastly, he encouraged preference -granting Members to conduct their 
own investigations and to share information about any efforts and findings with the Secretariat and 
the Committee.  
The Committee agree d to proceed accordingly.  
UNCTAD Database on GSP  Utilization  – Presentation by UNCTAD  
The Chairperson  informed delegations  that UNCTAD had been developing a new website and 
database on the utilization of GSP  schemes. He thought that this tool  was relevant to the work of 
the CRO  and had therefore invited UNCTAD to p resent it to Members.  
A representative of UNCTAD (Mr  Stefano Inama) recalled that UNCTAD had been monitoring 
the utilization of GSP since 1976. The methodology used for the calculation of utilization rates was 
almost identical to that used by the WTO  Secre tariat. This new tool was intended to disseminate  
information about preference utilization as widely as possible. It contained information that was 
useful to governments and the private sector and which contributed to more informed 
decision -making. The new  database ( https://gsp.unctad.org/home ) was under development but 
alread y covered the preferences of Canada , the EU , Japan,  and the US. The data used had been 
sourced from these countries' official websites and n otifications. While the data referred primarily to 
the GSP, it also covered trade under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the EU's 
Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) , and certain other free trade agreements.  In addition, the 
database contained information about the utilization of trade preferences not only for LDCs but also 
for developing countries. He presented  three main search options  supported by the database , 
namely : (i) utilization by product; (ii) top products imported from a beneficiary; and (iii) utilization 
by country. He concluded by saying that UNCTAD's intention was to continue to develop this tool by 
improving its functions and expanding its coverage to additional preference -granting Members. 
Finally, he said that UNCTAD would be available to organize tailored demonstration s of the database 
upon the request of individual delegations.  
The representative of Tanzania , on behalf of the LDC  Group, thanked UNCTAD for having 
developed this tool. He agree d that this database constituted a useful tool for governments and 
businesses and hoped that it could also help attract new investors interested in exploring preferential 
market access opportunities. He encouraged UNCTAD to continue expanding this tool and  asked the 
WTO Secretariat to collaborate with UNCTAD to share  import statistics whenever possible.  To this 
end, they again urged all preference -granting Members to notify their preferential imports from 
LDCs.  G/RO/M/76  
 
- 8 - 
 
  
The representative of Cambodia  thanked UNCTAD for the database and, more generally, for 
the assistance it provided to LDCs . He encouraged UNCTAD, development partners , and, in 
particular, the Enhanced Integrated Framework , to continue supporting the LDCs in their efforts to 
fully benefit from trade pr eferences.  He also thanked the WTO and the WCO for the assistance that 
these organizations had provided to his delegation.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  encouraged delegations to bring UNCTAD's database to the 
attention of their Capital -based colleagues. He also asked the Committee to take note of the 
presentation and statements made.  
It was so agreed . 
Webinar on "What Drives the Utilization of Trade Preferences " – Report by the 
Chairperson  
The Chairperson  referred to the online seminar organized by the WTO  Secretariat on 19  May 
on preference utilization. The  webinar had provided an opportunity to learn more about the factors 
that influenced the utilization of trade preferences. He reported that almost 600  participants had 
registered for this event and that about 250 had joined it. He encouraged delegations that had not 
been able to attend to check the programme, the presentations , and the video recordings under the 
"Events" link of the WTO  rules of origin w ebpage.4 
He highlighted a few impressions from the event. First, the webinar had promoted the work 
of the WTO and showed to the wider public the usefulness and relevance of the CRO. It had shown 
that the CRO discussed matters that were directly relevant t o Capital -based  officials and the private 
sector. Second, he thought that events of this type offered an excellent tool to help create a 
community of interest on issues of relevance to the Committee. Such a community or network of 
professionals, academics,  private sector , and government officials could complement and extend the 
work of the CRO. In fact, the Committee could learn from the experiences of that network and offer 
a platform for information and experience sharing. Third, the webinar had also been  useful for 
delegations as it offered them an opportunity to review the results of the research conducted by the 
Secretariat on preference utilization. Lastly, the webinar had also shown that complex and multiple 
factors influence the utilization of prefer ences , such that all Members could learn from sharing their 
respective experiences . For example , several speakers had highlighted the need to work with the 
private sector to promote preferential market access opportunities and enhance the capacity of 
busin esses to comply with preferential agreements. Recommendations  of this type were relevant for 
LDCs and all Members engaged in regional trade negotiations. With the multiplication of preferential 
trade agreements, there was a real demand for knowledge and be st practices regarding preferential 
origin requirements. In sum, the webinar had been stimulating and he thanked the speakers and 
participants for their engagement. He also encouraged the Secretariat to organize other events of 
this type and asked delegati ons to share the link to the event with their colleagues in Capital . 
The Committee took note  of this report.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  UNDER ARTICLE  5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH  4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT  ON RULES OF ORIGIN (G/RO/N/ 207 TO G/RO/N/ 225) 
The Chairperson  reported that, since the Committee's previous meeting, several new 
notifications had been submitted , under the document symbols that followed:  G/RO/N/207; 
G/RO/N/208; G/RO/N/209; G/RO/N/210; G/RO/N/211; G/RO/N/212; G/RO/N/213; G/RO/N/214; 
G/RO/N/215 ; G/RO/N/216; G/RO/N/217; G/RO/N/218; G/RO/N/219; G/RO/N/220; G/RO/N/221; 
G/RO/N/222; G/RO/N/223; G/RO/N/224; and G/RO/N/225. Most of these notifications concerned 
preferential rules of origin adopted in the context of recently concluded regional trade agr eements. 
Most had been originally submitted to the WTO  Committee on Regional Trade Agreements. 
In addition, they covered a first  set of notifications from the United Kingdom on both 
non-preferential and preferential rules of origin and a first -ever notific ation from Saint Kitts and 
 
4 WTO | What drives the utilization of trade preferences?  
(https://www .wto.org/english/tratop_e/roi_e/preference_utilization_190521_e.htm ). G/RO/M/76  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Nevis and Tonga on non -preferential rules of origin  had been received . They also included an update 
from Albania. As a result of these notifications, he reported the following information : 
(i) Twenty -three  WTO Members had never submitted a notification under Article  5 of the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin;  
 
(ii) fifty-two WTO Members had informed WTO Committees that they applied 
non-preferential origin requirements. However, some of these notifications had been 
submitted more  than 20  years previously, and some were incomplete;  
 
(iii) the remaining 62  WTO Members had informed the Committee that they did not apply 
non-preferential origin requirements.  
 
The Committee took note  of this report.  
4  ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY IN NON -PREFERE NTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN 
(G/RO/W/182/REV.3) – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
The Chairperson  referred to the third  revision of the draft notification template 
(G/RO/W/182/Rev.3) and recalled that Ecuador , India, and Indonesia had raised questions 
concerning this p roposal at the Committee 's previous  meeting. He reported that consultations had 
been held between these delegations and the proponents of the notification template. Following 
these consultations, the proponents had agreed to discuss among themselves , and w ith colleagues 
in Capital,  the issues raised and certain textual suggestions. He invited delegations to report on any 
progress made.  
The delegation of Switzerland  confirmed that the consultations had been useful to better 
understand some of the concerns that had been raised in respect of the proposal. In addition, they 
had been a good opportunity to explore suggestions for amendments to the text. Delegations were 
currently discussing these suggestions and consulting  on them  with their Capitals . As soon as these 
consultations were completed , the proponents would reach out to the delegations of Ecuador;  India;  
and Indonesia and report back to the CRO on any progress m ade. 
The delegation of Indonesia  thanked the proponents for the opportunity to discuss the proposal 
in greater detail. He confirmed that his delegation supported the principle of transparency. However, 
his delegation had expressed the view that the proposa l needed certain adjustments to avoid 
overburdening developing countries and LDCs . 
The representative of the United Kingdom  confirmed that her delegation supported increasing 
transparency for non -preferential rules of origin, in particular to help business es to trade. 
Her delegation welcomed this proposal as a pragmatic approach to the improvement of notification 
practices in a way that would ultimately benefit all economic operators, including LDC  exporters. 
She then drew delegations' attention to the UK's  first ever notification on non -preferential rules of 
origin (G/RO/N/214) and the fact that her delegation had decided to use the draft template to  
prepare it. She said that her colleagues had found the template to be a very helpful instrument to 
identify the precise information that had to be reported, especially in a first  notification. The  template 
had also helped identify the agencies between which the information had to be coordinated. In a 
word, it had really made the preparatory process much simpler.  In the case of Members that did not 
apply non -preferential origin requirements, the preparatory process would be even simpler, as the 
template allowed these Members to fill in just two fields and tick a box. In addition, the standardized 
information under  the template also helped businesses understand the new UK  requirements. 
The adoption of this template by all delegations would really help demonstrate the value of the WTO 
to today's modern business  practic es. The proposal was a very pragmatic way for Mem bers to better 
arm businesses , and particularly small businesses and MSMEs , with the information that they needed 
to trade better and seize economic opportunities to recover from the economic crisis created by the 
pandemic. With this practical experience i n mind, the UK would be looking to co -sponsor this 
proposal. She encouraged Members to support it so that it could be adopted at the earliest 
opportunity.  G/RO/M/76  
 
- 10 - 
 
  
The representative of Ecuador  thanked the proponents for their openness in dealing with the 
concerns that his delegation had expressed regarding the draft template. He reiterated the 
commitment of his government to transparency and to finding a solution to this proposal.  
The representative of India thanked the Chair for his efforts on this issue and for g iving his 
delegation an opportunity to explain its concerns in a small group meeting. He looked forward to 
hearing back from the proponents regarding the textual changes that his delegation had put forward.  
In conclusion, the Chairperson  thanked delegation s for their engagement and constructive 
spirit. This proposal had been on the Committee's agenda for almost three  years and he was 
convinced that all delegations shared the need to enhance transparency on non -preferential origin 
requirements. In this sense , the adoption of the proposal would mark the beginning of the work of 
the CRO on transparency, not the end. He thought that a common understanding was within reach, 
even if he acknowledged the need for additional discussions. He therefore asked delegation s to 
continue consulting with each other on the proposal and to inform him as soon as possible of any 
progress made.  
The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
5  DATES OF THE NEXT MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE  
The Chairperson  reported that two  dates had been identified for the formal meetings of the 
CRO, namely  14 October  2021 and 7  April 2022. These dates were confirmed but would need to be 
validated by the incoming Chairperson.  
The Committee took note  of the se dates . 
6  OTHER B USINESS  
No items were raised under "Other Business" . 
7  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
The Chairperson  explained that the Committee's rules of procedures envisaged the election of 
the Committee's new Chairperson  at the close of the Committee's first meeting of each year. 
However, consultations were still ongoing on a slate of names of candidates interested in taking up 
the chairpersonships  of the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods. However , there was 
no agree ment as yet on the name of a candidate  to be the next Chair person  of the CRO. He proposed 
to inform all delegations by email  once a nominee had been  recommended . If no objections to the 
proposed name were received within a short-prescribed  time-frame, the new Chair person  would be 
deem ed to have been elected by acclamation by the Committee as of that date.  
It was agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
__________