RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/68  
 
21 August 2017   
(17-4468) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 2 MARCH 2017  
CHAIRMAN: MR  CHIH-TUNG CHANG (CHINESE TAIPEI ) 
Subjects Discussed1 
1   WORK OF THE TECHNICA L COMMITTEE ON RULES  OF ORIGIN (TCRO) – 
REPORT BY A REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANI ZATION  ....................  1 
2   "EDUCATIONAL EXERCIS E" ON THE IMPACT OF EXISTING NON -
PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN (G/RO/W/162  AND G/RO/W/167)  ............................  2 
3   NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN: POSSIBLE P RINCIPLES AND 
GUIDELINE S TO STREAMLINE AND SIMPLIFY NON -PREFERENTIAL ORIGIN 
REQUIREMENTS (JOB/RO /6 AND JOB/RO/7) - REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN ....................  3 
4   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E 2015 MINISTERIAL D ECISION ON PREFERENT IAL 
RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS (WT/L/917/ADD.1 ) ................................ ...........................  4 
4.1   INFORMATION BY MEMBERS ABOUT MEASURES BEING TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE 
MINISTERIAL DECISION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
4.2   NOTIFICATION OF PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS AND NOTIFICATION 
OF PREFERENTIAL TRAD E DATA  ................................ ................................ ............................  5 
4.3   "TEMPLATE" FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN  ........................  6 
4.4   "UTILIZATION RATES" UNDER PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LDCS – 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT (G/RO/W/168)  ................................ ................................ ...........  7 
5   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX  II 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN  ................................ ................................ ...... 8 
6   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ..............................  8 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  9 
 
1  WORK OF THE TECHNICA L COMMITTEE ON RULES  OF ORIGIN (TCRO) – REPORT BY A 
REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E WORLD CUSTOMS ORGA NIZATION  
1.1.  The Chairman  invited Ms Mette AZZAM of the World Customs Organization (WCO) Secretariat 
to deliver the annual report  of activities of the WCO Technical Committee on Rules of Origin . 
1.2.  Ms Azzam reported that the Technical Committee on Rules of Origin (TCRO) had held its 35th 
Session in February 2017. During that session, WCO Members had adopted the 18th Periodic 
Report and  the 18th Annual Review on technical aspects and implementation of the WTO 
Agreement on Rules of Origin . The Annual Review  had been very short since the Harmonization 
Work Programme (HWP) had not been finalized and, therefore, no problems or specific quest ions 
had been referred to the TCRO.  
1.3.  Ms Azzam therefore reported on other aspects of the w ork of the WCO and the TCRO. 
In particular, she highlighted that the TCRO had adopted a new publication procedure for TCRO 
documents, aligning it to WTO practices  (i.e. documents would be made publicly available on the 
WCO website, unless the author of the document requested that it be kept confidential).  
                                                
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/ RO/5. G/RO/M/68  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.4.  In addition, s he informed Members that the WCO had prepared a new "Guide for Technical 
Update of Preferential Rules  of Origin". The Guide, which had been endorsed in 2015 by the 
Working Group on Revenue Compliance and Fraud, aimed at helping  Members update their rules of 
origin to reflect changes made to the Harmonized System.  
1.5.  Ms Azzam reported, furthermore, that the W CO favoured the harmonization of origin -related 
procedures to facilitate international trade . In this context, Phase III of the WCO Revenue Package 
Action Plan would promote the W CO guidelines  on origin certification;  on origin verification;  on 
advance rul ings; and  on customs infrastructure for classification, origin and valuation.  
These  guidelines str uck a balance between trade facilitation and the need for customs control in 
relation to imports and exports. These guidelines were available on the WCO websi te. 
1.6.  Finally, Ms Azzam informed Members that the WCO would hold a Global Origin Conference in 
collaboration with the African Union in Addis Ababa on 3-4 May 20 17. The objective of the event 
would be to provide a platform for sharing experience s on the impac t of regional integration, FTA 
utilization, and origin -related procedures .  
1.7.  The Committee took note  of this report.  
2  "EDUCATIONAL EXERCIS E" ON THE IMPACT OF EXISTING NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES 
OF ORIGIN (G/RO/W/16 2 AND G/RO/W/167)  
2.1.  The purpose of this agenda ite m, the Chairman  said, was to discuss possible ways to take 
forward the Committee's work on non -preferential rules of origin. H e recalled that all presentations 
made in the context of the various "information sessions" organized under the Committee's 
"educa tional exercise" had been circulated  (under the RD/RO/ series) . In addition, the Secretariat 
had also prepared summaries for reference  (G/RO/W/162 and G/RO/W/167)2.  
2.2.  With respect to this exercise, the Chairman said that the presentations had confirmed that  
non-preferential rules of origin remained an important trade policy instrument. 
Some  presentations had pointed to particular difficulties related to the lack of transparency and 
poor access to the relevant legislation, uncertainty about obligations regard ing country -of-origin 
labelling, differences in origin outcomes depending on the applicable rule and difficulties related to 
certification and verification. Given the wealth of views presented, the Chairman had thought that 
it would be useful for Members t o take stock of this exercise . Therefore , he welcomed hearing 
Members ' views about what the Committee's next steps  should be . 
2.3.  While additional  information  sessions could be organized, he said that repetition should be 
avoided. Hence, if additional speakers  were to be invited, he would recommend a more thematic 
approach (e.g. labelling, product or sector -specific rules, trade remedies or certification). 
Alternatively, he said, Members could make presentations themselves to learn from each other's 
practices. An alternative to additional information sessions was to discuss specific 
recommendations made by speakers.  The Chairman did not h ave a specific proposal to make  and 
welcomed Members' views.  
2.4.  In response, t he representative of the  United States  said that hi s delegation concurred that 
the information session s had indeed been educational and useful. He also agreed that it would be 
useful to take stock of this exercise, particularly as some issues being discussed, such as labelling 
and trade remedies, were sens itive and therefore required guidance  from colleagues in capitals. 
Given the well -known position of his delegation on the HWP, he believed that technical work would 
likely not lead to any progress. However, his delegation did welcome an opportunity to refl ect 
further about these issues and maybe find ways to side-step the difficulties related to the 
implications issue in the HWP.  
2.5.  The Chairman  agreed that HWP faced major difficulties. However, he argued  that the 
Committee should explore innovative ways to ad vance its work on non -preferential rules of origin. 
In conclusion, he proposed to revert to this matter again at the Committee's next meeting.  
2.6.  The Committee  agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
                                                
2 A summary for the information session of 2 March 2017 is also available in document G/RO/W/170.  G/RO/M/68  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3  NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN: POSSIBLE P RINCIPLES AND GUIDEL INES  TO 
STREAMLINE AND SIMPL IFY NON -PREFERENTIAL ORIGIN REQUIREMENTS  (JOB/RO/6 
AND JOB/RO/7) - REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN 
3.1.  The Chairman  reported that informal discussions regarding two papers circulated by the 
delegation of Switzerland (JOB/RO/6 and JOB/RO/7) had b een held  at the end of 2016 . 
The papers , which  called for possible "Principles and guidelines to streamline non -preferential rules 
of origin" , had injected new momentum to the Committee's work on non -preferential rules of 
origin. The Agreement was built , he said, on the premise that clear and predictable rules of origin 
would facilitate international trade and that rules of origin should not create  unnecessary obstacles 
to trade. These objectives remained relevant and, in his view, the CRO had the potential  to reach 
outcomes that met these objectives - even in the absence of full harmonization. He reported that 
the objective of these discussions  was not to replace harmonized rules but rather to explore 
pragmatic solutions to facilitate compliance with non-preferential origin  requirements . He therefore 
thanked the delegation of Switzerland  for their innovative approach. During the consultations  held 
at the end of 2016 , the delegation of Switzerland had shown openness to receiving contributions 
from other deleg ations. Several delegations had welcomed Switzerland's approach but some 
delegations asked questions about the objectives of the papers. Finally, t he Chair man said that he 
was ready to support Members in their efforts to find ways of advancing the work of the CRO . 
3.2.  The representative of Switzerland  agreed and mentioned that the intention of his delegation 
was indeed to build on recommendations made during the educational exercise to move the work 
of the Committee ahead. Switzerland's objective was to facilit ate international trade by reducing 
trade barriers related to non -preferential rules of origin and in particular, to reduce compliance 
costs that were induced by the complexity and divergence of non -preferential origin requirements. 
He reported that a smal l group of Members had been meeting informally to discuss these issues. 
He hoped to make progress in that setting and report back to the full membership in the 
Committee as soon as possible. Finally, he said that any delegation willing to participate 
const ructively in these  discussions would be welcome . 
3.3.  The representative of the World Customs Organization  thanked Switzerland for their initiative 
and agreed that customs administrations supported any efforts to harmonize whatever could be 
harmonized within th e area of origin. She agreed that harmonizing rules of origin had proved 
difficult, but argued that streamlining and harmonizing at least origin -related procedures would be 
useful. The WCO had therefore worked closely with Members to develop a number of gu idelines.  
The guidelines on both origin certification, non -preferential and preferential, and origin verification 
were available to Members and the public on the website of the WCO. Although they were not 
binding, they could help Members in their daily wo rk. The implementation of these guidelines could 
facilitate trade . Finally, she noted that it was important to avoid duplicating work.  
3.4.  The representative of the United States  appreciated Switzerland's efforts and said that it 
would be useful to continue to  develop Members' understanding about the Swiss approach and 
how it differed from the previous HWP. In spite of Switzerland's clarification, t here seemed  to be 
some overlap between the proposal and the HWP . Moreover, he wondered whether these principles 
and guidelines would be considered by Members only if and when they undertook to reform their 
national non -preferential rules of origin.  
3.5.  The representative of South Africa  agreed that the educational exercise had proved useful 
and thanked Switzerland for the ir efforts to build on this exercise. She said that the harmonization 
of non -preferential rules of origin remained a very important objective and that Members should 
carefully consider whether their efforts responded to the objectives of Part IV of the Agr eement on 
Rules of Origin. In this sense, she would favour  a discussion about the implications issue, the dual 
rule for machinery and the reasons why the HWP had stalled. She said that it was important that 
Members had a clear and common understanding abou t the objectives of their work.  
3.6.  The representative of the European Union  agreed that the educational exercise had been 
useful  and thanked the delegation of Switzerland for their efforts to build on the recommendations 
of this exercise. The EU was deeply co mmitted to the principles established in the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin and stood ready to engage at any time in the HWP. While harmonized rules were 
an essential instrument for trade facilitation, the EU also understood that progress on the HWP 
wasn't f easible for the moment. As a result, her delegation stood ready to contribute constructively 
to exploring pragmatic alternatives.  G/RO/M/68  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.7.  The representative of China  welcomed the Swiss initiative. China supported the objective of 
streamlining non -preferential rule s of origin. In fact, he suggested that Members should consider 
applying the non -preferential rules of origin on which Members had found consensus and notifying 
the Secretariat accordingly.  
3.8.  For the representative of Thailand , the educational exercise had highlighted important 
problems, in particular the discrepancy in rules of origin and certification requirements among 
WTO Members. These divergences had created unnecessary burden s for the private sector .  
In order to reduce compliance costs associated with  non-preferential rules of origin and to facilitate 
trade, Members should streamline and simplify their origin -related rules and  procedures. 
Thailand  therefore supported Switzerland's efforts to identify and eliminat e trade barriers related 
to non -preferen tial rules of origin.  
3.9.  The representative of Canada  appreciated Switzerland's creative exploration of alternatives to 
take forward the work of the Committee on non -preferential origin. While Canada would not 
support re -starting the HWP, his delegation was w illing to explore ideas on work that could be 
useful . In this sense, he agreed that it would be important to have a shared understanding about 
the objectives and the mandate of any further work.  
3.10.   In response, the representative of Switzerland  agreed that delegations should avoid 
duplicating work. Wherever possible, existing instruments or guidelines could be used or referred 
to. In fact , the new WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement also contained origin -related provisions 
which did not need to be repeated. He be lieved, however, that there was ample scope to identify 
areas where additional provisions and disciplines could be useful. In addition, he confirmed that his 
delegation was not proposing to restart negotiations for the harmonization of non -preferential 
rules of origin. His delegation had been inspired by the successful format of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs and thought that  Members could agree on best 
practices towards which all Members could progressively conver ge. He further stated that his 
delegation's intention was to work perfectly within the mandate and objectives of the Agreement 
on Rules of Origin. Finally, he said that further discussions with Members would be useful to clarify 
these  elements.  
3.11.   In conclusi on, the Chairman  encouraged delegations to engage in substantive discussions to 
identify areas where work was possible and useful. He encouraged interested delegations to reflect 
about this initiative and to work with the delegation of Switzerland to colle ctively draft a paper that 
could be considered in the CRO . 
3.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed accordingly  
4  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E 2015 MINISTERIAL D ECISION ON PREFERENT IAL RULES 
OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS ( WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
4.1.  The Chairm an recalled that the Ministerial Decision contained several items which required 
follow -up action by the Committee . He proposed to take each item individually.  
4.1  INFORMATION  BY MEMBERS ABOUT MEASURES BEING TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE 
MINISTERIAL DECISION  
4.2.  The Chairman reminded Members that paragraph 4.2 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision 
required preference -granting Members to inform the Committee about the measures being taken 
in order to implement the provisions of the Decision. In the case of developed country Members, 
this informatio n was due by 31 December 2016. Accordingly, t he Chair man reported that the 
Secretariat had circulated communications from Switzerland (G/ RO/79) ; Japan (G/RO/81) ; 
Canada  (G/RO/82) ; and the United States (G/RO/83) .  In addition, Austr alia; the European Union; 
and Norway had also made oral statements to that effect duri ng the CRO meeting of 
September  2016 (Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.7 of G/RO/M/67 ). The Secretariat ha d not received any 
communication from developing country preference -granting Members.  
4.3.  The representative of Norway  said that his delegation wished to update Members on the 
recent work conducted by his government for the implementation of the Ministerial Decision. 
He reported that a n inter-Ministerial working group  had examined the Norwegian GSP scheme in G/RO/M/68  
 
- 5 - 
 
  light of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision  and, as a result, had decided to expand cumulation 
possibilities (i.e. among LDCs). In addition, he recalled that Norway, similarly to the EU and 
Switzerland, had started to implement the RE X System introducing self -certification for registered 
exporters. Finally, he said that the examination was still ongoing and that his delegation would 
keep the Committee informed about any future reforms.  
4.4.  The representative of China  reported that, followi ng an active examination of the Ministerial 
Decision, the General Administration of Customs had issued, on 1 March, an amendment to the 
2013 regulations on preferential tariff treatment for LDCs. The new amendment had introduced a 
series of improvements. F irst, it had expanded cumulation possibilities (i.e. between China and the 
beneficiary countries and between LDC countries and other members of a regional group ). 
Second,  it had simplified the documentary requirements for country -of-origin certification, a llowing 
for declaration by the importer based on any advance origin ruling issued by the customs 
administration of China.  Third, it had introd uced a de minimis  value for low -value shipments 
(not more than 6,000 Yuan ) for which no certification would be req uired. Finally, a system of 
electronic certification was being rolled out to further simplify certification procedures.  
4.5.  The representative of Cambodia , on behalf of the LDC Group  (hereafter referred to as "the 
Group") , thanked the Chair man, Members and the  Secretariat for their commitment to 
implementing  the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. He said that the timely and effective implementation 
of the Decision was  a primary concern for the LDC g roup. Consequently, the LDCs encouraged all 
preference -granting Memb ers to provide the Secretariat with all the necessary information and 
data for a substantive discussion on preferential rules of origin in the CRO. He proposed  the 
adoption by Members of the template for the notification of preferential rules of origin as revised 
by the LDCs (G/RO/W/160/Rev.3). In this connection, the Group asked the Committee to agree 
that all notifications prepared using this template should be submitted by 19 May 2017. In 
addition, he noted that, according to the Secretariat (G/RO/W/163/ Rev.2), several Members had 
not provided the necessary preferential trade statistics for the calculation of utilization rates by the 
Secretariat. He urged all Members to promptly comply with these notifica tion obligations. Finally, 
the G roup proposed to ho ld a dedicated session of the CRO in June 2017  to review these 
notifications and to hold a discussion about specific aspects and recent developments related to 
preferential rules of origin for LDCs.  
4.6.  In response, the representative of the United States  said that there had not yet been any 
agreement on a deadline for the submission of the templates. Nor had there been an agreement to 
hold a separate dedicated session of the Committee. Moreover, he said, that the LDCs should 
consider preparing an indicative or  draft programme so that other delegations had a better idea of 
the purpose and content of the dedicated session.  
4.7.  The representatives of Bangladesh  and of Tanzania  thanked Members for the ir efforts to 
implement the Ministerial Decision. They invited Member s to submit their reports of measures 
being taken to implement the Decision in writing for greater accuracy and transparency.  
4.8.  In conclusion, the Chairman encourage d all preference -granting Members to carefully 
examine the benchmarks and provisions of the B ali and the Nairobi Ministerial Decisions and to 
consider specific reforms to implement both Decisions.  He also encourage d Members to keep the 
Committee informed about all efforts being made in this respect.  
4.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
4.2  NOTIFICATION OF PREFER ENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS  AND NOTIFICATION 
OF PREFERENTIAL TRADE DATA  
4.10.   The Chairman  recalled that d ocument G/RO/W/163/Rev. 2 contain ed the latest status of 
notifications of (LDC) preferential rules of origin and preferential trad e data. He reported that, 
since the issuance of the document, additional data had been received from the Republic of Korea 
and Thailand.  
4.11.   The representative of Tanzania  thanked those Members who had submitted the necessary 
tariff and trade information and u rged other preference -granting Members to comply with these G/RO/M/68  
 
- 6 - 
 
  notification and transparency obligations. He said that the Committee could consider discussing 
and adopting a deadline for the submission of all the outstanding data.  
4.12.   The representative of Chines e Taipei  noted that his delegation  had worked hard to submit 
import trade statistics for the 2010 to 2015 period  and that it was now preparing tariff and trade 
data for more recent years . He noted, however, that only eight other preference -granting 
Members  had submitted their import data to the WTO. He encouraged all other 
preference -granting Members to submit the necessary import data to the Secretariat as soon as 
possible in order to fulfil the ir obligations under the Transparency Mechanism for  Preferenti al Trade 
Arrangements.  
4.13.   The representative of Switzerland  informed the Committee that his government was 
committed to submitting the data and that it was holding internal discussions to prepare the 
necessary data. There was, however, little clarity about wh en this internal process would conclude. 
As a result, his preference would be for the Committee not to adopt any deadline in that respect.  
4.14.   Likewise, the representative of Japan  agreed that import trade data was an important 
element  for a discussion about u tilization rates and the efficiency o f preferential arrangements. 
He said that his government was working towards the submission of in formation regarding Japan's 
preferences.  
4.15.   The representative of China  reported that he had been in touch with colleagues in  capital 
and he believed that his delegation would soon be in a position to provide the missing data to the 
Secretariat.  
4.16.   The Chairman  encouraged Members who had not yet submitted their import statistics to 
work with the Secretariat so that they could do so  as soon as possible.  
4.17.   The Committee  took note  of the statements made.  
4.3  "TEMPLATE " FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN  
4.18.   The Chairman  recalled that, according to the Nairobi Decision, a template for the notification 
of preferential rules of or igin should be used to enhance transparency and promote a better 
understanding of rules of origin applicable to LDCs. A draft template had been proposed and 
revised by the LDCs in light of formal and informal discussions which had taken place in 2016.  
4.19.   The representative of Tanzania  reported that consultations had been conducted on the 
template  and that all the remaining reservations  on the template  could be lifted . The main change 
which had been introduced was the explicit acknowledgement that Internet link s or other WTO 
documents could be referenced in the template, if appropriate. As a consequence, he asked the 
Committee to officially adopt the template.   
4.20.   The representative s of the United States , Chile, and the Republic of Korea  confirmed that, 
following the latest revision s made to  the template, their delegation s were ready to adopt it.  
4.21.   The Chairman  therefore asked Members to adopt the latest revision of the template 
contained in document G/RO/W/160/Rev.3 . 
4.22.   The Committee adopted  the final template ( issued subsequently as document G/RO/84) . 
4.23.   The Chairman  then requested  Members' views with respect to the date by which all 
preference -granting Members should complete and submit the template  to the Secretariat.  
4.24.   The representative of Tanzania  said that the Group p referred to receive all notifications 
under the template before holding a dedicated CRO session . In fact, one of the objectives of the 
session would be to review current practices in light of the requirements of the Nairobi Decision.  
4.25.   The representative of Norway  reported that, having consulted his colleagues in capital, a 
period of three months would be necessary for the completion  and submission of the template . G/RO/M/68  
 
- 7 - 
 
  This would mean setting a deadline sometime in June  and, therefore, delaying the proposed 
dedic ated discussion to an appropriate date after that . 
4.26.   The representative of Canada  welcomed the adoption of a new template and the agreement 
by all Members to provide information about their schemes using the template. He recalled that 
the Nairobi Decision di d not require re -submitting information which had already been notified in 
the past. He also noted that a number of Members had not yet notified their rules of origin in full 
or provided the necessary import statistics. Furthermore, he invited the Group to  consider the 
scope of the exercise the Committee was engaged in. It was important to clarify whether the focus 
of a dedicated session would be compliance with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision or whether it 
would be a general exercise  to review  and compar e Members' current practices. A draft agenda 
would be useful to allow delegations to consult their capital  about these possible objectives . 
4.27.   In conclusion, the Chair man proposed to hold informal consultations on the possible 
deadline for submission of the te mplate by preference -granting Members and on the objectives of 
a dedicated session on preferential rules of origin3. 
4.28.   It was so agreed . 
4.4  "UTILIZATION  RATES " UNDER PREFERENTIAL TRADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LDCS – 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT (G/RO/W/168 ) 
4.29.   The Chairman  reminded Members that, at the end of last year, the Committee had held 
informal consultations on modalities for the calculation of utilization rates.  After consultations, 
Members had adopted the methodology proposed by the Secretariat (paragraph 3.2(a) of 
G/RO/W/161). This modality compared the value of imports which benefitted from preferences 
with the value of total imports which would have been eligible for preferences. Hence, only tariff 
lines where there was a tariff preference were taken into account ( that is, tariff lines that were 
either excluded from the preferential scheme or for which the MFN rate was zero were excluded 
from the calculations). The Chair man further reported that, as a result of the adoption of these 
modalities, the Secretariat had p repared a first draft report of utilization rates (G/RO/W/168). He 
asked Members to focus their comments on the format of the report, so that the Secretariat could 
fine-tune the document for a more substantive discussion later in the year.  
4.30.   The representati ve of Bangladesh  said that utilization rates were a useful tool to examine 
preferential trade flows and the restrictiveness of rules of origin. He said that LDC countries could 
use the Secretariat report to further research why some of them were not utiliz ing preferences 
which, in principle, would be available to them.  
4.31.   The representative of Tanzania  agreed. He said that rules of origin were not the only reason 
which could justify low utilization rates, but they were a central element in the effectiveness of  
preferences. When ever utilization rates were low, LDC delegations should consult their colleagues 
in capital and private sector representatives to enquire about possible reasons, including restrictive 
rules of origin or origin certification requirements.  
4.32.   The representative of Norway  asked the Secretariat to explain why certain cells in the tables 
were empty while others showed a "zero".  
4.33.   The Secretariat  (Mr. Thomas Verbeet) clarified that empty cells referred to instances in 
which there was no trade registe red under preferential items. A cell could thus be empty because 
there was no preference for it (for instance, if the MFN tariff rates were zero). In the case of cells 
showing "zero", the items covered were eligible for a preference, but exports reported b y that 
Member did not us e the preference. In sum, cells with a figure showed utilization rates from nil 
(zero) to full (100%) whereas cells with no numbers showed that no trade flows were registered  
for the lines eligible for preferences . 
4.34.   The representativ e of the Republic of Korea  asked whether the figures shown were simple or 
weighted averages.  
                                                
3 At subsequent con sultations, preference -granting Members agreed to submit the template (G/RO/84) 
by 30 June 2017.  G/RO/M/68  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.35.   The Secretariat  (Mr. Thomas Verbeet) clarified that all figures shown were simple averages.  
4.36.   For the representative of the United States , the Secretariat report wo uld be more useful if it 
incorporated data not only for the US GSP scheme, but also for the US AGOA or HOPE 
programmes. AGOA, particularly, had intense trade flows, which were currently not reflected in the 
report. While this was somewhat acknowledged in p aragraph 7 of the report, the tables did not 
reflect that.  In addition, he said that capital -based colleagues had not yet had a chance to review 
the report in detail, and said  that he would be forwarding additional suggestions for improvement 
to the Secret ariat. 
4.37.   The representative of Canada  agreed that the report was useful  but that it would be a more 
relevant instrument if it reported more comprehensive information. In other words, it could show 
the utilization rates not only for the GSP but also for speci alized programmes, such as Canada's 
scheme for Haiti.  
4.38.   For the representative of the Russian Federation , information about additional schemes 
could be shown provided  that they were clearly segregated. In fact, each preferential scheme had 
its own specific o rigin requirements and, as a result, utilization rates needed to be correlated with 
these specific requirements.  
4.39.   The Secretariat  (Mr. Darlan Marti) explained  that utilization rates did not allow to distinguish 
cases in which the rule of origin itself was o verly strict from cases in which the rule could be 
complied with but other requirements were not met (e.g. certification of origin or direct 
consignment of goods). Similarly, from the report it was not possible to know if other, more 
preferential schemes w ere being utilized. In fact, it was plausible to assume that low utilization 
rates for Haiti in the Canadian scheme could be explained by the fact that another, more specific 
and more preferential programme was available. For consistency purposes, the curr ent report 
showed utilization rates exclusively for LDC duty schemes defined in the sense of the 2005 Hong 
Kong Ministerial Decision (the "duty -free, quota -free Decision"). The Secretariat remained open  to 
revise the report provided that the necessary data  was available.  
4.40.   In conclusion, the Chairman  proposed that Members take note of the comments made. 
He asked the Secretariat to consult preference -granting Members and  to adjust  and improve  the 
note as necessary in light of Members' comments. Finally, he pr oposed to hold a more substantive 
discussion about a revised version of report at the  next CRO meeting . 
4.41.   It was so agreed . 
5  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 5 AND UNDER PARAGRAPH 4 OF ANNEX  II OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON RULES O F ORIGIN  
5.1.  The Chairman  informed Members that , on the basis of  notifications made to date, 
48 Members applied non -preferential origin requirements while 54 Members did not. Thirty -four 
Members still needed to notify their practices to the Secretariat. In addition, he informed Members 
that the Secreta riat had updated the rules of origin page of the WTO website in order to list all 
notifications received to date. The purpose of this update was to allow Members and the public to 
directly access notifications and legislation on non -preferential rules of o rigin. The Chair invited 
Members to check the new website and to ensure that their notifications were up to date so that 
the information displayed in the WTO website was accurate.  
5.2.  It was so agreed . 
6  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
6.1.  The Chairman informed Members that th e General Council had elected its new Chairman but 
that Members had not been able to finalize the selection process for the Chairpersons of other 
WTO bodies, including the Council for Trade in Goods and its subsidiary bodies, including the CRO. 
Having rega rd to this situation, he proposed to delay the election of the new Chairperson until 
consensus was found on the name of a possible Chair man for the CRO. He would ask the 
Secretariat to send a fax to Members confirming the name of the proposed Chairperson a nd G/RO/M/68  
 
- 9 - 
 
  indicating a time -frame for comments. The candidate would be deemed elected by the Committee 
if no objection was received within the prescribed time -frame.  
6.2.  The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  The Chairman  proposed that the next meeting of the CRO b e scheduled for 4 and 
5 October  2017.  
 
__________