G/RO/W/170  
 
12 September  2017 
(17-4828) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Rules of Origin    
 
 SUMMARY OF THE INFOR MATION SESSION ON  
NON-PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN – 2 MARCH  2017  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1. Introduction  
1.1 In the absence of negotiations on the Harmonization Work Programme (HWP), the 
Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) agreed to init iate an "educational exercise" to share 
experiences and learn more about the non -preferential rules of origin currently being applied by 
some WTO Members. The  Committee deemed, in fact, that a better understanding about the 
design, coverage and trade effec ts of existing non -preferential rules of origin would be useful to 
decide how to take forward its work on non -preferential rules of origin (G/RO/M/63).  Different 
information sessions have therefore been organized since 2015. During these sessions, Members  
heard presentations by representatives of different international organizations, professional 
associations and businesses (see summaries in G/RO/W/162 and G/RO/W/167). The  latest session 
was held on 2 March 2017. As agreed by Members (G/RO/M/66), this not e contains a brief 
summary of the main points made by the speakers who took part in that session.  
2. Mr. Stefano Inama, trade lawyer, Chief of Technical Cooperation and Enhanced 
Integrated Framework at the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development, U NCTAD (RD/RO/50)  
2.1 Mr. Inama explained that he would present the results of two distinct research projects on 
which he had been collaborating:  
 The first was a business survey conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers on the importance 
of non -preferential rul es of origin for the private sector. The conclusions were based on 
responses received from 16 companies in Switzerland and Germany and on interviews with  
the chamber s of commerce in both countries;  
 According to the responses received, 60% of firms said tha t non -preferential origin 
requirements were relevant. A higher proportion (80%), however, deemed preferential rules 
of origin to be more relevant for their businesses . This hierarchy would seem natural since 
compliance with preferential origin requirements  translated into concrete benefits (i.e. duty 
savings) whereas the benefits of complying with non -preferential origin requirements usually 
could not  be clearly identified by many companies;  
 In fact, only about a third of respondents could identify the link ages between the marking of 
country of origin and non -preferential rules of origin. In reality, most companies tended to 
realize the importance of non -preferential origin requirements only if these requirements 
had a negative impact on a transaction or shi pment;  
 With respect to certificates of origin. Companies also reported that the main reason why a 
certificate was needed stemmed from a request from: (1) customers; (2) the importing 
country; and/or (3) banks (for letters of credit). Some of the respondent s also complained 
about the cost s for obtaining a certificate. A majority of firms also reported that they would 
favour the wider utilization of self -certification;  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and  is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO . G/RO/W/ 170 
 
- 2 - 
 
   The survey suggested that a majority of firms would recommend  the simplification and the 
harmonization of rules of origin. Two options were cited to achieve that objective. The first, 
to adopt rules based on the last substantial transformation with detailed interpretative notes 
and a clear list of minimal processes. The second option was to glob ally develop IT tools to 
perform origin determinations in the most uniform and consistent manner;  
 The second study presented by Mr. Inama was work still being conducted in collaboration 
with the European University Institute. The aim of this research progr amme was to identify 
best practices and trade -simplifying options with respect to the design and draft of rules of 
origin. The study was actually a comparison between  the rules of origin drafted in the 
context of the CRO Harmonization Work Programme (HWP) and the rules  of origin  agreed to 
in four recent free trade agreements (FTA): the EU -Canada CETA; the EU -Korea FTA ; the 
US-Korea FTA; and the Transpacific Partnership (TPP). The purpose of this comparative wor k 
was to identify commonalities, trends  and pos sible best practices ; 
 The study showed that  product -specific rules in those agreements often converged with the 
HWP draft rules of origin , particularly in those products or sectors which were not 
commercially sensitive for the parties. Sometimes the rules were not designed or drafted in 
the same manner, but their intention and outcome was identical or very similar. Examples of 
convergence could be found, for instance, in the chemical sector (HS28.50) or in bicycles 
(HS870.12).  In other cases, however, parti cularly when the products were considered 
sensitive (e.g. fish products or clothing items), the rules diverged ; 
 The preliminary conclusions from that comparative work were that t here could be 
considerable scope for the international harmonization of rules of origin at the sectoral level. 
In a few sectors, harmonization seemed quite easy. In others, it would require some 
adjustment and discussion because of the different jargon and techniques used to draft rules 
of origin. Convergence in these sectors could reflect best practices and business preferences. 
Harmonization on these sectors would lead to the simplification of trade rules and could be 
useful to tackle more complex discussions about sectors in which there is no convergence.  
3. Mr. Ronan Quigley , Execut ive Director of Corporate Services at the British 
Chambers of Commerce  (RD/RO/51)  
3.1 Mr. Quigley explained that there were 52 Chambers in the United Kingdom (UK) and an 
additional 40 Chambers across the globe. The role of the Chambers was to support trade  and to 
promote the interests of over 75,000 member companies. He explained that the Chambers did not 
receive government support and needed to generate revenues to finance their activities. 
With respect to rules of origin, Chambers played an important role , particularly regarding the 
issuance of certificates of origin. Building on the experience of Chambers in the UK, Mr. Quigley 
made the following points:  
 In the UK, about 350 experts provided non -stop business services to companies engaged in 
import -export  operations. In 201 5, over 500 ,000 certificates of non -preferential origin and 
100,000 certificates of preferential origin had been issued. These certificates were mostly 
digitalised but customers could choose the format depending on their needs;  
 Chambers strived to apply high standards of service in issuing certificates . In that respect, 
the International Chamber of Commerce, through its Certification of Origin Council, had 
established an "International Certificates of Origin Accreditation Chain", based on  
"International Certificate of Origins Guidelines". The purpose of the guidelines was to 
promote international best practices and harmonize the procedures for the issuance of 
certificates to assure businesses, traders, banks and customs administrations of the 
integrity, transparency, independence and accountability of certificates.  In this manner, the 
chambers contributed to reducing uncertainty in international trade;  
 Despite these efforts, some uncertainty remained with regard to origin certification and 
origin determination in international trade. These uncertainties could be removed with the 
harmonization of non -preferential rules of origin at the global level. The trade simplifying 
potential of harmonization had been already proved at the regional level  (e.g. with the G/RO/W/170  
 
- 3 - 
 
  European Union (EU) Common Customs Code). If harmonization could be extended globally, 
even greater benefits should be expected;  
 Developing global standards for the determination of substantial transformation was 
particularly necessary give n the fact that firms were engaged in complex, sophisticated, 
global supply chains. In addition, g reater transparency and predictability through globally 
harmonized rules would also be timely and useful for UK firms as they faced the 
uncertainties resultin g from the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.  
__________