RESTRICTED  
  
G/RO/M/67  
 
15 December 2016 
(16-6833) Page: 1/10 
Committ ee on Rules of Origin    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 22 SEPTEMBER  2016  
CHAIRMAN: MR  CHIH-TUNG CHANG (CHINESE TAIPEI ) 
Subjects Discussed1 
1   HARMONIZATION OF NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN - EDUCATIONAL 
EXERCISE ABOUT EXIST ING NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN  ..............................  1 
2   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON RUL ES OF ORIGIN  ................................  3 
3   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E 2015  MINISTERIAL DECISION  ON PREFERENTIAL 
RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS (WT/L/917/ADD.1 ) ................................ ...........................  3 
3.1   NOTIFICATION OF PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS AND NOTIFICATION 
OF PREFERENTIAL TRADE DATA  ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
3.2   "TEMPLATE" FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN  ........................  4 
3.3   MODALITIES FOR THE CALCULATION OF "PREFERENCE UTILIZAT ION" – NOTE BY 
THE SECRETARIAT (G/RO/W/161)  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
3.4   ACCESSING PREFERENTIAL TRADE DATA: THE "TARIFF ANALYSIS ONLINE 
FACILITY" – PRESENTATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  ................................ ................................ . 7 
4   REVIEW OF NEW DEVELO PMENTS IN RELATION T O PREFERENTIAL RULES  OF 
ORIGIN FOR LEAST DEV ELOPED COUNTRIES  ................................ ................................ ... 7 
4.1   THE NEW "REX" SYSTEM OF ORIGIN CERTIFICATION I N THE EU GSP SCHEME – 
PRESENTATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................ ................................ .............  8 
4.2   DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN 
PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS (G/RO/W/164)  ................................ ....................  9 
5   TWENTY -SECOND ANNUAL REVIEW  OF THE IMPLEMENTATIO N AND 
OPERATION OF THE AGR EEMENT  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
6   ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COMMITTEE TO THE COU NCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
 
1  HARMONIZATION OF NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN - EDUCATIONAL 
EXERCISE ABOUT EXIST ING NON -PREFERENTIAL RULES O F ORIGIN  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that in the context of the Committee's  "educational exercise ", 
"information session s" had been organized in April and in September 2016 (presentations and 
summaries available in documents RD/RO/36, RD/RO/37, R D/RO/38, RD/RO/3 9, G/RO/W/162 , 
RD/RO/40, RD/RO/41, RD/RO/42, RD/RO/43, RD/RO/45, RD/RO/46, RD/RO/47 and G/RO/W/167 ). 
It was the Chair's opinion  that these sessions had been very informative . In particular, they had 
highlighted that the multiplication of national rules had  created a complex and costly regulatory 
and compliance environment  for companies . The sessions had also highlighted  that the difficulties 
with non -preferential origin relate d not only to the diversity of the rules , but also  to related 
requirements , such a s labelling  and certification. The Chair therefore proposed that Members 
advance this exercise  by discussing possible lessons to identify future areas of work. He suggested  
                                                
1 The agenda of the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/ RO/4. G/RO/M/67  
 
- 2 - 
 
  moving  forward by discussing specific topics, such as labelling, ce rtification or a nti-dumping. 
He also proposed to hear more from delegations about their own national requirements and 
practices.  
1.2.  The representative of Switzerland  confirmed that the information sessions had been useful 
and stressed the fact that greater transparency and i nformation sharing could help Members 
assess the benefits of designing clear  and predictable non -preferential rules of origin. In general , 
his delegation continued to believe  that the harmonization of  non-preferential rules of origin would 
be useful . The i nformation sessions showed that the lack of harmonization had increased the costs 
of complying with origin requirements, created barriers to global value chains  and created 
difficulties particularly  for developing -country micro, small and medium enterprise s (MSMEs ). 
Despite the difficulties the Committee  had met in harmonizing rules of origin , he believed , that the 
objectives and principles of that work were still relevant . Switzerland thus proposed to initiate 
fresh discussions about principles and guideli nes to streamline non -preferential rules of origin. 
Discussions could be articulated around  questions : first, how could global value chains and the 
needs of MSMEs be reflected in non -preferential rules of origin? Second, what could be done to 
reduce compli ance costs? Third, what could be learnt from practices in regional trade agreements 
(RTAs)? Fourth, how could non -preferential rules of origin be reformed to take advantage of the 
digitalization of the economy? The representative of Switzerland said that t hese questions would 
be circulated in writing for further reflection by Members.  
1.3.  The representative of the European Union  (EU) agreed  that the educational exercise and the 
information sessions had been us eful. As a result, her delegation would favour conti nuing it, 
including with presentations by Members themselves, provided that a sufficiently large  number of 
delegations took part in th e exercise . 
1.4.  Similarly, t he representative of the Republic of Korea  said that his delegation would also be in 
favour of con tinuing the educational exercise and exploring ways to address problems related to 
non-preferential rules of origin and their harmonization.  
1.5.  For the representative of Chinese Taipei , Switzerland had r aised interesting questions. 
He believed that the Commit tee could discuss ways to reduce the burden of non -preferential rules 
of origin for companies and SMEs, particularly through the use of digital technology.  
1.6.  The representative of the Philippines  also noted that the sessions  had been very useful. 
She pointed  out that some speakers had highlighted the difficulties of complying with a complex 
web of rules of origin . She also noted that there had been calls for the simplification of  origin 
requirements. As a result, her  delegation would favour continuing with th e educational exercise, 
specifically trying to identify the possible benefits of harmonization.  
1.7.  For the delegation of El Salvador , the information sessions had been  very instructive and 
should be used to identify  priority areas of work for the Committee. F or instance, her delegation 
was interested in learning more about the linkages between rules of origin and labelling and/or 
anti-dumping.  In addition, her delegation was open to considering the proposal made by 
Switzerland and looked forward to studying i t in greater detail.  
1.8.  The representative s of Guatemala  and Mexico  agreed that the educational exercise had been  
useful and that it should be continued.  For the delegation of Mexico, the educational exercise could 
try to assess , with greater precision , the c osts of complying with non-preferential  origin  
requirements . 
1.9.  The educational exercise had also been useful in the view of the delegations of South Africa  
and India.  For both delegations, it should continue through sep arate information sessions. 
The Committ ee could identify  specific issues from the se sessions which could be incorporated into 
its regular work.  This assessment was shared by the delegation of Brazil . In addition, Brazil 
pointed out that some of the issues raised by Switzerland were being discus sed in other WTO 
bodies. For instance, MSMEs  were the object of a proposal to the General Council which was still 
under consideration. However, Brazil would not oppose examining the impact of rules of origin on 
MSMEs in the context of the educational exerc ise. G/RO/M/67  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.10.   The Chair man thanked delegations for their support and therefore proposed to organize 
another information session. If speakers of the private sector were invited, the presentations 
would take place in a separate session, as had been done so far . He thus invited delegations to 
recommend speakers to the Secretariat.  He also proposed to make some time for presentations 
by Members. Finally, he invited Switzerland to circulate  its ideas in writing  so that further 
consultations could be organized . 
1.11.   The Commi ttee agreed  to proceed accordingly . 
2  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON RUL ES OF ORIGIN  
2.1.  The Chairman  reported that a number of new notifications had been received and circulated 
(G/RO/N/42/Rev.1 and G/RO/N/141, G/RO/N/142, G/RO/N/143, G/RO/N/144, G/RO/N/1 45, 
G/RO/N/146, G/RO/N/147, and G/RO/N/148 ). These notifications cover ed both preferential and 
non-preferential rules of origin. On the basis of these notificati ons, 47 Members implemented 
non-preferential origin requirements and 56 Members did not. A full list of notifications received, 
including a list of Members who had never submitted a notification to the Committee  had been 
made available (G/RO/W/165 , Annex ). 
2.2.  The Chairman  reported , furthermore,  that the Secretariat had advanced its work to update  
the W TO page on rules of origin and added a list of  notified  non-preferential rules of origin. He also 
mentioned that information about rules of origin was being integrated to the WTO Integrated 
Trade Intelligence Portal (I -TIP) of non -tariff measures.  
2.3.  The Comm ittee took note  of new notifications and the Chair's report . 
3  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E 2015 MINISTERIAL D ECISION ON PREFERENT IAL RULES 
OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS ( WT/L/917/ADD.1)  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the Nairobi Decision on preferential rules of origin for LDCs 
contained a number of specific areas in which the Committee h ad been asked to conduct follow -up 
work. He proposed to take  up each of these items in turn . 
3.1  NOTIFICATION OF PREFER ENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS  AND NOTIFICATION 
OF PREFERENTIAL TRADE DATA  
3.2.  The Chairman  recalled that p reference -giving Members had to notify data regarding their 
preferential imports from LDCs in accordance with the Transparency Mechanism for Preferential 
Trade Arrangements (WT/L/806, Annex I). In addition, the rules of origin appli ed to LDCs under 
preferences had to be notified. Documents G/RO/W/163 and G/RO/W/163/Corr.1 summarized the 
latest status of notifications for both notification obligations . 
3.3.  The Secretariat explained that compliance with notification obligations of preferen tial rules of 
origin and preferential trade data had been  uneven and that information was missing for a 
significant number of Members.  While some Members had made specific notifications describing 
their preferential rules of origin for LDCs to the Committe e, others had notified their rules as part 
of the more general notification of preferences to the Committee on Trade and Development 
(CTD). Not all notifications contained were comprehensive or contained sufficiently detailed 
information , so it was not always possible to identify product -specific rules, cumulation 
possibilities, certification  requirements, etc . Furthermore , with respect to preferential tr ade data, 
only seven preference -granting Members had provided the necessary data to the Secretariat.  
3.4.  The delegations of Norway , Canada  and the European Union thanked the Secretariat for 
consolidating the information in a single report and regretted that only seven of 21 Members had 
provided data regarding their preferential imports from LDCs, which was a ver y unsatisfactory 
state of affairs.  The EU also pointed out that the examination of the schemes of several 
preference -granting Members was also pending in the CTD. She urged all delegations concerned to 
provide the necessary information  to the Secretariat s o that this work could be carried forward . 
3.5.  The delegation of Benin  underlined the importance of transparency to better un derstand  
origin requirements and improve  the ability of LDCs to utilize preferences. He appealed to all G/RO/M/67  
 
- 4 - 
 
  developed and developing prefer ence-granting Members to make comprehensive notifications of 
both the ir rules and trade data.  
3.6.  The delegation of Cambodia , represented by  H.E. Mr. Sorasak Pan, Minister of Trade from the 
Kingdom of Cambodia,  reiterated the importance of the timely implement ation of the Nairobi 
Decision, particularly as delegations looked at regenerating  their commitments at the next WTO 
Ministerial Conference (MC11). Preferential rules of origin for LDCs was one aspect of the broader 
Nairobi LDC Package and  a key component o f the work leading up to MC11. That was the context 
against which compliance with notification requirements and the new template for notifications 
should be assessed. In addition, the calculation and examination of utilization rates were precious 
tools for  transparency and fuller utilization of trade preferences.  It was therefore crucial that 
preference -granting Members notified their preferential trade imports from LDCs to the 
Secretariat. His delegation called upon preference -granting Members to simplify  their rules of 
origin and adapt them to global value chains. Cambodia had greatly benefited from rules requiring 
only a single transformation (for instance in textiles and clothing ) so an equally simple criterion 
should be adopted for other products of ex port interest to LDCs. Identifying such possibilities for 
simplification should be the main task of the Committee . In addition, i n the absence of simple 
rules, cumulation was an essential element which helped businesses in LDCs to meet origin 
requirements.  To illustrate this point, his delegation had invited Mr. John Edwards, CEO of a 
bicycle company in Cambodia, to address the Committee . 
3.7.  Mr. Edwards mentioned that his company had manufactured bicycles in Cambodia for 
12 years. However, changes in the EU's preferential origin requirements had eroded his company's 
ability to utilize preferences. In fact, since 2004, cumulation with other ASEAN countries had been 
prohibited either because some countries in the region had been excluded from the EU's GSP 
scheme or because some of them had concluded a free trade agreement w ith the EU. 
These  changes had diminished the value of these preferences . Such difficulties could be avoided by 
simplifying the European rule and adopt ing a single transformation criterion or by allowing 
extended cumulation (that is, cumulation with countries with which the EU had concluded a free 
trade agreement).  
3.8.  The delegations of the People's Democratic Republic of Lao  and of Myanmar  supported the 
statement made by Cambodia and reiterated the importance of simple rules and wide cumulation. 
The delegation of Senegal  highlighted the importance of having access to a comprehensive set of 
notifications and preferential trade data. The delegation of Tanzania  reported, in addition, that the 
LDC Group had been discussing specific improvements to rules of origin  with some 
preference -granting country delegations . 
3.9.  In conclusion, the Chairman  urged all preference -granting Members to ensure that they had 
notified their preferential rules of origin to the Sec retariat. Even if a general notification had 
already been sent to the CTD, it w ould be worth sending a separate , more specific and more 
detailed  notification to the Committee . In addition, he urged preference -granting Members to 
submit data regarding their  preferential imports from LDCs at the tariff line level. Delegations that 
were unsure about how to prepare such notifications were invited to contact the Secretariat for 
assistance.  
3.10.   The Committee  took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed acco rdingly.  
3.2  "TEMPLATE " FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN  
3.11.   The Chairman  recalled  that the Nairobi  Decision required the Committee to agree on a 
template for the notification of preferential rules of origin "to enhance transparency and promote  a 
better understanding of the rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs". He also recalled that 
the LDC group had submitted a first draft template (G/RO/W/160), which had been considered in 
informal consultations on 16 September. Most delegations seemed to think that the draft template 
was useful . However, some  specific suggestions had been made, particularly with a view to 
simplifying the fields and avoiding duplication . The Chairman had therefore asked  the LDCs if they 
had considered these suggesti ons and revised their draft template.  
3.12.   The delegation of Bangladesh  reported that, having considered the comments made during 
the consultations, the LDC Group had agreed to revise the template. One revision was that  the list G/RO/M/67  
 
- 5 - 
 
  of legislative documents to be s ubmitted had been made more concise and only the legislative 
texts containing the actual product -specific rules need ed to be translated into an official WTO 
language. In addition , the Annex would also contain fewer fields and a  less repetitive list of item s 
to be reported. The revised template was being finalized by the Group and would soon be 
circulated to Members.   
3.13.   The representatives of Benin  and of Tanzania  recalled that greater transparency and the use 
of the template by all preference -giving Members should contribute to a better understanding of 
rules of origin by LDC government s and businesses. Both delegations also underscored the fact 
that notifications under the template would also have the benefit of centralising all the relevant 
information in a single document for easier reference.  
3.14.   The representatives of China;  the European Union;  Japan;  Canada;  India;  and Switzerland  
welcomed the LDC template as a good instrument  for greater transparency and said that they 
looked forward to examining the revised  draft. Canada welcomed the intention to streamline and 
simplify the elements to be notified while the EU stressed the importance of keeping a list of 
comprehensive elements as the LDCs revised their proposal.  
3.15.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  welcomed greater transparency but cautioned 
against imposing overly burdensome requirements on preference -granting Members, particularly 
those who did not use an official WTO language. This concern was shared by the representative of 
Chinese Taipei .  One op tion, according to Korea, would be to add a note to the template stipulating 
that additional information should be provided when and if requested by a n LDC delegation.  
3.16.   The representative of Chile asked whether all preference -granting Members would need to 
submit information using the template, even if they had recently submitted  a notification, as was 
the case of Chile.  Likewise, the representative of the United States  wondered whether the 
template would apply to future notifications only or also to prefere nce programmes that ha d 
already been notified . 
3.17.   Reflecting on this question, the representative of Norway  mentioned that it was not clear 
from the Ministerial Deci sion that there should be a new, wide notification exercise by all Members. 
In his view, the t emplate would only apply to the notification of new schemes or to the 
modification  of existing rules.  
3.18.   In response, the representative of Benin  thanked other delegations for the ir collaborative 
spirit. With respect to the question raised by the delegations of Chile and the US, he mentioned 
that the LDCs expected all preference -granting Members to make a notification using the proposed 
template. This would ensure the information for all preference schemes was up -to-date, complete 
and comparable across Members .  
3.19.   The representative of Bangladesh , in addition, recalled that the template should not be seen 
only a s a notification, but rather as an instrument to improve the understanding of existing origin 
requirements. This was precisely the reason why a new instru ment needed to be adopted for all 
Members, including those who had already notified their rules in the past. The Secretariat had 
reported that  specific information was missing in several notifications. The template would 
therefore help fill  in those gaps a nd allow for  a holistic assessment of the rules. Finally, he argued 
that the template would not achieve its objectives unless all elements were submitted in an official 
WTO language . 
3.20.   To conclude, the Chairman proposed that the LDCs circulate as soon as pos sible their  
revised proposal so that further consultations  could be organized  on it. 
3.21.   The Committee agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
3.3  MODALITIES FOR THE CALCULATION OF "PREFERENCE UTILIZATION" – NOTE BY 
THE SECRETARIAT (G/RO/W/161)  
3.22.   The Nairobi Decision also re quired the Committee to adopt modalities for the calculation of 
utilization rates, so the Chairman  drew Members' attention to a background note by the 
Secretariat (G/RO/W/161) and the modality recommended therein (paragraph 3.2(a)). He also G/RO/M/67  
 
- 6 - 
 
  indicated that,  during informal consultations, Members had signalled that the approach 
recommended  by the Secretariat was useful. However, some specific questions had been raised 
regarding the way in which the Secretariat would present its work to Members in this area.  
3.23.   The Secretariat  clarified that the recommended modality would take into account only tariff 
lines for which a preferential margin was available, that is, only MFN-dutiable lines . This narrow 
approach would enable Members to examine the impact of specific ru les of origin on the ability of 
LDCs to effectively util ize trade preferences. This was  an instinctive and simple modality which 
matched the objectives of the work of the Committee . In fact, the objective of calculating 
utilization rates was not to assess the breadth of preferences , but rather to provide inputs for a 
discussion about the design of product -specific rules of origin  based on the guidelines and 
obligations  of the Nairobi Decision . For that reason, the Secretariat had proposed to calculate 
utilization rates for Members who had notified their preferential trade data and to present the 
information in an initial report. The report would show utilization rates for each LDC and each 
preferential trade arrangement in twenty -two sectors  (RD/RO/49) . 
3.24.   The representative of Benin  noted that, at the informal consultations, a majority of Members 
had indicated their desire to adopt the modality under paragraph 3.2(a) of the Secretariat note. He 
also reminded Members that the LDC Group had submitted, in April 20 16, a series of questions to 
preference -granting Members (G/RO/W/159), including on how they intended to comply with their 
obligation to report data annually on preferential imports from the LDCs. Comprehensive and 
updated data would allow the Committee  to hold substantive and focused discussions on product -
specific rules. In addition, he informed  Members that the LDC Group would appreciate having a 
standing item in the agenda of the Committee  to discuss preferential rules of origin for LDCs . 
Moreover , he said that a dedicated session of the Committee  in February 2017 would be useful to 
review Members' notifications of the efforts being made to implement the Nairobi Decision.  
3.25.   According to the representative of Mexico , one of the difficulties related to the c alculation of 
utilization rates was that it would only focus on lines with a preferential tariff margin and that it 
disregarded the benefits trading in MFN duty -free tariff lines.  
3.26.   Similarly, for the representative of China , existing MFN  duty-free tariff lines and other 
preferential trade arrangements granted to LDCs should be taken into account . Furthermore, 
Chinese authorities were still reviewing the modality recommended by the Secretariat, so her 
delegation could not adopt it at this meeting . 
3.27.   For the re presentative of Senegal , it was important that the calculation focused only on lines 
with a tariff preference. Tariff lines with a high MFN duty were those that were most attractive 
from a preferential market access point of view. Therefore, those were the  lines for which 
preferential rules of origin could create obstacles to trade. In other words, preferential rules of 
origin were not likely to ever create difficulties for businesses exporting in MFN duty -free tariff 
lines.  
3.28.   The representative of Tanzania  agreed and added that the methodology proposed by the 
Secretariat was simple to use and that it required the use of data which already had to be notified 
under existing WTO instruments. Furthermore, he reiterated that having a permanent item on 
preferential  rules of origin for LDCs in the agenda of the Committee would be useful in order to 
review the extent to which the Bali and the Nairobi Decision s were being implemented. This w ould 
also be the objective of a dedicated session of the Committee in February 2017 on preferential 
rules of origin for LDCs.  
3.29.   The representatives of Canada;  the EU; the Republic of Korea ; and Switzerland  agreed that 
the recommendation in paragraph 3.2(a) of the Secretariat note was simple  to use  and that it 
drew on information which was already available. The representative of Canada also drew 
Members' attention to the fact that utilization rates were simply one among many  tools for 
assessing the effectiveness  of preferential programmes and that other tools could be used. Finally, 
he asked LDC delegations to elaborate further on the purpose of a dedicated session.  
3.30.   On this point, the representative of India said that it would be useful if the LDCs could 
circulate a written proposal laying down the purpose, format, and schedule  of such a  dedicated G/RO/M/67  
 
- 7 - 
 
  session.   While , in principle, his delegation did not oppose  holding a dedicated session, he believed 
that further consultations on the matter  would be useful .  
3.31.   The representative of Brazil  agreed. In addition, he asked LDC delegations to clarif y what 
the exact scope of the permanent agenda item would be.  
3.32.   The representatives of Chile, the EU, the Republic of Korea  and the US agreed that there 
was an overlap and perhaps some confusion about the scope and purpose of both the dedicated 
session and t he standing agenda item. While not opposed to having more in -depth discussions on 
preferential rules of origin for LDCs, they argued that it would be useful to have a more structured 
discussion on both proposals before making  a decision.  The representative  of Switzerland  agreed 
and recommended that a draft agenda for the dedicated session be circulated to assist delegations 
in their consultations with their respective capitals.  
3.33.   In response to the questions raised, the representative of Benin  said that the p urpose of the 
dedicated session would be to bring together least -developed, developed and developing country 
delegations as well as the private sector , alongside institutions such as the WCO, UNCTAD and 
others, to take stock of the state of implementation of the provisions of the Nairo bi Decision and 
move forward towards MC11 . As for the permanent item in the agenda of the Committee , the 
objective would be to review any issue relevant to preferential rules of origin for LDCs  as 
necessary . 
3.34.   Having heard Membe rs' comments, the Chairman proposed to revert back to the modality 
for the calculation of utilization rates in the course of additional consultations on this item. In 
addition, he encouraged the LDC Group to circulate a written communication with greater d etails 
about the objectives and content of a possible standing item in the Committee's agenda as well as 
a possible dedicated session  for further consultations on the matter . 
3.35.   The Committee  agreed  to proceed accordingly.  
3.4  ACCESSING  PREFERENTIAL TRADE DATA : THE "TARIFF ANALYSIS ONLINE 
FACILITY" – PRESENTATION BY THE SECRETARIAT  
3.36.   The purpose of this agenda item, the Chairman  recalled , was to highlight  ways in which 
delegations could retrieve preferential trade data from WTO databases. This would be useful as the  
Committee  examined the rates of utilization of preferential trade arrangements.  
3.37.   The Secretariat presented the WTO Tariff Analysis Online tool ( https://tao.wto.org ) and 
particularly a new feature which allowed users to c onsult preferential trade data at the tariff line 
level. This feature would enable users to calculate preferential utilization rates themselves by 
simply comparing the value of preferential trade with the value of MFN trade. Data was reported  
for all tarif f lines for which there was a preferential tariff margin  and for all Members who had 
submitted data regarding their preferential imports . 
3.38.   The Committee took note  of the presentation . 
4  REVIEW OF NEW DEVELO PMENTS IN RELATION T O PREFERENTIAL RULES  OF ORIGIN 
FOR LEAST DEVELOPED CO UNTRIES  
4.1.  The Bali Ministerial Decision (WT/L/917) mandated the Committee  to annually review 
developments related to preferential rules of origin applicable to LDCs . This requirement had been 
confirmed in the Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  Accordingly,  the Chairman  recalled that the  
Committee had prepared annual reports to the General Council (G/RO/76, G/RO/77).  The objective 
of these annual reviews , he said, was to monitor the implementation of both Ministerial Decisions 
by focusing on  improvements and reforms to preferential rules of origin  applicable to LDCs . 
4.2.  Before opening the floor to hear  reports from preference -granting Members, t he Chairman 
reported that  a new notification had been received from the delegation of Kazakhstan 
(G/RO/N/1 48/Rev.1).  G/RO/M/67  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.3.  The representative of Australia  updated the Committee on the efforts being made to 
implement the Nairobi Decision. The government had begun a review of Australia's generalised 
system of tariff preferences for LDCs (the "Australian System of Tari ff Preferences"). A discussion 
paper had been published online in May 2016, launching a public consultation process for the 
review of Australia's preferences, including to reduce  the administrative burden of the scheme for 
businesses and government adminis trators. Australia, he reported, gave positive consideration to 
the full implementation to the Ministerial Decision as part of this review process and welcomed 
comments from interested stakeholders on possible recommendations for improvement.  
4.4.  The represent ative of the United States  also gave a brief update o n some of the work that 
had been undertaken in his country. Paragraph 1.7 of the Bali Decision stated that : "cumulation 
should be considered as a feature of non -reciprocal preferential trade arrangements " and 
paragraph 2.1 enumerated some of the cumulation possibilities of interest to LDCs. Against that 
background, he wished to inform Members of one modification to the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act (AGOA). Specifically, the trade preferences extensio n Act of 2015 , had extended 
AGOA preferences until 2025.  The law had also expanded  the list of countries with which AGOA 
beneficiaries were allowed to cumulate. Current AGOA beneficiaries would  now be allowed to apply 
the value of input from former AGOA b eneficiaries towards the value calculation. This change 
could, in the view of his government, create additional meaningful opportunities for cumulation 
among AGOA beneficiaries.  
4.5.  The representative of Canada , in the spirit of paragraph 4.2 of the Nairobi De cision, also 
wanted to briefly discuss how Canada's current preferential rules of origin for LDCs met the 
standards set by the Nairobi Decision. In his view, Canada's rules of origin were simple, 
transparent and had been widely praised as meeting the needs  of the LDCs and encouraging 
market access from the world's poorest countries. For example , Canada allowed the use on 
non-originating materials of up to 80% of the final value of  the product for most goods. 
In addition, Canada had very generous cumulation provisions, allowing for cumulation between 
Canada, all LDCs and current and former GSP beneficiaries. Moreover , Canada had minimised 
documentation requirements and allowed for export self -certification (exporters' statement of 
origin) in all cases except for textile and apparel (for which a certificate was still requested).  
4.6.  The representative of Tanzania  thanked the delegations who had reported developments in 
their national legislation and encouraged all other preference -granting Members to notify the 
efforts they were making to implement  the provisions of the Nairobi D ecision. The LDC Group 
looked forward to receiving detailed information from all Members concerned.  
4.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
4.1  THE NEW "REX" SYSTEM OF ORIGIN CERTIFICATION IN  THE EU GSP SCHEME – 
PRESENTATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
4.8.  The representative of the EU wished to remind the beneficiaries of the EU -GSP of an 
important innovation in the EU's preferential rules of origin: the introduction of a new system of 
certification of origin (RD/RO/44 and WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.7). The new "REX" system entailed a 
major simplification since it introduced self-certification and moved away from the current system 
based on certificates (mostly "form A"  certificates  which needed to be issued by a competent 
authority). In sum, LDC exporters, who were registered in a database by their competent 
authorities, would be entitled to make a simple statement of origin. In addition, there would be a 
derogation  for exporters of low -value consignments  (defined  as those with a value of less than 
€6,000 ). She also underscored that t he new system did not modify rules for determining origin, for 
verifying proof of origin or administrative cooperation.  
4.9.  The new system would apply from 1 January unless beneficiaries requested a postponement.  
For all countries that had not requested a postponement, specific prerequisites needed to be in 
place for the introduction of the REX system. One, for instance, was to communicate the relevant 
competent authorities  to the EU Commi ssion. She added that training on these requirements and 
the new system was available both online and in Brussels and that places were still available.  
4.10.   The representatives of Norway  and Switzerland  informed the Committee that both countries 
would also be i ntroducing the REX system under the same conditions as the EU. Switzerland G/RO/M/67  
 
- 9 - 
 
  highlighted that the introduction of the REX System would significantly reduce the administrative 
burden related to documentary and procedural requirements in customs clearance for GSP 
beneficiary countries and in particular LDCs. Beneficiary countries would enjoy a transition period 
of 3 years. After that deadline, preferences would only be granted to registered exporters who 
could provide a valid statement of origin in the system a s a proof of origin (and the "form A" 
certificates would no longer be accepted).  
4.11.   The representatives of Tanzania;  Senegal ; Benin;  and Bangladesh  thanked the EU;  Norway;  
and Switzerland for the introduction of this simplified and trade -facilitating certific ation system. 
The representative of Bangladesh reported that his government had already taken the necessary 
steps for an introduction of the system as from 2017. The representative of Senegal reported that 
their choice had been to postpone the introduction  of REX to 2019. The representatives of Benin 
and Senegal asked the EU to clarify the possible dates for introduction of the system and Senegal 
asked the EU whether countries having signed a n Economic Partnership Agreement  (EPA)  with the 
EU would also be shifted to  REX. 
4.12.   In response, the EU  clarified that the dates for the introduction of the system (i.e. 2017, 
2018 or 2019) had been left at the discretion of  the beneficiary countries so that they had 
sufficient time to introduce the necessary prerequisites.  However, by 2019, all GSP beneficiaries 
should be using the system. As for EPA signatory countries, exporters in those countries could 
choose whether to use REX (and thus the GSP with its corresponding rules of origin) or the EPA 
preferences instead (with  the EP A-specific origin requirements).  
4.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements.  
4.2  DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN 
PREFERENTIAL RULES OF ORIGIN FOR LDCS (G/RO/W/164)   
4.14.   Having noted the statements of preference -granting M embers, the Chairman  concluded the 
annual review of recent developments on preferential rules of origin for LDCs. He proposed that, 
as required by the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions, a written report be forwarded to the 
General Council and an oral report be delivered to the Sub -Committee on LDCs.  
4.15.   The Chairman  pointed to document G/RO/W/164  which contained the draft annual report of 
the Committee  to the General Council . He proposed to ask the Secretariat to complete the report 
and to circulate it by fax to delegations for adoption.  Two revisions of the annual report were 
circulated (G/RO/W/164/Rev.1 and G/RO/W/164/Rev.2). No additional comments were received 
within  the prescribed deadline.  
4.16.   The report was thus adopted  on 21 October 2016 and forwarded t o the General Council 
(G/RO/79).  
5  TWENTY -SECOND  ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE  IMPLEMENTATION AND O PERATION OF 
THE AGREEMENT  
5.1.  The Chairman indicated that a background note had been prepared by the Secretariat to 
assist the Committee in its 22nd review of the implemen tation and operation of the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin (document G/RO/W/165).  Notwithstanding the absence of negotiations for the 
harmonization of non -preferential rules of origin, he thought the work of the Committee  had been 
advancing in a constructive  and useful manner, particularly through the educational exercise and 
on rules of origin for LDCs.  
5.2.  The Committee took note  of report.  
6  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMIT TEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS  
6.1.  The Chairman  pointed to document G/RO/W/166 which contain ed the draft annual report of 
the Committee to the Council  on Trade in Goods. He proposed that the Secretariat complete the 
report and circulate it by fax to delegations for adoption.  G/RO/M/67  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6.2.  Two revisions of the report were circulated (G/RO/W/166/ Rev.1 and G/RO/W /166/Rev.2). 
No additional comments were received within  the prescribed deadline.  
6.3.  The report was thus adopted  on 21 October 2016 and forwarded to the Council for Trade in 
Goods (G/L/1159).  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  No items were raised under this item.  
__________