On 25 April 2026, the RCEP Secretariat, together with the competent cultural and tourism authorities of China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, officially launched the first round of technical consultations on the ‘rules of origin for cultural and tourism services’. This round of consultations focuses on the criteria for determining ‘substantial transformation’ in service formats such as study tours, intangible cultural heritage experiences, and festival performances. If consensus is reached in subsequent discussions, customized study tour services from Henan for RCEP member countries may become eligible for zero-tariff treatment, producing substantive impacts on pricing mechanisms, contract negotiations, and market access in cross-border cultural and tourism services trade. Segments such as study tours, intangible cultural heritage cultural-tourism operations, and international festival planning should pay close attention to the pace of policy evolution and the pathways for practical adaptation.

Event Overview

On 25 April 2026, led by the RCEP Secretariat, the cultural and tourism authorities of China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand jointly launched the first round of technical consultations on the ‘rules of origin for cultural and tourism services’. The consultations are explicitly limited to the criteria for determining ‘substantial transformation’ in three categories of services: study tours, intangible cultural heritage experiences, and festival performances. This is the first specialized technical discussion under the RCEP framework on rules of origin for trade in cultural and tourism services. At present, there are no publicly available outcome documents or timetable, and it has only been confirmed that the consultations have been initiated.

Which subsectors will be affected

Study tour service providers (including destination operators, curriculum designers, and cross-border program implementers): If study tour services for students from RCEP member countries coming to China are included within the scope of ‘services complying with rules of origin’, they may become eligible for the zero-tariff commitments under trade in services. The impact is mainly reflected in stronger bargaining power for overseas buyers, the need for Chinese service providers to restructure their quotation models (such as whether to separate ‘curriculum development’ from ‘local delivery’), and higher compliance requirements in contracts regarding the place of service delivery and the place where value is created.

Operators of intangible cultural heritage experience cultural-tourism projects (including ICH workshops, immersive performance venues, and cultural study bases): If their service output is recognized as having undergone ‘substantial transformation’ within China (such as localized curriculum conversion and on-site teaching led by ICH inheritors), it will be easier for them to meet the origin criteria. The impact is concentrated in rising standardization requirements for internal management links such as service process records, teacher qualification filing, and ownership of course intellectual property rights.

International festival and performance planning and execution enterprises: For festival events hosted by RCEP member countries, if the packaged services provided by the Chinese side—such as curation, content production, and on-site execution—can prove that key stages including core creativity, direction, and technical integration were completed in China, they may be included within the applicable scope. The impact is reflected in stronger requirements for project documentation retention (such as proposal iteration records and proof of the main creative team’s work location), and the need for cross-border team collaboration models to adapt to the rule verification logic.

What key points should relevant enterprises or practitioners pay attention to, and how should they respond at present

Pay attention to the subsequent officially released consultation agenda list and draft terminology definitions

At present, it is only known that the consultations have been launched, but the specific indicators of ‘substantial transformation’ in the context of trade in services (such as the proportion of personnel input, the localization rate of knowledge products, and the weighting of the place of service delivery) have not yet been disclosed. Enterprises should continue to track the official RCEP website and announcements from the cultural and tourism authorities of the five countries, focusing on whether quantifiable determination dimensions such as ‘service value-added ratio’ and ‘location of core links’ appear.

Review existing service product lines for RCEP member countries and mark key value-creation nodes

For example, in study tour projects, links such as curriculum development, teacher training, field teaching, and outcome assessment need to clearly identify which link constitutes an ‘irreplaceable substantive contribution’. This is not for immediate application, but to lay the groundwork for rapid self-assessment and document preparation once the subsequent rules are implemented.

Distinguish between policy signals and the implementation window for business rollout

Technical consultations do not mean the rules have taken effect, nor do they mean tariff reductions or exemptions will apply immediately. From consultations → text consensus → approval through domestic procedures → issuance of implementation rules, it usually takes 18–36 months. At the current stage, the focus should be on understanding the logic of the rules. It is not advisable to adjust the existing quotation system or contract-signing model, but a clause on ‘review of the applicability of rules of origin’ may be reserved in newly signed contracts.

Establish in advance a management mechanism for service process records and localized evidence chains

Including but not limited to: curriculum development meeting minutes (indicating Chinese lead creators), appointment and teaching records of intangible cultural heritage instructors, comparison of localized revised versions of festival plans, and image records and outcome files of the learning process of students from RCEP member countries in China. Such materials may in the future become key supporting evidence for determining ‘substantial transformation’.

Editorial Viewpoint / Industry Observation

From an industry perspective, these consultations are better understood as an important signal of the deepening extension of RCEP trade in services rules, rather than an immediate policy dividend. They mark the first time that cultural and tourism services have been systematically included in the scope of technical discussions on rules of origin, reflecting the pragmatic advancement by RCEP members of ‘joint rule-building’ in trade in services. Observationally, its significance lies not in short-term tax reduction, but in forcing the domestic supply side of cultural and tourism services to strengthen value traceability, process standardization, and the explicitization of intellectual property rights — which is precisely the weak link for most small and medium-sized study tour and intangible cultural heritage operators at present. What the industry needs to continue paying attention to is how the concept of ‘substantial transformation’ will shift from the logic of trade in goods to service scenarios, and the structural impact this will have on service modularization, outsourcing boundaries, and cross-border collaboration structures.

Conclusion

This technical consultation is the starting point, rather than the endpoint, of rule-building for cultural and tourism services under the RCEP framework. Its current value is mainly reflected at the level of institutional signals: it indicates that relevant enterprises need to shift the ‘place where service value is created’ from vague experiential judgment to a management practice that is verifiable, attributable, and presentable. At the current stage, it is more appropriate to regard this as a rehearsal for rule adaptability rather than as an instruction to switch business strategy. A rational expectation should be — the rule-improvement cycle is long, but the earlier the preparation, the lower the future compliance cost and the faster the response speed.

Information Source Notes

Main sources: official announcement on the RCEP Secretariat website, publicly available information on the website of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of China, and the joint statement of the Japan Tourism Agency / Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism of South Korea / Australian Tourism and Transport Forum (ATTF) / New Zealand Ministry of Tourism (25 April 2026). Parts requiring continued observation: the specific consultation agenda text, progress of domestic approvals in each country, and the timetable for the release of implementation rules.