MOREPRESS RELEASE
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT BULLETIN
PRESS/TE/036
6 July 2001
(01-3385)
UNEP AND MEAs PARTICIPATE IN CTE INFORMATION SESSION ON COMPLIANCE
AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT.  CTE DISCUSSES WTO-MEA RELATIONSHIP,
DOMESTICALLY PROHIBITED GOODS, BIODIVERSITY CONVENTION
AND TRIPS AGREEMENT, ECO-LABELLING, AND
FISHERIES SUBSIDIES REFORM
At the meeting of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment on 27–28 June 2001,
Members held a lively debate on several key elements of the Committee's work programme under the
Chairmanship of Ambassador Alejandro Jara (Chile).
The CTE held an Information Session with UNEP and multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs) on compliance and dispute settlement in the WTO and in MEAs, with the participation of
UNEP and eight MEAs.  This session was held back-to-back with a UNEP-sponsored meeting on
synergies between trade and environment rules in Geneva on 26 June.  As at past meetings, UNEPcontributed to broadening participation in the CTE by funding nearly two dozen environmental
officials from developing country Governments.
The focus of the meeting was on the linkages between the multilateral environment and trade
agendas, specifically the WTO-MEA relationship, domestically prohibited goods and the relevantprovisions of the TRIPs Agreement.  Members also commented on a new Swiss proposal to
strengthen the disciplines in the WTO Technical Ba rriers to Trade Agreement on labelling.  Members
also addressed the potential "win-win-win" results for trade, environment and development from trade
liberalization.  The fisheries sector attracted the most attention, with three Secretariat papers on the
table to update Members on work underway on fisheries subsidies.  The CBD, FAO, UNCTAD,
UNEP and WIPO reported on their recent CTE-related activities.
Reference was made to the NGO Symposium on issues confronting the world trade system to
be held in the WTO, Geneva on 6 – 7 July, which would include a session on trade and environment.
(http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/ngo_symp_2001_e.htm ).
The CTE is scheduled to hold its next meeting on 3–4 October 2001.  The WTO Secretariat,
under its own responsibility has prepared this Bulle tin.  Papers referred to in this Bulletin can be
accessed through the WTO Web site ( http://docsonline.wto.org/ ), and are available from the Trade
and Environment Division of the WTO Secretariat.  An updated list of CTE documents from January
1995 to December 2000 can be found in WT/CTE/INF/3.PRESS/TE/036
Page 2
MORESUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS
• The MEA Information Session  focused on compliance and dispute settlement in the WTO and in
MEAs, with presentations from UNEP and eight MEA Secretariats.  This Session built on thediscussions at the UNEP meeting on this subject on 26 June.  Members welcomed a joint WTO-
UNEP-MEA Secretariat paper on compliance and dispute settlement, and posed questions to the
MEA Secretariats in this regard.  It was noted that both the WTO and MEAs were representative
of the efforts of the international community to pursue shared goals in their respective areas.  In
the development of a mutually supportive relationship due respect must be afforded to both.
• The focus of the meeting was on the linkages between the multilateral environment and trade
agendas .
• On the WTO-MEA relationship , Members noted the importance of notifications to monitor
compliance;  an element in both the WTO agreements and MEAs.  The need for enhanced policy
coordination on trade and environment at the national level was emphasized.  Many Members
called for increased capacity building and financial and technology transfer to assist developing
countries to comply with their obligations in MEAs.  Reference was made to the recent proposals
by New Zealand, Switzerland and the European Communities with respect to clarifying the WTO-
MEA relationship.  Several MEAs noted the importance of discussing concrete, not hypothetical,
problems related to WTO-MEA interlinkages.
• Concerning the export of domestically prohibited goods  (DPGs), the UN Secretariat responsible
for preparing the UN Consolidated List of banned or severely restricted products informed theCTE about its activities.  It was broadly felt that wider dissemination of this List would enhance
information sharing in this important area for developing countries.
• Various aspects of the linkages between the TRIPs Agreement  and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) were addressed.  Several Members commented that these two agreements were
mutually supportive.  Reference was made to papers on the TRIPs-CBD relationship in the TRIPs
Council in the context of the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement.
• There was discussion of eco-labelling  based on a submission by Switzerland calling for a
strengthening of the TBT Agreement's disciplines on marking and labelling to avoid
protectionism and unnecessary trade barriers.  Several Members considered that these genericlabelling issues should be discussed in the TBT Committee.
• Members also addressed potential "win-win-win"  outcomes for trade, environment and
development arising from the removal of trade restrictions and distortions in several sectors.  Thefocus was on fisheries subsidies, with several Me mbers calling for fisheries subsidy reform to be
addressed at the Qatar Ministerial.  The FAO and UNEP reported on their work on fisheriessubsidies.  Reference was also made to the energy, agriculture and forestry sectors.
• The WTO Environmental Database  for 2000 was issued containing a list of the environment-
related measures or provisions notified by  WTO Members.  UNEP reported on its work on
environmental assessments  of trade negotiations.  UNCTAD mentioned its experts meeting on
export opportunities for organic products  from developing countries.
• Discussion of the requests for observer status  was postponed pending developments in the
General Council.  The Convention on Biodiversity, supported by many delegations, made a plea
for observer status in the TRIPs Council, where the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPs
Agreement was currently under discussion.PRESS/TE/036
Page 3
MOREDETAILED DESCIPTION OF THE ISSUES ADRESSED
MEA Information Session
An Information Session with multilat eral environmental agreements (MEAs)  in the CTE
was held back-to-back with a UNEP meeting on compliance and dispute settlement in the WTO and in
MEAs.  Discussion was based on a joint WTO-UNEP-MEA Secretariat paper on this subject(WT/CTE/W/191).  Members considered that both sessions had been educative and had stimulated a
dialogue.  Members welcomed the engagement of the MEAs given the importance of multilateral
agreements to tackle environment problems and the need to increase the concrete synergies between
MEAs and the WTO.
The following 8 MEAs attended both the UNEP and WTO sessions:
1
• Convention on International Trade in Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
• Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
• Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
• UN Convention on Biological Diversity
• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
• Rotterdam (PIC) Convention
• Stockholm (POPs) Convention
• UN Fish Stocks Agreement
Several MEAs noted that the focus of most environmental agreements is on developing
mechanisms to assist Parties to comply with their obligations in a flexible and non-confrontational
manner, thereby preventing disputes from arising.  While CITES and the Montreal Protocol had long-
standing mechanisms in place to facilitate complia nce, other MEAs, such as the Basel Convention and
the recent Rotterdam (PIC) and Stockholm (POPs) Conventions, were in the process of developing
non-compliance regimes.  The UNFCCC gave a thorough presentation of the non-compliance regime
envisaged for the Kyoto Protocol, in which compliance rests on market-based instruments.
Following the presentations, Members asked questions and referred to their positions on the
WTO-MEA relationship.  Discussion focused on the need to bring out the practical aspects, not
hypothetical conflicts between these two equal bodies of international law.  Chile shared its concrete
experience with swordfish;  CITES noted that there is always a heated debate over the introduction of
trade measures in CITES.
It was noted that compliance and enforcement in MEAs, as in the WTO, is a dynamic process.
MEAs are designed to facilitate compliance through creating incentives and providing financial and
technology transfer;  however, there is no one size fits all for compliance in MEAs.
The importance of notifications was highlighted as the key to transparency and compliance in
both the WTO and MEAs.  The classical problem related to policy coordination at the national level
was noted - a problem not limited to trade and environment.  There was a general call for capacity
building and technology and financial transfer for developing countries given that non-compliance in
MEAs is due not to lack of will, but rather to lack of resources.  In this respect, the UNEP-UNCTAD
Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development was cited ( http://www.unep-
unctad.org/cbtf ), in addition to the mechanisms available in MEAs, as well as the WTO regional
seminars.
                                                     
1 The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Convention
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLAR) also contributed to the joint paper.PRESS/TE/036
Page 4
MOREItems relevant to the linkages between th e multilateral environment and trade agendas
Items 1 & 5 – Relationship between MEAs and the WTO
Discussions on the WTO-MEA relationship were closely linked with the dialogue between
Members in the MEA Information Session.  Members recognized that the evolving relationship
between MEAs and the multilateral trading system was complex and that different questions mayemerge.  One way to continue to increase a mutual understanding and stimulate dialogue was through
the information sessions with MEAs in the CT E and in UNEP.  UNEP commented, that although
there are a wide variety of MEAs, each tackled global environmental problems cooperatively, with a
focus on promoting compliance to the greatest extent possible.
Members reiterated their positions and proposals concerning the WTO-MEA relationship.  While
many noted that existing WTO rules were sufficient to accommodate MEAs, particularly given therecent developments in WTO jurisprudence, others saw a need to clarify the legal status of the WTO-
MEA relationship so as not to perpetuate uncertainty or undermine environmental negotiations.
Given that trade measures are seldom include d in MEAs (only about 20 of over 200 MEAs
contain trade-related provisions) and that there has not been a conflict to date, several Members saidthe potential for conflicts between MEAs and the WTO should not be exaggerated.  India said that
MEA issues should be resolved in the MEA itself through the provision of financial and technology
transfer and capacity building.  Senegal, the Gambia and Ghana reiterated the importance of capacity
building.
Reference was made to New Zealand's proposed voluntary informal consultative mechanism
(WT/CTE/W/180) ( see PRESS/TE/035).  Such a mechanism was a practical and flexible way to
prevent trade-related MEA disputes from arising, pa rticularly between MEA Parties.  Switzerland and
the EU recalled their proposals to clarify the WTO-MEA relationship and to fully accommodate
MEAs in the WTO.  Switzerland reiterated its proposal to develop an interpretative understandingbased on a mutual supportiveness approach (WT/CTE/W/168, see PRESS/TE/033).  Japan underlined
the continued relevance of its proposed guidelines (WT/CTE/W/31).  Canada agreed with New
Zealand, Switzerland and the EC that it would be  prudent, for both environmental and trade reasons,
to clarify the WTO-MEA relationship.
Australia recalled the consensus in the CTE report to the Singapore Ministerial in 1996 that
the WTO can accommodate environmental concerns (WT/CTE/1);  this understanding had not been
contradicted by panels or the Appellate Body.  Canada said that the primary responsibility for
clarifying the WTO-MEA relationship rested with WTO Members, not the dispute settlement system.
Several Members, including Australia, noted that both WTO and MEA dispute settlement
mechanisms emphasized dispute avoidance through Parties searching for mutually satisfactorysolutions.  The EC recalled the emphasis in the UNEP Governing Council on strengthening
compliance in MEAs and the fact that UNEP was deve loping draft guidelines in this respect.  The
United States said compliance depended on the implementation of domestic measures, and that the
focus should be on practical examples to build on synergies and enhance policy coordination.  Chile,
the EC and others noted that Article 13 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding provides flexibilityfor WTO panels to take into account the opinion of experts.
The Secretariat circulated information on 14  environmental instruments in a revised Matrix
on Trade Measures Pursuant to Selected MEAs  (WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1), an annotated bibliography
of literature used in the preparation of the paper on compliance and dispute settlement(WT/CTE/W/197), and on developments in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (WT/CTE/W/190)
and the recently adopted Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (WT/CTE/W/193).PRESS/TE/036
Page 5
MOREUNEP circulated the Chairmen's summary of the UNEP High Level Meeting on Developing
Mutually Supportive Trade and Environment Policies, Berlin, 20–22 March 2001 (WT/CTE/W/198),and noted that next year's World Summit on Sustainable Development offered an opportunity for
world leaders to promote a constructive relationship between the global systems of economic and
environmental governance.
Item 7 – Domestically prohibited goods
Members welcomed the presentation by the UN Secretariat on the United Nations
Consolidated List of Products Whose Consumption or Sale have been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely
Restricted on the coverage of domestically prohibited goods (DPGs) (WT/CTE/W/194).  This List is
designed to help Governments keep up to date with regulatory decisions taken by other Governments
and to assist them to consider the scope for eventual regulatory action.  Members stressed the need to
disseminate this List as widely as possible, incl uding on the Internet.  Further information on the List
is contained in a Secretariat paper (WT/CTE/W/161).
Members underlined the importance of technical assistance, capacity building and
information dissemination to assist developing countries to control imports of DPGs and prevent
illegal trade.  Senegal, the Gambia, India, Cuba and Venezuela said mechanisms should bestrengthened to enable effective control and permit domestic legislation on DPGs to be put in place.
Item 8 – Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs)
Discussion focused on various aspects of the relationship between the TRIPs Agreement and
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  While noting that the two agreements were mutually
supportive, Brazil, Norway, Japan and others referred to the need to ensure that both agreements were
implemented in a complementary manner.  Thailand and Indonesia said it was necessary to develop
an international framework to protect genetic resources;  domestic legislation was necessary, but not
sufficient.  Peru recalled its submission and Brazil's paper on access to genetic resources andprotection of traditional knowledge ( see PRESS/TE/035).
Several intergovernmental organizations briefed the CTE on related work.  The CBD referred
to its work pursuant to Article 8(j) and to the specific recommendation from its COP in May 2000 for
the WTO to address the interlinkages between the TRIPs Agreement and the CBD.  Reference wasmade to the negotiations in the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.  WIPO
reported on the First Session of its Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, 30 April–3 May 2001 (WT/CTE/W/196-
IP/C/W/297).
Brazil noted the synergies between the current TRIPs Review of Article 27.3(b) and this item
of the CTE's work programme, as well as with work in other intergovernmental organizations, such asthe CBD, WIPO and FAO.  Norway and Brazil refe rred to Article 16.5 of the CBD that acknowledged
the links between the TRIPs Agreement and the CBD, and the need to ensure that intellectual property
rights were supportive of the CBD.  Norway also  recalled its paper in the TRIPs Council on the
TRIPs-CBD relationship (IP/C/W/293).  It was noted that discussion of the mutual supportiveness
between the TRIPs Agreement and the CBD had a bearing on the WTO-MEA relationship.  Severalcountries, including Peru and Tunisia, shared thei r national experience in implementing the CBD and
the TRIPs Agreement ( see PRESS/TE/035).
Switzerland recalled its proposal in the TRIP s Council to create a database to increase
understanding of traditional knowledge and benefit sharing resulting from its use (IP/C/W/284).Korea said that the establishment of databases on traditional knowledge would contribute to providingPRESS/TE/036
Page 6
MOREpatent examiners with easier access to related prior art.  Venezuela informed Members of an Andean
workshop on access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge on 16-19 July 2001.
Many Members reiterated their support for the request by the CBD Secretariat for observer
status in the TRIPs Council, particularly given the papers under discussion in the TRIPs Council on
the CBD-TRIPs relationship.
Items related to market access
Item 2 – Environmental and trade principles
UNEP announced the completion of its Reference Manual on Integrated Assessment of
Trade-Related Policies , which set out options for national evaluations of the environmental and socio-
economic effects of trade liberalization.
Item 3(b) – Eco-labelling
Switzerland presented a paper on Marking and Labelling Requirements  in the CTE and the
TBT Committee (G/TBT/W/162-WT/CTE/W/192) making the case for a clarification of TBTdisciplines on labelling to strengthen the provisions in order to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade and
protectionist measures.  The EC, Japan and the Czech Republic supported the Swiss paper as a basis
for further discussions.  Norway noted the need to be practical and concrete;  Colombia recalled its
national experience submission on eco-labelling and cut flowers.
Many Members felt that TBT provisions were already sufficiently clear and were concerned
that clarification might weaken, not strengthen, the TBT Agreement.  As such, Malaysia, Thailand,
Indonesia, Chile, Canada, Venezuela, Guatemala, Hong Kong, China and others said the generic
issues of labelling raised in the Swiss paper should be addressed in the TBT Committee.  The United
States recalled its submission to the TBT Committee related to a range of labelling issues, includingtransparency and unnecessary obstacles to trade (G/TBT/W/165).
Several Members agreed with Switzerland that the multiplicity of labelling was causing
market access problems for developing country exports, particularly with respect to the increasing
reference to life cycle analysis and non-product-related production and processing methods (PPMs).Hong Kong, China noted that this had implications for the definition of "like product," and that
labelling should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  Tunisia said that non-tariff barriers to trade
based on PPM labelling, even if voluntary, were harmful to developing country exports.  The Czech
Republic, the observer of China and others noted the potential for eco-labelling to be misused for
protectionist purposes;  deliberations should ensure labelling was not misused.  The EC said
clarification would reduce the risk of PPMs bein g abused for protectionist purposes, promote
predictability, reduce trade frictions, and help policy makers design measures that responded to policyconcerns while having greater confidence that the measures were compatible with trade rules.
The Gambia, Cuba, Tunisia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Venezuela were among
the Members calling for increased capacity building and technology and financial transfer, as well as
developing country participation in standards-making bodies.
Item 4 – Trade measures for environmental pu rposes and environment measures with trade
effects
The Secretariat circulated the WTO Environmental Database containing environment-related
measures or provisions notified by Members in 2000 (WT/CTE/W/195).PRESS/TE/036
Page 7
Item 6 – Effects of environmental measures on  market access and environmental benefits of
trade liberalization
With respect to the sectoral analysis of the environmental benefits of trade liberalization,
statements were made on agriculture, energy, fisheries, non-ferrous metals, and environmental
services.  Members noted that the way forward in the CTE was to focus on "win-win-win" initiatives
that demonstrate the benefits to environmental protection, trade liberalization and development.
Fisheries  – The FAO reported on the results of its expert consultation on economic incentives
and responsible fisheries (28 November – 1 December 2000), the FAO Committee on Fisheries (26
February – 2 March 2001), and the first inter-agency meeting to enhance collaboration on work on
fisheries subsidies (WT/CTE/W/189).  The FAO, su pported by New Zealand, Iceland and others, said
that a key conclusion of the inter-agency consultation was that information and analysis is still
inadequate.  New Zealand said that more detailed work was needed to establish the nature and scale oftransfers and subsidies.
The WTO Secretariat circulated an update of work on fisheries subsidies in relevant
international fora (WT/CTE/W/167/Add.1), and a li st of notifications under Article 25 of the SCM
Agreement (WT/CTE/W/80/Add.2).  The EC and others referred to the importance of notifyingsubsidies under the SCM Agreement.  Thailand noted that more than half of the notified fisheries
subsidies were aimed at the fish harvesting sector.  Members requested the Secretariats of the various
fora in which fisheries subsidies issues were being discussed to continue to update the CTE.
Iceland, New Zealand, the United States, Australia, Chile, Peru and Norway were among the
Members calling for fisheries subsidies to be addressed at the Qatar Ministerial.  Fisheries was a key
natural resource sector in which subsidy reform, predominantly in developed countries, could be of
benefit to the environment, trade and development.  If there were to be balance, Australia stressed,
subsidy reform should be placed in the context of the WTO contribution to sustainable development.
In this respect, several developing country Members noted that poverty is the main enemy of theenvironment.
Japan and Korea stressed the need to maintain a holistic approach to fisheries issues in
general and that subsidies should be considered in the context of sustainable use of fisheries
resources.  Korea noted the need to define fisheries subsidies.  The EC, Japan and Korea reiteratedthat the FAO was the main forum for discussions on fisheries and the various aspects of fisheries
management.  The EC said it was examining its fi sheries management framework and referred to the
Commission's Green Paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy in the EC
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/greenpaper/green1_en.htm ).
Energy  – There was some discussion of the background paper that the Secretariat had been
asked to prepare for the October meeting on the energy sector.  UNEP reported on its regionalworkshops with the International Energy Agency on the contribution of energy subsidy reform to
sustainable development.
Agriculture  – Argentina called Members' attention to its submission in the Agriculture
Committee and the CTE (G/AG/NG/W/88 and WT/CTE/W/188) on the legitimate non-trade concernsin the agriculture negotiations, which it would take up at the October meeting of the CTE.  The paper
dealt with three non-trade concerns:  rural poverty, unemployment and environmental degradation.
Forestry  – Cameroon noted the importance of forestry to its economic development;  non-
tariff barriers to trade in this sector threatened the country's exports.
END