WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/W/199
20 July 2001
(01-3611)
Committee on Trade and Environment Original:  English
UNEP MEETING ON COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN
MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND THE WTO,
GENEVA, 26 JUNE 2001
CHAIRMAN 'S SUMMARY
Communication from UNEP
I. OBJECTIVES AND STRUCTURE OF THE MEETING
1. This meeting, convened by UNEP in cooperation with MEAs and the WTO Secretariat
on 26 June 2001, was intended to provide a constructive, open and informal dialogue between tradeand environment officials, representatives of intergovernmental organizations and civil society on
compliance, enforcement and dispute settlement systems in MEAs and the WTO.  It built on a process
of UNEP meetings on the MEA-WTO relationship, initiated in June 1999, which included the High
Level Panel Discussion at the 8
th Commission on Sustainable Development in New York in
April 2000, the meeting on "Enhancing Synergies and Mutual Supportiveness of MEAs and theWTO" in Geneva in October 2000, and the "High Level Meeting on Environment, Sustainable
Development and Trade" in Berlin in March 2001.  This process responds to UNEP's mandate
formulated at its 21
st Governing Council, which includes furthe r analysis of the relationship between
MEAs and the WTO, with a view to making trade and environment policies mutually supportive
(GC 21/14).
2. The meeting was attended by representatives from around 55 countries, and by
representatives of intergovernmental organizations, including the WTO and UNCTAD, and bynon-governmental organizations.  MEAs represented at the meeting included the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD);  the Basel Convention on Tr ansboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal (BC);  the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES);  the Montreal Protocol on Substan ces that Deplete the Ozone Layer;  the Rotterdam
Convention on Prior Informed Consent;  the Stoc kholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;
the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
An opening statement was made by Ambassador Alejan dro Jara, Chairman of the CTE.  Presentations
were made by officials from the WTO Legal Affairs and Trade and Environment Divisions, from the
UNFCCC, Montreal Protocol, CITES and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, as well as UNEP's
Divisions of Environmental Policy and Implem entation (DEPI) and Environmental Conventions
(DEC).  The meeting was chaired by Mr. Hussein Abaza, Chief of the Economics and Trade Unit of
UNEP's Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.
3. The objectives of the meeting were to identi fy complementarities and synergies and examine
the relationship between compliance and dispute settlement mechanisms in MEAs and the WTO.  It
also sought to contribute to other processes, including the CTE and preparations for theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, and to generate ideas that would
contribute to implementing UNEP Governing Council decisions on developing guidelines on
compliance and enforcement in MEAs (GC 21/27), and on strengthening international environmental
governance (GC 21/21). The advice of trade and environment officials and other meeting participantsWT/CTE/W/199
Page 2
was sought on activities that could be undertaken, individually or collectively, by UNEP, MEAs, and
the WTO to enhance synergies between these regimes in the area of compliance and dispute
settlement.  The meeting was structured to provide an open and informal forum, removed from a
negotiating context, to explore options for incr easing the mutually supportive nature of global
economic and environmental governance.
4. This Chairman's Summary contains points made in the meeting's formal presentations and in
the discussions which followed, and is not a consensus document agreed by governments.  It is
offered by the Chair as a source of information for the meeting's participants, and to secure further
guidance on this collaborative process to enhance synergies between trade and environment
institutions and rules.
II. MAIN POINTS ARISING FROM THE MEETING
5. The meeting's presentations and discussions drew substantially on the paper prepared by the
WTO and UNEP Secretariats on "Compliance and Dispute Settlement Provisions in the WTO and
Multilateral Environmental Agreements" (WT/CTE/W/191). This paper, prepared in close
cooperation with MEA Secretariats, also served as a background document for the MEA Information
Session that took place in the CTE on 27th June 2001.  A number of governments and
intergovernmental organizations commented on the clarity and utility of the paper in informing thesediscussions, and elements of the observations and analysis contained within it were reiterated in the
formal presentations and the subsequent discussions.
A. G
ENERAL POINTS
• The WTO Agreements and MEAs are 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.
• Several participants noted that sustainable development was an overarching goal
shared by many trade and environment agreements; and that it is therefore animportant task to identify and build synergies between them to achieve sustainable
development.
• The obligations in different MEAs – including those relating to compliance and
dispute settlement – reflect differing environmental, economic, social, institutional
and technological factors.
• MEAs and the WTO agreements are separate but equal bodies of international law.
• MEAs and the WTO emphasize different approaches to securing effectiveness of
their respective agreements: the MEAs focus primarily on promoting all parties'compliance with their provisions and avoiding disputes;  the WTO focuses primarily
on resolving disputes in a timely and binding manner.
• The fact that MEAs are designed to protect human health and the environment,
including in areas of shared environmental concern, requiring broad international
cooperation, whereas the WTO has a major role in the settlement of trade disputeswhich arise from perceived injury to comme rcial interests, helps to explain their
differing emphasis on compliance and dispute settlement.
• Given the varied objectives of MEAs, a number of participants noted that "one-size-
fits-all" solutions to compliance and dispute settlement issues are neither appropriatenor practical.
• A number of participants emphasized the need to make progress on discussions
regarding the relationship between MEAs and the WTO.  The importance of makingWT/CTE/W/199
Page 3
progress on clarifying this relationship at the WSSD meeting was also emphasized.
Others, in contrast, noted that they saw no need to clarify this relationship.
B. ROLE OF COMPLIANCE MEASURES IN MEA S AND THE WTO
• The overarching goal of compliance measures in both MEAs and the WTO is to
secure effective implementation of treaty obligations.
• Obligations in MEAs are tailored carefully to achieve different objectives and their
provisions, including those relating to compliance and dispute settlement, reflect this.MEA provisions relating to compliance vary according to the various conception,
objectives and approaches of individual MEAs.
• Parties to MEAs have explored innovative, constructive approaches to promote
compliance, with the objective of preventing non-compliance in advance, and of
assisting countries, particularly developing countries and those with economies intransition, to comply through financial and technical assistance, capacity building and
technology transfer.
• In many cases, non-compliance with MEAs arises not because of wilful violation, but
rather because of difficulties in achieving compliance; therefore the best way toaddress non-compliance is often through the provision of assistance, rather than
through punitive measures.
• MEAs and the WTO agreements share many common elements in their compliance
systems.   For example, WTO agreements contain notification requirements, and
provide for monitoring and transparency as well as review mechanisms by WTOcollective bodies.
• Transparency, notification requirements and reviews constitute an important dispute
avoidance mechanism in the WTO.  Some MEAs rely on elaborated compliance and
dispute avoidance mechanisms.  Some participants suggested that, based on the MEA
experience, it might be useful in the WTO to put less emphasis on dispute settlement,
and more on measures to promote compliance.
C. R
OLE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MEASURES IN MEA S AND WTO
• While MEAs generally focus on promoting compliance, they may also include
provisions for settling disputes, should they arise.
• MEA dispute settlement provisions generally follow a progression including
negotiation, good offices, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement.
• The dispute settlement system of the WTO was set up as a central element in
providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.  Its aim is to
secure a prompt resolution of disputes, with a view to finding mutually acceptable
solutions to the Parties to a dispute, which is consistent with the covered agreements.
• The compulsory nature, exclusive jurisdiction, and binding effect of the WTO dispute
settlement process was noted.  It was also noted that these characteristics could leadto the WTO attracting disputes it was not properly equipped to resolve.
• It was suggested that disputes between tw o MEA parties would be very unlikely ever
to be addressed in WTO dispute settlement.  It was also suggested that this might not
necessarily be the case for disputes between a party and a non-party to an MEA, both
of which are parties to the WTO, though such a case has yet to occur.WT/CTE/W/199
Page 4
D. STRENGTHENING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT IN MEA S
• Some participants noted that strengthening of compliance measures in some MEAs
may provide an important way to reduce potential for environmental disputes to arise
in the context of the WTO.
• There was discussion about what was meant by "strengthening" of MEAs compliance
and enforcement measures.  Some participants focused on enhancing the measures
available for addressing non-compliance after it has occurred, others on deepeningthe facilitative compliance-building and dispute avoidance aspects of MEAs.
• Some participants noted that increasing the capacity of governments to implement
MEAs and the WTO agreements – and realizing the synergies between trade and
environment capacity building efforts – could help avoid trade and environment
disputes.
• Increasing the number of parties to MEAs could decrease the likelihood of
MEA-related disputes arising in the WTO, especially those involving a non-party to
an MEA.
E. I
MPORTANCE OF CAPACITY BUILDING
• Capacity-building was seen as a crucial el ement in the implementation of MEAs and
a number of participants remarked on the need for the MEAs, the WTO and UNEP to
undertake more joint activities in this area.  WTO regional seminars on trade and
environment are one important context in which this could be done.
F. ROLE OF COOPERATION AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN MEA S AND WTO
• Greater policy coordination at the national level is important to ensure that all
relevant rights and obligations in international agreements have been considered
during the implementation of existing agreements and the negotiation of new ones,
thereby reducing the likelihood of conflicts, and increasing the mutual supportiveness
of both trade and environment institutions.
• More cooperation and information exchange between MEAs and the WTO, and more
meetings such as this one will contribute to enhanced coordination between theseagreements.
• The value of securing observer status for MEAs in WTO bodies, and vice versa, in
enhancing information exchange was emphasized by a number of participants.  OneMEA official asked if these agreements could secure automatic observer status at
relevant WTO bodies.
• Greater information exchange in the area of compliance and dispute settlement may
assist both MEA and WTO officials in understanding the objectives of their differentagreements.  In the context of the WTO, it may assist officials to understand the
utility of conservation measures under MEAs, in the event of an MEA-related dispute
in the WTO.
• Some participants thought that parties to WTO disputes could usefully select, and
may have already selected, dispute panelists with environmental experience in the
case of environment-related disputes in the WTO.
• There was discussion of the potential for MEA Secretariats, and/or MEA provisions,
to inform WTO dispute settlement processes.  The possibility of doing this under
Article 13 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, which allows panels to
seek information from any relevant sources, was mentioned by some participants.WT/CTE/W/199
Page 5
• The possibility of MEAs securing observer status in the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body was also raised, but it was noted that the WTO's guidelines on observers doesnot seem to allow for observers to the DSB.
• It was noted that Article 31 of the Vienna  Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the
ruling of the WTO Appellate Body in the US-Venezuela Gasoline case that WTO lawshould not be read "in clinical isolation" from other public international law, are
supportive of efforts to build coherence between MEA and WTO dispute settlementprocesses.
III. POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS FOR UNEP, MEAs AND THE WTO
• Enhance joint capacity building activities between the WTO, MEAs and UNEP on
these and related issues, which include improving national level coordination between
trade and environment officials, building synergies between WTO agreements andMEAs.
• Enhance information exchange, cooperation, and joint analysis on concrete issues on
the interface between the compliance and dispute settlement systems of MEAs.
• Explore ways to advance pending requests for observer status in various WTO
bodies.
• Explore cooperation in the context of pote ntial disputes, with the aim of avoiding
formal disputes, and/or enhancing exchange of relevant information by competent
bodies.
• Continue informal cooperation on the interf ace between international environmental
and trade governance between UNEP, MEAs and the WTO.
• Some participants noted the work already being undertaken through UNEP's
compliance and enforcement guidelines process, and suggested continued support and
involvement by states in it.
__________