RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/M/30
11 September 2002
(02-4765)
Committee on Trade and Environment
REPORT OF THE MEETING H ELD ON 13-14 JUNE 2002
Note by the Secretariat
A. MEA I NFORMATION SESSION (SUMMARIZED IN ANNEX ) ..........................................................2
B. P ARAGRAPH 32(ii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (TRIPS) ..................................3
C. P ARAGRAPH 32(i) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (MARKET ACCESS ) ................11
1. The Market Access Aspe ct of paragraph 32(i)......................................................................... 11
2. Sectoral analysis............................................................................................................ .......... 17
(a) Agriculture sector .......................................................................................................... ................. 17
(b) Energy...................................................................................................................... ....................... 17
(c) Forestry.................................................................................................................... ....................... 18
D. P ARAGRAPH 32(iii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (LABELLING ) .......................22
E. O THER ITEMS OF THE CTE W ORK PROGRAMME ......................................................................24
1. Item 4 (Tra nsparency)........................................................................................................ ......24
2. Item 9 (Services) ............................................................................................................ .......... 24
F. P ARAGRAPH 33 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ....................................................24
1. Technical assistance and capacity bu ilding for trade and  environment.................................. 24
2. Environmental reviews ........................................................................................................ ....27
G. P ARAGRAPH 51 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ....................................................29
ANNEX :
MEA I NFORMATION SESSION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE , CAPACITY -BUILDING AND
INFORMATION EXCHANGE ................................................................................................................34
A. O PENING STATEMENTS .............................................................................................................34
B. P RESENTATIONS BY MEA S.......................................................................................................37
1. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora ...................................................................................................................... ........... 37
2. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Inform ed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic  Pollutants............................................................................................... 39
3. The UN Framework Con vention on Climate Change.............................................................. 43
4. The Convention on Biological Diversity.................................................................................. 44
5. The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
............................................................................................................................... ............... 46
6. The International Tropic al Timber Organization.................................................................... 48
7. UN Forum on Forests .......................................................................................................... ....50
8. UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the UN Convention on Law of the Sea.................................. 53
C. C ONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................53WT/CTE/M/30
Page 2
1. The Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) met on 13-14 June 2002 under the
Chairmanship of Ambassador O ğuz Demiralp (Turkey).  The documents submitted for discussion at
the meeting were set out in the Annotated Agenda, circulated to Members on 4 June in Job(02)/51.
The agenda in WTO/AIR/1801 was adopted.
A. MEA I NFORMATION SESSION
2. An Information Session with Secretariats of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
was held in conjunction with the CTE meeting.  The focus of the Session was on technical assistance
and capacity building, as well as on enhancing information exchange and cooperation between UNEP,
MEAs and the WTO.
3. The WTO and UNEP Secretariats, in cooperation with MEA Secretariats, prepared a
background paper on technical assistance, capacity building and enhancing information exchange.1
The representative of the UNEP summarized the discussion at the UNEP meeting on this topic in
Geneva in March 2002 and circulated its report on synergies between MEAs and the WTO.2
Representatives of the following Secretariats presented their technical assistance and capacitybuilding activities and responded to questions from Members:
- the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES);
- UNEP Chemicals (on the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants);
- the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);
- the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);
- the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal;
- the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO);
- the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF);  and
- the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (on the Convention on the Law of
the Sea and the Fish Stocks Agreement).
4. The following Secretariats were unable to attend the meeting:  the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;  the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR).
5. A separate Annex to this report contains the summary report of the MEA Information
Session.
                                                     
1 WT/CTE/W/209, 5 June 2002, MEA Information Session on Technical Assistance, Capacity Building and Enhancing
Information Exchange, Input from the WTO, UNEP and MEA Secretariats.
2 WT/CTE/W/213, 12 June 2002, Enhancing Synergies and Mutual Supportiveness of MEAs and the WTO, A Synthesis Report,
Contribution by UNEP.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 3
B. PARAGRAPH 32(ii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (TRIPS)
The relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS).
6. The Chairman noted that, in order to provide Members with information on recent
developments in the Convention on Biological Dive rsity (CBD), the CBD Secretariat had circulated
the relevant decisions from its Sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties held in the Hague in
April 2002.3
7. The representative of India noted that Ministers had provided a mandate at the Doha
Ministerial Conference to examine the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and
that the issue was primarily being discussed in the TRIPS Council.4  While India believed that the
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD had to be mutually supportive and promote the sustainable use ofresources, at the implementation level, conflicts between the two agreements could arise.  This was
for instance the case where patents were claimed over genetic resources, which were protected by the
CBD.  Examples were well known to the general public and the representative of India referred to a
paper submitted jointly in the CTE and the TRIPS Council.
5  This raised the issue of potential
conflicts with the principle of the sovereignty of the Contracting Parties of the CBD over their geneticresources.  Currently, the TRIPS Agreement allowed Members to provide patents over genetic
resources (plants, animals and microorganisms).  The Agreement, however, contained no provisions
preventing a person from claiming patent rights in one country over genetic resources that were under
the sovereignty of another country.  In partic ular, the TRIPS Agreement contained no provisions
allowing a Member to enforce fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the patenting of its owngenetic resources abroad.  In the absence of clear provisions providing for a mutually supportive
relationship of the TRIPS Agreement with Member s' obligations under the CBD, the implementation
of the former could allow for acts of biopiracy and thus result in systemic conflicts with the CBD.  It
was India's view that to avoid conflicts in the implementation, an amendment of the
TRIPS Agreement to accommodate some essential elements of the CBD would be necessary.  Failureto provide a solution to this relationship could be detrimental to both the objectives of the agreements
themselves as well as to the objective of sustainable development.
8. India went on to note that several developing countries had proposed that the TRIPS
Agreement be amended in order to require that an applicant for a patent relating to biological
materials or to traditional knowledge:  (i) disclose the source and country of origin of the biological
resource and of the traditional knowledge used in the invention;  (ii) give evidence of prior informed
consent through approval of authorities under the relevant national regimes;  and, (iii) give evidenceof fair and equitable benefit sharing under the relevant national regimes.  Such measures were fully in
line with the provisions of the CBD and the recommendations of the Bonn Guidelines on Access to
Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilisation .
6
An amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to include such provisions would prevent systemic conflicts
with the CBD arising from the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.  In order to provide a
mutually supportive relationship between the TR IPS Agreement and the CBD, one important step
would be to ensure that the patenting of biologic al resources - plants, animals or micro-organisms -
                                                     
3 WT/CTE/W/210, IP/C/W/347/Add.1, 10 June 2002, Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the
TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Information fr om
Intergovernmental Organizations, Addendum, Convention on Biological Diversity.
4 For the mandate, see WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, 20 November 2001, Ministerial Declaration, Ministerial Conference,
Fourth Session, Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001, Adopted on 14 November 2001, paras. 12 and 19.
5 WT/CTE/W/156, IP/C/W/198, 14 July 2000, Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge – The Indian Experience,
Submission by India.
6 Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilisation ,
in Decision VI/24 on Access and Benefit-sharing as related to Genetic Resources, CBD, COP-6, April 2002, The Hague, Netherlands  at
www.biodiv.org/decisions/.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 4
did not run counter to the provisions of the CBD, in particular those provisions recognizing the
sovereignty of the Contracting Parties to the CBD over their genetic resources; the objectives of
benefit sharing and of prior informed consent; and the protection of traditional knowledge.
9. The above requirements would represent an important step towards ensuring, although only to
a limited extent, protection of traditional knowledge from unauthorised patenting by third personswithout the prior informed consent of the traditio nal communities that held that knowledge.  The
incorporation of the proposed requirements in th e TRIPS Agreement, however, would only provide
defensive protection for traditional communities from misappropriation of their knowledge -
associated or not to genetic resources - through unauthorised patenting.  Consequently, the
representative of India was of the view that it might be necessary to give further consideration to
proposals regarding an international framework to provide positive protection of traditional
knowledge, which would recognize protection of traditional knowledge at the national and regionallevels.
10. The representative of Brazil supported and reiterated the main elements of the statement made
by the delegation of India on the issue of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the
CBD.  Brazil added that, in the context of the revi ew of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, a
number of Members, in particular developing countries, had presented in the TRIPS Council theirviews on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, which included a number of
proposals to ensure compatibility betw een the two agreements.  During a Seminar on the Protection
and Commercialization of Traditional Knowledge ,
7 several developing countries had expressed
support for the need to develop an internationally agreed instrument that would recognise the
protection of traditional knowledge at the national level, as this would not only preventmisappropriation but also ensure that national level benefit sharing mechanisms and laws were
respected worldwide.
11. Based on the mandate of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, a group of developing countries
were currently discussing, in informal mode, the possibility of submitting to the next session of the
TRIPS Council a specific proposal regarding the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement, theCBD and the protection of traditional knowledge.  A number of provisions in the CBD were relevant
to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, fo r instance:  Article 1 on the objectives of the
Convention itself, Article 3 which recognized the principle of sovereign right of its Contracting
Parties to exploit such resources and Articles 15, 16(5) and 8(j).  Moreover, the recently adopted Bonn
Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising
out of their Utilisation
8 could serve as inputs when developing and drafting legislative, administrative
or policy measures on access and benefit-sharing.
12. The representative of Pakistan supported India's and Brazil's statements on the relationship
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and the pr otection of traditional knowledge and folklore.
13. The representative of the United States introduced two papers which had been submitted to
the TRIPS Council on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  The first paper9
discussed four provisions of the CBD that had been referred to by some of those asserting that there
could be inconsistencies between the provisions of the CBD and those of the TRIPS Agreement.
These were CBD Articles 8(j), 15, 16 and 19, which concerned various aspects of access to genetic
resources, including benefit sharing.  The paper went into some detail on how, by using a contractual
system, each of the cited articles of the CBD could be implemented effectively.  The paper noted the
                                                     
7 New Delhi, 3-5 April 2002. See WT/CTE/W/214, IP/C/W/350, 26 June 2002, Seminar on Systems for the Protection and
Commercialization of Traditional Knowledge, Communiqué - New Delhi, 3-5 April 2002, Communication from UNCTAD,
paragraph 32(ii).
8 Bonn Guidelines, supra.
9 IP/C/W/257, 13 June 2001, TRIPS Council, Views of the United States on the Relationship between the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the TRIPS Agreement, Communication from the United States.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 5
synergies that would exist between such implementation and the implementation of TRIPS
obligations.  The United States hoped that the suggestions made in the paper would stimulate a serious
discussion in the CTE in which WTO Members that were also Parties to the CBD could describe their
practical experience with implementation under both agreements.  The paper demonstrated that the
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and those of the CBD were mutually supportive, to the degreethat there was a relationship between the two.
14. The United States recalled Brazil's statement at the CTE meeting in June 2001
10 when the
representative of Brazil recognized that while nothing in the TRIPS Agreement prevented Members
from implementing the CBD at the national level, furt her work was required to prevent conflicts at the
implementation level.  This work included the n eed to incorporate some elements of the CBD in
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, such as the disclosure of benefit sharing in the patent filing
process;  evidence of prior informed consent from the holders of the genetic material;  evidence of thetraditional knowledge involved in the invention, and the disclosure of the genetic material used in it.
The United States disagreed that such changes were needed.
15. The above-mentioned paper submitted by the United States described a system using
contracts that protected sovereign rights to provide access to genetic resources or to traditional
knowledge.
11  As part of such a contract, an obligation could be included that would require the party
being granted access to genetic resources to report any invention to the appropriate authorities and to
identify in the specification of any patent application the source of the resources and the contract that
established the terms and conditions under which access was provided, thereby indicating prior
informed consent.  Such an arrangement would be far more effective than changes to patent law that
Brazil and other countries were proposing.  First, contract obligations established the rights andobligations of all parties prior to granting any access to genetic resources.  This ensured that there was
prior informed consent on all sides.  A contract could, among other things, provide for an inventory of
genetic resources taken with reporting on: (i) research involving those resources, (ii) inventions
developed from those resources, or (iii) patent a pplications filed claiming those inventions.  Such
contracts could also provide for benefit sharing and transfer of technology, as appropriate, includingthrough royalty free license to the parties granting the access to genetic resources.  This was the case
with contracts that the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) entered into with countries from which it
collected plant genetic materials.  Such contracts could also require that any licensee of the original
party to which access had been granted would be required to assume the same obligations as the
original party to the contract.  Contracts could also  establish the ways in which disputes regarding the
contract would be resolved, including questions of jurisdiction and the use of arbitration.  In the event
of a dispute, a well-crafted contract was much easier to enforce than would be a provision in a patentlaw requiring identification of the source of genetic resources, and remedies such as specific
performance and compensation would be available to the wronged party.  The United States believed
that these factors argued in favor of the CBD's Contracting Parties developing a contractual system
for implementing the provisions of the CBD related to access to genetic resources and benefit sharing.
16. A second paper
12 described the NCI practices for collecting genetic resources in the form of
plants from countries around the world.  The Developmental Therapeutics Programme (DTP) was the
NCI's drug discovery program, which, among other things, screened synthetic compounds and natural
product materials derived from plants, marine macro-organisms and microbes as potential sources of
novel anti-cancer drugs.  Since 1986, the NCI-DTP had acquired 53,000 plant and 13,000 marine
invertebrate samples, in addition to 3,000 marine plants and 25,000 fungal extracts from more than30 tropical or sub-tropical source countries, or from organizations in those source countries.  Most of
these samples had been obtained by the NCI-DTP under negotiated Letters of Collection or
Memoranda of Understanding with the source coun try or source country organization.  The NCI
                                                     
10 WT/CTE/M/27, 8 August 2001, Report of the Meeting held on 27-28 June 2001, Note by the Secretariat, para. 76.
11 IP/C/W/257, supra.
12 IP/C/W/341, 25 March 2002, TRIPS Council, Technology Transfer Practices of the US National Cancer Institute’s
Departmental Therapeutics Programme, Communication from the United States.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 6
promoted conservation of biological diversity, and recognized the need to collaborate with source
country organizations in developing medicines from  organisms collected within countries' borders, or
obtained from source country organizations and peoples.
17. These Letters of Collection and Memoranda of Understanding, among other things, provided
for compensation or other benefits related to commercialization of any products developed frommaterials acquired from source countries or source country organizations.  In addition, the NCI and
the US National Institutes of Health-Office of Technology Transfer required any NCI licensee to
negotiate its own agreement with the source country or source country licensee.  That agreement had
to address the concerns of both the licensee and the source country or source country organization to
ensure that pertinent agencies, institutions and persons received royalties and other forms of
compensation, as appropriate.  The amount of royalties depended on the relationship of any marketed
medicine to the original lead from the extract.  NCI-DTP also made sincere efforts to transferknowledge, expertise, and technology related to drug discovery and development to the source
country organization, so long as mutually acceptable guarantees were provided for intellectual
property associated with any shared technology.  The paper provided considerable detail regarding the
NCI practices and examples of the Letters of Collection and Memoranda of Understanding were
included.  The United States was willing to provide additional information to those with particularinterests and it was hoped that Members would find these examples useful as models that could be
used in developing contracts for governing access to  genetic resources, or in reviewing such contracts
for possible changes.
18. The representative of the European Communities noted that the Doha Ministerial Declaration
instructed the TRIPS Council to continue the re view of Article 27.3(b) and to examine the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and the protection of traditional knowledge
and folklore.  The new mandate under the Doha Development Agenda allowed Members to give a
new impetus to this debate, within a proper framework.  The European Communities welcomed this
broader mandate, because it had always felt that the review process of Article 27.3(b) was too narrow
a basis for dealing with the wide array of complex issues that had been raised under this review.However, the European Communities acknowledged th at both processes, i.e. the review of Article
27.3(b) and the examination of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, were by
virtue of their numerous interconnections, inseparable.
19. The European Communities had always, since the run-up to Seattle, declared its openness to
deal with these issues in a new round of negotiations, as a sign of its commitment to address
developing countries' concerns.  The link with development had obviously to be the red thread of this
debate.  This was emphasised by paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration which instructed
the TRIPS Council to be guided by Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement and to take fully into
account the development dimension.  The European Communities was willing to develop positions
and actions that were genuinely responsive to de veloping countries' concerns, without, however,
affecting the level of intellectual property protection currently offered by the TRIPS Agreement and
while preserving a favourable intellectual property environment for its biotechnology research.
20. The European Communities recalled that it had already expressed its views on the
relationship between intellectual property and biodiversity and on traditional knowledge in a
Communication to the TRIPS Council.
13  The Communication was based upon two main premises.
First, the European Communities believed that, fr om a legal perspective, the CBD and the TRIPS
Agreement did not conflict with each other even though it acknowledged that there was considerableinteraction between the rights referred to in the TRIPS Agreement and the subject-matter of the CBD.
Secondly, the European Communities believed that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD had to be
implemented in a mutually supportive way in order not to undermine their respective objectives.
                                                     
13 IP/C/W/254, 13 June 2001, TRIPS Council, Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement: The
Relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the TRIPS Agreement, Communication from the European Communitie s
and their member States.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 7
Therefore, the European Communities wanted to engage in this new process in a spirit of openness
with a view to finding means to interpret a nd implement the TRIPS Agreement in a way that
supported the objectives of the CBD, including the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising
from the use of genetic resources.
21. To this effect, the European Communities was r eady to examine the clarification of certain
existing TRIPS rules, such as the obligation to provide for an effective sui generis  protection regime
for plant varieties under Article 27.  However, any proposal to amend the TRIPS Agreement, such as
those already put forward by certain Members, w ould need further careful examination.  One such
proposal concerned the disclosure of the origin, in patent applications, of genetic resources used in
inventions.  The European Communities was prepared to engage in a discussion on the modalities of
any system that would allow Members to keep track, at the global level, of patent applications related
to genetic resources or traditional knowledge to which they had granted access.  TheEuropean Communities was also open to examine measures to better prevent the inappropriate
patenting of traditional knowledge.
22. In order to take a fresh start to the wide debate on TRIPS and CBD in the TRIPS Council, the
European Communities would welcome, from countries which had specific demands on these issues,
a systematic presentation of their views, which would allow a structured and fruitful discussion.  Onits part, the European Communities was preparing a new Communication to the TRIPS Council on the
issues falling under paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
23. The representative of Norway noted that in a Communication to the TRIPS Council in
June 2001,14 Norway had presented a brief analysis on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement
and the CBD.  At that time, Norway concluded that although there were no legal conflicts between thetwo agreements, potential existed.  The key element in ensuring consistency between the two
agreements would lie in the implementation of the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement in national
legislation.  There was still considerable scope for progress in this regard.  Norway had started a
process of systematically analysing the CBD in relation to Norwegian law in order to make the
amendments that might be necessary.  The objective of this was an effective implementation of CBDprovisions in Norwegian law.  So as to learn from others' experiences, perhaps an idea would be a
compilation of national experiences on CBD implementation.  Such a compilation could be useful for
both the work of the CTE and the TRIPS Council.  Norway noted with satisfaction the outcome of the
meeting of the COP-6 of the CBD where the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and
Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilisation  were formally adopted.
15
Some of these guidelines were clearly relevant for discussions in the CTE, particularly the
recommendation to governments about disclosure mechanisms for genetic resources and traditionalknowledge contained in products for which intell ectual property rights protection was sought.
24. Regarding the view expressed by some in favor of amending the TRIPS Agreement so as to
accommodate effective implementation of the CBD, it was interesting that some of the same
delegations that had intervened in the more general debate on WTO/MEAs (see Annex) supporting
WTO authority to decide upon the nature of trade measures in MEAs.  Finally, Norway welcomed thefinalization of the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture .
16
This new treaty would have significant influence on the management of genetic resources and
contribute to the implementation of the CBD in the field of agriculture.
25. The representative of Canada noted that while the CTE had a role to play in examining the
effects of the TRIPS provisions on operation of MEAs, the fundamental intellectual property rights
                                                     
14 IP/C/W/293, 29 June 2001, TRIPS Council, Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement: The Relationship between the
TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, Communication from Norway.
15 Bonn Guidelines, supra.
16 See www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 8
issues and definitions needed to be left to th e World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).17
Moreover, discussions of the trade-related intellectual property obligations needed to be left to the
TRIPS Council.  Recognizing that many of the i ssues raised in the CTE and in the TRIPS Council
would be similar, Canada encouraged Members to avoid duplication of discussion in various fora and
to focus instead on the issues most relevant to the work of the respective WTO bodies.  Canadabelieved it was the responsibility of parties to ensure respect of their international obligations.  Hence,
Canada was working to ensure that implementation decisions required as result of CBD commitments
respected other international obligations, includin g those in the TRIPS Agreement.  This had also
been Canada's objective in the negotiations on the recently concluded FAO International Treaty on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture .
18  The Treaty contained access and benefit sharing
provisions which also dealt with intellectual property issues.  It was in harmony with the CBD and
consistent with the TRIPS Agreement.  It both facilitated the conservation of, and access to, geneticresources and respected intellectual property rights.  Canada would ratify this new treaty in the
context of the World Food Summit.
19
26. Canada believed that the work of WIPO was critical to better understand the relationship
between intellectual property rights, access to genetic resources and the protection of traditional
knowledge.  Holding such discussions at WIPO a llowed parties to focus on fundamental intellectual
property issues and to draw on the organisation's considerable expertise.  Canada noted that the WIPO
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge
and Folklore (IGC) was currently at work and was expected to wrap up its deliberations in 2003.
Canada believed that the result of these discussions would make the discussions of the relationship
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD more meaningful in the future.
27. The representative of the Czech Republic was convinced that there was no legal conflict
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. According to the Czech Republic, the CBD recognized
the patentability of products issued from genetic resources and the TRIPS Agreement set the
minimum standards of intellectual property rights protection, including patents.  From this point of
view, the Czech Republic supported the opinion of some Members of the WTO that both the TRIPSAgreement and the CBD had to be implemented in a mutually supportive way.  To achieve this goal,
effective cooperation among relevant WTO bodies and the CBD was necessary, and technical
assistance provided to developing countries was of high importance.
28. The Czech Republic mentioned the example of the International Union for the Protection of
New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
20 in relation with the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic
Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilisation .21  T h e
effective protection of any invention was a very good incentive for further research and developmentin the area.  However, access to genetic resources was a prerequisite for plant breeding and a
fundamental requirement for sustainable development.  Even if the new variety was protected, it had
to remain fully available for further development of  new varieties.  Both conditions, the condition of
protection and the condition of availability, were fulfilled in the concept of sui generis  protection
system which had been elaborated for plant varietie s by UPOV.  This concept contained also a benefit
sharing mechanism which continued to be successfully used.  As for the disclosure of the country of
origin, or of the geographical origin of genetic resources, it could facilitate the examination of
novelty, distinctness, uniformity, and stability of a new variety.  Yet this went over the intellectual
property rights protection system and could not become an additional condition for patentability and
protectability of a new plant variety.
                                                     
17 See www.wipo.org.
18 See www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm.
19 See www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/index.html.
20 See www.upov.int/eng.
21 Bonn Guidelines, supra.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 9
29. The representative of Cuba supported the statements made by India and Brazil.  Cuba's
position was that the TRIPS Agreement as well as the CBD had to be mutually supportive and
promote the sustainable use of resources.  Cuba considered therefore that certain amendments to the
TRIPS Agreement were required in order to ensure that it did not run against the objectives of the
CBD.
30. The representative of Switzerland considered  that the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement were
mutually supportive and that there was no legal contradiction between the two.  Switzerland was
convinced that the same applied concerning the relation between the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety22 and the TRIPS Agreement.  Regarding the protection of traditional knowledge and
folklore, the Swiss delegation had proposed, pursuant to its communication submitted to the
TRIPS Council,23 the creation of a database on traditional knowledge which could be useful for
authorities granting patents in determining the novel ty of an invention associated to traditional
knowledge.  Inscription in a database could assist  these authorities since traditional knowledge was
often transmitted orally.  This could constitute an important step towards a better understanding of
issues linked to traditional knowledge and to the sharing of benefits resulting from use of this
traditional knowledge.  Switzerland expressed the view that this international database should be set
up by WIPO.  At the TRIPS Council in March 2002, Switzerland had indicated that while the WIPOIntergovernmental Committee was the most suitable  forum for dealing with issues relating to
traditional knowledge and folklore, nothing could prevent the TRIPS Council from examining issues
which were not fully dealt with at WIPO.  Consequently, Switzerland believed that initially it would
be better to wait for the outcome of the work done by the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee.  The
first results would be discussed at the Third Session of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committeewhich would be held from 13-21 June 2002.  Subsequently, if these issues were to be discussed in the
WTO, there would have to be close cooperation between the CTE and the TRIPS Council.
31. The representative of Australia also considered that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD were
not in conflict.  If properly managed, the national implementation of the obligation under both
agreements could result in a regime that substantially addressed concerns often raised about protectionof traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing from genetic resources.  Australia, as one of the world's
megabiodiverse nations, had major interests in this issue.  Australia was currently drafting regulations
which would provide for the management of access to genetic resources for any bioprospecting, and
require equitable benefit sharing agreements for any subsequent commercialisation.  At the
international level, fruitful discussions were taking place in the TRIPS Council and the WIPO
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge
and Folklore.  Australia would be discussing these issues in more detail in these meetings in thecoming weeks.  If delegates in the CTE wanted more information on Australia's approach on these
issues, they were invited to consult its communication submitted to the TRIPS Council in
October 2001.
24
32. The observer of the CBD Secretariat indicated that it had been argued that intellectual
property rights could encourage access and benefit-sharing as well as the protection of traditional
knowledge if the application for such rights required the identification of the source of the genetic
material, and the proof of prior informed consent of the competent national authority in the provider
country.  In line with this, COP-6 had invited Parties and Governments to encourage the disclosure of
the country of origin of genetic resources and of  relevant traditional knowledge, innovations and
practices in applications for intellectual property rights.25  However, COP-6 had also recognized the
need for further work on this topic and had identified a list of issues which required further
information gathering and analysis, in collaboration with a number of relevant organizations,
                                                     
22 See www.biodiv.org/biosafety.
23 IP/C/W/284, 15 June 2001, TRIPS Council, Review of Article 27.3(b):  The View of Switzerland, Communication from
Switzerland.
24 IP/C/W/310, 2 October 2001, TRIPS Council, Review of Article 27.3(b), Communication from Australia.
25 Bonn Guidelines, supra.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 10
including the WTO.  For instance, two items of this list were: consistency and applicability of
requirements for disclosure of country of orig in and prior informed consent in the context of
international legal obligations; and efficacy of country of origin and prior informed consent
disclosures in assisting the examination of intellectual property rights applications and the re-
examination of intellectual property rights granted.
33. In regard to the role of sui generis  systems for the protection of traditional knowledge, the
Conference of the Parties had specifically requested the WTO to make relevant information provided
through its notification system available to the CBD Secretariat.  The CBD was of the opinion that
this recognition of the need for further analytical work on the relationships between the TRIPS
Agreement and the CBD offered an important opportunity for further cooperation and information
exchange between the relevant bodies of the WTO and the CBD.26
34. The observer of UNCTAD commented on its work relating to the protection of traditional
knowledge.  In February 2000, at UNCTAD's Tenth Conference, member States decided to address
the protection of traditional knowledge as part of UNCTAD’s work in the area of trade and
environment.  The emphasis was on exchanging national experiences on policies and measures to
protect traditional knowledge in a broad sense and on identifying policies to harness traditional
knowledge for trade and development.
35. Since then, there had been a number of activities.  In October 2000, UNCTAD member States
convened an Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for the Protection of Traditional
Knowledge, Innovations and Practices .27  In March 2001, UNCTAD's Commission on Trade in
Goods and Services and Commodities adopted recommendations in which UNCTAD, in cooperation
with relevant intergovernmental organizations, had been called upon to undertake a number ofactivities, including to:  conduct analytical work and organize regional workshops to exchange
national experiences and examine strategies on traditional knowledge-related issues; to assist member
States and local and indigenous communities in exploring policies to harness traditional knowledge
for trade and development;  and to assist interested developing countries in exploring ways to protect
traditional knowledge.
36. In response to these recommendations, a capacity building project on Harnessing Traditional
Knowledge for Deve lopment and Trade  was under development.  It was also envisaged to include
capacity building on traditional knowledge as part of UNCTAD's work programme on post-Doha
activities.  Traditional knowledge had been given special attention in ongoing and recently-completed
trade, environment and development capacity building projects, particularly the project funded by the
UK Department For International Development (DFID)
28 on enhancing research and policy-making
capacity in ten developing countries, as well as BIOTRADE and UNCTAD/UN DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)
29 country projects.  Traditional knowledge was also a main topic considered by
the UNCTAD/International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)30 project on
TRIPS and Development.  A module on Harnessing Traditional Knowledge for Development and
Trade  had been added to the TrainForTrade31 and Capacity-building Task Force on Trade,
Environment and Development (CBTF) training course series.32
37. On 3-5 April 2002, the Government of India and UNCTAD convened a  Seminar on Systems
for the Protection and Commercialization of Traditional Knowledge  in New Delhi.  Representatives
from Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Kenya, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka,
                                                     
26 See WT/CTE/W/210, IP/C/W/347/Add.1, supra.
27 See for more detail: www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/openF1.htm.
28 DFID is a UK Government department working to promote sustainable development and eliminate world poverty
(www.dfid.gov.uk).
29 See www.undp.org.
30 See www.ictsd.org.
31 See www.unctad.org/trainfortrade/index.htm.
32 See www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 11
Thailand, Venezuela and India, and a number of international experts and inter-governmental
organizations participated.  In the Communiqué issued by the meeting, participants expressed the need
for understanding the viability of various instruments including national sui generis  systems of
protection and their recognition at the international level.33  Participants had agreed that
commercialization of traditional knowledge-based pr oducts and services, where appropriate, was to be
promoted with an emphasis on equitable benefit- sharing with local and indigenous communities and
with their prior informed consent.  Particular atte ntion needed to be paid to the sustainable use and
management of biological resources in this process.
38. Finally, UNCTAD welcomed the adoption by consensus by the FAO Conference in
November 2001 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture .34
This treaty represented an important bridge between agriculture, environment and trade.  UNCTAD
planned to organize a meeting in Geneva in the autumn of 2002 on this treaty and its implications forGeneva-based negotiations.  This would be of particular relevance to the discussions and negotiations
on TRIPS Article 27.3(b).
C. P
ARAGRAPH 32(i) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (MARKET ACCESS )
The effect of environmental measures on market access, especially in relation to
developing countries, in particular the least developed among them, and thosesituations in which the elimination or redu ction of trade restrictions and distortions
would benefit trade, the environment and development.
1. The Market Access Aspect of paragraph 32(i)
39. The representative of India introduced a paper highlighting the problems being faced by
developing countries in getting market access due to environmental measures in export markets.35
The paper focused on market access for those products which were in themselves environment
friendly but which nevertheless faced restrictions.  Such environmental measures worked against
sustainable development in that they reduced  market access for developing country products.
Sustainable development was a larger issue encompassing, inter alia , the efficient allocation of world
resources, domestic environmental imperatives, poverty alleviation and the creation of additional
wealth for environmental protection in developing countries.  Jute, one of the most environment
friendly packaging material, was one example.  Another was requirements on packaging materials
made from wood sourced from sustainable managed forests or plantations.  A third was traditional
farming practices.  Farming without using chemical fertilizers and pesticides was quite common in
developing countries, yet the resulting organic food products often failed to find market access in
export markets due to multiple requirements of conformity assessment.
40. India's paper suggested a number of steps to take in order to ensure greater market access for
environment friendly products from developing countries.  These included the involvement of
developing countries in the design of environmental measures, technical assistance, and longer time
frames for compliance.  It was also necessary to recognize equivalence of environmental measures in
developing countries, as was provided for by the TBT Agreement.  India's experience was that theresults so far in achieving equivalence were not satisfactory.
                                                     
33 The papers and presentations from this meeting are available on the UNCTAD Web site (www.unctad.org) and the final
communiqué was circulated in the CTE as:  WT/CTE/W/214, IP/C/W/350, 26 June 2002, Seminar on Systems for the Protection andCommercialization of Traditional Knowledge, Communiqué - New Delhi, 3 – 5 April 2002, Communication from UNCTAD,
paragraph 32(ii).
34 See www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm.
35 WT/CTE/W/207, 21 May 2002, The Effects of Environmental Measures on Market Access, Especially in Relation to
Developing Countries, in particular the Least-Developed among them, Submission from India on paragraph 32(i) of the Doha Minist erial
Declaration.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 12
41. The representative of the United States noted that India's paper contained thoughtful analysis
of the relationship between environmental measures and market access, and the means by which
developing countries could avoid being disadvantaged.  For example, the paper highlighted the
importance of technical assistance and capacity building and access to information on environmental
requirements.  While the United State could take issu e with some of the specific points raised in the
paper, the United States viewed the paper broadly as seeking to reconcile environmental protection
measures with the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory trading system so that both could
be pursued in mutually supportive ways.  This was the crux of the provisions in the Doha Ministerial
Declaration on trade and environment.  Certain of the issues raised in the paper could already be
addressed under existing provisions of the WTO agreements.  The TBT Agreement specifically
provided disciplines and other avenues for addressing many of the issues highlighted in the paper,
such as:  eco-labeling;  the development and adoption of standards, technical regulations andconformity assessment procedures;   access to information;  participation in the development of
environmental requirements; and equivalence.
42. The United States considered India's suggestion that the CTE examine some real-world
situations, such as the case of jute, as constructive.  It was noted that the OECD's Joint Working Party
on Trade and Environment had already begun similar work examining the potential impacts ondeveloping country exports of environmental measures and had developed a series of such case
studies that, once finalized, needed to be shared with the broader WTO membership.  Use of such
studies would not only assist in better identifying and clarifying the issues, but could assist in
determining potential areas for targeting assistance.  In summary, the United States was fully prepared
to engage in discussion on the questions put forth by  India, as suggested in paragraph 17 of the paper.
43. The representative of the European Communitie s noted that India's paper was rich in its
examples and strong in its analysis.  The European Communities acknowledged the problems
described in the paper, particularly those faced by small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in
developing countries.  In the context of the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development,
the European Communities would suggest a partnership for the creation of sustainable trade centreswhich would help developing country exporters in being well and timely informed about new
environmental requirements in order to be in a position to adjust their production methods.  The
European Communities looked forward to further discussions on the paper and, like the United States,
noted that there were certain elements and conclusions in the paper which merited reflection in the
context of the TBT Committee.  The European Communities wondered whether it would be useful
that the Secretariat do some further work and analysis on the nature of the various barriers as
described in India's paper in order to enrich the discussions on this issue.
44. The representative of Norway noted that his country was in the process of identifying national
policies and measures that could have detrimental effects on developing countries.  One essential
element in this context was trade policy, including  non-tariff barriers.  In Norway's view, national
environmental policies were designed to improve the health and security for citizens and consumers.
They were elaborated within the framework of – and in line with – international agreements such asthe SPS and TBT Agreements.  Nevertheless, they could have unintentional side-effects on imports
from developing countries.  Norway recalled the ongoing exercise in the OECD on the effects of
environmental measures on developing country exports and welcomed further concrete examples of
such cases.
45. Norway referred to the examples that India presented in its paper concerning packaging,
recycling, refund systems and take-back obligations.  Although importers in Norway had not raised
these problems with the relevant authorities (they had raised others), Norway was considering
whether national packaging legislation could have a negative impact on imports of jute and cardboard
boxes.  With respect to organically-produced food products by small farmers in developing countries,
there was cooperation in Norway between producers, importers, wholesalers and retailers as well aswith NGO's to promote sales of such products.  This included certification and labeling.  SuchWT/CTE/M/30
Page 13
cooperation needed to be encouraged in importing countries.  As regards the Indian proposal that
exceptions should be provided to environmental measures in exporting countries which were different
but equivalent in effect to environmental measures in importing countries, this proposal raised a
number of issues, such as the implementation of national laws and regulations, consumer concerns,
the role of international standards as well as the applicability of mutual recognition.  The issue neededto be reverted to.  Finally, Norway agreed with India that the question of technical assistance for
capacity building was important and Norway was open to consider, on a case by case-basis, technical
assistance, in particular to Least Developed Countries (LDCs).  Norway also supported more
discussions on the proposal made by the European Communities to establish sustainable trade centres.
46. The representative of Korea shared India's view that SMEs in developing countries faced
difficulties in coping with challenges arising from environmental measures of importing countries and
that technical assistance, capacity building and technology transfer were part of the solution.  It wasespecially important to ensure participation of developing countries in the process of developing
environmental standards at the international level.
47. The representative of Canada noted that the TBT Agreement offered some possibilities for
dealing with some of the concerns with respect to transparency and equivalency provisions.  In some
cases the measures had a mixture of health and environmental motivations and were not alwaysclearly environment;  health was, in some countries, more of a driving factor than environment and
this brought the matter under different rules in the WTO.  Canada was involved in a few projects in
this area.  Canada's International Development Research Center (IDRC)
36 was working on a project
which dealt with standards as was the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).37
Furthermore, Canada was one of the three members of the North American Commission on
Environmental Cooperation38 which had, along with the United States and Mexico, worked on issues
relevant to coffee as an example of trying to help  small producers dealing with some of the challenges
in accessing markets in North American as well as other places.
48. The representative of Cuba noted, in his preliminary comments, that as was the case for many
developing countries, Cuba had been affected by environmental measures in its export markets and
that this had increased costs.  Cuba agreed with the message in paragraph 5 of India's paper:  there
was a need for granting developing countries, and in particular LDCs, a longer time frame to achieve
standards of sustainable development.
49. The representative of Malaysia noted that India's paper had enumerated a number of
environmental measures both of a technical and non-technical nature that affected market access.
Unfortunately, these effects were mostly felt by SMEs.  Developing countries usually had very few
choices and their responses seemed to be limited to either adapting to these requirements bymodifying their production techniques or searching for alternative markets, or losing the market.  The
first two alternatives usually meant higher costs or lower profits while the latter was a loss of a market
altogether.  Malaysia appreciated that some countries had taken steps to provide adequate time for
adjustment to measures and provided some justification for the imposition of these measures, and
others had provided technical assistance or information – but this was only in the post-implementationphase.
50. In Malaysia's view, it would be more useful to place importance on the development phase of
the measure so as to ensure that environmental requirements be developed  and later applied in a
manner so as to minimize trade effects.  In this sense there was a need for a more participatory
process.  India's proposal in this regard bore merit.  Account needed to be taken of financial and tradeneeds of developing countries;  that measures be based on the criteria of transparency and equity and,
                                                     
36 See www.idrc.ca.
37 See www.acdi-cida.org.
38 See www.cec.org.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 14
as pointed out above, that the affected countries be given opportunity to participate and give their
views during the development phase.
51. In addition, Malaysia also stressed the importance of developing country participation and
acceptance of international standards on which environmental measures were based.  Malaysia wished
that more attention be given to equivalence and mutual recognition arrangements so that countrieswere able to adapt to these measures in a short and painless way.  Malaysia also noted the comments
and proposals by the European Communities and Norway and agreed that there was a need to explore
whether environmental measures could be designed in the least restrictive manner.
52. The representative of Japan noted that his country attached importance to sustainable
development and, hence, would examine India's subm ission very carefully and come back with more
detailed comments at a later stage.  Japan had one preliminary question:  Paragraph 16(g) of the paper
suggested that the "negative effects of environmental measures on market access should be mitigatedor eliminated altogether by providing additional market access to developing countries in these
products".  The representative of Japan wondered what the modalities would be for providing such
additional market access.  Would this be through increased allocation of tariff quotas, for example, or
a change in duty rates for the products concerned?  And if this was the case, how would consistency
be ensured with respect to other relevant WTO principles and rules?
53. The representative of Pakistan noted that India's paper was comprehensive and highlighted
the importance of technical assistance.  It also addressed all aspects of environmental requirements,
including requirements relating to products, standards, questions of eco-labeling, packaging and the
effects on market access of SMEs in developing countries.  Pakistan agreed with India in that while it
was for the governments in developing countries to take advantage of the comparative advantage oftheir products (particularly environment friendly products in environmentally conscious markets), it
was as important to safeguard the existing market access against unjustified environmental
requirements.  Pakistan concurred with the proposals put forward by India in paragraph 16 and the
suggestion that further debate was required to address the negative effects of environment measures
on market access of developing countries.
54. The representative of Brazil noted that in Part 2 of the paper, India signaled that developing
countries needed to identify specific examples of environmental requirements impacting on export
performance.  This was what developing countries had to start doing and what the TBT Committee, in
its work on Technical Cooperation, was undertaking through a survey addressed to developing
countries. Brazil also found useful the suggestion that efforts be made in respect of information
dissemination regarding new environmental requirements directed to the exporting units.  If
transparency on environmental requirements could be improved it would be useful, especially fordeveloping country Members.
39   In general, Brazil was pleased to find good examples of trade
measures that could actually impact on market access for products such as tropical timber and eco-
packaging requirements and also marine turtles and jute.  Jute was a good example.  The
representative of Brazil was surprised to learn about problems regarding export of products packed in
jute.
55. Brazil supported all the proposals put forward by India in Part IV and, in particular,
highlighted those contained in paragraph 16(b) and (c).  Here it was stated that environmental
measures should be based on the criteria of sound transparency and equity and that trade effects could
be mitigated if foreign producers were given the opportunity to participate at an early stage in the
design of environmental requirements and had been given adequate time to adjust to these.  Brazilwished to add an 8
th proposal.  This concerned the importance of developing country participation in
the work of international standard setting organiza tions such as ISO, Codex Alimentarius Commission
                                                     
39 In this regard, the delegate of Brazil referred to the a paper table by the European Communities on labelling (G/TBT/W/175,
WT/CTE/W/212, 12 June 2002, Labelling, Submission by the European Communities) where, in para. 7, the European Communities
proposed that the TBT Committee examined how to enhance the effectiveness of transparency provisions relating to voluntary labe lling.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 15
and others that related to environment requirements.  Basing voluntary standards to the extent possible
on international standards would be the best way to secure developing country participation in the
elaboration of those standards.  This proposal had, in fact, been presented by developing countries in
the context of implementation discussion relevant to the TBT and SPS Committees and on which a
decision had been reached.40
56. The representative of Venezuela noted that India's document served as an example for
developing countries on how to focus the discussion in the CTE.  In particular, Venezuela stressed the
importance of what was stated in paragraph 16(b) , namely that "[e]nvironmental measures should be
based on the criteria of sound science, transparency and equity".  He asked MEA Secretariats to
cooperate in the future with respect to scientific studies so that all countries, in particular developed
countries taking environmental measures, based these on the work of MEAs.  This was a way of
achieving transparency and equity. Venezuela recalled that in the past, three products had beensubjected to environmental measures that were neither transparent or equitable, such as was the case
of reformulated gasoline and tunas.  It was important that environmental measures be based on – or
supported by – sound scientific criteria, or even better, by MEAs.
57. The representative of Indonesia felt that India's paper needed to be further debated in the CTE
– in particular the proposals set out in paragraph 16 of the paper.  Echoing what others had said,
Indonesia emphasized that there was a need for environmental measures to be based on criteria of
sound science, transparency and equity.  Likewise, the issue of adjustment-time for new requirement
was important.  Indonesia stressed the importance of the principle of common but differentiated
responsibility in order to achieve sustainable development.
58. The representative of Saudi Arabia fully supported India's paper.  He noted in particular the
importance of the message on sustainable development in paragraph 5 and echoed the remarks on the
relevance of the work being done by the OECD.  In  Saudi Arabia's view, it was important to identify
sector-specific examples of environmental requirements, and, in this light, Saudi Arabia was
particularly concerned with the energy sector.
59. The representative of Mexico noted that India's submission brought the theoretic discussion in
the CTE to something more concrete – and this after seven years.  There was a need for Members to
start giving concrete examples of environmental m easures or measures with environmental objectives.
Hence, Mexico would be contributing with a document for the next meeting.  Mexico was encouraged
by statements made by developed countries (European Communities, United States and Norway) to
discuss concrete measures which affected market access on developed markets.
60. The representative of Djibouti noted that it was absolutely essential to have a close look at the
technical capacity of developing countries and whether these countries, especially LDCs, fully
understood the operation of this system.  It was noted that the European Communities had just
launched the idea of  "sustainable trade centres" which could help developing country exporters being
better and more timely informed about new environmental requirements.  Information was key to
understanding the rules of the game and the operation of the system.  For instance, it was worth
considering why there were so few LDC representatives in the room.
61. The representative of the OECD briefed the CTE on where it stood with its project on
enhancing the capacity of developing countries to address environmental requirements in OECD
countries.  This was a project which was being carried out in three stages.  The first stage consisted of
putting together case studies of concrete examples of environmental requirements in OECD countries
that had posed problems to developing countries.  So far between 18 and 20 case studies had been puttogether.  There were difficulties in finding real cases as opposed to cases where the problems turned
                                                     
40 WT/MIN(01)/17, 20 November 2001, Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, Ministerial Conference,
Fourth Session, Doha, 9 - 14 November 2001, Decision of 14 November 2001, paras. 3.5 and 5.3.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 16
out not to be real.  Hence, the OECD took the opportunity to welcome any additional examples,
especially those originating from developing countries themselves.  The second phase of the project
would be a workshop to be held in November 2002, hopefully in a developing country, perhaps in
India.  This workshop would discuss the case studies with the countries concerned and with officials
in ministries in OECD countries who were in charge  of developing the measures at issue.  Hopefully,
the workshop would lead to some conclusions which would help the OECD to develop the final third
phase which involved providing guidance on how to enhance the capacity of developing countries to
address environmental requirements.  This could take the form of "good practices" or guidelines or
recommendations.  No decision had been taken yet on the specific nature of the outcome, and the
OECD relied on the conclusions of the November workshop to develop this third phase.
62. The representative of UNCTAD briefed the CTE on its work relevant to enhancing the
capacities of developing countries to meet environmental requirements.  In May 2002, UNCTAD held
a 2-day meeting in Geneva to present the result of a project funded by the International Development
Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada, on Standards and Trade .41  The project had commissioned a
number of studies on environmental, sanitary and health requirements and developing countries
experiences in dealing with these issues in a number of countries in South Asia, East Africa, and
Central America.  Three regional workshops had taken place to present the results of these studies. Anoverall study had been commissioned and presented at the Standards and Trade  meeting. Looking
ahead, the UNCTAD would be holding an expert meeting on environmental requirements and trade
on 2-4 October 2002 and in the run-up to that meet ing the UNCTAD would be getting in touch with a
number of delegations for suggestions and contributions.
63. The representative of UNEP drew Members attention to the fact that under the auspices of the
CBTF, UNEP and UNCTAD had held a workshop in Brussels in the ACP Secretariat in
February 2002 on Promoting Production and Trading Opportunities for Organic Agricultural
Products .42  The meeting was attended by experts from many developing countries as well as by the
European Communities DG Trade and DG Environment.  Papers were tabled and a useful technical
exchange had taken place.  That workshop was going to be followed by more regional activitiesfocussing on organic agricultural products.  UNEP believed that this was an important "win-win-win"
opportunity which would require more particularly multi-stakeholder workshops developing practical
actions to promote that trade.
64. The representative of India thanked all the delegations who had expressed their views on his
country's paper.  India had taken note of the valuable comments and would reflect on them.   The idea
of "sustainable trade centers" as mentioned by the European Communities was interesting, but more
information on this was necessary.  With regard to the question by Japan, India noted that compliancewith additional environmental regulations would naturally increase costs.  So as to offset such
increases, constructive measures taken by importing countries would be needed;  the issue needed
further discussion and ideas were welcome.  Noting that there was need for further work on this, India
requested the Secretariat to catalogue work which had been done in this area and which could
contribute to further deliberations in the CTE.
65. The Chairman took note of the requests to the Secretariat made by the European Communities
and by India.
                                                     
41 See www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/openF1.htm.
42 See www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/meetings/brussels.htm.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 17
2. Sectoral analysis
(a) Agriculture sector
66. The representative of Canada noted that when free from distortions, international trade
resulted in the most efficient and sustainable allocation of global resources.  Trade in agricultural
goods was no exception to this rule. As such, ag ricultural trade reform offered a "win-win-win"
opportunity for trade, the environment and economic development.  Agricultural trade distortions
could be minimized by governments substantially improving market access and significantly reducing
or eliminating trade distorting or production distorting domestic support and export subsidies.  Canada
emphasized that government's efforts to promote the positive and mitigate the negative environmental
impacts of agriculture, should do so via policies that  did not distort production or trade.  Eliminating
trade and production-distorting subsidies would have environmental benefits for both the reforming
country as well as other countries, particularly developing countries.  The elimination of suchsubsidies would allow international commodity pric es to reach market levels, thereby increasing
returns from agriculture and encouraging investment and production in developing countries.
Increased returns would lead to higher incomes for developing country producers and would improve
their financial capacity to maintain and pursue sustainable farming practices.  Elimination of trade and
production distorting subsidies would also have environmental benefits for the reforming country byeliminating incentives that encouraged intensive fa rming practices which were linked to environmental
degradation - as recognized by the European Communities paper on non-trade concerns.
43
67. The representatives of Australia, Brazil , Colombia , Costa Rica  and Djibouti  supported
Canada's statement.
(b) Energy
68. The observer of Saudi Arabia made a presentation on "Energy taxation in OECD countries
and their potential economic impacts".44  With respect to existing taxation of subsidies in OECD
countries, it was noted that they were generally biased against petroleum products.  There were
negligible taxes on coal and gas, and, in addition, coal products in many OECD countries were being
subsidized.  In Saudi Arabia's view this was unf ortunate as coal was known to produce more carbon
dioxide than oil.  Hence, while oil products were being heavily taxed, OECD countries were
subsidising coal.  Not only this, but many OECD countries were implicitly subsidizing nuclear energy
under the excuse that nuclear energy did not emit green house gases, despite the known dangers of
nuclear power.  Hence, using the pretext of climate change, nuclear energy was not only being
subsidized but many countries, including Japan, were planning to implement the Kyoto Protocol by
building more  nuclear plants.
69. The economic implications for developing countries were serious.  Developed country
policies to limit CO 2 emission would, according to Saudi Arabia, reduce the demand for oil and the
volume of exports from oil producers.  Higher pric es would increase the cost of energy-intensive
goods manufactured in developed countries and the cost of importing such goods in developing
countries.  According to modelling conclusions for oil-exporting developing countries, Kyoto
implementation would lead to significant falls in revenues, GDP and welfare.  Developing countries –those countries which were highly dependent on the exportation of fossil fuel – would be greatly
impacted as a result of these environmental measures.  Changes in terms of trade would produce a
wealth transfer from developing oil-exporters to industrialized countries.  The magnitude of the
transfer would depend on how the Kyoto Protoc ol was implemented.  Oil-exporting developing
                                                     
43 G/AG/NG/W/36/Rev.1, 9 November 2000, Committee on Agriculture Special Session, Note on Non-Trade Concerns,
Revision,  Submission to the Special Session of the WTO Committee on Agriculture by Barbados, Burundi, Cyprus, Czech Republic,Dominica, Estonia, the European Communities, Fiji, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malta, Mau ritania,
Mauritius, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saint Lucia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Trinidad and Tobago.
44 The slides of the presentation were distributed in the room at the time of the meeting.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 18
countries would suffer GDP losses of between 3 per cent and 5.1 per cent by 2010 (relative to 1990
levels) and this would significantly impact on national development and social welfare gains.  In the
case of Saudi Arabia, by the year 2010, and as a result of these environmental measures, there would
be net losses in revenues of about 20 billion in 1995 dollars.
70. Considering the above, Saudi Arabia recommended that Members considered the removal of
subsidies and made taxation more carbon responsive.  This could be done by removing coal subsidies
and by restructuring fuel taxes to reflect carbon content. Those polluting sources that had higher
content of carbon needed to be penalised more.  This was clearly a "win-win-win" situation as
removing subsidies on coal and nuclear energy would benefit not only trade and the environment, but
also development.
71. The representative of Kuwait believed that Saudi Arabia had touched upon a sensitive and
important issue for Kuwait, as well as for other developing countries.  The question had to be asked
whether WTO rules had a precedence over environmental objectives or the other way around.  He
recalled a recent visit to an OECD country made by his delegation where he had been amazed at what
this country had proposed as a "climate change levy".  Kuwait was concerned about activities that
were discriminatory against fossil fuel products.  The Kyoto Protocol did not deal with products, it
dealt with emissions, and emission resources consisted of a wide range of activities. Therepresentative of Kuwait sought clarification regarding how the CTE should deal with this issue.
How could the "win-win-win" approach of minimizi ng the environmental impact of consuming fuel
products and sustaining economic growth be reached in this sector?
72. The representative of Venezuela noted that Saudi Arabia's presentation was a clear example
of how today's global energy market distortions were affecting the welfare of all cities in the world.  It
was an illustration of how developed countries used certain measures which benefited some fossil
products to the detriment of others.  Venezuela agreed with Kuwait's statement that there was
discrimination against certain fossil products.  In fact, the representative of Venezuela was quite sure
that one of the reasons for the high cost of living in Europe, the United States as well as in Japan was
exactly what had been pointed to by the delegate of Saudi Arabia.  The citizens in these regions didnot understand that high gasoline costs in their countries was due to high taxes.  Like Kuwait,
Venezuela asked the CTE to clarify, at some point, how this issue would be discussed at forthcoming
meetings.
73. The representative of Jordan joined the othe r delegations to thank Saudi Arabia for its
comprehensive presentation.
74. The observer of Saudi Arabia requested the permission of the CTE for the paper to be
circulated as an official document.  The Chair put the question to the floor and no Member objected.
(c) Forestry
75. The representative of Japan presented his delegation's paper on the forestry sector.45
Recalling that at Doha, Ministers had reaffirmed their commitment to the objective of sustainable
development, in the forestry sector, the key challe nge was with respect to the concept of "sustainable
forest management".  As a major wood-importing c ountry, Japan was particularly interested in the
promotion of sustainable forest management and hoped that discussions in the CTE could show how
the WTO could make a positive contribution to this goal.  Japan raised three issues.  First, on export
restrictions, while Japan agreed with the objective of preserving forest resources, Japan questioned the
rationale behind the measure, and particularly if it could be justified under WTO rules.  The second
issue was illegal logging.  This was generally understood to be logging conducted in such a manner as
                                                     
45 WT/CTE/W/211, 11 June 2002, Issues on Forestry Products Trade and Environment, Submission by Japan.  Note that the
document was circulated only a few days prior to the meeting.  Hence, many comments by delegations were of a preliminary nature .WT/CTE/M/30
Page 19
being inconsistent with an individual country's own domestic legislation.  Japan noted that the issue
had been recently discussed in several international fora.  While national domestic measures taken to
combat illegal logging were important (as the issue was about a violation of a country's own domestic
law), it was also important to examine a possible international approach from a trade perspective,
taking into account discussions in other international fora.  Third, on labelling, Japan felt that therewas a need to respond to growing concern from civil society.  Increasingly, in the forestry sector,
attention was being drawn to the promotion of sust ainable forest management.  This was linked to
"illegal logging" in that it was important that labe lling did not turn into an unnecessary obstacle to
trade.  Japan intended to examine possible ways to proceed with the CTE discussion on forestry,
based on comments and opinions from delegates.
76. The representative of the European Communities shared the concerns of – and importance
attributed by – Japan on the issue of sustainable forest management.  A number of recent reports,
including from the FAO, had highlighted possible solutions which could promote sustainable forest
management in the future.  This was a priority for the European Communities.  More substantive
comments would follow.
77. The representative of Korea noted that Japan's submission underlined the importance of
sustainable forest management for achieving sustai nable development, and shared many of Japan's
concerns.  Korea noted that many issues had been well presented by the International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO) and the United Nations Foru m on Forests (UNFF) at the MEA information
session the previous day (see Annex).
78. The representative of Canada was pleased to see the forestry debate reinvigorated in the CTE.
The illegal logging issue was something that had been taken up by other fora, particular
environmental fora.  It was an issue that was within the mandate of the UNFF.46  In Canada's view, it
could be worth focussing more on trade in illegal products.  Canada hoped that Japan and other
Members involved would bring more information to the table for the next meeting.
79. In its preliminary response, the representative of the United States noted that Japan's paper
raised several issues associated with sustainable management of forest resources.  The United States
shared the concern of Japan, and of many other countries, about illegal logging and the manner in
which it undermined environmental, economic, and social goals.  The United States was actively
involved in many intergovernmental efforts underway  to address illegal logging.  The United States
emphasized the point made by Japan that domestic actions were a critical starting point in combating
illegal logging.  In order to assist in such effort s, the United States was working to launch regional
partnerships at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to help developing countries put a
stop to illegal logging and to promote and advance sustainable forest management.
80. The representative of Brazil was primarily concerned with the issue of illegal logging.  It was
unclear to Brazil what Japan was proposing in this respect.  What did Japan mean by proposing that
the CTE examined a "possible international approach from a trade perspective when exploring
solutions to this issue, taking into account the abov e discussion in international fora"?  Should this be
interpreted as meaning that Japan wanted the issue to  be brought to the WTO, or that it should remain
in other fora such as CITES?  It was Brazil's belief that the issue of illegal logging was being
appropriately and adequately dealt with in other fora, so the usefulness of debating it in the WTO was
unclear.  The representative of Brazil reserved the righ t to revert to the other two issues raised in the
paper at a later stage (export restrictions and labelling).
81. The representative of Malaysia agreed with Japan that sustainable management of resources
was an issue of concern to all countries.  But this was so regardless of whether at issue were resources
such as forests, land, or fish – and the concern applied irrespective of whether a country was an
                                                     
46 See www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 20
importer or exporter.  On the issue of export restrictions on unprocessed logs, Japan appeared to agree
with Malaysia that such measures were a necessary part of forest conservation programmes. In fact,
Malaysia maintained that such measures constituted part of the country's sovereign right to protect its
forest resources, consistent with Article XX(g) of the GATT.  Malaysia did have some export
restrictions on logs, enforced in conjunction with a reduction in the targeted annual crop of logs fromnatural forests;  however, 80 per cent of the requirements from the domestic industries were filled by
wood from rubber wood plantations.  Hence, Malays ia was relying less and less on natural forests.
82. Like Japan, Malaysia was also concerned with the issue of illegal logging and had enacted
stringent penalties to prevent the practice.  A recent World Bank study had found that the problem of
illegal logging had been reduced considerably and now accounted for less than 1 per cent of
Malaysia's production.  While Malaysia agreed with Japan that strong domestic measures and
enforcement of these were important, it was felt that the paper did not go far enough to address theroot causes of illegal logging.  In many cases, the practice was motivated by circumstances such as
poverty and high indebtedness.  The international community could do more on the issue of tariff
peaks affecting processed timber products.  As Canada had mentioned, there were many opportunities
to work with organizations such as the ITTO and the UNFF in this respect.  These organization could
provide assistance and capacity to reduce illegal logging.  Also, assistance was needed to findnational  solutions which would always be the most effe ctive way of containing this problem as they
involved countries themselves in the conservation effort.  Regarding Japan's mentioning of an
"international approach", Malaysia stressed that punitive trade measures would be a self-defeating
solution, at best.  Many environmental agreements contained positive measures;  this approach should
be more aggressively pursued.  Indeed, Malaysia welcomed the statement of the United States'delegation regarding the regional initiatives taken to assist countries in reducing illegal logging.
Malaysia would have further comments at a later stage.
83. The representative of Norway noted that the paper raised a number of issues that needed to be
considered by the CTE and looked forward to further contributions from Japan, as well as from other
countries. Norway noted Canada's comment on the difference between illegal logging and illegal tradein the context of the CTE, as well as other comments concerning the particular responsibilities of the
WTO versus other organization's responsibilities in this area (the UNFF and the ITTO).  Norway
would revert to this matter at the next meeting with more in-depth comments.
84. The representative of Canada wished to clarify a point he had made earlier on trade and
illegal logging.  Canada's intention had been to sa y that it was much harder to discuss illegal logging
per se  in the WTO.  There was a need to narrow the focus on this issue so as to avoid getting into an
immense area of domestic policy:  The WTO ought to focus on international  trade of illegally
harvested timber and other forest products.
85. The representative of Djibouti noted that the issue of forestry conservation was very
important to his country and needed to be considered in depth.
86. The representative of Venezuela informed the CTE that about 14 per cent of Venezuela's
territory was considered as national parks.  This was an indication of the importance his government
attributed to this issue.  There was a need to consider what kind of cooperation could be provided on
an international basis in order to provide sustainable development for the forestry sector.  As indicated
by others, Venezuela believed that Japan's paper did not deal with the poverty aspect.  Also, the
relevance of CITES work was recalled, as well as the need to be clear on the respective
responsibilities of each organization.
87. The representative of Chile noted that it was his understanding that Japan's paper was a
preliminary submission to be further developed. While the paper made interesting links between
sustainable development and forestry, Chile wished to reserve its position on some points.  For
instance, Chile was of the view that there were different ways of achieving sustainable forestWT/CTE/M/30
Page 21
management.  These needed to be looked at within a framework of international cooperation, as well
as domestic measures.  And while the value of domestic measures was understood, the trade measures
referred to in the paper were not fully spelled out.  Hence, like Brazil, Chile reserved its position.
There was a certain amount of confusion regarding the solutions being advocated in respect of illegal
logging, and on the linkage between illegal logging and labelling.  Chile look forward to furtherdevelopments of these proposals from Japan before making a more thorough response.
88. The observer of CITES informed the CTE that certain timber species had been placed on
CITES Appendices.  Mahogany, for example, was a major one which had been included in Appendix
3 because a number of Parties to CITES had so requested.  This allowed the CITES mechanism to
track trade in this particular species through CITES documentation;  something which in itself was a
useful mechanism for dealing with illegal trade (tryin g to identify then to stop it).  The experience
with this initiative of having the species listed in  Appendix 3 had been reviewed recently by a number
of Parties in what was called the Mahogany Working Group.  That group would be reporting to the
CITES Conference of Parties in Santiago, later in 2002, on their findings.47  A study would also be
prepared by an NGO group on the monitoring of trade in CITES species (a joint effort between IUCN
and WWF called "Traffic").48  Finally, there would be a topic at the Santiago Conference on timber
trade in general.
89. The observer of ITTO referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Japan's paper where it was stated that
FAO estimated that around 9.4 million hectares of global forests had been lost annually over the past
ten years and that forests could either be depleted through "reckless exploitation or poor management,
or reproduced through the natural process under appropriate management".   The ITTO noted that
perhaps a more important factor in this regard was the conversion of forests to other land use.  Onforest degradation, the ITTO had recently adopted the Guidelines for the Management of Secondary
Tropical Forests, Tropical Forest Restoration and Rehabilitation of Degraded Forest .
49  Illegal
logging was a recognized problem.  It was unfortunate that most of the references were to draft
figures;  these figures could only be indicative.  In light of this, the ITTO had been given the authority
to undertake a study to examine more closely import and export trade in forests products.  This couldgive an indication of the extent to which illegal logging trade was taking place and facilitate a better
understanding of the underlying factors contributing to it.  In terms of capacity building and technical
assistance, the ITTO had approved a recent project in Indonesia.  With the assistance of the
Indonesian Government and in collaboration with WWF in Indonesia, the ITTO would undertake a
pilot study to control illegal logging in one or two places in Indonesia and use the result of that study
as a basis to develop appropriate guidelines to co mbat illegal logging at source.  With regards to
labelling, the ITTO observed that Japan's delegation had mentioned the "effective contribution" oflabelling and certification to the promotion of sustainable forest management.  However, currently
about 92 per cent of certified forests were located in developed countries and less than 8 per cent of
certified forests were located in developing countries.  This showed the importance of facilitating the
participation of developing countries (those who wished to be part of it) in this process.
90. The observer of UNFF reiterated that the issue of illegal logging was a major emerging issue
that was being addressed within the UNFF and would be an issue that would be looked into at the
Third Session of UNFF. 50  The delegate noted that the last statement by Canada captured well the
direction of the discussion which was emerging on international trade of illegally harvested forest
products. That UNFF Secretariat stood ready to assist the CTE in further discussions.
91. The representative of Japan thanked delegations for their comments and noted that they would
be reflected upon in capital.  Regarding the question by Brazil, he indicated that Japan aimed at
                                                     
47 More information on the Twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to take place in Santiago, Chile, from 3 to
15 November 2002 can be found at www.cites.org.
48 See www.traffic.org.
49 See www.itto.or.jp.
50 See www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 22
pursuing the problem in the WTO.  The Doha Ministerial Declaration had clearly reaffirmed WTO's
commitment to the goal of sustainable development and the forestry sector was a good example of an
area where a WTO effort was needed.  Regarding the point made by the Malaysian delegation on
justification under Article XX(g) of export rest rictions, it was Japan's understanding that export
restrictions in Malaysia were not imposed on processed lumber but on the raw material of that samelumber.  Therefore, Japan was not yet convinced regarding the stated environmental objective of the
measure.  And if there was no justification under WTO rules, there was a need to look at the trade
distortive effect of the measure and whether, in the global sense, the measure could have a negative
impact on sustainable management of the forests.  Regarding the confusion on "solutions", Japan
stressed that it had no specific solutions yet.  However, from a "trade perspective" some solutions
could be explored.  For example, the price-gap between two countries was a strong incentive for
illegal logging.  Japan's intention had been to initiate the discussion.  Based on the comments andopinions expressed, Japan would consider an additional contribution to bring the discussion forward.
D. P
ARAGRAPH 32(iii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (LABELLING )
Labelling requirements for environmental purposes.
92. The representative of the European Communities presented his delegation's paper on
labelling.51  It was noted that the scope of the paper was broader than the Doha mandate on labelling
requirements and included many issues relevant to CTE work.  Overall the paper, which drew heavily
on Canada's submission at the last CTE meeting,52 set out issues ;  it did not propose solutions.  It
suggested ways to carry the discussion forward, including the involvement of the CTE where
appropriate.  The European Communities intended to submit another paper prior to the 8-9 Octobermeeting of the CTE on paragraph 32(i) with particular emphasis on environmental labelling.
93. In general, the representative of the European Communities noted that while labelling tended
to be less trade restrictive than many regulatory measures it could nevertheless have a significant
impact on trade.  Developing country exporters could face particular problems demonstrating
compliance.  And as there appeared to be increasing  recourse to labelling, this led to concern and
uncertainty regarding the application of relevant WTO provisions.  Perhaps the most controversial
issue in the labelling debate concerned the non-product-related process and production methods.
Different Members had different interpretations on the applicability of the TBT Agreement and views
varied on the scope for adopting and applying non-product related labelling schemes.  The European
Communities wished to clarify through agreement rather than through dispute settlement proceedings.
This clarification should not undermine existing WTO provisions.
94. In introducing the paper, the European Communities highlighted two issues: international
standards and developing country concerns.  International standards for labelling had significant
potential to facilitate trade by promoting harmonisation of labelling requirements.  The
TBT Agreement obliged Members to use relevant in ternational standards except when such standards
would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the objectives pursued.  The
existence of ISO standards for voluntary eco-labelling was significant and it was important for theCTE to gain an understanding of the implications thereof.  Regarding developing country concerns,
the CTE could look at ways of ensuring timely info rmation on proposed or existing labelling schemes;
the facilitation of compliance with labelling requirements;  and the promotion of participation in
international standard-setting.  This issue had been stressed by Brazil earlier in the meeting.
                                                     
51 G/TBT/W/175, WT/CTE/W/212, supra.  Note that this paper was also discussed at the meeting of the TBT Committee held on
20-21 June 2002 (for a summary of that discussion, see G/TBT/M/27, 31 July 2002, starting at para. 175).
52 G/TBT/W/174, 12 March 2002, Labelling and Requirements of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade:  Framework for
Informal, Structured Discussions, Communication from Canada.  The paper was discussed at the 21 March 2002 meeting of the CTE  (see
WT/CTE/M/29, 7 May 2002, from para. 64).WT/CTE/M/30
Page 23
95. Regarding future steps, the paper set out two specific ideas.  First, with regard to a
TBT Secretariat paper on labelling, the European  Communities suggested that this should be a
descriptive analysis, at least at the initial stage.  It could provide an overview of the state of play of
discussions, including WTO Secretariat and Members' submissions on labelling, relevant WTO
decisions, and international labelling activities.  Any such paper would be relevant also to the CTE.
Secondly, the European Communities supported the Canadian proposal for the TBT Committee to
organise an informal workshop on labelling.  The CTE's participation in this workshop would be
useful.  From the CTE's perspective, the participation of the ISO, notably due to their work on
environmental labelling, along with other international organizations active in this area, like
UNCTAD, OECD and UNEP, would appear to be par ticularly relevant.  The central theme of any
workshop could be developing country concerns and interests in the labelling issue.  Holding the
workshop toward the end of 2002 would help the CTE to finalise its report on paragraph 32(ii) for the5
th Ministerial.
96. On a somewhat separate matter, the representative of Switzerland wished to bring the
Secretariat's attention to a bibliography of publications relevant to trade and environment.53  A n
update of this document could help identify th e relationship between trade liberalization and the
environment, and could be useful for CTE's discussions under paragraph 51.
97. Labelling for environmental purposes was also an issue of importance for Switzerland.  The
representative of Switzerland recalled a paper submitted by her delegation in June 2001.54  This paper
had, in particular, noted the significant uncertainty on the question whether the TBT Agreement
applied to eco-labelling.  An in-depth examinat ion would contribute to eliminate part of these
uncertainties.  The paper had raised several issues  relevant to the debate:  the distinction between
mandatory and voluntary requirements;  the issue of production and processing methods;  the issue of
legitimate objectives and in particularly the question whether "consumer information" could be
considered a legitimate objective.  These matters had to be dealt with in order to eliminate ambiguities
and ensure that labelling was not used for protectionist purposes.  It was necessary to take into
account the fact that developing countries also had a great diversity of marking and labellingrequirement – a reason for which Switzerland insisted on the importance of international
harmonization.
98. Switzerland noted that while the TBT Committee dealt with labelling in general, the CTE
needed to focus on eco-labelling in particular.  As was stated in Doha, Switzerland proposed that the
CTE start discussions on the definition of the term eco-labelling, and the pertinent rules of WTO
agreements applicable to eco-labelling.  Furthermore, in order to achieve a coherent result and avoid
overlap, there needed to be close cooperation between the CTE and the TBT Committee.
99. The representative of Canada noted that the EC paper drew on many ideas that were
contained in Canada's submission (referred to above by the European Communities).  It was important
to stress that the mandate of the CTE in paragraph 32 was to look at labelling for environmental
purposes .  A key difference between the Canadian paper, which had been submitted to the
TBT Committee,55 and the EC paper was that whereas it seemed quite clear from the EC paper that
there was a specific outcome in mind (in terms of guidelines or interpretation on the TBT Agreement),
the Canadian approach did not prejudge any specific outcome.  In fact, Canada's emphasis was on
implementation.
100. The representative of Japan found the EC paper particularly useful in that it emphasized
developing country interests and concerns.  Japan wondered about the time-line envisaged by the
                                                     
53 WT/CTE/W/49, 16 May 1997,  Selected Bibliography on Trade and Environment.
54 WT/CTE/W/192, G/TBT/W/162, 19 June 2001, Marking and Labelling Requirements, Submission from Switzerland.
55 G/TBT/W/174/Rev.1, 31 May 2002, Labelling and Requirements of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT):
Framework for Informal, Structured Discussions, Communication from Canada, Revision.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 24
European Communities, taking into account upcoming discussion on labelling to be held in the CTE
in October as well as the discussions to be held the following week in the TBT Committee.
101. The representative of the European Commun ities looked forward to the more in-depth
discussion in October.  On Japan's question, the European Communities was looking at the
association of the work of the CTE to that of th e TBT Committee, particularly with respect to the
proposed informal workshop.  While there was perhaps a need to await the outcome of the discussion
to be held in the TBT Committee itself, a decision th at the CTE would be associated to this meeting
could be useful at the current stage.  On timing, holding such an event towards the end of the year
would be fine.
102. The Chairman urged all delegations to study the issue in depth as this was one of the major
issues that had emerged from the Doha declaration.  In order to submit a satisfactory report to the next
Ministerial Conference, there was a need to reconcile divergent views and find a common expression.This would be discussed in October.
E. O
THER ITEMS OF THE CTE W ORK PROGRAMME
1. Item 4 (Transparency)
The provisions of the multilateral trading system with respect to the transparency of
trade measures used for environmental purposes and environmental measures andrequirements which have significant trade effects.
103. The Chairman recalled that the Secretariat circulated the Environmental Database for 2001.
56
All notifications that were environment-related or included environmental references were listed in
this document, as well as the trade policy reviews in which reference was made to environment-related measures or provisions.
2. Item 9 (Services)
The Decision on Trade and Services and the Environment.
104. The Chairman noted that the Secretariat was preparing a background note, as requested by
delegations at an earlier meeting.  It was the intention of the Secretariat to circulate this paper in
advance of the October meeting.
F. PARAGRAPH 33 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
We recognize the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in the
field of trade and environment to developing countries, in particular the least-
developed among them.  We also encourage that expertise and experience be shared
with Members wishing to perform environmental reviews at the national level.  Areport shall be prepared on these activities for the Fifth Session.
1. Technical assistance and capacity building for trade and environment
105. The Chairman invited delegations and intergovernmental organizations to share their work on
capacity building activities and environmental reviews with the CTE on an ongoing basis, as they
considered it appropriate.  This experience sharing would better enable the CTE to prepare the report
                                                     
56 WT/CTE/EDB/1 (and Corr.1), 31 May 2002, Environmental Database For 2001, Note by the Secretariat.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 25
that was mandated for the next Ministerial Conference in 2003. Also, in the Doha Declaration,
Ministers had specifically welcomed the continued cooperation between the WTO, UNEP and other
intergovernmental environmental organizations.  Ministers had encouraged efforts to promote such
inter-agency cooperation, especially in the lead-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development
to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 2002.
106. The representative of Switzerland recalled the importance that her delegation attributed to
technical assistance in the field of trade and environment.  Switzerland encouraged local capacity
building in the field of ecological production met hods for industry as well as for the introduction of
environmental standards.  Switzerland cooperated with university associations and private experts in
countries such as India and Bulgaria.  In addition, Switzerland was considering a project with
UNCTAD for the purpose of promoting biological diversity in developing countries.  Switzerland
reaffirmed its support for the work of UNEP in this field and, as had been indicated in the SpecialSession, Switzerland believed that paragraph 33 would be supportive in the light of the contents of
paragraph 31.
57
107. The representative of Canada noted that the Canadian International Development Agency
(CIDA) was the organization in Canada most involved  in the field of technical assistance relevant to
CTE work.  CIDA had provided a small amount of f unding to the OECD project on the development
dimension of trade and environment;  this funding was for Phase 2 of the project, a workshop bringing
environmental standards-setters together with developing country exporters in late 2002.  CIDA had
also funded an economic environment manageme nt project in Viet Nam aimed at increasing
Viet Nam's ability to design and implement effective economic and environmental policy generally.
It would also help to develop trade reform in natu ral resource management policy.  This would enable
Viet Nam to adjust efficiently to an open trade regime and compete effectively in the world markets,
increasing productivity in particular as regards the sustainable exploitation of coastal resources.
CIDA had also funded initiatives which examined  the impact of trade liberalization on the
environment in China.  In its effort to make an inventory of other projects, Canada was discovering
that in some cases, regulatory bodies were already routinely undertaking such projects around theworld, especially in areas such as those involving sanitary and phytosanitary issues (SPS Agreement);
this facilitated their own work by having more efficient partners in other countries.
108. The representative of the European Commun ities recalled that the implementation of a
coherent program for capacity building was a prior ity for the European Communities in the context of
the Doha Development Agenda.  On specific activities, these were to a large extent based on the
principles which were set out at the UNEP workshop on capacity building which took place in
Geneva, in March 2002.58  These included coherence, the definition of a long term approach, and a
dialogue with the recipient countries themselves.  The European Communities would ask developing
countries to indicate what concerned them most in terms of their strategy to eradicate poverty and
achieve sustainable development.  Finally, the European Communities reiterated its support for
UNEP's activities in this regard.
109. The representative of the United States assured his delegation's full support for focussing
WTO technical assistance efforts – in particular for the 2003 plan – as a means of advancing the Doha
Development Agenda.  He urged the WTO Secretariat to work expeditiously to finalize its 2003 plan
and in doing so to reach out to Members who had not yet provided their input.  Members needed to
begin thinking about trade-related technical assistance that would be of particular relevance to
advancing the work of the CTE.  This could include, for example, assistance to Members wishing toperform environmental reviews.  Noting that pledges in support of the Global Trust Fund for technical
assistance had exceeded the initial targeted responses, other creative ideas in support of WTO trade
                                                     
57 See para. 66 in TN/TE/R/2, 25 July 2002, CTE Special Session, Summary Report on the Second Meeting of the Committee on
Trade and Environment Special Session (Meeting held on 11-12 June 2002), Note by the Secretariat.
58 WT/CTE/W/206, 8 May 2002, UNEP Workshop on Capacity Building on Environment, Trade and Development, 19-20 March
2002, Geneva, Chairman’s Summary, Contribution by UNEP.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 26
related technical assistance were welcomed.  These could be, for example, offers of in-kind
contributions from Members. In organizing the CTE work in this area and looking ahead to the
requirement that a report be made to the 5th Ministerial Conference, the United States believed it
would be useful to begin identifying specific aspects of capacity building and technical assistance in
the field of trade and environment, particularly since it was a relatively new area of focus in the WTO.In fact, the United States had noted, from a number of developing country delegations' remarks at the
Special Session (previously in the week), that there appeared to be a need for more precision.  Initial
examples included assistance associated with the capacity to conduct environmental reviews;  access
to environmentally sustainable production technologies;  and potential linkages to assistance on trade
capacity that could promote environmental objectiv es such as customs reform which would in turn
facilitate implementation of MEA obligations.  Importantly, this kind of assistance and capacity
building could help Members realize a bigger objective on the trade and environment front, namelywhat the United States had stressed throughout th e week of meetings:  increased communication and
coordination at the national level between trade and environment officials.
110. The representative of Mexico stressed the need for discussions on capacity building and
environmental problems to focus on trade issues related to the environment, not generally on issues or
obligations relevant to the environment.  Mexico was aware of the coordination between the WTO,UNEP and MEA Secretariats aimed at integrating trade and environment policies, and welcomed the
success of the workshop organized by UNEP (March 2002).  All the above contributed to
strengthening coherence, integrating approaches and avoiding duplication.  However, Mexico
believed that a multilateral strategy in capacity development on trade and environment needed to
include three components:  (i) a diagnosis by national authorities and multilateral environmentalbodies on the problems faced;  (ii) concrete policies which would help solve the identified problems,
and (iii) systems of follow-up and assessment.  In the work undertaken so far there had been progress
made in the first two components.  But there was still an absence of proposals on follow-up and
assessment.  Mexico considered that this was a basic element for a strategy of strengthening capacities
in a sustainable manner.  Mexico wished to emphasise the need for the evaluation of the specificneeds of each country.
111. The observer of UNCTAD draw the attention of the CTE to its Progress Report on Technical
Assistance and Capacity-building Activities on Trade, Environment and Development  aimed at
enhancing developing countries' participation in the post-Doha work program.  UNCTAD's technical
assistance and capacity-building in the area of trade, environment and development fell in three
clusters: activities that were part of the environmental component of UNCTAD's programme on
technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries, especially LDCs, and economiesin transition in support of their participation in the WTO post-Doha work programme;  activities in
the context of the joint UNEP-UNCTAD Capac ity-building Task Force (CBTF) on Trade,
Environment and Development;
59  and a new and fairly large UK DFID-funded project on building
capacity for improved policy-making and negotiation on key trade and environment issues.
112. As regards the environment component of UNCTAD's general post-Doha capacity-building
programme, the secretariat had been implementing the following main activities:  Policy dialogues
and briefings with Geneva-based delegations;  regional seminars on specific issues;  national policy
dialogues to facilitate policy-coordination on key issues, preferably based on a multi-stakeholder
process and with the active involvement of the private sector and other members of civil society;
training seminars of three to four days; and specific national capacity-building projects.  By way ofillustration, at the end of February, UNCTAD and the Agency for International Trade Information and
Cooperation (AITIC)
60 in Geneva had organized a first brainstorming session on environmental issues
in the post-Doha work programme in close collaboration with UNEP and the WTO.  A second
brainstorming session, which would focus on specific issues, was planned on 17 July 2002.
                                                     
59 See www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf.
60 See www.acici.org/aitic.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 27
UNCTAD also held a TrainForTrade61 course in Benin on 22-26 April 2002.  At the request of the
Government of Costa Rica, UNCTAD would also organize a post-Doha trade and environment
workshop for several central American and other countries in Costa-Rica on 1-3 July 2002.
113. Turning to post-Doha capacity-building activitie s in the context of the CBTF, two training
workshops in Viet Nam and Cuba had been held in mid-December last year.  Starting with the WTO
regional seminar on trade and environment for Asian developing countries in Singapore in mid-
May 2002, UNEP and UNCTAD were envisaging to regularly hold short CBTF events on specific
issues of the post-Doha negotiating mandate and work programme on trade and environment back-to-
back with future WTO regional seminars.  These events would be shaped based on a need assessment
questionnaire circulated among nominated participants.  Besides governmental representatives
attending the WTO seminars, the CBTF events would rally experts from the region, representatives of
regional intergovernmental organizations and secretariats of MEAs as well as some regional and localNGOs that were selected as a function of the targeted subjects.  The next event in this regard would be
held back-to-back with the WTO regional seminar in Namibia for English-speaking African countries,
on 10-11 July 2002.
114. UNCTAD also briefly informed delegates that it had just launched a six-month planning
phase for a new project on building capacity for improved policy-making and negotiation on key tradeand environment issues, entirely funded by the UK  DFID.  The project would be jointly implemented
with the Foundation for International Envi ronmental Law and Development (FIELD).
62  The project
would assist a cluster of developing countries in each of the three geographic regions in building
national and regional capacities to (i) effectively participate in WTO negotiations and discussions on
trade and environment;  and (ii) deal with specif ic trade, environment and development issues.  As
regards the latter, an attempt would be made to move beyond mere national dialogue and assist key
beneficiary countries in developing and implementing practical and meaningful legal and policy
initiatives.  The project would undertake the following main activities: national policy dialogues, sub-
regional workshops and training workshops.63
115. The representative of Norway welcomed the activities that had been organized by the
Secretariat and its cooperation with other organizations – in particular the UNCTAD and the UNEP.
As Norway understood that there were plans being formed for 2003, it expressed the wish to be
informed about these plans.  In Norway's view, the CTE should not forget the point made by Mexico
on follow-up;  this was essential to determining what resulted from technical assistance.  Finally,
Norway reiterated its support for UNEP's work on environmental reviews.
2. Environmental reviews
116. The Chairman indicated that an updated information concerning technical assistance activities
of the WTO Secretariat was contained in a document submitted to the Special Session of the CTE.64
117. The representative of the European Communities presented a paper on sustainability impact
assessment.65  The paper was a methodology developed in 1999 during the preparations for Seattle.  It
was completed with pilot studies in 2002 and, in line with paragraph 33, it was currently being
circulated to give Members an opportunity to comment.66  Members interested in further information
were invited to contact either the consultants directly, or the EC delegation.  The underlying objective
                                                     
61 See www.unctad.org/trainfortrade/index.htm.
62 See www.field.org.uk.
63 For more information on this project see www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/openF1.htm.
64 TN/TE/S/2, 10 June 2002, Existing Forms of Cooperation and Information Exchange Between UNEP/MEAS and the WTO,
Note by the Secretariat, paragraph 31(ii).
65 WT/COMTD/W/99, WT/CTE/W/208, TN/TE/W/3, 3 June 2002, Sustainability Impact Assessment, Communication from the
European Communities. Additional information is available at idpm.man.ac.uk/sia-trade.
66 The second sentence of paragraph 33 states:  "We also encourage that expertise and experience be shared with Members
wishing to perform environmental reviews at the national level".WT/CTE/M/30
Page 28
was to improve quality and coherence of EC trade policies by informing negotiators about the impact
of the negotiations on the environment, social development and the economy.   It was noted that the
identification of these impacts concerned the entire geographic territory susceptible, whether within or
outside the European Communities.  The studies proposed flanking measures aimed at reducing the
negative impacts or reinforcing positive ones.  They had been carried out by external independentconsultants in a transparent manner (all documents could be found on the Internet).
67  T h e s e
consultants had based their analysis mainly on literature reviews and expert opinion.  The European
Commission had committed itself to carrying out impact assessments for each trade negotiation -
multilateral or regional.  The program entailed more that 2.7 million Euro over the next four years and
would include WTO negotiations, bilateral negotiations and those which were now taking place
between the European Commission and MERCOSUR, Ch ile, the ACP and the Gulf countries.  The
final results of the general study would be ready by the end of 2002.  Furthermore, there were sectoralstudies concerning environmental services and market access.  The latter focussed in particular on
three sectors:  textiles, pharmaceuticals and non-ferrous metals.  Finally, a special sectoral study on
competition was also being conducted.
118. The representative of Canada recalled his country's framework for conducting environmental
assessments of trade negotiations, released in February 2001.68  The framework committed Canada to
undertaking national and environmental assessments of multilateral, regional and bilateral trade
liberalizing negotiations.  In keeping with this, notice of intent had been issued in the Canada Gazette,
which was the official Federal Government publication with legal notices, on 8 June 2000,
announcing that a domestic environmental assessment of trade negotiations at the WTO was formally
underway.  Public comments were sought before 31 July 2002 (there would be additionalopportunities for public comments).  An inter-departmental committee of the Canadian Government
would undertake the Canadian assessment of the domestic environmental impacts.  The first report in
this process, an initial environmental assessment, would be released for public comments in the fourth
quarter 2002, followed by a second or draft environmental assessment early in 2003 (the dates were
not set in stone).  Canada would make these reports available to CTE Members.  Furthermore, theGovernment of Canada had prepared a handbook to assist officials engaged in undertaking
environmental assessments.  Members wishing to view the handbook could do so on the Government
of Canada's website.
69
119. Regarding the presentation by the European Communities, it was noted that Canada's
approach to impact assessment of trade negotiations was domestic, whereas the EC approach included
analysis of the extra-territorial impacts of trade liberalization. Canada's preference was that
assessments focus on national level analysis and that countries chose methodologies which best mettheir needs.  It appeared to Canada that consideration of impacts in countries or regions external to the
country or region undertaking the analysis was problematical for a number of reasons which had
already been identified in the recent EC study.  For example:  conditions and impacts were highly
site-specific;  aggregated studies tended to lose much critical information;  and, assumptions
underlying economic modelling of liberalization impacts might not hold up in reality.  These, as wellas other factors, could mean that useful and accurate analysis would be very expensive to obtain.
120. Canada acknowledged that assessments were a valuable contribution to national policy
making and recognized the need to develop capacity to undertake such assessments.  In this regard,
Canada was encouraged by the work of UNEP and other organizations such as the WWF which
undertook country and/or regional studies on the invitation and participation of national governments.Canada welcomed sharing of impact assessment information between countries and would consider
including relevant information on impact assessment from these and other sources in its own decision-
making processes.
                                                     
67 See http://idpm.man.ac.uk/sia-trade.
68 WT/CTE/W/183, 15 March 2001, Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations,
Communication from Canada.
69 See www.canada.gc.ca.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 29
121. The representative of the United States noted that his intervention was along the same lines as
that of Canada.  The United States had initiated an environmental review on 15 May 2002 by the
publication in the Federal Register of a request for public comments on the scope for the review.  This
notice requested views on the potential environmental aspects of the negotiations.  The deadline for
the submission of comments was 26 July 2002.  On the EC paper, the United States noted theusefulness of sharing information and welcomed such initiatives from others.  Canada had raised an
interesting issue in respect of measuring or analysing extra territorial effects as opposed to domestic.
The United States noted that it would be useful to have some background to the EC decision to use
private contractors to undertake the assessment rather than draw upon policy and analytical expertise
within the Commission.  Additionally, the United States asked for the EC's view on the qualitative
differences between a sustainability assessment as opposed to a more traditional environmental
assessment.
122. The representative of Australia considered that the EC document contained a number of flaws
and inaccuracies.  For example, the EC pilot study and its conclusion were based on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the relationship between social and environmental outcomes.  With appropriate
responsive environmental and social policies, liberalization could enhance environmental outcomes.
For example, trade reform improved resource allocation in agriculture.  Conversely, high levels ofagricultural protection could cause serious negative environmental and social consequences.
Protection grossly distorted returns to farming and, where agriculture was heavily supported, could
beat up the price for agricultural land.  This encouraged the substitution of non-land agricultural
inputs causing overly intensive forms of agriculture which degraded land and rural environment.  It
was important that the right policies were used in targeting environmental and social problems andthat these policies were not deliberately trade distorting.  Australia could have further comments to
make on this issue at another time.
123. In responding to the comments made, the representative of the European Communities noted
that the selection of outside consultants contributed to transparency as this entailed an open bidding
procedure.  In fact, considering Australia's comments, the idea was not to put forward the
Commission's views in these studies;  the consul tants would come up with their own conclusions.
The Commission's main concern was with their transparency and credibility.   Regarding the choice of
studying social and environmental aspects, the European Communities pointed at the need for
coherence and having a holistic approach.  This was valid for the approach to the studies themselves
(economic, environmental and social), as well as with respect to their geographical coverage.  Having
a holistic approach made it possible to attain coherent conclusions.
124. The Chairman noted that the CTE would continue the discussion of this Item at future
meetings.
G. PARAGRAPH 51 OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
The Committee on Trade and Development and the Committee on Trade and
Environment shall, within their respective mandates, each act as a forum to identify
and debate developmental and environmental aspects of the negotiations, in order tohelp achieve the objective of having sustainable development appropriately reflected.
125. The Chairman reported on the informal consultations on paragraph 51, held on 15 May 2002.
The discussion had been based on the statement of the European Communities at the CTE's last
meeting on 21 March, as well as several other elements put forward by various delegations at thatmeeting.  While many delegations had felt that it was useful to have an initial exchange of views on
the structure of the debate, it was also felt that it would be premature to engage in substantive
discussions at this early stage in the negotiations.  In general, there was overall agreement on the
importance of paragraph 51 to a successful outcome of the negotiations.  It was also noted thatWT/CTE/M/30
Page 30
paragraph 51 was a standing item on both the CTE and the Committee on Trade and Development
(CTD) agendas.
126. While Members were still at an early stage of reflection on paragraph 51, there were several
observations on points of convergence that emerged at the meeting.  These observations had been
circulated in advance of the meeting in the Annotated Agenda.70  The Chairman highlighted three
points:
(a) There was general agreement that the approach to address paragraph 51 should be
Member-driven in order to identify elements from the negotiations for debate, with
inputs from the Secretariat as appropriate.
(b) Informal discussions indicated that the CTE could start substantive discussions not
earlier than October, with the suggestion put forward to focus on agriculture and
services.
(c) While the possibility of holding a joint CTE-CTD meeting should not be excluded,
many delegations felt it was too early to consider.  In this respect, the Chairman
would continue to be in contact with the Chairman of the CTD.
127. At the end of the above-mentioned informal discussion, the Chairman felt that there was
scope for deciding on three issues at the current meeting:
(a) First, to start the substantive discussion of paragraph 51 at the October 2002 meeting;
(b) Second, to divide up discussions by area of negotiation and to start in October with
agriculture and services, respectively; and,
(c) Third, to pose the question whether the Secretariat should prepare any factual
documentation at this stage prior to the October meeting or at a later stage.
128. The representative of Canada reiterated the importance his country attached to paragraph 51.
As he felt that the note circulated by the Chairman summarizing the discussions of 15 May 2002 was
good and accurate, he focused on the three questions.  First, Canada was of the view that substantive
discussions should start at the October meeting.  Second, Canada agreed, in principle, to try to
identify in advance of the meeting a small number of  sectors to focus on at each meeting.  However,
at the same time, there was a need not to be too rigid, i.e., delegations who felt they needed to say
something on a sector not identified for discussion at a particular meeting ought to be able to do so.
The suggestion of focusing on agriculture and servi ces was one that Canada would be prepared to go
along with if other delegations were comfortable with it.  Nevertheless, it was still early days and
there was a need to be realistic about the extent to which the CTE could get into substance in October.
Third, in terms of what the Secretariat might prepare, Canada was very conscious of the fact that there
were limited resources in the Secretariat.  Also, WTO Members already did have access to variousdocuments prepared in all of the negotiating fora.  Nevertheless, it could be quite useful if the
Secretariat could, with relatively minimal effort, put together a document that would summarize the
state of play in the various negotiations.  This could be done by simply packaging some reports that
were already being prepared in the respective negotiating groups.  For instance, the Chairs prepared a
report for the TNC.  Perhaps this would simply be a matter of stitching together work already done
elsewhere.  Such a compilation could help the CTE discussing paragraph 51.
129. The representative of the European Communities noted that the upcoming World Summit on
Sustainable Development made the mandate and objective of paragraph 51 particularly relevant.  In
                                                     
70 JOB(02)/51, 4 June 2002, CTE, Meeting on 13-14 June 2002, Annotated draft agenda.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 31
the view of the European Communities, it was not too early to identify relevant issues for the CTE in
line with this mandate.  The European Communities was positive to all three points made by the
Chairman.  There should be a substantive discussion starting in October.  The discussion could easily
be divided into the areas of negotiations and starting with agriculture and services seemed a good
choice given that these negotiations had been going on for some time.  The European Communitiesagreed that it would be useful if the Secretariat could prepare factual documentation on the
environmental elements of papers circulated in negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda up
until now, perhaps until the end of September.
130. The European Communities wished to commen t on two other elements of the Chairman's
summary.  First, on the question of a joint CTE-CTD meeting the European Communities was of the
view that at some stage such a meeting should take place.  Second, the European Communities had, at
the last meeting of the CTE, floated the idea of ha ving an "out-reach event" connected to this joint
event.  This would give the opportunity to civ il society to comment on how they saw sustainable
development reflected in the work of the WTO.  Such an out-reach event taking place after  Members
had had time to digest the results of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, but timely
before  the 5
th Ministerial Conference, would be particularly useful.
131. The representative of Malaysia noted that her country had no difficulty with starting
discussions at the October meeting on this subject.  But the division by sectors had to be seen as one
way to proceed.  Looking at the two proposed sectors for October (agriculture and services), Malaysia
noted the vast number of papers on the table.  She wondered if her country had the resources to go
through these two big sectors at one meeting.  Hence, Malaysia suggested that discussions start with
one sector, whether agriculture or services.  Based on this experience, ways of becoming moreefficient during the 2003 meetings could be explored.
132. The representative of Chile noted that his delegation was willing to start discussion on
substance in October.  But as Malaysia had stated, Chile was not quite sure that both agriculture and
services could be dealt with at the same time.  Also, Chile agreed with Canada to the effect that the
Secretariat should not be over-burdened.  It was suggested that perhaps the Chairman could send acommunication to the Chairs of agriculture and services indicating that at the October 2002 meeting
the CTE would be discussing their areas of work.  The objective of this would be to get input from
them on issues of relevance to the CTE.  Like the European Communities, Chile was positive to a
joint meeting with the CTD and invited the Chairman to contact the CTD Chair to further explore how
to implement paragraph 51.
133. Like others, the representative of Brazil agreed  with previous speakers that discussions should
commence in October 2002.  Although Brazil was flexible on the idea of dividing up discussions by
area of negotiation, it was felt that delegations needed to be free to raise any item – among those
under negotiations – which they found deserved attention.  This was especially relevant in the initial
phase of negotiation where Members were still establishing the negotiating dynamics.  At this stage, it
would be premature to try to establish an overview of what was taking place in individual sectors.  On
the issue of a joint session, this would be desirable at some point.  On the other hand, the delegation ofBrazil did not see paragraph 51 as one that lent itself to out-reach initiatives.  It was rather one that
was inward looking in nature:  that is, an opportunity for WTO Members to look at how the
negotiating process was proceeding, and to try to mainstream sustainable development into these
discussions.
134. The representative of the United States considered paragraph 51 as a serious responsibility for
the CTE.  While the United States was in a position to begin substantive discussions in October and
was flexible with respect to the second issue, the United States supported Canada's statement to the
effect that there had to be an opportunity for any delegation to refer to any part of the negotiations.
Concerning a possible input of the Secretariat, the United States was also concerned about
overloading.  It could be useful for the Secretariat to compile a listing of documents which had beenWT/CTE/M/30
Page 32
circulated in the various negotiating bodies.  However, the United States understood the
EC suggestion as one where the Secretariat might undertake to identify environmental elements or
aspects of what had been put forth in other negotiating groups.  This was, in the US view, not
appropriate.  It would be an unfair burden on the Secretariat as this would introduce some element of
subjectivity.  In fact, it was Members' job,  in undertaking a paragraph 51 assessment, to identify whatthey considered important environmental aspects of the negotiations.  However, it could be useful for
the responsible Secretariat Division to provide the CTE at the outset of such discussion with a
summary of what had been going on in the various areas.  For example, the Director of the Trade in
Services Division could provide his assessment, or his summary of negotiations, to date in the
services area.  This would be a useful role for the Secretariat.  On the issue of a joint CTE/CTD
session, there was a wide agreement that it was pr emature.  The United States did not understand the
merits of the idea at this point in time, particularly given the heavy agendas before each Committee.There were also feasibility considerations to be ta ken into account.  There was a need to study this
issue closely in terms of what it might accomplish, and how it might add to the burden of delegations.
135. The representative of Venezuela requested the Secretariat to clarify the objective of the
following question listed in the Annotated Age nda: "What is the linkage between Special and
Differential Treatment for developing countries and paragraph 51?".71
136. The Chairman responded that all questions in the Annotated Agenda had been raised by
Members, not by the Secretariat, nor by himself.
137. The representative of Venezuela recalled that it was in fact his delegation that had raised the
question and wished to present it in a different manner, as he was not satisfied with the current
phrasing.  For Venezuela it was very important to  consider the relationship between the way the CTE
dealt with the issue of Special and Differential Trea tment and how it was being dealt with in the CTD.
There was a need to see if the Committees approach ed the subject differently.  Regarding the three
issues, his delegation's replies were in the affirmative.  Furthermore, Venezuela agreed with Chile's
suggestion that the Chairman should consult with the Chairs of the Committee on Agriculture and the
Council for Trade in Services, and agreed with Braz il that the floor be left open for other subjects if
delegations wished to mention other issues besides these two areas.   Going back to Special and
Differential Treatment,  the representative of Venezuela requested that the Secretariat should find out
from MEA Secretariats how they dealt with Special and Differential Treatment.
138. The representative of Australia began by expressing his delegation's agreement with most of
what the United States had said on this issue.  However, Australia was concerned with the idea of
selecting two themes for the first session of substantive discussion under this item.  This had to
remain a Member-driven process, not a process-driven process.  Hence, there was a need to followregular CTE procedures where Members themselves would decide, by tabling their own papers, what
they thought would be a relevant theme for discussion.  Therefore, Australia preferred to defer a
decision on what to discuss until the CTE had a better idea of how its discussions under paragraph 51
would proceed in the future.
139. The Chairman noted that the idea of focussing on agriculture and services had not come from
the Chair nor from the Secretariat.  It had been a proposal of a Member.  At the informal
consultations, there had been an emerging consensus on this.
140. In response, the representative of Australia noted that it was his impression that although
there were two areas identified, and a suggestion had been made by one delegation and supported by a
few others, other delegations had not considered it appropriate to take that decision at that time.  And,Australia was of the view that it was not appropriate to take a decision at this point in time either.
                                                     
71 JOB(02)/51, supra, 4th indent, p.5.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 33
There was a need to consider what sort of documentation would appear, and perhaps to return to this
issue if need be, before the October meeting.
141. The representative of Korea shared the views of the Australian delegation.  The scope of the
of the Doha Development Agenda and the negotiations was so broad that the CTE's review needed to
have a good structure.  Discussions under paragraph 51 was unknown land for the CTE;  this was thefirst time that the CTE engaged in this kind of exercise.  In the interest of efficiency it would be
desirable to have a clear idea on how to proceed in executing the mandate under paragraph 51, and in
particular with respect to the scope of the CTE's work and its relation to other negotiations.
142. The representative of the United States noted that Australia had raised a fair point. Also, he
did not think that in the informal consultations there had been a clear emerging consensus on what
might be the agenda for the October discussions.  The Australian and Korean interventions suggested
that perhaps the October meeting could start off with discussions on essentially everything up forreview.  This could then provide the CTE with a basis for subsequently sub-dividing up the areas
depending on where initial interest was being shown.  In other words, by covering all areas at the next
meeting the CTE was not precluding a subsequent sub-division.
143. The Chairman, noting the change in tendency, suggested that the CTE have an overview at
the next meeting in October.  Delegations would therefore be free to raise or to identify environmental
aspects as they wished.  This would entail a general discussion on the environmental aspects of the
negotiations as a whole.  Starting from this general discussion, the CTE could then focus on specific
subjects at the next stage.  In light of the discussion, there was no need to ask the Secretariat to
prepare documentation.
144. The representative of Canada, reflecting on those who were less knowledgeable about how to
access documents relevant to other negotiations, suggested that some effort by the Secretariat to
identify the relevant summary documents would help preparations in capital.
145. The Chairman suggested that in the Annotated Agenda for the next meeting, the Secretariat
could indicate such information.  Regarding th e few other issues addressed in the informal
consultations, there had been no further progress.  On the joint meeting with the CTD, the Chair hadbeen in contact with the Chairman of the CTD a nd apparently there was neither consensus nor the
right conditions for convening such a meeting.  Likewise, with respect to a possible public event, it
was too early.  The Chairman concluded the meeting by posing one last key question for Members to
think about:  what form should the end-product of paragraph 51 take?WT/CTE/M/30
Page 34
ANNEX
MEA Information Session
13 June 2002
Technical Assistance, Capacity-Building and Information Exchange
A. OPENING STATEMENTS
146. The Chairman noted that MEA Information Sessions were a tool to increase understanding of
the trade-related aspects of MEAs on the one hand, and the rules of the multilateral trading system on
the other hand.  The CTE had been holding such sessions since September 1997 with those MEA
Secretariats whose agreements related to trade.  These sessions offered a constructive and practical
way forward in forging synergies between the WTO, UNEP and MEAs, as well as fortifying
information exchange.  This Seventh Information Session was essential in light of the recognition, in
the Doha Ministerial Declaration of the importance of technical assistance in the field of trade andenvironment to developing countries, as well as  the importance Members attached to continued
cooperation between the WTO, UNEP and MEAs, particularly in the lead-up to the World Summit on
Sustainable Development.
147. At the CTE meeting in March 2002, Members had decided to focus the current session on
technical assistance and capacity building on trade, environment and development, as well as onenhancing information exchange between the WTO,  UNEP and MEAs.  The objective was to build on
the valuable Workshop on Capacity-Building convened  by UNEP back-to-back with the last meeting
of the CTE in March 2002.
72  The Chairman indicated that UNEP had circulated a synthesis paper on
Enhancing synergies and mutual supportiveness of MEAs and the WTO .73  In order to guide this
Information Session, Members had also before them a background paper on technical assistance andcapacity-building activities on trade and environment in UNEP, WTO and various MEAs.
74
148. After a brief introduction on technical assistance and capacity-building on trade, environment
and sustainable development by the UNEP and WT O Secretariats, each MEA Secretariat would be
invited to comment on trade-related technical assistan ce and capacity-building activities, as well as on
ways to increase information exchange and cooperation between MEAs, UNEP and WTO.
149. The observer of the United Nations Environm ent Programme (UNEP) indicated that UNEP
attached great importance to enhancing information exchange and cooperative capacity building
activities between the WTO, MEAs and itself.  Both these processes had a crucial role to play in
increasing the mutual supportiveness of the multilateral environment and trade regimes, and could
offer real benefits to WTO Members and Parties to MEAs.  The relationship between trade provisions
in MEAs and WTO rules had moved into a new and more intensive phase with an open and
continuous flow of information between officials in the secretariats of UNEP, MEAs and the WTO.
The governing structures of these bodies were more important than ever.
150. In the last few years, information exchange sessions had informed trade officials on the
progress in the implementation of MEAs and had given several MEA Secretariats exposure to the
trade and environment debate in the WTO.  This had contributed to opening a dialogue between the
secretariats of the two regimes.  With the developm ents at Doha, and the inclusion of the environment
                                                     
72 The Chairman's summary of this meeting had been circulated in document WT/CTE/W/206.
73 WT/CTE/W/213, 12 June 2002, Enhancing Synergies and Mutual Supportiveness of MEAs and the WTO, A Synthesis Report,
Contribution by UNEP.
74 WT/CTE/W/209, 5 June 2002, MEA Information Session on Technical Assistance, Capacity Building and Enhancing
Information Exchange, Input from the WTO, UNEP and MEA Secretariats.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 35
as a negotiating item on the WTO agenda, it was necessary to move the interaction between UNEP,
MEAs and the WTO beyond simply information exchange.  Such interaction needed to be focused on
key issues related to the implementation of both trade and environment agreements.  Information also
had to be delivered at a time and in a form that would ensure its relevance to policy-making and the
integration of environment, trade and development objectives.  Effective interaction and information
exchange should enable the transfer of substantive analysis and research on the relationship between
multilateral environment and trade policies to th e WTO negotiations.  This information exchange
process should also be a two way process where the Conference of the Parties of the various MEAs
were not only kept informed of developments in the WTO negotiations but also contributed to these
developments.
151. In order to achieve these objectives, UNEP believed that it was essential to undertake the
following actions.  First, to undertake an assessmen t and examination of the existing mechanisms for
information exchange to see whether they achieved timely and useful information transfer, which
contributed to environment and trade negotiations, policy-making and integration.  Second, to define
the content, form, periodicity, as well as level of interaction and information exchange between
secretariats, governing bodies of UNEP, MEAs and the WTO, Members and trade and environment
officials.  Third, to exchange experience, inform ation and knowledge on some specific policy tools,
such as the use of economic instruments to achieve environmental and trade objectives and work on
integrated assessment of trade-related policies, both to clarify and assess the effectiveness of these
tools for environment and trade policy integration.  Fourth, to explore the potential for further
collaboration between the WTO, MEAs, UNEP, and UNCTAD already initiated on specific topics
such as enhancing synergies between MEAs and the WTO, integrated assessment, fisheries subsidies,
compliance and dispute settlement, and capacity building.
152. Effective information exchange mechanisms s hould aim to complement, support and guide
development of collaborative capacity building activities by the WTO, MEAs and UNEP.  UNEP,
MEA, and WTO sessions could focus on such issues as:  assessment of the impacts of trade
liberalization on the environment and the realization of the objectives of MEAs;  trade and economicimplications of MEAs and the role of trade in sustainable development;  effectiveness of trade
measures in achieving environmental objectives;  th e role of technology, particularly environmentally
sound technologies in achieving environmental and trade objectives;  the role of economic
instruments in internalising environmental costs and promoting trade;  public–private sector
partnerships, including the role of financial institutions and transnational corporations in contributing
to more sustainable trade flows;  capacity buildin g to enable governments to develop and implement
integrated national policies on environment, trade and development, and engage effectively in WTOnegotiations.
153. UNEP had developed a specific approach for capacity building activities on the trade,
environment and development policy interface that had been applied successfully in a number of
countries.  This approach focused on the empowerment of national institutions and experts through a
"learning-by-doing" approach.  It ensured proper co ordination and interaction between ministries of
environment, trade and other relevant sectoral mi nistries, the private sector and NGOs.  Partnerships
for this kind of work needed to extend to include WTO and MEAs, as well as regional and sub-
regional institutions.
154. UNEP, together with the MEAs, looked forwar d to contributing and engaging effectively in
this crucial phase of the relationship between the environment and trade regimes.  UNEP wasconfident that in their resolution to secure  complementarity and mutual supportiveness of
environment and trade policies and agreements, WTO Members would ensure that the environment
regime would be engaged as a full partner in the WTO negotiations.  Exploration of these issues
would contribute to developing a focused and action-oriented agenda for the expert meeting that
would take place in the CTE Special Session in late 2002, as had been agreed at the Special Sessionon 11-12 June .WT/CTE/M/30
Page 36
155. The representative of the WTO Secretariat welcomed the MEA and UNEP secretariats who
had accepted to participate in this Information Session.  The session came at an opportune moment for
WTO Members in light of the work programme that had been put in place at the Doha Ministerial
Conference.
156. Coordinated and effective technical assistance was a priority for WTO Members.  In the Doha
Declaration, trade Ministers had strongly reaffirmed  their commitment to the objective of sustainable
development.  They had welcomed the WTO's continued cooperation with UNEP and other inter-
governmental environmental organizations and had encouraged efforts to promote cooperation
between the WTO and relevant international environmental and developmental organizations,
especially in the lead-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in
Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September 2002.  In order to address the development dimension
of the multilateral trading system, technical assistance and capacity building had been highlightedthroughout the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  In addition, the Doha Declaration contained specific
reference to the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in the field of trade and
environment to developing countries, particularly the least-developed among them.
157. Since the establishment of a framework for WTO-UNEP cooperation at the Third Ministerial
Conference in Seattle in 1999, the WTO Secretariat had strengthened cooperation with UNEP andMEAs in WTO regional seminars.  On the basis of requests from Governments, the WTO Secretariat
had established an ambitious schedule to hold 7 regional seminars in 2002.  The most recent seminars
had been held for Caribbean countries in Saint Lucia in January, for Latin American countries in
Colombia in March and for Asian countries in Singapore in May.  Participants at the regional seminar
in Saint Lucia had particularly appreciated the presence and inputs of MEA secretariats, namely theCITES, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Basel
Convention's Regional Centre, in addition to UNEP and UNCTAD.  The next regional seminar, for
English speaking African countries, would take place in July.  Other seminars would be held later in
the year for Central/Eastern European countries, French speaking African countries and countries
from the Pacific region.  For capacity building purposes, the agenda of these seminars had beenadapted to the Doha Declaration, which allowed countries to better identify areas of interest and
concern in the context of the negotiations.
158. With respect to enhancing synergies between MEAs, UNEP and the WTO , an important step
forward had been made.  The Information Sessions in the CTE combined with joint papers had
allowed for greater mutual understanding of the policy interlinkages between trade and environment.
The back-to-back meetings facilitated by UNEP had explored concrete actions to enhance synergies
and mutual supportiveness between the WTO and MEAs.  These synergies had formed the basis forcooperation on technical assistance activities in the area of trade and environment.
159. Furthermore, with respect to future MEA-re lated capacity building activities, the WTO
Secretariat would be organizing side-events at meetings of the Conference of the Parties of selected
MEAs on trade-related aspects of relevance to those MEAs.  The first side events had been held at the
meetings of the Second Session of the UN Forum on Forests, in New York in March 2002, and theSixth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in the Hague in April
2002.  The Secretariat intended to hold side-events at the COP meetings of the CITES and the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer later in the year.
160. UNEP had added a unique element to CTE discussions through its funding of environmental
negotiators from developing countries.  The policy-making processes in the field of trade andenvironment were complex and multidisciplinary, requiring coordination at the domestic as well as
international levels.  This was a challenging and important element of achieving policies that could
contribute to sustainable development.  In this respect, it was hoped that UNEP would continue to
secure funding to build upon the useful practice of facilitating policy coordination by holding back-to-
back meetings with the CTE.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 37
161. In order to ensure that trade contributed to sustainable development, the WTO and UNEP,
along with other intergovernmental organizations such as UNCTAD, as well as MEAs, had to
continue to build on existing cooperation.  As was often pointed out by UNCTAD, it was necessary to
develop a positive agenda on trade and environment that included development.  In this regard, the
UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development (CBTF)
was an important pillar for post-Doha activities in this area.  A solid basis for dynamic cooperation
had been established between the various organizations, and the WTO Secretariat looked forward to
more insights from MEAs, UNEP and delegations at this Information Session on how to enhance the
value of technical assistance and capacity building activities in this field of policy-making.
B. PRESENTATIONS BY MEA S
1. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
162. The Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES)75 noted that CITES was a convention on international trade with specific
trade obligations.  Virtually all of its technical assistance and capacity building was related to trade in
wild animals and plants covered by the convention.  The aim of the convention was the regulation of
legal trade and the reduction of illegal trade in the animals or plants covered.  CITES followed a
three-pronged approach based on the legal, scientific and institutional capacity dimensions of itswork, each of which was covered by a different unit within the Secretariat.
163. Some of the specific areas of work of CITES included the clarification of national trade
policies and legislation;  the determination of the impacts of national policies, both environmental
(including resources shared with neighbouring countries) and socio-economic;  the scientific basis for
trade-related decisions;  and institutional capacity for implementation.
164. CITES had been increasingly looking at expedited processes for trade that was unlikely to
cause environmental impacts.  For instance, work was ongoing in relation to biological samples, trade
samples, personal effects, captive bred and artificially propagated specimens.  It had also been
increasingly concentrating on better analysis and use of trade data;  a comprehensive review of
economic and trade aspects of the Convention, drawing on partners like WTO with useful expertiseand experience;  a comprehensive review of compliance and non-compliance measures, including
trade measures;  and the economics of natural resource management.
165. CITES had appreciated its participation in the regional seminar in Saint Lucia and was
seriously considering participating in a second WTO regional seminar on trade and environment in
Namibia in July, as certain countries had requested its presence.
166. With regard to information exchange and cooperation, it was noted that the WTO Secretariat
had recently contacted CITES to inquire about the necessary steps to obtain observer status in CITESmeetings.  The WTO had been advised that as an intergovernmental body, it already had such a status
and simply had to inform the CITES Secretariat that it wished to participate in meetings.  As the WTO
had also been permitted to attend meetings for the negotiations of MEAs, it seemed unequal for the
WTO not to follow similar practices.  Observer status would allow CITES to follow the debate and to
better support and advise the governments that it served.  Moreover, sustainable wildlife trade couldbe a powerful tool for development and could constitute itself an important economic instrument for
the conservation of certain species.
167. CITES and the WTO should continue to identify key interfaces, to explain to each other their
respective approaches and to consider how they could best support one another.  The purpose was to
go beyond general information exchange and towards more practical synergy between the two
                                                     
75 See for more information, www.cites.org.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 38
secretariats.  CITES was interested to learn about the discussions at the CTE Special Session on 11-
12 June 2002, and how it could better contribute to future discussions.
168. The 12th meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties would be held in Santiago de Chile
from 3-15 November 2002 and CITES was still anticipating a WTO side event at that meeting.  The
Secretariat would issue a press statement on 14 June in relation to COP 12 concerning the proposalsreceived from Parties to include new species in the Convention, amend the CITES Appendices and
resolve various trade-related implementation issues.
Comments and questions
On information exchange between MEAs that had responsibilities and expertise in the same areas169. The MEA Secretariats were in the process of building a network and strengthening contacts
among themselves.  For instance, on economic and trade issues, the CITES Secretariat had made
contact with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to build on their work on economicinstruments, as well as the sustainable use of biolog ical resources.  With regard to species-specific
treaties, CITES had been working more closely w ith the Convention on Migratory Species to develop
a Memorandum of Understanding and a joint Work Pl an to identify areas where the two conventions
covered the same species and where the two secretariats could complement each other's activities.
Recently, both organizations had participated in a workshop on the Saiga Antelope and workedtogether to develop a regional approach and action plan for this species which was increasingly
threatened by unrestrained trade.
170. The Secretary General of CITES had also attended meetings of the International Whaling
Commission to examine how this Convention was dealing with the whales species that the two
secretariats shared in common.  The text of CITES also addressed the relationship with otherinstruments.  A project was under way to identify the linkages with various legal instruments that
dealt with CITES species.  Such information could be made available to CITES Parties and serve to
identify agencies that CITES could consult with in future activities.
On technical assistance and capacity building activities undertaken by CITES in the context of the
Doha mandate
171. The CITES had been working with other MEAs  and UNEP to identify issues in the Doha
Declaration that affected the activities of CITES.  CITES was in the process of restructuring its
capacity building programme, trying to incorporate the trade and economic aspects into its work.  For
instance, CITES had held a series of legislative workshops geared at helping CITES Parties improve
their legislation.  Another project had been to evaluate the legislation of CITES Parties to classify
them in various categories based on whether they met basic requirements of the convention.  CITES
had been working with all Parties whose legislation did not fully meet basic requirements to helpthem upgrade their legislation.  In that context, CITES had incorporated a module on economic and
trade issues in relation to CITES legislation to open up debate with its Parties on the types of
economic instruments, legislative provisions and policies on wild life trade that they had currently in
place.
172. The key now was for CITES Secretariat to become more familiar with the WTO agreements
and the interfaces with CITES and see how these could be usefully incorporated into ongoing
technical assistance and capacity building activities.  In this respect, the WTO regional seminars on
trade and environment had provided CITES with a better understanding of the Doha elements that
should be taken into account.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 39
On the balance between trade and environmental interests in CITES
173. The CITES Secretariat noted that the balance between trade and environmental interests in
CITES was still something that the Secretariat was trying to fully develop.  There was a common
misconception that CITES was a convention that banned trade in wild life.  In fact CITES regulated
such trade.  The majority of species covered by CITES were part of Appendix 2, which allowed tradewhile trying to monitor it through a system of permits and certificates.  Appendix 1 species were the
ones that were endangered and for which commercial trade was not allowed.  The role of CITES had
been to explain to countries this distinction and to ensure that trade took place in an environmentally
sound manner.  Countries that chose to make use of their natural resources and to trade in them had to
do it in a proper manner and on a scientific basis, with proof of legal acquisition and the relevant
accompanying documentation.  This was the balance that CITES was trying to reach.
174. A paper on economic and trade issues would be di stributed at the COP 12 explaining what the
Secretariat had done so far to guide the parties in deciding a way forward.  The Secretariat would
propose certain steps forward and seek to have discussions on this.  There had not been a substantive
and comprehensive discussion internally in CITES on these matters yet.  However, these issues were
highlighted in the Strategic Plan for CITES until 2005, which had been adopted by the Parties and
efforts were being made to implement this Plan.
On the implementation of  decisions taken pursuant to CITES
175. The Secretariat played a monitoring role with regard to compliance with the convention.  It
gathered information from annual reports on trade submitted by the Parties, as well as biannual
reports on the legislative, administrative, and regulatory measures taken.  CITES Secretariat reviewed
these reports and tried to identify issues for the pa rties to address.  As the level of implementation
varied from one country to another, the Secretariat tried to take from the countries that had a good
implementation structure in place some of their practices that could be useful for others.  For example,
the Secretariat tried to identify the parties that had rich biodiversity but did not yet seem to have the
practices in place to manage this diversity.  CITES took a holistic approach to these countries, it did
not just look at one species as had been done in the past, but at all species.  How were their speciesbeing handled?  How were they being harvested and traded?  Where did they end up?
176. In the process of looking at certain enforcement issues, CITES had gone into some countries
to see how they handled permits and studied procedures used so as to find out which aspects of the
process needed more attention.  When countries had problems with fraudulent permits, CITES would
examine what the cause was, and how it could be stopped.  A comprehensive review of compliance
and non-compliance, initiated by the Parties, was under way within CITES.
177. CITES stressed that serious measures, including trade measures, were only a last resort option
in case of persistent or even wilful non-compliance.
On cooperation with the World Customs Organization (WCO)
178. It was noted that the Executive Secretary of CITES was at the WCO on World Environment
Day to launch the "Green Customs" concept.  CITES had been working closely with WCO and
INTERPOL to share relevant expertise.
2. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
179. The representative of the UNEP Chemicals Secretariat recalled that UNEP Chemicals was
acting as Executive Secretary of two conventions, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior InformedWT/CTE/M/30
Page 40
Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade,
which was handled jointly with FAO, and the Stoc kholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
(POPs).76  The Rotterdam Convention had been adopted in September 1998.  It had been signed by 73
countries and ratified by 22 parties.  It was not yet in force, as 50 ratifications were required for this
convention to enter into force.  It contained a resolution on interim arrangements and an interimprogramme was currently in place to (i) handle the preparations for the first meeting of the
Conference of the Parties, which was expected to take place approximately in three years time and
(ii), to implement a voluntary procedure for the prior informed consent.  Since 1989, a voluntary
procedure administered jointly by UNEP and FAO had been followed.  In effect, UNEP and FAO
would administer and implement the Convention on  a voluntary basis until its entry into force.
180. The Stockholm Convention on POPs had been a dopted in May 2001.  It had been signed by
151 countries and ratified or acceded to by 11 parties.  The Convention was not yet in force as 50ratifications were required.  Both conventions related in some way to trade in hazardous chemicals or
pesticides.  In fact, the Rotterdam Convention had a trade focus, as it addressed hazardous chemicals
and pesticides in trade.  The Stockholm Convention also contained provisions governing import and
export of persistent organic pollutants, but these were within the overall objective of moving towards
the elimination of production and use of intentionally produced POPs.  These controls had to beimplemented consistently in conjunction with measures concerning, for instance, domestic
production.  Both conventions had active programmes to support ratification and implementation.
181. In the case of the Rotterdam Convention, UNEP Chemicals had been providing a series of
training workshops at the regional and subregional levels to inform people on the new amended PIC
procedure and to encourage ratification of the convention.  Because of funding shortfall, most of theseactivities had taken place only during 2002 and this had been one of the barriers to the entry into force
of the convention as it had not been possible to get the word out to countries about the benefits of this
convention.  Another drawback regarding entry into force was that UNEP Chemicals was already
implementing the procedure voluntarily and many countries were thus receiving the same sort of
protection that they might get upon entry into force.  Moreover, 165 countries were activelyparticipating in the voluntary procedure.  The Convention contained an article on technical assistance
that facilitated bilateral cooperation.  However, the potential of that article had not yet been fully
explored.  A number of countries had been supporting financially these workshops but progress in this
area had been limited.  Other than some continuing financial support for the operation of the voluntary
procedure from the UNEP and FAO, all the work so far had been donor funded, i.e. the cost of
operating the Secretariat, holding meetings and conducting these workshops.
182. The Stockholm Convention was somehow more robus t in all areas.  It contained an article on
technical assistance, which included technology transfer, and a financial mechanism established
within the convention.  There was also an interim financial mechanism that would be in place between
the entry into force of the convention and either th e first meeting of the Conference of the Parties, or
until such time as the Conference of the Parties decided which financial mechanism would be decided
upon.
183. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) had been designated as the principal entity of the
financial mechanism.  However, there were other sources of financial support currently available.  For
instance, Canada had established a trust fund at the World Bank specifically to assist countries in
meeting their obligations under the Convention.  The GEF had been active in supporting the
objectives of the Convention.  At its last meeting, the GEF Council had agreed to recommend a focalarea on POPs that would go forward to the GEF Assembly for decision, and had also agreed to figures
for about US$170 million for the 2003-2005 period for the next replenishment, subject to the final
decision of the GEF Assembly.  Furthermore, the GEF had been providing funding for enabling
activities under the convention.  These had predominantly been to support developing implementation
                                                     
76 See www.pic.int and www.chem.unep.ch/sc.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 41
plans.  The GEF had agreed to expedited procedures for funding GEF eligible countries at up to
US$500,000 per country.  So far, approximately 50 countries had been approved to receive this
financial support.  The GEF had also funded other supporting activities beyond the implementation
plan including a series of training workshops on support for implementation and ratification that had
been taking place around the world.  UNEP had facilitated these workshops jointly with the GEFSecretariat.
184. The Sixth Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for the Stockholm Convention
would meet from 17-21 June 2002 in Geneva.  This would be the first INC meeting following the
adoption of the Convention.  The main focus of this  meeting would be the preparation for the first
meeting of the Conference of the Parties.  The INC had been authorized to continue the preparatory
work until the first session of the Conference of the Parties.
185. There were a number of items of mutual interest for both of these conventions and the WTO.
Although the two conventions had not yet entere d into force, and implementation of the core
provisions of the instruments was only just starting, joint or collective training for countries on their
trade-related obligations could be useful in a number of areas.  Some form of engagement of UNEP
Chemicals in dispute settlement processes and the re solution of trade disputes would also be useful.
Comments and questions
On cooperation between the various conventions dealing with chemicals
186. In the course of discussions within UNEP on the issue of governance, the idea of grouping
conventions with similar objectives to make them work more closely together in a variety of areas had
received support.  One of the "clusters" considered in these discussions was that of the Rotterdam,
Stockholm and Basel Conventions.  The Secretariats of these conventions had been working togetheron this idea, and would be seeking advice on this question from the INC for the Stockholm and
Rotterdam Conventions, as well as from the Conference of the Parties for the Basel Convention which
would meet later in the year.  The Secretariats had also greatly improved their working relationship,
namely through joint training workshops which included presentations on the various conventions.
This form of cooperation was likely to increase as Parties moved forward on the implementation ofthe Convention, particularly since the Basel Convention was essential for the implementation of a
number of the provisions of the Stockholm Convention.
187. In the context of the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the
question of overlap and duplication of efforts in providing technical assistance and capacity building
within the international environmental system had been raised.  One of the main solutions was that of
clustering.  As far as the area of chemicals was concerned, it was indispensable that the secretariats of
the different conventions work jointly in extending solid technical assistance.  A number of usefulcapacity building activities had already taken place in Latin America and the Caribbean region where
all conventions in the field of chemicals were represented.
On the interest of UNEP Chemicals in WTO dispute settlement
188. The preamble of the Rotterdam Convention stressed that "nothing in the Convention should
be interpreted as implying in any way a change in the rights and obligations of a party under anyexisting international agreements applying to chem icals in international trade or to environmental
protection".  Therefore, there could be circumst ances where UNEP Chemicals would want to follow
closely how disputes concerning international trad e in PIC chemicals or related chemicals might be
resolved.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 42
On the evaluation of technical assistance activities organized by UNEP Chemicals
189. The UNEP Chemicals Secretariat stated that in  the case of the Rotterdam Convention, during
the one year period since the Convention had been open for signature, financial considerations had
made it impossible to hold any training workshops.  At the end of the signature period, there were
73 signatures, which was slightly more than the number of countries that had signed the Conventioninitially in Rotterdam.  In the case of the Stockholm Convention, the training and support for
ratification workshops had started immediately following the adoption of the Convention and the
opening of the signature period.  There had been more than 60 new signatures within this one year
period, as opposed to 9 or 10 in the case of the Rotterdam Convention.  Therefore, this training
programme had been successful in terms of early awareness raising.  The next step would be to move
into actual implementation of the articles of the Convention.
190. The Stockholm Convention contained an article on reporting, which would allow the
Secretariat to measure countries' progress in implementing each of the provisions.  This gave a tool to
measure the impact of the training and capacity building programmes.  Unfortunately, the Rotterdam
Convention did not contain a similar article.  Negotiators themselves had recognized that this could be
a potential weakness and were considering taking a decision on this matter that could include
reporting.
On cooperation between UNEP Chemicals and the World Customs Organization (WCO) for the
training of customs officers
191. The Rotterdam Convention called for requesting the WCO to assign a harmonized system
custom code to all chemicals covered by the Convention.  UNEP Chemicals had approached the
WCO Secretariat and worked out preliminarily acceptable series of codes that could be applied tothese chemicals.  The matter would then have to be considered in various WCO committees and sub-
committees.  Several countries were actively supporting this initiative.  In addition, UNEP had been
organizing training for custom officers and th e MEAs and UNEP Chemicals had actively participated
in this process.  It was noted that Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 highlighted illegal trafficking as an
important issue in relation to chemicals,
77 and the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety had
made this matter one of its priorities.78
On the ratification process
192. The ratification process for the Rotterdam Convention had been slow and relatively
disappointing.  One of the reasons was that the voluntary procedure had offered a similar level of
protection.  The start of the negotiations of th e Stockholm Convention immediately upon adoption of
the Rotterdam convention had distracted parties from working through the ratification process.  A
number of countries preferred to wait until both C onventions were adopted in order to go through the
process of amending their legislation in one go for both conventions.  With regard to the
Stockholm Convention, 11 ratifications after one year  was good progress.  At a rate of one signature
per week or two weeks, the conven tion could enter into force by 2003.
On the classification of POPs
193. POPs corresponded to products listed under Annexes A, B or C of the Convention, which
currently listed 12 chemicals or groups of chemicals.  A process to add new chemicals was also in
place, and Parties could make proposals for the addition of certain chemicals to the Convention.  The
proposals were reviewed by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Committee, which made
recommendations on the addition or non-addition of chemicals to the Convention, and the final
decision was taken by the Conference of the Parties.  Specific criteria contained in an Annex to the
                                                     
77 See www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21text.htm.
78 See www.who.int/ifcs.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 43
Convention guided the Committee in the review of the proposals.  These criteria related, for instance,
to how persistent the chemical was in the environment, the degree to which it bio-accumulated in
living organisms, its potential for long range tr ansport in the environment, and its toxicity.
3. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
194. The representative of the UN Framewor k Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)79
wished to focus his presentation on enhancing information exchange and cooperation.  While two
provisions in the UNFCCC and in its Kyoto Protocol (yet to be ratified) had a reference to trade,
UNFCCC did not contain any specific trade obligations.  The UNFCCC stated clearly in the
principles and in key articles that parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open
international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all
Parties. Article 3 also required, in a language that had been taken from the GATT, that measures to
combat climate change "should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or adisguised restriction on international trade".  This  was carried forward in the Kyoto Protocol but it
also went a step further.  Article 2.3 of the Kyoto Protocol required parties to implement policies and
measures dealing with climate change in such a way as to minimize adverse effects on international
trade and gave the Conference of the Parties the authority to take further action to promote the
implementation of the provisions of this paragraph.
195. The multilateral consensus in the Convention supported the general thrust of the WTO.
Existing means of technical cooperation and inform ation exchange had been essentially at the
technical level to explore synergies.  There was a question as to whether this exchange was sufficient
in the new context or whether there was a need to explore further modalities.  If it was recognized that
a more substantive form of cooperation was required, then one could look at the more traditionalmodes of cooperation between agencies.  For inst ance, a Memorandum of Understanding between the
WTO and each MEA would have the advantage of focusing attention of the political bodies on the
need for cooperation.  Also, it would be important to raise the cooperation between both secretariats
to the level of heads of institutions.
196. Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol contained provisions setting up a compliance committee
with a quasi judicial role, somewhere along the lines of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.  The
initial focus of this compliance committee was likely to be on facilitation, but other issues similar to
those brought under the WTO dispute settlement procedure could be brought up before that
committee.  One suggestion was that some form of cooperation between the two adjudicative bodies
could be useful in order to ensure coherence between the decisions of both mechanisms.
197. UNFCCC finally noted that the value of the Information Session with MEAs would be
enhanced if there were prior discussions organized with MEAs on the agenda for the session, as theremight be additional elements that MEA Secretariats would want to share with the CTE Special
Session.  Recalling the discussion following the CITES presentation, the representative of UNFCCC
noted that CITES was not the only MEA to be opened to other Intergovernmental Organisations
(IGOs), but that this was a general feature of MEAs which derived their authority from the UN
General Assembly that any IGO was welcome as an observer.  UNFCCC was looking forward toobserver status in the CTE Special Session.
Comments and questions
198. Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, the representative of Venezuela noted that there were concerns
among departments of his government about how countries that had emissions reduction targets
would take measures domestically to reach those targets.  There were no compulsory measures in theKyoto Protocol and countries themselves had to take the appropriate measures to reach the target they
                                                     
79 See http://unfccc.int.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 44
had set.  However, the measures taken could run afoul of trade rules and raise trade concerns.  While
some countries had done this exercise of looking at the likely implications, not all countries had done
so.  It might be useful to have a discussion on this issue.
On special and differential treatment in the UNFCCC
199. The UNFCCC noted that the premises for special and differential treatment related to the way
parties themselves would take on the responsibility.  The environmental treaties negotiated at or after
Rio were based on this principle.  The conventions dealing with very specific issues probably
reflected more closely the special and differential treatment as it featured in the WTO agreements.
The UNFCCC had an impact on the economy and the emissions of greenhouse gases occurred from a
range of economic activities.
200. There were two different approaches to international cooperation in the field of environment
and in the field of trade.  Unlike the WTO, which was an agreement that was directly implemented, inthe case of environmental treaties such as the UNFCCC, countries first negotiated a framework
convention where parties agreed on a common concern that needed to be addressed at a multilateral
level.  Then, parties would agree on protocols and on further measures to implement the objectives
agreed upon in the framework convention.
201. There was now a evolution in the area of expertise of delegates attending meetings of the
UNFCCC.  When the UNFCCC was negotiated in 1992, the majority of delegates were from a natural
sciences background coming from the Meteorological department.  Gradually, delegations were
composed of representatives of the ministry of environment, and then of the ministries of foreign
affairs, economic affairs, and energy.
4. The Convention on Biological Diversity
202. The representative of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
80 noted that the Sixth
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-6) to the Biodiversity Convention, recently held in The
Hague, had achieved major advances in implementing the three objectives of the Convention, namely
the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits of the utilisation of genetic resources.  The accomplishments of COP-6 thatwere most relevant to the work of WTO and its committees included the adoption of the Bonn
Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising
out of their Utilisation
81, which represented a set of mutually agreed principles to assist countries in
implementing national regimes governing access to genetic resources and sharing of the benefits of
their utilisation.  In its decision, COP-6 had unde rlined that the provisions of the Convention on
access and benefit sharing and those of the TRIPS Agreement were interrelated.  At the Conference,
the Parties had also adopted Guiding Principles for the Prevention, Introduction and Mitigation of
Impacts of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats or Species .82  These principles endorsed
the precautionary approach in regard to the unintentional or intentional introduction of species, and
were of relevance to the work of the WTO, especially to the work of the SPS and TBT Committees.
203. The CBD recalled that the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety83 set out procedures for
notification and decision-making on imports and exports of living modified organisms, which
included, inter alia , an advance informed procedure, provisions on risk assessment and management,
and requirements on safe handling, transport, packaging and identification of living modified
                                                     
80 See www.biodiv.org.
81 Bonn Guidelines, supra.
82 Guiding Principles for the Prevention, Introduction and Mitigation of Impacts of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems,
Habitats or Species, in Decision VI/23, Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species, at
www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&dec=VI/23.
83 See www.biodiv.org/biosafety.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 45
organisms.  These requirements were again of relevance to the work of the WTO and its SPS and TBT
Committees.
204. With regard to technical assistance, the CBD noted that since the Convention and its
Biosafety Protocol did not prescribe specific trade measures, the CBD Secretariat did not undertake
technical assistance activities that were directly trade-related.  However, both the Convention and theProtocol contained a number of provisions that could require trade-related measures by Parties and a
number of activities related to technical assistance and capacity building were carried out under the
umbrella of those provisions.  For instance, COP-6 requested the Secretariat to support the
development and dissemination of technical tools and related information on the prevention, early
detection, monitoring, eradication and control of invasive alien species.
205. Several mechanisms were also in place to promote and facilitate the implementation of the
Convention.  First, the GEF, which served as th e financial mechanism of the Convention, had played
an important role in addressing the needs of developing countries and providing incentives to
countries to join and implement the Convention.  Furthermore, the Conference of the Parties had
integrated capacity building considerations within the thematic and cross-cutting areas of the
Convention.  For instance, in its decision on access and benefit-sharing, the Conference of the Parties
had envisaged the development of an action plan for capacity building and had identified several keycapacity-building needs.  They included, inter alia , the assessment and inventory of biological
resources, information management, contract negotiations and legal drafting skills.
206. An action plan had also been adopted by the Intergovernmental Committee for the Cartagena
Protocol (ICCP) to develop the capacities of develo ping country Parties to effectively implement the
Protocol and participate in its development.  The GEF had implemented an Initial Strategy for
Assisting Countries to Prepare for Entry into Force of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety .  This
strategy included, inter alia , the establishment of national biosafety frameworks in more than 100
countries.
207. Some trends could be derived from the analysis of the national reports on the implementation
of the Convention that had been submitted to the Secretariat so far.  Reporting Parties had givenincreasing importance to the implementation of the Convention, which they regarded as an effective
instrument to achieve progress towards sustainable development.  A second important trend was the
increased exchange of and access to relevant information for biodiversity-related issues, at national,
regional and global levels.  Third, the information provided by developed country Parties in their
national reports indicated that the level of financial support provided bilaterally to developing country
Parties was several times that provided through the GEF.
208. With regard to information exchange and cooperation, the first area of cooperation related to
systems of information sharing among Parties to the Convention and with the WTO.  Information
required under the Biosafety Protocol was to be made available by Parties through the Biosafety
Clearing House.  Discussions were under way on designing operational systems and information-
management policies.  As the underlying logic and objectives of the information sharing systems
under various WTO agreements and the Biosafety Pr otocol were broadly the same, the WTO could
become more involved in this work of the Convention and its Protocol, in order to increase efficiency
and share relevant expertise.
209. The second area involved the links between the TRIPS Agreement and the provisions in the
Convention related to access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing, as well as to traditional
knowledge.  The Conference of the Parties to th e CBD had repeatedly underlined the relationship
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and had also invited the WTO to further explore this
relationship.  The CBD Secretariat therefore welcomed the mandate given to the CTE in the Doha
Declaration, to give particular attention to the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement in
pursuing the work on its agenda items.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 46
210. The third area related to the sharing of technical knowledge and expertise.  The Conference of
the Parties to CBD had repeatedly emphasized the need for analytical work to further explore the
linkages between biodiversity loss and its underlying causes.  Staff and funding constraints called for
enhanced cooperation in this regard in order to fully make use of the comparative advantages of
organizations in terms of technical knowledge and expertise.  The CBD Secretariat stood ready toprovide any information, data or expertise to the WTO within its mandate.
211. The fourth area was capacity-building to develop awareness of the subject-matter of the
MEAs and WTO agreements, their interrelationships and their implications for the countries
concerned.  The regional capacity-building exercises that had involved UNEP, UNCTAD, the WTO
and various MEA secretariats were very useful and should continue.
212. It was noted that the CBD Secretariat had recently renewed its request for observer status both
in the TRIPS Council and in the Committee on Agriculture.  In addition, the CBD had recentlyrequested observer status in the SPS Committee and the TBT Committee in light of the relevance of
the Biosafety Protocol to the work of these committees.  The positive consideration of these requests
would contribute to strengthening cooperation a nd understanding between the two regimes, thus
providing a better basis for further enhancing the mutually supportive role between trade and
environmental agreements.
Comments and questions
213. The representative of Australia said that his delegation took note of the statement by the CBD
Secretariat concerning the Guiding Principles for the Prevention, Introduction and Mitigation of
Impacts of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats or Species84 and the action taken at the
recent Conference of the Parties to the CBD.  Australia had lodged a formal objection to the adoptionof the Guidelines, notwithstanding its support for the substantive environmental content of the
Guidelines.  This was because Australia had serious concerns about language on precaution and risk
analysis, which Australia believed could be used to undermine existing international guidelines and
standards, including those recognized in WTO agreements.  In Australia's view, there continued to be
a question about the procedural decision taken to adopt the text and hence the status of the Guidelines.
214. The representatives of New Zealand, the United States
 and Canada  supported the statement
made by Australia.
5. The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal
215. The Secretariat of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and their Disposal85 said that the Convention and in particular its 1995 Ban Amendment, contained a
number of provisions that were widely understood to require measures by Parties that could have
consequences for trade.  These provisions, which were described in the WTO Matrix on trade
measures pursuant to selected MEAs,86 included for instance: notification procedures;  restrictions on
import and export of hazardous wastes, including outright import and export bans;  and packaging,
labelling and transport requirements for hazardous wastes.
216. It was generally recognized that the Basel Convention, including through its trade related
measures, had been instrumental in the reducti on of dumping of hazardous wastes in developing
countries.  Moreover, this had enabled the Convention to enlarge its original scope of controlling
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes to wards minimizing hazardous wastes at source.
                                                     
84 Supra.
85 See www.basel.int.
86 WT/CTE/W/160/Rev.1, 14 June 2001, Matrix on Trade Measures Pursuant to selected MEAs, Note by the Secretariat,
Revision.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 47
217. With regard to capacity building activities and technical assistance, the Basel Secretariat
provided assistance to developing countries and countries with economies in transition through
activities designed to increase the capacity of Parties to effectively implement the Convention. A
number of technical assistance and capacity building activities were carried out concerning those
provisions requiring measures with possible consequences for trade.  Many of the technical assistanceand capacity building activities were carried out through the 13 Basel Convention regional centers
around the world.  Since 1997, more than US$7,3 million had been allocated to these centers.
218. The Secretariat had held training seminars focused particularly on the implication of the
implementation of the Basel Ban Amendment.  In addition to the coordination of workshops and
seminars, the Secretariat also monitored and reviewed the submission of national annual reports on
the implementation of the Basel Convention, which included extensive import and export data.
219. The Basel Convention Secretariat worked to enhance capacity, knowledge and experience of
developing countries, and countries with economies in transition, in enforcing the Basel Convention.
In this regard much efforts were made to prevent illegal traffic in hazardous wastes.  The Secretariat
of the Basel Convention had participated in one WTO regional seminar on trade and environment and
had expressed interest in working with the WTO Secretariat and other partners to jointly plan and
implement similar seminars in the future.
220. The Secretariat of the Basel Convention hoped, like other MEA secretariats, to draw on the
WTO experience in trade policy reviews, trade data analysis and economic incentives to further
develop its technical assistance and capacity building program in areas relating to the harmonious
development and implementation of trade and environment policies and measures.  It also looked
forward to opening discussions with WTO on possible joint efforts to identify or develop economicinstruments for reducing illegal traffic or trade in hazardous wastes.
221. With regard to information exchange and enhanced cooperation, the Secretariat of the Basel
Convention believed that the time was ripe to mo ve beyond the general exchange of information and
wished to explore with the WTO what kinds of su bstantive data could be shared and what concrete
activities could be undertaken jointly.  In this regard the Secretariat supported the proposal to discussin advance the agenda for the next MEA Information Session of the CTE.
222. The ongoing negotiations pursuant to the Doha mandate offered a major opportunity for
enriching the collaboration between the Basel Conv ention, other MEAs and the WTO.  Both the trade
and environment regimes would benefit from a two- way dialogue on relevant provisions of the Doha
Ministerial Declaration.  The Basel Convention Secretariat shared the view that it was regrettable that
UNEP and MEA Secretariats had not been invited to the formal discussions within the WTO
negotiation process, a process which had potential major implications for the interaction andrelationship between the trade and environment regimes.
Comments and questions
On capacity building in relation to technology transfer
223. Technology transfer was an important tool to fulfil the objectives of the Basel Convention
with regard to the sound disposal of hazardous waste.  It was also noted that Parties had recognized
the importance of this matter in the Ministerial Declaration adopted at the last meeting of the
Conference of the Parties in December 1999, and that this had been the basis for the regional centres
to become the forum for such technology transfer.  Much remained to be done in this respect, and the
matter had been taken up in the discussions on the Strategic Plan for the Basel Convention for thenext ten years.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 48
On the issue of recycling of hazardous wastes
224. The Basel Secretariat had been working within the mandate given by the Parties on analyzing
the possible implications of the entry into force of  the Ban Amendment in relation to this matter.  A
number of technical guidelines had been developed on recyclables, and the Secretariat was working
closely with other organizations including UNCTAD on specific projects.
On cooperation between the Basel Convention Secretariat and the World Customs Organization
(WCO) on technical assistance and capacity building programs
225. Regional workshops had been organized in coordination with other MEAs for custom officers
and other enforcement officers around the world.  Custom officers had also been invited to certain
technical assistance activities organized by the various regional centres of the Basel Convention
Secretariat on issues such as the identification of hazardous waste and control mechanisms.
On the implementation of trade-related deci sions taken pursuant to the Basel Convention
226. No substantive discussion had taken place between the Parties on this matter.  The question of
the relationship between the Basel Convention and WTO rules had arisen only recently in working
groups.  It was possible that the matter would be addressed at the forthcoming COP meeting in
December 2002.
6. The International Tropical Timber Organization
227. The representative of the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)87 recalled that
the International Tropical Agreement (ITTA) wa s a developmental intergovernmental commodity
agreement to promote the international trade in tropical timber, the sustainable management of
tropical forests and the development of tropical forest industries through international cooperation,
policy work and project activities.  Therefore, most of technical assistance and capacity-buildingactivities conducted by the ITTO were trade-related.  In particular, Members had reaffirmed through
the ITTO Objective 2000  their full commitment to moving as rapidly as possible towards achieving
exports of tropical timber and timber products from sustainably managed sources.  The significance of
ITTO Objective 2000  was the fact that it constituted one of the earliest attempts to operationalize the
concept of integrating trade and environment and making these mutually supportive, as had beenagreed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.
228. The realization of ITTO Objective 2000  was not an easy task.  In most fora such as the United
Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and the CTE, there was a tendency to overstate how mutually
supportive trade and environment could and should be, without taking into account the fact that
integrating trade and environment through the principle of sustainable development inevitably
involved some trade-offs.  The complexity of ITTO’s work and the resulting implications for
technical assistance and capacity-building were compounded by the fact that it primarily involvedtropical forests, and developing countries were encountering most of the pressing challenges and
constraints in promoting sustainable forest manage ment.  Indeed, ITTO started its work in 1987 at a
time when very little of the world's tropical forests were sustainably managed.
229. The ITTO did not rely on trade measures to achieve its objectives, but on supportive and
enabling measures covering capacity-building, training, technical and financial assistance as well asinternational cooperation.  These measures had been taken through ITTO policy work and project
activities under its three principal fields of activities, namely: economic information and market
intelligence;  reforestation and forest management;  and, forest industry.  These measures covered key
and critical areas such as:  criteria and indicators;  auditing systems and certification;  development of
                                                     
87 See www.itto.or.jp.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 49
conservation areas and reserves;  forest law enforcement and illegal logging;  sustainable forest
industries and downstream processing;  promoting tropical timber from sustainably managed sources;
improving transparency of the international timber market; addressing undocumented and illegal
trade; and enhancement of national forest statistical systems.
230. One of the most significant contribution of ITTO was its normative work on a series of
guidelines covering relevant aspects of sustainable forest management, criteria and indicators for
sustainable management of natural tropical forests, and framework for the development of auditing
systems.  Collectively, these had become very useful and essential tools in strengthening forest
management in ITTO producing member countries  through imparting knowledge and know-how.
231. ITTO policy was reinforced by its project activities on the ground.  The ITTO had provided
grants worth some US$220 million to fund some 500 projects and activities of which 150 were
currently under implementation.  These grants had been given by donor consuming member countriesthrough ITTO’s own financial mechanisms, namely the ITTO Special Account and the Bali
Partnership Fund.
232. Some interesting features of ITTO projects, which had made them quite appealing to recipient
member countries, included their country-driven character;  the initiation and ownership of projects
by recipient countries;  funding in the form of gran ts;  and, the relatively short duration of the project
cycle (of approximately 6 months).  These were meant to address some of the well-known concerns
related to technical assistance and capacity-building such as meeting beneficiary national needs and
priorities and minimizing tied-aid and excessive donor conditionalities.
233. The impact of these ITTO efforts had been reflected in, inter alia :  the establishment of some
10 million hectares of totally protected transboundary reserves;  engagement of some 500 full timeprofessionals in ITTO projects;  and benefits of training and participation enjoyed by forest, industry
and conservation workforces.  Continuing improvement of these efforts was being pursued through
monitoring and evaluation of completed and on-going  projects, as well as technical appraisal of new
project proposals.
234. Turning to the issue of enhancing informa tion exchange between MEAs and WTO, it was
noted that such information exchange in itself was highly beneficial to the WTO and MEAs.  But,
information sharing needed to result in actual  strengthening of cooperation, collaboration and
partnership between the WTO and MEAs through concrete and planned joint activities which
addressed relevant and substantive issues.  In this regard, time and resources constraints had to be
taken into account, as measures towards this end had to be realistic, practical and taken on a priority
basis.  Enhancing information exchange and strengthening cooperation between the WTO and MEAs
could be pursued bilaterally between the WTO and each of the relevant MEAs, as well as within theexisting framework involving the WTO and the CTE on the one hand, and a group of MEAs
coordinated by UNEP on the other.
235. At the bilateral level, the need for enha nced information exchange and strengthened
cooperation between ITTO and WTO was driven by at least four important considerations, namely the
emphasis placed by ITTO members on ensuring that ITTO trade-related activities were consistentwith WTO rules; avoiding duplication of efforts by th e two organizations;  the role of the focal agency
for the UNFF's element on international trade and sustainable forest management that had been
assigned to ITTO within the framework of UNFF and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF)
and the importance of close and continuous monitoring of developments in relation to the follow-up to
the Doha Ministerial Conference.  Thus far, efforts to promote relations between the WTO and ITTOhad come from the ITTO side, as mandated by the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC), the
governing body of the ITTO.  The ITTO had participated in a number of WTO meetings particularly
CTE meetings in conjunction with its MEA Informati on Sessions.  In an attempt to further strengthen
cooperation with the WTO, the ITTO had submitted a request for observer status in the CTE.  TheWT/CTE/M/30
Page 50
request, which was still pending, had been submitted prior to the Doha Ministerial Conference, but the
ITTO was hoping to be admitted as observer in both the regular and special sessions of the CTE.
236. The ITTO believed that reciprocity should be the basis for nurturing a meaningful relationship
between itself and the WTO.  The ITTA contained provisions on cooperation and coordination with
other organizations, which specifically menti oned UNCTAD and GATT/WTO.  It also contained
provisions on the admission of observers which facilitated WTO’s involvement in the meetings of the
ITTC and in some of the trade related activities of ITTO.
237. The quality of interactions between the WTO and ITTO and other MEAs would depend on
the relevance of the issues to be taken up.  The ITTO was interested in working closely with the WTO
on some of the pressing issues, particularly the promotion of trade in forest products and services
from sustainably managed forests, the possible impact on exports of forest products from forests that
had yet to be sustainably managed, as well as illegal trade in forest products.
Comments and questions
On sustainable tropical forests management238. The representative of ITTO noted that the role  of the ITTO in promoting sustainable tropical
forests management was an enabling one and that each ITTO member had a responsibility in this
respect.  The ITTO was not directly involved in any form of assessment of the sustainability oftropical forest management by its members, so as not to be misconstrued in the context of the
evolving issue of forest certification and labelling.  The issue of recognition was better left to the
market forces, as well as to internationally recognized voluntary certification schemes.  The ITTO
also faced resource constraints to meet its objectives.
7. UN Forum on Forests
239. The representative of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF)
88 Secretariat noted that unlike other
MEAs participating in this meeting, the UNFF was not an international legally binding
instrument, but rather a soft legal instrument in the form of a voluntary "International
Arrangement and Mechanisms to Promote the Management, Conservation and Sustainable
Development of All Types of Forests".  This Arrangement had been adopted at the Fourth Sessionof the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IFF) on 11 February 2000.  The same meeting had
recommended the establishment of the intergovernmental body – now called the UNFF – whose
main objective had been to promote the management, conservation and sustainable development
of all types of forests based on the Forest Principles adopted at the Rio Conference in 1992,
Chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and on the outcomes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF)
and the IFF process.  The UNFF had been formally established by ECOSOC as a new permanent
body in October 2000. As a voluntary agreement, the UNFF had universal membership.
240. The Program Elements addressed by the Forum's multi-year program of work and Action
Plan number 16, included Program Element 15  on international trade and sustainable forest
management.  As part of this new international arrangement on forests, ECOSOC had also invited
the heads of relevant international organizations to form a Collaborative Partnership on Forests
(CPF) to support the work of the UNFF and to enhance cooperation and coordination on forest-related issues.  Thirteen international organizations participated in the CPF, with ITTO taking the
lead on Program Element 15  on trade and sustainable forest management.  Trade was recognized
within the UNFF as having an important role in the achievement of sustainable forest
management.
                                                     
88 See www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 51
241. Substantial progress had been achieved at the Second Session of the UNFF in New York
in March 2002 concerning the establishment of an "Ad Hoc Expert Group on Consideration with
a View to Recommending the Parameters of a Mandate for Developing a Legal Framework on All
Types of Forests".  Further discussions on the terms of reference and composition of this and
other ad hoc expert groups would take place at the Third Session of the UNFF in Geneva from26 May to 6 June 2003.
242. The Third Session of the UNFF would also address progress in the implementation of the
Program Sub-element on economic aspects of forests, including the issue of trade.  The work of the
UNFF in this area emanated from the IFF mandate to consider matters left pending on trade and
environment, including:  (i), to "analyze the mutually supportive roles performed by international
trade and sustainable forest management and, in that context, issues related to non-discriminatory
international trade in forest products from all types of forests, including the role that tariff and non-tariff barriers [might] perform in relation to sustainable forest management, certification issues where
relevant and improved market access, taking into account the needs of developing countries, in
particular those of the least developed among them";  (ii), to "consider the question of the relationship
between obligations under international agreements and national measures, including actions imposed
by sub national jurisdictions, recognizing that those matters [were] also considered in forums whose
primary competence [was] to address trade issues ; the relative competitiveness of wood versus
substitutes;  valuation;  market transparency a nd the related issue of illegal trade in wood and non-
wood forest products".
243. Substantial discussions on trade and environment had been held at IFF II in Geneva from
24 August to 4 September 1998 and IFF III at the same venue from 3 to 14 May 1999.  It had not been
possible to reach consensus at IFF II and the Forum had decided to continue discussions on this issue.
At IFF IV in New York, from 31 January to 11 February 2000, consensus had been reached on eight
proposals for action.
244. One proposal "urged countries, international organizations, including WTO, and other
interested parties to undertake, as appropriate, further cooperative work on voluntary certificationand/or labeling schemes, in line with the recomme ndations of IPF, while seeking to enhance their
international comparability and considering their equivalence, taking into account the diversity of
national and regional situations, and to ensure adequate transparency and non-discrimination in the
design and operation of such schemes, and [were] consistent with international obligations so as to
promote sustainable forest management and not to lead to unjustifiable obstacles to market access".
245. A second proposal "called upon countries to consider appropriate national-level actions and
promote international cooperation to reduce the il legal trade in wood and non-wood forest products
including forest related biological resources, with the aim of its elimination".
246. Regarding capacity building on trade issues, while the UNFF at the moment functioned as a
forum for continued policy development and dialogue, the UNFF multi-year Program of Work and
Plan of Action for the implementation of the IPF/ IFF proposals for action took into account the need
in the future for capacity building in all progra mmatic elements, including trade and environment.
This was clearly reflected in the Ministerial Declaration and message from the UNFF at its Second
Session to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  Priority, however, within five years was
the consideration of parameters of a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests.
The UNFF would also, as a matter of priority, take steps for addressing more effectively approaches
towards appropriate financial and technology transfer support to enable implementation of sustainableforest management.  Nonetheless, capacity-building in critical areas such as voluntary bilateral
arrangements and certification strategies for controlling products of illegal logging entering into
international trade would, among others, need to be looked into.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 52
247. As noted by the Secretary-General of ITTO, "as a market-based tool to promote sustainable
forest management and to promote trade in forest products from sustainably managed forest
resources, voluntary certification of forest management and labeling of forest products had made
notable progress in recent years.  However, there was a clear indication of the trend that certification
and labeling was progressing particularly in developed countries and that tropical and developingcountries [were] lagging behind.  There [was] thus a need to support the efforts by developing
countries which want[ed] to engage in voluntary certification and labeling to enhance market
acceptance of their forest products.  This [was] also applicable to small and medium forest-owners
and enterprises in developing and developed countries".
89
248. The UNFF was moving forward on the issue of national reports and it was expected that
UNFF III would complete its deliberations on the establishment of an Ad Hoc Expert Group on
Approaches and Mechanisms for Monitoring, Asse ssment and Reporting.  National reports would be
instrumental in identifying the specific capacity-building needs of member states.
249. A decision of the Conference of the Parties of the CBD held recently in The Hague had called
for close collaboration and cooperation between UNFF and the CBD in addressing the conservation
and sustainable use of forests.  The problem of illegal trade in forest products covered by UNFF and
illegal trade of endangered species in Appendices 1 and 2 of CITES, while separate issues, wereclosely related.  Closer collaboration between  the UNFF and the UNFCCC would be desirable on
issues such as carbon sinks and emissions trading.  The role of forests in soil management and in
combating desertification also linked the work of the UNFF with the United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
90  The sustainable management of forests needed to be addressed
in concert with regional seas conventions and action plans such as the Cartagena Convention for theWider Caribbean, the Antigua Convention for the No rtheast Pacific, the Nairobi Convention for the
Marine and Coastal Environment of East Africa, the South Asian Seas Action Plan, the East Asian
Seas Action Plan, the Northwest Pacific Action Plan and the Noumea Convention for the South
Pacific.
250. With regard to the work of MEAs in rela tion to capacity-building activities for custom
officials, an important project had been put in place largely under the coordination of UNEP.  In the
context of the discussions on international environmental governance, clustering of conventions was
identified at three levels:  sectoral (chemicals, biodiversity, etc), functional and regional.  At the
functional level, a lot was held in common by trade-related MEAs, in particular on the subject of
capacity building of national authorities in the customs field.
251. One initiative had brought together five conventions:  CITES, Basel Convention, the
Montreal Protocol, the Chemicals Conventions, a nd the Convention on Biological Diversity.  This
initiative had been undertaken in partnership with the World Customs Organization (WCO) and
INTERPOL, but had also obtained support from national authorities that had been involved in the
process.  Program elements to be developed includ ed an Integrated Training Module, a green customs
manual on MEA trade-related agreements that could be used by custom officials, the development of
an experienced professional pool of trainers, workshops, educational tools such as distance learningtechniques and fact sheets, a model for integrated training addressing enforcement and compliance
issues for all MEAs and the WCO fellowship program to build capacity of custom officers from
developing countries on environmental issues.
                                                     
89 Trade and Sustainable Forest Management: Note by the Secretary General, prepared by ITTO. United Nations Forum on
Forests, Second Session, 4-15 March 2002, New York, para. 16.
90 See www.unccd.int.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 53
8. UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the UN Convention on Law of the Sea
252. The representative from the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea91 recalled
the process that had been established by the UN General Assembly to enhance coordination and
cooperation among all international organizations and agencies involved in marine affairs.  In 1999,
the General Assembly, in its resolution 54/33 (1999) had decided to establish an open-ended informalconsultative process in order to facilitate its review of overall developments in ocean affairs.  Such
informal consultative process, within the legal framework by the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) and the goals of chapter 17 of Agenda 21 had been entrusted to discuss the annual
report of the Secretary General on oceans and the law of the sea and suggested particular issues to be
considered by the General Assembly, with emphasis on identifying areas where coordination and
cooperation at the intergovernmental and inter-agency levels should be enhanced.
253. The first and second meetings of the Informal Consultative Process in 2000 and 2001 had
dealt with, inter alia, coordination and cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea;
the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing;  and the transfer of marine science and
technology.  At the third meeting, which had taken place in April 2002, discussions had focused on
the protection and preservation of the marine environment;  capacity-building, including regional
cooperation and coordination;  and integrated ocean management.  The Process over the last threemeetings had seen the participation of many international organizations and agencies with a mandate
in marine affairs.  Their overall contribution and expertise had added a new dimension in the debate
on ocean affairs and the law of the sea.  At its 57
th session, the General Assembly would review the
effectiveness and usefulness of the Process.
254. In addition to this information on the Informal Consultative Process, the representative of the
DOALOS noted that the UN Fish Stocks Agreement had entered into force on 11 December 2001,
thirty days after the deposit of the 30th instrument of accession by Malta.92  UN General Assembly
Resolution 56/13 (2001) requested the UN Secretary-General to consult with the States Parties to the
Agreement for the purposes and objectives of, inter alia, considering subregional, regional and global
implementation of the Agreement and preparing for the review conference to be convened by the
Secretary-General four years after the entry into forc e of the Agreement.  In view of this, an informal
meeting of the Parties would be held on 30-31 July 2002 in New York.  Another possible agenda item
for the consultation would be the facilitation of the establishment of a programme of assistance to
developing countries pursuant to Part VII of the Agreement.
C. CONCLUSION
255. The observer of UNEP noted that while UNEP's work was originally focused on raising
awareness for the environment and assisting in the development of sound environmental policies, the
linkage between environment and trade had gained increasing importance on UNEP's agenda over the
last years.  The core of the work in this area  had been centred around capacity-building with the aim
of meeting the needs, priorities and concerns of developing countries.  Capacity-building needed to
involve national experts and institutions, it should be process-oriented and geared towards policy
formulation and development.  The main objectives of current capacity-building programs had toassist and work closely with governments to identify their needs, be participatory and ensure national
coordination between trade, environment and sectoral ministries.  It needed to aim at enhancing the
awareness and capacity of trade and environment negotiators as well as involving NGOs, academics
and the private sector.
                                                     
91 See www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm.
92 See www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 54
256. The question of capacity also arose for UNEP and MEAs in responding to the demand for
technical assistance, particularly now that the environment was part of the WTO agenda.  There was
also a need for UNEP and MEAs to develop a common position on a range of issues.
257. As had been highlighted at a UNEP workshop in March 2002, there were a number of gaps in
the delivery of capacity-building services.  These gaps included the lack of coordination among thevarious capacity-building providers, the absence of a consistent approach on capacity-building
activities in the areas of trade and environment as a whole.  There was therefore a need for a long term
integrated and coordinated program on trade, environment and development.
258. While MEAs were oriented to address a global environmental concern, the WTO negotiating
process was not so much geared towards this.  At this stage, it was not clear how the current
negotiating process would contribute to sustainable development.  A number of questions remained
open such as, for instance, how trade could contribute to MEAs implementation and to sustainabledevelopment.  There was a need to put in place a two-way mechanism for information exchange
between MEAs and the WTO, so that MEAs could al so share their views and concerns in relation to
these questions.  The WTO and the various MEAs needed to prepare jointly an action oriented agenda
with specific issues to work on in order to try to produce concrete results.  MEAs also needed to play
a proactive role in the context of the negotiations by presenting their views to trade negotiators.
259. The Chairman concluded by stressing that capacity-building was one of the key issues for the
WTO, and, for achieving the objectives of the Doha Development Agenda, capacity-building was a
must.  In the field of trade and environment, cooperation among MEAs and the WTO was also
necessary.  However, for this cooperation to be successful, coordination at national level was
necessary since MEAs were not independent bodies, but rather represented state parties of theirrespective agreements and the same state parties were equally represented in this room.  Hence, any
criticism to MEAs was a criticism against oneself.  Both MEAs and WTO Secretariats were at the
service of their Members, therefore a better coordination at national level could enable better
coordination among these organizations.WT/CTE/M/30
Page 55
LIST OF SPEAKERS AT THE MEA INFORMATION SESSION ON TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE, CAPACITY BUILDING AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE
13 JUNE 2002
Ms. Marceil Yeater
ChiefLegislation and Compliance UnitCITES Secretariat
International Environment House
Chemin des Anémones 15, Case postale 456CH-1219 Châtelaine, SwitzerlandTel:  (41 22) 917-8464
Fax:  (41 22) 797-3417
E-mail:  Marceil.Yeater@unep.ch
http://www.cites.org
Mr. Jim WillisDirectorUNEP Chemicals(Rotterdam PIC and Stockholm POPs Conventions)
International Environment House
Chemin des Anémones 151219 Châtelaine, SwitzerlandTel:  (41 22) 917-8183
Fax:  (41 22) 797-3460
E-mail:  Jwillis@unep.ch
http://www.chem.unep.ch
Mr. Mukul SanwalSpecial AdvisorUN Framework Convention on Climate ChangeMartin-Luther-King Strasse 8
53175 Bonn, Germany
Tel.: (49 228) 815 1421Fax: (49 228) 815 1994E-mail: Msanwal@unfccc.int
http://www.unfccc.org
Mr. Markus LehmannEconomistConvention on Biological Diversity Secretariat
393 St-Jacques, Suite 300
Montreal, Quebec,H2Y 1N9, CanadaTel: (514) 287 7033
Fax: (514) 288-6588
E-mail:  Markus.Lehmann@biodiv.org
http://www.biodiv.org
Ms. Helle HusumLegal OfficerBasel Convention SecretariatInternational Environment House
Chemin des Anémones 15
1219 Châtelaine, SwitzerlandTel:  (41 22) 917-8382Fax:  (41 22) 797-3454
E-mail:  Helle.Husum@unep.ch
http://www.basel.intMr. Amha bin Buang
Assistant DirectorEconomic Information and Market IntelligenceInternational Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
International Organizations Center, 5
th Floor
Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1Minato-Mirai, Nishi-kuYokohama
Japan 220-0012
Tel:  (81 45) 223-1110Fax:  (81 45) 223-1111E-mail:  itto@itto.or.jp
http://www.itto.or.jp/Index.html
Mr. Jorge IlluecaPrinciple Forest and Environment Policy Officer
Secretariat of the UN Forum on Forests
Division for Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment of Economic and Social AffairsRoom DC2-1270, United Nations
New York, N.Y. 10017, USA
Tel:  (1 212) 963-3160Fax:  (1 212) 963-3463E-mail:  Illueca@un.org
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/forests.htm
Mr. André TahindroSr. Ocean Affairs & Law of the Sea Officer
Division for Ocean Affairs & the Law of the Sea
Office of Legal AffairsSecretariat of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea
2 United Nations Plaza,  DC.2 – 0432
NY 10017, USATel.: (1 212) 963 3946Fax: (1 212) 963 5847E-mail: tahindro@un.org
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
Mr. Hussein AbazaChief
Economics and Trade Unit
UNEPInternational Environment HouseChemin des Anémones 15
1219 Châtelaine, Switzerland
Tel:  (41 22) 917 8197Fax:  (41 22) 917 8076E-mail:  Hussein.Abaza@unep.ch
http://www.unep.ch
__________