RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/CTE/M/31
2 December 2002
(02-6623)
Committee on Trade and Environment
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8 OCTOBER 2002
Note by the Secretariat
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGE NDA.............................................................................................2
II. ADOPTION OF TH E ANNUAL RE PORT ...........................................................................2
III. PARAGRAPH 32(III)  (LABELLING) ..................................................................................2
IV. OTHER PARAGRAP H 32 ITEMS.......................................................................................13
A. P ARAGRAPH 32(i) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (MARKET ACCESS ) ................13
1. The Market Access Aspect of paragraph 32(i).....................................................................13
2. Sector analysis.............................................................................................................. ...........18
(a) Energy...................................................................................................................... .................18
(b) Fores try .................................................................................................................... .................19
B. P ARAGRAPH 32(ii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (TRIPS) ................................20
V. OTHER ITEMS OF THE CTE WORK PROGRAMME ..................................................21
A. I TEMS 1 AND 5...........................................................................................................................21
B. I TEM 2 .............................................................................................................................. .........22
C. I TEM 9 .............................................................................................................................. .........23
D. C ANCUN ............................................................................................................................... .....24
VI. PARAGRAP H 33................................................................................................................ ....24
A. T ECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING ................................................................24
B. E NVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS ......................................................................................................26
VII. PARAG RAPH 51............................................................................................................... .....26
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: 2003 MEETINGS...............................................................................31WT/CTE/M/31
Page 2
1. The Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) met on 8 October 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 30 September in
Job(02)/134.1
2. On observers, the Chairman noted that there had been a new request for observer status in the
CTE from the Ozone Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer.2
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
3. The agenda in WTO/AIR/1900 was adopted.
II. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT
4. The CTE adopted the Annual Report of the Committee for 2002 as contained in WT/CTE/7.
III. PARAGRAPH 32(III)  (LABELLING)
Labelling requirements for environmental purposes.
5. The Chairman noted that paragraph 32(iii) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration on labelling
was the "item of focus" for the current meeting.  He recalled that at Doha, Ministers had instructed the
CTE, in pursuing work on all items of the CTE work programme within its current terms of reference,to give particular attention, inter alia , to the issue of "labelling requirements for environmental
purposes".  At the last meeting, the European Communities (EC) had tabled a paper
3 on this issue and
there had been some preliminary discussion.  For the current meeting, Switzerland had submitted a
paper on "labelling for environmental purposes".4
6. In introducing the paper, the representative of Switzerland stressed that the CTE needed to
intensify its work on environmental labelling in line  with the mandate from Ministers in Doha.  The
objective was to come up with a report for the 5th Ministerial Conference, which would include
recommendations on any future action.  But the CTE needed to make progress on its work on
environmental labelling because there was also an increasing trend to establish labelling requirements
and schemes which focused on providing consumers with information about the environmentalaspects of a product.  Although labelling requirements in general tended to be less trade restrictive
than other regulatory instruments, there were grow ing concerns that environmental labelling schemes
could have an impact on international trade.  This was particularly so when requirements varied from
one country to another;  compliance with divergent requirements could pose special difficulties for
developing country Members.  Yet, environmental labelling could be seen as a policy instrument
towards "sustainable consumption".  Hence, taking into account these aspects, Switzerland was of the
view that the Committee, in order to submit a satisfactory report to the next Ministerial Conference,needed to structure its future discussions.  In essence, Switzerland was suggesting that the CTE
                                                     
1 An updated list of all documents circulated in the CTE up to September 2002 is contained in
WT/CTE/INF/5, 2 October 2002.
2 The full text of this request is contained in document WT/CTE/COM/10, 4 September 2002.  Also, a
full list of the organizations that have requested observer status in the CTE is available in documentWT/CTE/W/41/Rev.9.
3 G/TBT/W/175, WT/CTE/W/212, 12 June 2002, "Labelling", Submission by the
European Communities.
4 At the time of the meeting, this paper was circulated as a non-paper, issued as Job(02)/140,
4  October 2002.  It was subsequently circulated  as WT/CTE/W/219, 14 October 2002, "Labelling for
Environment Purposes", Submission by Switzerland.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 3
concentrated on issues that specifically related to environmental labelling.  It proposed a three-step
approach:
(a) Definition:  The Committee needed to come to a common understanding on what was
meant by the notion "environmental labelling" or "eco-labelling" respectively.  It
appeared as if these terms were being used for various types of labelling schemes,regardless of whether they were of a mandatory or voluntary nature.  The Secretariat
could be asked for an update of its 1998 paper
5 on environmental labelling with a
view to providing the Committee with the most recent international developments
with respect to definitional issues.
(b) Specific trade concerns:  There was a need to identify specific trade concerns relevant
to environmental labelling.  To this end, Switzerland suggested that the Secretariat be
asked to update its overview6 on the notifications filed within the TBT Committee
with regard to environmental labelling.  A revised and amended version of this
document could also include a compilation of specific issues raised within the
TBT Committee in this respect rele vant to environmental aspects.7  Additionally,
Members could be invited to contribute actively to discussions by providing the
Committee with specific examples of trade-related experiences with regard toenvironmental labelling schemes.
(c) Conclusions:  Based on the conclusions of this process, which would include
discussions on WTO rules that apply to environmental labelling, the Committee could
make recommendations on any necessary action to be taken, as requested by the
Doha mandate.
7. The representative of the Czech Republic indicated that his country considered eco-labelling
to be a useful economic instrument for informing consumers about environmentally friendly products,
especially when awareness of sustainability aspects was growing.  The Czech Republic supported the
notion of harmonization between various schemes of eco -labelling.  In fact, it had already harmonized
criteria for eco-labelling programmes with those of the European Union.  The significant impact oflabelling requirements on producers and exporters – developing countries in particular – was
understood;  there was a need to better involve developing country trading partners in setting
environmental standards and regulations.  He noted that the Czech National Eco-labelling Programme
(initiated in 1993) aimed at identifying consumer products which did the least harm to the
environment.  The Programme respected the following principles:  its application was voluntary for
producers;  eco-labelling served as positive information for consumers and users;  credibility,
transparency and public participation;  environmental impact of the production, consumption anddisposal of labelled products had to be significantly lower when compared with average products
which served similar purposes and had equivalent uses;  and, equal access for domestic as well as
imported products.  The conditions for awarding the eco-label were defined for individual product
categories.  Specific, clear, precise and objective environmental criteria were established for each
category to achieve a high level of environmental protection.  Life cycle assessment of the impact ofproduction, utilisation and disposal was used whenever possible.  In the Czech Republic, the Minister
of Environment was the authority to grant the eco -labels and approve the criteria for individual
                                                     
5 WT/CTE/W/79, 9 March 1998, "Market Access Impact of Eco-Labelling Requirements", Note by the
Secretariat.
6 WT/CTE/W/150, 29 June 2000, "Information Relevant  to the Consideration of the Market Access
Effects of Eco-Labelling Schemes", Note by the Secretariat.
7 The representative referred, in this respect, to on going work in the TBT Committee.  The relevant
documents here are, inter alia , G/TBT/W/183, 8 October 2002, "Notifications Related to
Labelling (1 January 1995 – 31 August 2002)", Note by the Secretariat and G/TBT/W/184 (and Corr.1),4 October 2002, "Specific Trade Concerns Related to Labelling Brought to the Attention of the CommitteeSince 1995", Note by the Secretariat.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 4
categories;  anyone could submit proposals for product categories to the Board of the Czech National
Programme.  The Czech Republic also participated in the international organization
Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN).
8. The representative of Brazil noted that her country disagreed with the assertion that the
Doha Declaration "clearly assigns the task of progressing work on environmental labelling to the
CTE" (paragraph 5 of the Swiss paper).  It was Brazil's understanding that the CTE was assigned to
continue its work on labelling, but not only on labelling.  There were eleven issues to discuss,
including the issues that were under negotiation.  The three issues that were singled out in the
Doha Mandate were to be prioritized, but that was not to say that the other issues should not be
discussed.  Hence the word "progress" did not reflect the mandate given by ministers.  Nevertheless,
on the substance, Brazil believed that some of the points raised by Switzerland were valid and needed
to be discussed in the CTE.  For instance in paragraph 8, Switzerland recognized that eco-labelling
represented a sound alternative to other policy instruments such as the setting of mandatory product orproduction/processing requirements/standards.  It was true, also, that there was a proliferation of
many different eco-labelling schemes.  However, for Brazil that was not a problem.  Quite to the
contrary – it was through diversity that consumers could actually make a qualitative choice;  there was
nothing against discussing the proliferation of ec o-labelling schemes in this Committee.  Members
could benefit from understanding that some eco-labelling schemes could pose barriers to trade or werenot an appropriate response to the needs of consumers, producers and exporters.
9. Brazil did not agree with the approach set out in paragraph 12.  On the first suggestion, that of
trying to define eco-labelling, it was Brazil's view that WTO rules applied and that this was something
that had been regularly reiterated in the TBT Comm ittee.  In fact, the proper forum for discussing not
only eco-labelling issues but also labelling in ge neral was the TBT Committee.  The CTE in regular
session was not the appropriate forum for discussing the appropriateness of WTO rules vis-à-vis
labelling.  On the second proposal (to identify and analyse specific trade issues related to
environmental labelling schemes), Brazil believed that the Secretariat was already overburdened with
too many tasks.  Moreover, the methodological implications were daunting.  It was also important not
to duplicate work in the TBT Committee.  In particular the third point of paragraph 12 suggested workfor the CTE that was way out of line with the mandate from Doha:  the CTE was not supposed to
draw conclusions;  conclusions were to be drawn only  at the very end of the process, and only if there
was a need to do so on eco-labelling.
10. The representative of Canada noted that the te rm "eco-labelling" (normally discussed in the
CTE), could be seen as a narrower subset of the expression "labelling requirements for environmental
purposes" (contained in the Doha Mandate).  Canada recalled that it had submitted a document8
relevant to the issue of labelling where the view was put forward that there was a need to pursue abetter understanding regarding the use of – and possible abuse of – labelling measures informally in
the TBT Committee.  At the same time, Canada al so saw the need for the CTE to better understand
the WTO disciplines that had a bearing on labelling, for example those in the TBT Agreement.
However, Canada did not see a need to negotiate new or additional disciplines such as those found in
the TBT Agreement.  In fact, most Members were aware that root of controversy and possibledifferences among Members was related to what was called non-product related process and
production methods (NPR-PPMs).  This debate became complex and sometimes even acrimonious
when discussing mandatory NPR-PPM labelling schemes.  There was no doubt that this issue would
need to be discussed in the CTE.
11. Canada had noted in the past how voluntary eco-labelling, driven by the market, could
provide valuable information to consumers.  It had also noted how important it was that such
                                                     
8 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/31
Page 5
programmes be developed consistently with the re quirements of the TBT Agreement, and specifically
with Annex 3 of that Agreement (the "Code of  Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and
Application of Standards").  Furthermore, the TBT Committee's Decision on the "Principles for the
Development of International Standards" provided useful guidance in this area.9  This decision
contained many, if not all, the principles which needed to be followed in the development of standardsfor labelling, including eco-labelling standards.   These included transparency;  inclusiveness or
openness (all stakeholders be involved in the development of the standard);  impartiality and
consensus;  effectiveness and relevance;  coherence;  and, wherever possible, responsiveness to the
needs and interests of developing countries.  These were all well-known and understood principles in
the standards development world.  Canada believed strongly in consumer choice and in protecting the
health and welfare of not only Canadian citizens but also of all consumers of Canadian-made
products.  There had to be rules to ensure cons umers' protection and trustworthy, non-misleading
statements on labels;  beyond health and safety and direct environmental consequences of products
such as toxicity, or energy consumption by various products, Canada believed that there was a need to
discuss what additional consumer information should be provided in response to market and consumer
demands.
12. Canada acknowledged the contribution of the European Communities to this discussion
10 and
believed that it contained proposals on moving forward the informal discussions in the
TBT Committee, that most, if not all Members believed essential to a better understanding of labelling
issues under the TBT Agreement.  Moreover, the work under way by the TBT Secretariat11 would
throw further light on the natural extent of labelling problems to date, including those that would fall
under the rubric of labelling requirements for environmental purposes.  Canada recalled theconclusions summarized in the CTE Report to the Singapore Ministerial meeting in 1996.  Since then,
new issues had arisen which the CTE needed to examine.  While Canada was pleased with work
undertaken in the TBT Committee in respect of labelling, the CTE also had to continue to discuss
labelling matters as they related to "requirements for environmental purposes" in order to fulfill its
mandate to report on this issue to the 5
th Ministerial Session.  This was an issue that Canada would
revert to at the next meeting.
13. Canada appreciated the Swiss intervention and paper and would revert to it in the future.  It
asked the Swiss delegation to elaborate a little more on the first sentence of paragraph 8:  "As such,
'eco-labels' represent a sound alternative to other policy instruments (such as setting of mandatory
product or production/processing requirements/standards)".  Canada was interested in seeing some
examples of how Switzerland saw this as an alternative to other policy approaches.
14. The representative of Japan fully understood the importance that the European Communities
and Switzerland attached to labelling requirements for environmental purposes.  Japan shared the
view that while it was important to make sure that such labelling requirements would not result in
unnecessary obstacles to trade, Members needed to address the issue with a view to ensuring
transparency, given the civil society's concerns for environmental protection.  Referring to a
previously tabled paper,12 Japan encouraged (i) the acceptance of Code of Good Practice of Annex 3
of the TBT Agreement by the bodies developing labelling requirements;  (ii) the promotion of
international standardization on labelling through cooperation with the existing international
standardization process;  and (iii) the adoption of performance-based labelling requirements.  Japan
believed that these points should apply to eco-labelling as well.  It was Japan's view that discussions
on labelling in general should be first conducted under the TBT Agreement, which provided
                                                     
9 G/TBT/9, 13 November 2000, "Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade", Annex 4.
10 G/TBT/W/175, WT/CTE/W/212, 12 June 2002, "Labelling", Submission by the
European Communities.
11 Supra  note 7.
12 G/TBT/W/176, 18 June 2002, "Labelling", Submission from Japan.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 6
disciplines applicable to labelling, and within the TBT Committee, which had the relevant technical
expertise.  The CTE could then deepen its consideration of eco-labelling, taking into consideration the
results of the discussions at the TBT Committee.  Regarding fishery products, Japan referred to the
discussions conducted at the FAO on sustainable use of  fishery resources.  Japan was of the view that
objective and scientific guidelines should be developed at FAO, and that WTO should examine theissue from trade perspective taking into consideration the results of the FAO work.
15. The representative of Korea considered that there was general support for eco-labelling as an
effective instrument of environmental policy, and that this had been confirmed by the 1996 Singapore
Ministerial Report.  Noting the demand from consumers for information about the environmental
aspects of products, and the Mandate given by Mini sters at Doha, Korea was in general open towards
the direction of the CTE's future work on eco-labelling, as suggested by the Swiss delegation.  Korea
understood the Swiss paper as an expression of the need for the CTE to undertake discussions of itsown while drawing on the ongoing work in the TBT area.  The focus needed to be balanced on both
the positive and negative aspects of the various eco-labelling schemes:  while eco-labelling reflected
the legitimate demand by consumers for informati on, the issue was how to address existing concerns
expressed by many Members regarding potential implications on exports by developing countries.  It
was Korea's view that the main concern was about the reliance of eco-labelling schemes on life-cycleanalysis.  Moreover, with regard to eco-labelling, it appeared that if particular importance had to be
paid to process and production criteria, this would eventually undermine what was perceived to be a
comparative advantage of exporting countries.  Korea welcomed the Swiss paper's suggestions on
such instruments as harmonization, equivalence and mutual recognition as a way to address non-
homogeneity in environmental concerns.  It was notable that both the EC and Canadian papers alsoattached importance to these criteria as a way of reducing trade barriers resulting from labelling
requirements.
16. The representative of Indonesia noted that the Swiss delegation had rightly pointed at the
concerns held by many Members that environmental labelling and standards should not be misused
for the protection of national markets.  Various st udies referred to the fact that environmental
labelling regulations, which were strict and drafted without the participation of all concerned parties,
tended to have effects on trade, particularly trade from developing countries.  Requirements to fulfil
standards that went beyond the capabilities and capacities of developing countries' industry to respond
had deterred importers from placing orders.  The need for transparency was of the outmost
importance.  Transparency had to be ensured at all stages of the process of creating environmental
labelling schemes or programmes.  Once a programme or scheme on environmental labelling had
been decided upon, care had to be given to properly disseminate the information on the various rulesand regulations related to the labelling scheme in order for foreign producers not to be at a
disadvantage and not to suffer losses.  A concrete example was the case of the "Green Dot"
programme, whereby products were returned due to packaging "flaws".  The take-back burden
imposed on producers would have a more severe effect on foreign producers compared to domestic
producers, due to the cost of shipping for returning the products.
17. Indonesia was of the view that environmental labelling schemes needed to be based on
scientific considerations that were measurable an d which took into account the need to balance the
interests of consumers, producers and sustainability concerns.  These concerns had also been reflected
in the discussion at the Triennial Review meetin g of the TBT Agreement.  On the issue of the
development of international standards related to environmental concerns, Indonesia stressed thatdeveloping countries were at a disadvantage due to limited participation as well as capacity.  At
present, it was more important to concentrate on assisting developing countries in designing schemes
or programmes that supported environmental objectives within the national context.  Different
countries faced different environmental problems that had different characteristics and involved
different specific concerns.  Hence, at this stage of the development process, developing countriesneeded flexibility to adopt policies and programmes tailored to address their specific environmental
concerns.  For example, Indonesia had embarked on various programmes to ensure that environmentalWT/CTE/M/31
Page 7
concerns were addressed sufficiently.  Various standards relating to environment had been adopted,
such as those in the ISO 14000 series.  Indonesia had opted for voluntary environmental labelling
programmes and was in the process of developing voluntary environmental labelling criteria for
specific products.  It was Indonesia's experience that voluntary labelling provided incentives for
effective compliance with environment policies and regulation.  This showed that Indonesia was notopposed to the need to protect the environment;  it was more concerned that this had to be done
wisely.  In concluding, Indonesia reiterated the view that the issue under discussion was closely
related to the discussions in the TBT Committee, and hence there was a need to further discuss this in
that particular Committee.
18. The representative of Norway stressed that eco-labelling could represent a potentially
attractive way to inform producers about the environmental dimension of their purchasing, as well as
way to provide producers market access for products to which there was a premium attached.  Thiscould be a viable alternative to mandatory government regulations, as the consumer was left with
freedom of choice and the producer an incentive for "greening" his products.  On the other hand, there
was a danger that the proliferation of such labels could be confusing, or constitute unnecessary
barriers to trade.  Such schemes could turn into  de facto requirements, leaving producers with little
choice but to adapt.  The developing country concerns were particularly relevant in this context.Although standardization, harmonization, equivalen ce and mutual recognition were instruments that
could prove inclusive for developing country pr oducers, in particular small and medium size
enterprises (SMEs), authorities in these countries remained uniformed.  The proposals set forward in
the EC paper, both as regards advance information on labelling, participation of developing countries
in standardization activities and capacity building n eeded to be further examined in both the CTE and
the TBT Committee.  While many of the EC proposals were directed more at the TBT Committee,
Norway believed that the CTE would benefit from a systematic analysis of the eco-labelling schemes'
functioning and properties.
19. Norway was of the view that the CTE needed  a common understanding with regard to the
kinds of labelling schemes being discussed, and also with respect to the function and properties of thevarious schemes.  On the basis of such a common understanding Members could then consider how to
deal with the various labelling schemes under the TBT Agreement.  Regarding the functioning of
labelling schemes, these provided objective information to consumers and others about possible
hazards, safety measures, properties of products or services, the origin of the products or services, and
about the conditions under which the product or service had been produced.  They also assured
consumers and others that the product or service, or the information provided therein, had been
subject to independent third-party quality assessment.  As such, they offered a choice of products or
services that were more environmentally sound than other products available in the same market.
With respect to properties, Norway noted that some labelling schemes were mandatory, while others
were voluntary.  Some were set up by public authorities and others by independent third parties.
Other schemes were set up by the companies themselves or their organizations.  Some schemes were
"static" while others were "dynamic" (i.e. subject to periodic review with a view to adjusting criteria).Some were national, in the sense that they dealt with local concerns, while others dealt with issues of
international importance.  Finally, some labels were directed towards ordinary consumers, while
others were directed towards professional consumers (enterprises, wholesalers or retailers).  These
distinctions needed to be kept in mind in order to be able to identify the trade issues that the various
kinds of labelling schemes raised.  In the light of the above, Norway supported the Swiss proposal foran update of the relevant Secretariat papers.
13  Norway also agreed that future work should involve, as
appropriate, TBT experts as well as authorities responsible for health, safety and environment.
20. The representative of Australia remained convinced that existing WTO disciplines were more
than adequate to deal with the issue of eco-labelling.  Eco-labelling and consumer information tools
needed to be voluntary and market driven, as opposed to imposed regulatory requirements.
                                                     
13 Norway referred to: WT/CTE/W/150 and WT/CTE/W/79, supra  notes 5 and 6.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 8
Furthermore, the most appropriate body to take the lead in discussing labelling issues was the
TBT Committee.  It would be unwise for the CTE to preempt in any way the work taking place in the
TBT Committee which was dealing with labelling more generally, and which was based on the
understanding that discussions were on an informal basis without any prejudgement of outcomes.  On
the specifics, Australia believed the Swiss paper prejudged – or at least pushed – in a certain directionthe outcome of the CTE mandate in paragraph 32(iii).  This would be counterproductive to the
discussions taking place in the TBT Committee.  While Australia had no problem with giving some
structure to the discussion, it was not appropriate to predetermine the outcome and to imply that some
kind of "necessary action" would be needed.  Australia noted that paragraph 7 stated that "It
increasingly appears that consumers in most industrialized societies are willing to pay higher prices
for products that are more environmentally friendly than others".  Australia was interested in
discussing this comment further.  Also, Australia was concerned about the future activities and theway forward being suggested in the Swiss paper, co nsidering that it was important not to duplicate
what was going on in other bodies.  It might be preferable to see the results of the work carried out in
the TBT Committee before taking any decisions on what the CTE needed to do.
21. The representative of the European Communities recalled what his delegation had highlighted
when the EC paper had been introduced at the last meeting.14  He referred in particular to the issues of
international standards, developing country concerns, and equivalency and transparency.  Like
Switzerland, the European Communities believed that paragraph 32(iii) clearly mandated the CTE to
give particular attention to environmental labelling and the European Communities was not in favor
of making work in the CTE conditioned on progress in the TBT Committee.  There was a need to
pursue this work in parallel, as had been done before.  Members did not have much to gain from adebate on what the mandate allowed for or did not allow for, in particular on the issue of conclusions.
It was only fair to say that the Swiss paper in paragraph 20 left the issue quite open, because the word
"whether" did appear, while it did not appear in the Doha Declaration.  An in-depth discussion in the
CTE was an important opportunity to address the issue in a way which allowed Members to
demonstrate their intention to be adequately responsive to environmental considerations, and, as aresult, send a reassuring message of mutual supportiveness between trade and environment policies,
as had been done in the Singapore Report six years ago.
22. The European Communities drew the Committee's attention to the conclusions of the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg and reiterated the importance
of ISO work in this field.  Both the WSSD and the ISO offered valuable input, and the CTE needed to
take it into account.  In particular, the ISO standards on voluntary eco-labelling based on life cycle
provided internationally agreed principles for the use of such schemes.  The WSSD Plan of Actionrecognized voluntary market-based instruments as  a valuable tool to make progress towards more
sustainable production and consumption patterns.
23. On the specifics of the Swiss paper, the representative of the European Communities did not
see paragraph 12 as a prescription for the Secretariat's work.  It was rather an idea of how to reach a
common understanding of where the focus of the work needed to be.  He was not sure whether he hadmisunderstood the Brazilian intervention in this regard.  Concerning the definition of eco-labelling,
the ISO standards had been mentioned, and figured in the contribution of the European Communities.
The identification of specific trade issues relate d to environmental labelling schemes was already
under way in the work done in the TBT Committee.
15  The European Communities also considered
the point made in paragraph 19 of the Swiss paper, where delegations were asked to provide examplesof specific initiatives for trade facilitation and promotion with respect to environmentally friendly
products – in particular if these addressed developing country concerns.  Finally, the European
Communities did not have a firm view on necessary action or conclusions;  the mandate instructed the
CTE to clarify whether or not further action was warranted, and recommendations had to be made to
                                                     
14 Supra  note 3.
15 The EC representative referred, in particular, to G/TBT/W/184, supra note 7.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 9
the next Ministerial Session.  The European Communities was not of the view that Members should
be precluded from discussing, at some stage,  possible outcomes, or possible conclusions.
24. The representative of the United States referred to the Canadian paper submitted to the
TBT Committee.16  Its views were usefully reflected in paragraph 4 (referring to labelling issues as
being largely horizontal and to the fact that concerns related to how trade disciplines function in thecontext of labelling for environmental purposes could be expected to arise also with respect to general
product safety or performance, including food safety) and in paragraph 6 (referring to the fact that the
TBT Agreement did apply, and that TBT provisions were balanced and adequate).  The United States
agreed with what Australia had said in this regard in terms of TBT and SPS disciplines being
sufficient, and with the view that eco-labelling should be voluntary and market driven.  Similarly, the
United States had yet to hear any compelling argument articulated as to how existing WTO rules
could be insufficient to address particular concerns related to labelling in general and eco-labellingmore specifically.  The TBT and SPS Agreements already applied to labelling programmes, whether
mandatory or voluntary.  Particularly with respect to mandatory programmes, the TBT and
SPS Agreements had a wide range of obligations to ensure that such requirements were developed and
applied through a transparent participatory process, that they were non-discriminatory and that their
adverse trade effects were minimized.  The United States had a number of voluntary, and a fewmandatory, eco-labelling programmes whether developed by the government or private sector.  The
practice of the United States generally provided for transparency and participation to underpin the
development and application of labelling schemes.
25. On the Swiss paper, the United States expressed some preliminary views.  While the
United States supported a structured approach to discussions (paragraph 21), as stated by Brazil withrespect to paragraph 12 and in particular sub-paragraph (c), which referred to conclusions and
decisions on the necessary actions to be taken, it was not clear to the United States that action was
necessary at this point.  Nor was it clear, with respect to paragraph 22 (like Australia), what "value
added" the Secretariat might provide at this early stage of the discussions.  This was particularly the
case with respect to the compilation that Switzerland proposed.  The United States was not in aposition to consider further work by the Secretariat in this respect until after the Secretariat had
circulated the compilation undertaken in the TBT Committee, and there had been sufficient time to
review this.  During this discussion a number of delegations had referred to the TBT document that
the Secretariat was about to issue.
26. The representative of the People's Republic of China, in offering some preliminary comments
on eco-labelling, noted that his country believed that eco-labelling was an effective environmental
policy instrument.  However, the WTO principle of non-discrimination was stressed and alleco-labelling schemes had to be consistent with the TBT Agreement, especially the Code of Good
Practice.  Exporters and producers in China, and other developing countries, experienced significant
difficulties due to the complexity and diversity of eco-labelling requirements in export markets,
especially in developed countries.  China believed that transparency needed to be improved in the
establishment and application of such schemes, and efforts had to be made to reduce their negativeimpact on exports from developing countries.  Furthermore, eco-labelling standards and their
application in different countries varied, due to the difference stages of development.  China believed
that consultation and cooperation needed to be enhanced in international standards setting.  All trading
partners had to work together so as to mitigat e the formation of trade barriers in the form of
eco-labelling.  The special needs of developing countries and least developed countries had to beaccommodated in related technical assistance and capa city building activities.  Finally, China, in
establishing its own eco-labelling system, had taken international standards into consideration and
was willing to participate actively in the establis hment of international standards.  China wished to
strengthen its cooperation with international organizations and other Members in the area of mutual
                                                     
16 Supra  note 8.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 10
recognition and was committed to improving the tran sparency of the eco-labelling system in China,
and to providing information to interested importers and consumer's groups of other Members.
27. In a preliminary intervention, the representative of the Philippines noted that the intention of
the Swiss paper was obviously to upgrade the work of the CTE on labelling and eco-labelling.  It first
demonstrated the fact that work in the CTE had not been approached in a systemic manner(paragraph 4), and then, in paragraph 21, suggested that systematic work on core issues related to
environmental labelling be started without further delay.  This would, however, accelerate the
discussion in the CTE compared to the TBT and probably the SPS Committees, which were the
bodies in the WTO tasked with addressing these issues.  While the representative of the Philippines
took note of the United States' statement regarding the adequacy of SPS and TBT rules, he was
concerned that the European Communities implied that the it would not agree to making work in the
CTE conditional upon what was happening in the TBT Committee.  This exceeded the mandate ofMinisters which, as Brazil had explained, had instructed the CTE, in pursuing work on all items of its
agenda, to give particular attention to three sub-issues among which the third was the labelling
requirement for environmental purposes.  Regardin g whether further work on this issue needed to
include the "identification of any need to clarify relevant WTO rules", the representative of the
Philippines had yet to be convinced that there was a need to clarify relevant WTO rules since the SPSand TBT Agreements had created the appropriate balance of rights and obligations.  If Members were
to proceed in the manner suggested by Switzerland, an imbalance could be opened up, departing
therefore from what had been agreed by Ministers.
28. The representative of Cuba recognized the close link between the debate on market access
and labelling issues within the TBT Committee a nd the debate on labelling for environmental
purposes in the CTE.  While the CTE needed to focus on issues related to environmental labelling as a
tool for environmental management, it had to be kept in mind that these could generate non-tariff
barriers.  In effect, the discussion in the CTE could be used as an input to the debate in the
TBT Committee.  The CTE could go into detail on th e actual validity and cost-benefit related to new
market opportunities which labelling could offer certain developing countries.  Similarly, there was aneed to look at the concerns of developing countries in implementing existing requirements and how
these could give rise to new trade barriers, or be used for protectionist purposes, especially when one
considered the PPM aspect, and the influence of PPMs on the final physical characteristics of the
product.  There was also a need to address the effects of voluntary eco-labelling schemes on
developing countries, bearing in mind the applicability of the TBT Agreement.
29. Regarding the document of the European Communities
17 and the need to clarify WTO rules
through an understanding or interpretation, or some kind of guidelines, Cuba felt that there were nopersuasive arguments for this.  It was premature to discuss – or draw conclusions about – the need for
clarifying WTO rules, especially with regard to eco-labelling, which required greater analysis from
the standpoint of developing countries.  Cuba supported the European Communities' proposal that the
TBT Committee should hold an informal workshop on labelling.  However, the CTE's participation in
this workshop was essential.  On the Swiss paper, which Cuba had not had time to consider, itsupported the comments made by the delegation of Brazil, especially with respect to the issues dealt
with in paragraphs 5 and 12.
30. The representative of Venezuela noted, concerning the definitions of eco-labelling
(paragraph 12(a) of the Swiss paper), that this was an issue for the TBT Committee.  On
paragraph 12(b), while Venezuela felt that it would be fruitful to have an analysis of "specific tradeissues", the CTE was not the place to identify these – this was better done in the TBT Committee.
Nevertheless, it could be interesting to begin such an analysis with an example.  In past cases
certain countries had tried to impose eco-labelling for protectionist purposes;  it was sufficient to
recall the United States –Tuna  dispute which was clearly, in his view, an issue related to both trade and
                                                     
17 Supra  note 3.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 11
eco-labelling and was the type of issue that could be looked at in the CTE.  On paragraph 12(c),
Venezuela repeated that it was the TBT Committee that should be taking decisions and drawing
relevant conclusions.  The CTE could look at those decisions and conclusions taken in the
TBT Committee on the two earlier points (paragraph 12 (a) and (b)).
31. The representative of New Zealand considered that both the EC and the Swiss papers were
useful contributions to the ongoing debate (although New Zealand had a problem with some of the
work proposed, particularly in the Swiss paper).  As had been noted by Switzerland, New Zealand had
also observed the trends on environmental labelling.  Environmental labelling could be useful to move
consumption and production onto a more sustainable footing;  New Zealand believed that labelling
schemes needed to be non-mandatory, participatory, transparent and above all, market driven.  As had
been noted by others, the TBT Committee had work under way to examine labelling issues, and while
this work was more general than the environmental labelling mandate that Members faced in the CTE,it did cover a range of issues relevant to the CTE.  New Zealand supported the systematic analytical
approach being taken in the TBT Committee.
32. The representative of Argentina believed – and supported Switzerland in this respect – that it
was important that the CTE debate be approached in a systematic and structured way.  Nevertheless,
Argentina did have some considerations, as did others, about the suggested structure and whether itwould be prejudging the results of the work of the CTE.  Like others, Argentina was of the view that
the work being done by the TBT Committee, which was a more general exercise on labelling, should
not be encroached upon by the CTE.  Nor would it be advisable to condition the work of the
TBT Committee so that it would consider solely th e issue of labelling for environmental purposes.
Instead, the CTE needed to give priority to certain effects, certain problems – such as the implicationsand trade effects for developing countries of labelling schemes.  The CTE might need to analyse and
clarify, for example, what criteria were being used, whether these schemes were voluntary, how
effective they were, how relevant they were to achieve the goal of sustainable development in
countries producing these goods, and also what difficulties exporting developing countries had in
obtaining certification.  On certification, a particularly important issue was the recognition ofequivalency of certification systems established by developing countries, and which enabled these
countries to eco-label their own products.  All th ese issues needed to be integrated into a work
programme for the CTE, so as to better structure the debate.
33. The representative of Malaysia hoped that the EC delegation would realise that many
delegations in the room shared equally the concerns expressed by Brazil and Australia.  Malaysia
remained unconvinced of the need for any new disciplines in the WTO on labelling or eco-labelling.
The TBT and the SPS Agreements contained adequate provisions;  the TBT Agreement had a Code ofGood Conduct, he noted.  What remained to be done was to ensure that Members complied with and
adhered to the provisions contained in these two Agreements, as well as ensure that the
implementation of labelling schemes was done in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.  Also,
as had been stressed by Australia and the United States, eco-labelling and consumer information
needed to be market driven and voluntary.  The best place for this discussion was the TBT Committee
and even if the CTE were to discuss it, Malaysia could certainly not agree with the Swiss proposal
that such a discussion would result or end up with a conclusion, or some decisions on necessary
actions to be taken.  Even with respect to the issue of definitions (paragraph 12(a)), Malaysia could
not see a need to discuss this in the CTE Special Session.  In fact, the Swiss proposal in paragraph 14
already identified some ISO definitions – these were voluntary.  If this was to be discussed in the CTESpecial Session, then it had to add value and to avoid duplication of work.  Furthermore, Malaysia
was not in a position to support any further work suggested by the Swiss delegation in paragraph 22.
34. The representative of Saudi Arabia believed that the interventions by Brazil, Australia, the
United States, New Zealand and others had highlig hted the emerging consensus that there was no
need to establish any new rules and that eco-labelling needed to be on a voluntary basis;  the CTEshould concentrate on the implementation of the disciplines of the existing rules.  Moreover,WT/CTE/M/31
Page 12
Saudi Arabia totally shared the concern of many countries not to overburden the Secretariat with work
on identification and analysis, particularly when considering the concern that the CTE should not
duplicate work in the TBT area.
35. The representative of the European Communitie s felt that there was a need to correct a
misunderstanding:  the European Communities did not raise the issue of new disciplines and new
rules in this context at this stage.  There was no EC position that there was a need for new rules and
disciplines on eco-labelling.  What the European Communities was looking for was a debate on the
state of play.
36. The representative of United States also wished to clarify the US point of view (in light of the
EC clarification);  the United States had not yet heard a compelling argument for a common
understanding or guidance to be negotiated.  Also, the United States noted that Malaysia had raised an
important point on the issue of compliance with existing obligations.
37. The representative of Switzerland stressed that it was not the purpose of the Swiss paper to
prejudge any outcome of the discussions under the Doha mandate within the CTE.  Like the
European Communities, Switzerland did not see any need for new rules, but wished to start a
discussion on the open issues, that is, with respect to trade concerns related to eco-labelling.  While
the representative of Switzerland agreed that the technical expertise relating to the TBT Agreement, aswell as the horizontal labelling issues, lay within the TBT Committee, she noted that the
Doha mandate clearly instructed the CTE to give particular attention to labelling requirements for
environmental purposes.  Moreover, during the last discussions in the TBT Committee on labelling,
several delegations had said that the Doha mandate did not apply to the TBT Committee and that
therefore the TBT Committee did not need to progress or intensify its work because of the Dohamandate.  It was the CTE that was instructed, in paragraph 32 of the Doha Declaration, to take further
action.  So the Swiss delegation would not support a motion to defer all the labelling questions to the
TBT Committee.  However, she agreed that the CTE should not duplicate work undertaken in the
TBT Committee and was interested in the views of those who had said that the CTE could
complement this work, specifically on environmental issues.  Regarding definitions, as had beenobvious during the discussion, and as New Zealand had pointed out, there were several terms being
used.  One of them was "environmental labelling", another was "labelling for environmental
purposes" and yet another "eco-labelling".  Switzerland was not certain that all delegations understood
the same thing under these terms and felt that th e issue needed to be addressed within the CTE.
Referring to Malaysia's point, the representative of Switzerland assured the Malaysian delegation that
her country did not intend to raise the issue of labelling within the Special Session of the CTE.  The
Doha mandate instructed the CTE, in regular session, to deal with this issue – which was the nature ofthe current meeting.
38. The representative of Brazil drew the Committee's attention to the work carried out by the
Committee on Forests of the FAO which was specifically addressing the issue of forest certification.
She recommended that, at the next meeting of the regular CTE, the FAO representative be invited to
circulate some of the relevant papers on forest certification.
39. The representative of the ISO gave a comprehensive and detailed statement on current
developments in ISO relevant to environmental standards (ISO 14000), including a discussion on the
current definitions on environmental labelling (Types I-III).  The full text of this statement has been
circulated separately as  document WT/CTE/GEN/1.18
                                                     
18 WT/CTE/GEN/1, 19 November 2002, "Progress in Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
Standardization", Statement by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) at the Regular Sessionof the Committee on Trade and Environment of 8 October 2002, paragraph 32(iii).WT/CTE/M/31
Page 13
40. The Chairman thanked the Swiss delegation for its paper which had stimulated a useful
discussion.  He noted, however, that it was not possible to draw any conclusions from the discussion
at this stage.  He observed that almost all delegations that had taken the floor had underlined the
importance of not duplicating the work of the TBT Committee.  The discussion would continue at the
next meeting.
IV. OTHER PARAGRAPH 32 ITEMS
A. PARAGRAPH 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 those
situations in which the elimination or redu ction of trade restrictions and distortions
would benefit trade, the environment and development
41. The Chairman recalled that this sub-paragraph had two aspects.  The first aspect was the
"market access aspect", that is, the effect of environmental measures on market access.  The second
aspect, which was referred to as the "win-win-win" aspect and had to do with the situations in which
the elimination or reduction of trade restrictions and distortions would benefit trade, the environment
and development.  According to past practice, this second aspect was reviewed sector by sector.
1. The Market Access Aspect of paragraph 32(i)
42. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, India had submitted a paper which had been
extensively discussed.19
43. The representative of Canada noted the importance of bringing forward concrete examples
regarding the effect of environmental measures on market access, as had been done in the Indian
paper.  He expressed support for UNCTAD's work in this respect, including the expert workshopwhich had been held the previous week, and the OECD workshop scheduled for November 2002.
These provided opportunities to address specific case studies which could help Members better
understand the issues.  The issue of cost of compliance for SMEs was a concern for all countries, even
if it posed greater challenges in developing countries.  Members needed to seek to design regulatory
measures that took into account the capabilities of developing countries while meeting legitimate
health, safety and environmental objectives.  Canada encouraged standard-setting bodies, particularly
those working on international standards of interest to developing countries, to find ways to further
involve developing countries in the early stages of the standard-setting process.  At the same time,
Canada noted that Members had the right to set their own appropriate level of environmental
protection and measures were generally put in place to address legitimate environmental concerns.
Canada agreed that sound science and transparency were important criteria in the development of
environmental measures;  the TBT and SPS disciplines negotiated by Members recognized this.  Theyalso imposed notification requirements on Members so as to enable consultations to take place.
Greater efforts had to be made by all WTO Members to implement more rigorously their obligations
with respect to notifications of proposed regulations so that affected Members were given an early
opportunity to review them and raise concerns.
44. The representative of Japan noted that the Indian paper gave some interesting suggestions
with regard to sustainable development and the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment
policies.  Sustainable development, in Japan's view , was global and cross-sectoral in nature.  At the
WSSD, the global commitment for sustainable devel opment had been reaffirmed.  The Indian paper
                                                     
19 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 Ministerial Declaration.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 14
pointed to the importance of sustainable development (in paragraph 6) and introduced some examples
of India's commitment to sustainable development (i n paragraphs 10 to 14).  These examples included
references to eco-packaging with jute, sustainable management of tropical timber, conservation and
management of marine turtles, and organic food production.  One point made in India's paper was of
particular importance for Japan:  the fact that packaging material made from wood taken fromsustainably managed forests or plantations could be considered to be environmentally friendly.
45. On the relationship between environmental measures and market access, Japan understood the
concern of developing countries that environmental measures might cause trade distortions if they
were used in an inappropriate manner.  At the same time, it had to be kept in mind that environmental
measures were taken based on the need to attain environmental protection or sustainable development.
What was important here was to make sure that these measures were applied in accordance with WTO
rules, including the SPS and TBT Agreements, thus mi nimizing their trade-distorting effects.  In this
context it was important to pay special consideration to concerns from developing countries.  In this
regard, the Indian paper touched on some important points, including the need for special
consideration for SMEs and the lack of infrastructure in the developing countries (paragraph 4), as
well as the need for information dissemination about new environmental requirements (paragraph 7).
In order to utilize the suggestions presented in the Indian paper, Japan considered it very importantthat each specific case be considered in light of its own situation and circumstances, and be dealt with
in a flexible manner.
46. Japan wished to have some clarification from the Indian delegation.  First, paragraph 9 stated
that "there is a need to acknowledge that while certain environmental measure are prescribed to
achieve the environmental objectives in the im porting country, similar or greater environmental
objectives could be achieved by some other measures in the exporting country".  Japan asked if the
Indian delegation could provide the CTE with some concrete examples which illustrated this
statement.  Second, paragraph 16 set out the responsibility of importing countries, when developing
and applying environmental measures, to ensure actions listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g).  Japan
asked the Indian delegation for its view on how the accountability of the exporting countries could beconsidered.
47. The representative of the United States wished to highlight some of the points and
suggestions made in the Indian paper, including (i) the importance of market access to products of
export interest to developing countries, (ii) the suggestion that developing countries identify
sector-specific examples of environmental requirements impacting export performance so that
positive measures such as capacity building, technology transfer and technical assistance could be
requested and directed at finding means for exporters in developing countries to meet requirements ofother countries, and, (iii) the emphasis placed on assessing market impacts of regulatory measures.
48. The United States believed that for future discussions related to the Indian paper it would be
useful to discuss how domestic procedures in importing countries incorporated market access
considerations – domestic and foreign – into democratic and non-discriminatory regulatory processes
at the national level while maintaining regulatory objectives and taking into account practical,informational, analytical and budgetary constraints.  For example, the United States already had a
public comment process available to all interested parties, foreign and domestic, to ensure meaningful
participation in regulatory development.  This kind of process had to be flexible and provide scope, in
appropriate cases, for addressing particular concerns in the rule-making process.  On India's points
with regard to promoting envi ronmentally friendly products from developing countries, the
United States was prepared to engage in constructive discussion on how developing countries could
be assisted in developing export markets for environmentally friendly products.  Environmental
regulation, like environmental market demand, could create new market opportunities.  In fact, with
respect to developing countries' concerns, the current agenda item (on market access) could be
appropriate for some of the points raised in the Swiss and EC papers on labelling.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 15
49. The United States was also of the view that it would be useful to consider the OECD series of
case studies on developing country market access concerns with environmental measures.  One such
OECD study involved a specific example of the turtle excluder device which had been raised in
India's paper (paragraphs 12 and 13).  This OECD study reported on successful efforts between the
United States and Costa Rica to address specific market access problems.  In the US's view, there wassufficient scope in existing WTO Agreements to ensure that environmental measures did not unduly
restrict developing country exports, particularly with respect to ensuring that there was an inclusive,
participatory, regulatory process.  The United States was open to reaffirming existing mechanisms, for
example, to addressing some of the points raised in paragraph 16 of the Indian paper.
50. The representative of the European Communities wished, like other delegations, to encourage
further work on this issue.  He noted that on organic production and certification (paragraph 14 of the
Indian paper) the WSSD did support the production and export of environmentally friendly products,and notably those originating from developing countries.  Herein there was a concrete link in the
WSSD declaration with the work of the CTE.  Like others, the European Communities recalled the
UNCTAD expert meeting as well as the upcoming OECD conference in New Delhi on the same topic.
In the EC's view, it was worthwhile to consider specific examples and to identify regulatory
developments and ways to target technical assistance and capacity building to overcome possibleobstacles.  Previously, reference had been made to "sustainable trade and innovation centers" which
had been set up so far on a private basis to help developing country exporters overcome possible
obstacles.  But work was also being done elsewhere:  by the ITC, the joint Capacity Building Task
Force of UNEP and UNCTAD.  New avenues needed to be explored;  the issue of equivalency
agreements in particular seemed to warrant furt her consideration.  The EC representative drew the
Committee's attention to a recent communication from the European Commission on trade and
development which extensively addressed the current issue particularly in the field of SPS.  How to
deliver better technical assistance and help developing countries to meet EC legislation was one of the
main themes therein.  The European Communities believed that a bottom-up approach was necessary
to help developing countries put into place the adequate legislative or regulatory capacity so as toenhance market access opportunities in EC markets.
51. The representative of Australia noted the link between market access and sustainable
development as highlighted by India in paragraph 6 of its paper.  This was not just an issue of
environmental protection;  there were benefits of trade for poverty alleviation and the derivation of
export earnings for enhancing environmental protection.  This had been clearly recognized as an
outcome from the recent WSSD and had to be kept in mind in future work of the CTE and other areas
of work of the WTO.  The Indian paper also clearly highlighted the issue of equivalence, whichformed the basis of recommendation (e) of the paper.  This issue was not relevant only to
environmental measures.  The broader principle of equivalence was set out in Article 4 of the
SPS Agreement which encapsulated animal, plant and human health and life.  Externalizing an
importing country's environmental objectives which had no relevance to the conditions of the
exporting country, or impact in the importing country, was not consistent with this principle.  Forexample, Australia's approach to the import and use of jute, from a range of countries, recognized
equivalence, and was based on the potential prevalence of pests and diseases at the border, as opposed
to determining how countries should protect their en vironment and how best to derive benefits from
agricultural production.  The approach on the import of jute as packing material was also based on
sound science, transparency and equity, consistent with recommendation (b) of the Indian paper.  Itwas also worth noting recommendation (g) in the Indian paper which called for additional market
access to mitigate and eliminate the effects of environmental measures that caused the economic
hardship for developing countries.  The greatest benefit for all WTO Members in terms of increasing
economic growth that could assist in delivering sustainable development on a national and global
basis was to reduce barriers to trade and ensure that environmental measures were not implementedinconsistently with the principles and objectives of the multilateral trading system and as disguised
barriers to trade in the guise of environmental protection.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 16
52. The representative of Indonesia stressed the importance for the CTE of studying further the
impact of environmental measures on market access, in line with the mandate set out in
paragraph 32(i).  This was particularly so with regard to exports from the South.  There was a need to
clarify the circumstances under which trade liberalization could have positive and negative
environmental and developmental effects, especially for developing and least-developed countries.An early understanding on how "environmental measures" were defined in terms of market access
would be useful.  There was a wide spectrum of such measures – ranging from requirements relating
to product standards and technical regulations to packaging, or charges and taxes for environmental
purposes, environmental labelling, or even to process and use of raw materials.  Indonesia agreed with
India's view that SMEs from developing countries were those that had been most affected by the
various environmental measures illustrated in the paper.  This was due to various reasons, including
cost of compliance, limited access to technology, insufficient facilities, limited technology choicesand insufficient access to environmentally friendly raw materials and technology.  In light of this, due
consideration had to be given to providing longer time-frames and flexibility in complying and
adapting to the various environmental measures for developing countries.  It was Indonesia's
experience that environmental standards that had not taken into account the specific characteristics
and needs of developing countries caused compliance difficulties, and although much had been doneto harmonize standards with international environmental standards, developing countries still faced
difficulties.  Participation of developing countries in the standard-setting organizations thus became
all the more important.  Indonesia also shared the view expressed in the Indian paper on the need to
have a closer collaboration between developing countries and developed countries in the design of
environmental requirements.  In this respect, it had to be ensured that the measures were based onsound scientific criteria and were transparent in nature.
53. In Indonesia's view, the idea of having a collec tive initiative for cost-effective solutions to
meet SME's cost of compliance needed further exploration.  The issue of dissemination of information
on various regulations related to environmental protection also needed to be appropriately addressed.
Another idea that could be further explored was to provide incentives for environmentally friendlygoods from developing countries.  Acceptance in the form of greater market access of
environmentally friendly products from developing  countries would promote and ensure increasing
production of such products.  This would enable developing countries to better adapt to the changing
environmental requirements in many countries.  Finally, there was a need to ensure win-win-win
solutions whereby the importance of environmental concerns was balanced so as not to hinder
developing countries' efforts to expand their economy through enhanced exports.  Developing
countries, including Indonesia, were committed to meet global environment objectives;  however,their needs and concerns also had to be taken into account.
54. The representative of Cuba reiterated her country's support for the preoccupations and
concerns set out in India's paper regarding the vulnerability of developing countries to market access
effects of environmental measures.  Negative market access effects had to be reduced to a minimum
for products of export interest to developing countries.  In this sense, the CTE could look at theestablishment of guidelines for the application of environmental requirements without affecting
market access as a means of efficient and operational provision of special and differential treatment.
Such guidelines could include ideas from India's paper (paragraph 16 (a)-(g)).  The representative of
Cuba recommended that Members read the docume nts pertaining to the UNCTAD Expert Meeting on
environmental requirements.  Cuba had, at that meeting, presented a paper on the economic impact ofenvironmental regulations on market access for products from Cuba, namely lobster, honey and
coffee.
20
55. The representative of India thanked delegations for their constructive engagement and noted
that he would revert to the clarifications sought by Japan.  Moreover, India was in the process of
preparing specific papers on the textiles and other sectors which would be submitted in due course.
                                                     
20 The representative of Cuba noted that copies could be provided on request.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 17
56. The representative of UNCTAD reported, in detail, on the Expert Meeting on Environmental
Requirements and International Trade, held from 2-4 October 2002 in Geneva.  Among the main
concluding points was the need for:  (i) raising awareness among producers, particularly SMEs of
existing requirements;  (ii) the particular difficulty  SMEs faced in adjusting to standards;  (iii) the
need to reduce costs related to certification;  and (i v) the need for developing "best practice" in setting
up and implementing environmental regulations and standards.  The full statement has been circulated
separately as WT/CTE/GEN/2 21 and the Chairman's summary of the meeting would be available on
the UNCTAD web site.22
57. The representative of Saudi Arabia wondered whether developing countries participated in the
UNCTAD meeting. To his delegation, it seemed as if the problem of the impact of environmental
measures on market access hinged on developing countries' inability to cope with the requirements
and that once this problem was solved, there would be better access to the markets.  This was not true.The main concern was how to minimize the impact of the environmental measures.  This included
looking at implementation issues that resulted in preventing market access.  He wondered whether
further studies could be undertaken by UNCTAD on distortions that could exist in the implementation
of developed country measures.
58. The representative of UNCTAD confirmed that the meeting was dealing with developing
country concerns and that the overwhelming majority of the participants, the experts, came from
developing countries.  He noted that delegations could look at the papers and presentations from the
workshop which had been posted on the UNCTAD web pages.  In fact, there were only a few
contributions from developed countries.  Regarding distortions, most of the discussion had focussed
on proactive adjustment strategies in exporting countries.  However, there were a number of papersdealing with particular concerns and with distortions, or alleged distortions, in developed countries.
Some experts had highlighted the need for further analytical work on subsidies being provided to
domestic producers in developed countries when it came to testing, for example, or infrastructure
facilities in meeting particular environmental requirements.
59. The representative of the OECD provided the Committee with an update on a workshop
entitled:  OECD Global Forum on Trade – The Development Dimensions of Trade and Environment.
It would take place in New Delhi on 27-28 Novemb er 2002.  The workshop would draw, in particular,
on approximately 20 case studies carried out in the Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment.
The objective was to promote dialogue between developing country exporters, officials involved in
the setting of environmental regulations and standards, various agencies involved in trade-related
capacity building and experts from NGOs.  The full statement of the OECD has been circulated
separately as document WT/CTE/GEN/3.23
60. The representative of Venezuela stated that he wished to participate in the seminar.  It seemed
that the programme was well balanced and Venezuela had positive experiences which needed to be
presented in international fora.
                                                     
21 WT/CTE/GEN/2, 20 November 2002, "Expert Meeting on Environmental Requirements and
International Trade", Statement by UNCTAD at the Regular Session of the Committee on Trade andEnvironment of 8 October 2002, paragraph 32(i).
22 See www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/meetings and document TD/B/COM.1/EM.19/L.1.
23 WT/CTE/GEN/3, 20 November 2002, "Global Forum on Trade: The Development Dimensions of
Trade and Environment (New Delhi, India, 27-28 November 2002)", Statement by the OECD at theRegular Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 8 October 2002, paragraph 32(i).WT/CTE/M/31
Page 18
2. Sector analysis
(a) Energy
61. The representative of Egypt expressed his country's agreement with the conclusion contained
in the paper from Saudi Arabia24 to the effect that a reform of the taxation policy had to be undertaken
by OECD countries so as to ensure that such taxation be based on carbon content.  Egypt asked for aclarification regarding the logic of OECD policy in th is respect, particularly in respect of EC policy
which consisted of maintaining subsidies and applying the current system of taxation that, based on
the data from Saudi Arabia, did not favour the reduction of greenhouse gasses, and this despite the
European Communities apparent attachment to the goal of preserving the environment.
62. On specific aspects, the representative of E gypt wondered in what context the document from
Saudi Arabia could be dealt with in the Special Session of the CTE.  He also noted that there seemed
to be a contradiction in paragraphs 13 and 15 with respect to the percentages.  In the table onFossil Fuel Consumption Taxes (page 5) it was stated that for the European Communities and the
United States, there was 0 per cent of subventions for natural gas and 4.8 per cent for Japan.  Yet
under paragraph 13 (box) it was stated that "taxes on coal and gas products are negligible in
comparison".  Furthermore, Egypt wondered what  annexes were referred to in paragraphs 18
and 19 and what Saudi Arabia meant in paragraph 57, second line, where it stated:  "countriespursuing environmental objectives may contravene their WTO obligations".  What WTO obligations
could be contravened?
63. On the annexes, the representative of Saudi Arabia noted that paragraph 18 referred to
Annex B under the Kyoto Protocol and the reference in paragraph 19 to Annex 1 was to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  On reform policies andcarbon content, the representative of Saudi Arabia reiterated his country's surprise to see that while oil
products were heavily taxed, coal was being subsidiz ed in some OECD countries, in particular the
European Communities.  It was shocking that EC Finance Ministers had agreed that Germany could
continue subsidizing their coal industry until the year 2010 before any revision could be made.  This
clearly put energy exporters from developing countries at a disadvantage in respect of market access.Removing subsidies given to OECD producers of oil and gas would be beneficial not only for
environment and development, but also for tr ade ("win-win-win").  On the issue of the
Special Session, the paper had been tabled under paragraph 31(i).
64. The representative of Switzerland stressed that the discussion on the impact of measures taken
to  mitigate climate change, implemented by industrialized countries on oil-exporting developing
countries, was dealt with under the UNFCCC, Ar ticle 4:8 and under the Kyoto Protocol under
Article 2:3 and 3:14.  Therefore, it was the Swiss dele gation's view that rather than entering into a
detailed discussion in the CTE, it was more convenient, for the sake of avoiding duplication, to refer
to the ongoing process under the UNFCCC.  This ap proach also found support in the recent WSSD
plan of implementation that recognized that the WTO and Multilateral Environmental Agreements
(MEAs) were mutually supportive.  UNFCCC deci sions requested parties to the UNFCCC and the
Kyoto Protocol to provide information on how countries implemented measures to reduce greenhousegas emissions and recommended countries that were in a position to do so, and, as appropriate, to
address market imperfections in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors.  Regarding market access impact,
no relevant data could be specified and there was currently no methodology to assess the impact on
oil-exporting developing countries.
                                                     
24 WT/CTE/W/215, TN/TE/W/9, 23 September 2002, "Energy Taxation, Subsidies and Incentives in
OECD Countries and their Economic and Trade Implications on Developing Countries, in Particular DevelopingOil Producing and Exporting Countries", Submission by Saudi Arabia.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 19
65. The representative of the European Communities, referring to Egypt's statement, noted that he
would be shocked if other delegations questioned EC's reduction targets under another convention,
which was not at stake in the WTO, but where nevertheless there was some implication that EC
domestic tax policies could be in contradiction thereof.  The CTE was not the place to discuss this,
and nobody was to go away from the CTE meeting with the impression that theEuropean Communities did not keep its reduction targets;  how the European Communities would do
this was the EC's own decision.  On subsidies, it was clear that there was a subsidy debate going on
where subsidy issues could be raised in respect of their trade-distorting aspect.  The
European Communities was interested in this discussion, but also wished to look at other subsidies
which might be "shocking" from their perspective, such as the practice of dual pricing for domestic
producers and others – but that was also a debate that needed to be left to other bodies.
66. The representative of Venezuela, hearing the EC and Swiss positions, agreed with them to the
effect that relevant discussions were being held in other fora.  However, discussions were held there
from an environment point of view.  Here, in the WTO, the perspective was one of market access.
The issue in the CTE was not the impact of CO 2 on the atmosphere but certainly the CTE was a valid
forum in which to bring up the issue of market access.  Hence, Venezuela supported the document for
discussion put on the table by Saudi Arabia.
67. The representative of Saudi Arabia noted that both the EC and Swiss delegates could benefit
from a careful reading of paragraph 32(i) which dealt with the elimination or reduction of trade
restrictions and distortions that would benefit trade, environment and development.  The issue was
one of market access for developing countries.
68. The representative Egypt noted that, with respect to his first intervention, he had been
confused with regard to the numbers and contradictions.  The contradiction, in effect, was between
paragraph 15, where Saudi Arabia talked about taxation, where it was stipulated that the EC's taxes
for natural gas were 0 per cent while in the box under paragraph 13 (on the left) it was stipulated that
for the United Kingdom, it was 4.8 per cent and for Finland 29 per cent.
(b) Forestry
69. The Chairman recalled Japan's paper on forestry which had been discussed at the last
meeting.25  As this paper had been circulated just prior to the meeting, several delegations had
indicated their intention to revert to it.
70. The representative of Switzerland agreed with Japan that sustainable forest management was
one of the world's major challenges.  At the W SSD, the international community had underlined that
sustainable forest management was essential to achieving sustainable development.  Moreover, the
WSSD had affirmed the international commitment to sustainable forest management;  to combat
illegal logging and illegal international trade in forest products, as well as the adoption of effective
measures at the national and international level to realize these goals.  Switzerland shared the view
that forests could not be looked at in isolation.  On the contrary, the multiple benefits provided by the
forests (including:  biodiversity habitat, provision of cheap energy, raw material for numerous
products, food provision, mitigation of global warmin g effects, prevention of soil erosion, crucial
function for the balance of water ecosystems and watershed protection, recreation, etc.,) and their
interdependence with other sectors required a cross-sectoral approach which had also been confirmed
at the WSSD.  Hence, it was necessary to find ways of making a positive contribution to the goal of
sustainable forest management.  Because of its interlinkages and the necessity of a cross-sectoral
approach, this had to include a discussion of trade-relevant elements.  It was crucial that trade-relevantpolicies did respect the WTO principle that no measure be adopted which constituted a means of
                                                     
25 WT/CTE/W/211, 11 June 2002, "Issues on Forestry Products Trade and Environment", Submission
by Japan.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 20
arbitrary or unjustifiably discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.  While
measures necessary for the protection of the forests and the promotion of sustainable forest
management had to be implemented, such measures also had to be non-protectionist.  Therefore,
limiting export restrictions to unprocessed logs, while not limiting the export of processed lumber
products, seemed to be doubtful.  On the other hand, effective tools for combatting illegal logging andillegal trade in forest products, including labelling based on transparent and non-discriminatory
processes and principles, could be desirable policy measures.  Switzerland fully supported the main
conclusions of Japan's submission and was interested in deepening this discussion.
71. The representative of the United States noted his country's concern about illegal logging
practices and referred to an initiative launched at the WSSD on forestry management practices.  This
was a private-public partnership relating to the Congo Basin of forest resources involving six
Central African countries (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo,Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Congo).  The United States representative asked the Japanese
delegation to what extent Japan found that its paper was relevant to market access considerations
being addressed under the current agenda item;  in particular, was the paper related to the market
access effects of trade liberalization or to the maintenance of tariffs and non-tariff barriers for
purposes of forestry management?
72. The representative of Japan recalled that, at the last meeting, while many Members shared
Japan's concerns over forestry issues, some Members had asked for clarification on the intention
behind the submission.  Japan had not presented the paper with the objective of giving specific
solutions, or to predetermine the course of future discussions.  Rather, the intention had been to have a
CTE discussion aimed at exploring possible ways for the WTO to make a positive contribution to theforestry issue.  Regarding the point of view that fo restry issues were more appropriately dealt with in
other international organizations, such as the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), Japan
considered that while the UNFF was a major organization with expertise in forestry, and forestry
issues needed to be discussed in those organizations as well, this did not necessarily exclude the
WTO's contribution to the field of forestry.  Japan was going to prepare further contributions with aview to deepening the CTE discussions in this respect, while reflecting comments and inputs from
Members.
B. P
ARAGRAPH 32(ii) OF THE DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (TRIPS)
The relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS).
73. The representative of India recalled some of the developments of the TRIPS Council of
relevance to this agenda item.  He welcomed the very useful contribution by the
European Communities26 in that forum and hoped that some variant of the paper would be tailored for
the mandate of the CTE and circulated in the CTE.  He noted, though, that although the paper went in
the right direction, it did not meet all India's concerns.
74. The representative of the European Communities noted that the paper India had referred to
was a communication which dealt with the review of TRIPS Article 27.3(b), the relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD (including the disc losure of origin), the protection of traditional
knowledge, the protection of plant varieties, and, finally farmers' rights and exemptions.  The EC's
positions therein included:  readiness to engage in discussions on disclosure of origin, while clearly
setting limits for the terms under which any such requirements could be acceptable;  the recognition
                                                     
26 IP/C/W/383 (TRIPS Council), 17 October 2002, Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement,
and the Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and theProtection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Communication from the European Communities, "AConcept Paper".WT/CTE/M/31
Page 21
that the UPOV convention was not the only valid sui generis  system for plant variety protection;  and
a recognition of the rights of small farmers in developing countries to save, exchange and sell
protected seeds under certain conditions.  The European Communities would reflect on the request to
circulate the document in the CTE.
75. The representative of Brazil welcomed, like India, the contribution from the
European Communities which was useful and constructive.  Brazil understood the EC's position that
both instruments were complementary and not conflicting and took note of the fact that the
European Communities agreed that it would be important to disclose the source of the country of
origin of the biological resource and of traditional knowledge used in an invention.  This was one of
the elements of Brazil's own proposal.  Althoug h Brazil did not see "eye to eye" with the
European Communities on every aspect, on at least one aspect there was agreement.
76. The Chairman noted that this concluded the discussion on those paragraph 32 items of the
CTE work programme to which the Doha Mandate instructed the CTE to give particular attention.
However, he reminded delegations that the Doha Mandate also instructed the CTE to pursue work on
all other items on the CTE work programme, within its current terms of reference.  Hence, the next
Agenda Points would raise the remaining items of the CTE work programme.
V. OTHER ITEMS OF THE CTE WORK PROGRAMME
A. ITEMS 1 AND 5
"The relationship between the provisions of the multilateral trading system and trade
measures for environmental purposes, including those pursuant to multilateral
environmental agreements (MEAs)" and "The relationship between dispute settlement
mechanisms in the multilateral trading system and those found in MEAs".
77. The representative of UNEP stressed the importance his organization attached to the granting
of observer status for MEAs and UNEP itself in the ongoing negotiations under the CTESS.  He also
commented on current cooperation between the WTO, UNEP and MEAs in the context of
paragraph 33 (technical assistance) of the Doha mandate and emphasized the relevance of UNEP
work to paragraph 32 on environmental labelling, TRIPS and market access. The full text of thestatement has been circulated separately as WT/CTE/GEN/4.
27
78. The representative of CITES commented on a paper on "Economic Incentives and Trade
Policy" which addressed some of the central issu es involved in the relationship between the
multilateral trading system and WTO rules.28  The CITES delegate also reported on the upcoming 12th
Conference of the Parties (COP12) which would be considering several proposals to amend the list ofspecies subject to trade controls.  Like UNEP, he expressed serious concern with respect to observer
s t a t u s  o f  M E A s  i n  t h e  C T E S S .   T h e  f u l l  t e x t  of the statement has been circulated separately
as WT/CTE/GEN/5.
29
79. The observer of Saudi Arabia noted that with regard to observership of intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs), there was a need for a balance between developed and developing country
organizations who were granted observer status.  The CTE had, for example, the OECD, but they
could not identify any developing country organizatio ns.  At least two such organizations had applied
for, but had not been granted, observer status.  Secondly, while Saudi Arabia appreciated the
                                                     
27 WT/CTE/GEN/4, 20 November 2002, "UNEP Statement", Statement by the UNEP at the Regular
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 8 October 2002, items 1 & 5.
28 The paper has been circulated separately as WT/CTE/GEN/6, 20 November 2002, "Economic
Incentives and Trade Policy", Communication from the CITES Secretariat, items 1 & 5.
29 WT/CTE/GEN/5, 20 November 2002, "CITES Statement", Statement by the CITES at the Regular
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environment of 8 October 2002, items 1 & 5.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 22
contribution from IGOs, there was a need for them not to preempt the CTE – instead they needed to
be responsive to the work that was being done in  the WTO.  They should not have their own
interpretation of the Doha Declaration.
80. The Chairman recalled, with regard to observer status, that there were ongoing consultations
at the level of the General Council.  As long as those consultations did not produce any results, there
would be no movement.
B. ITEM 2
"The relationship between environmenta l policies relevant to trade and
environmental measures with significant trade effects and the provisions of the
multilateral trading system."
81. The representative of the OECD noted that the purpose of the OECD intervention was to
inform the CTE about a report entitled “Uncertainty and Precaution:  Implications for Trade and
Environment”, which had been prepared in response to a mandate from the OECD Joint Working
Party on Trade and Environment at its meeting in May 2000.  The paper had been issued under the
responsibility of the Secretary-General in September 2002.  She noted that contrary to what had been
indicated on the Annotated Agenda, and referring to the above-mentioned title, the OECD was not
reporting on a paper about the "Precautionary Principle".  While this was perhaps a nuance, it wasimportant to some countries.
82. The first chapter of the paper examined how the concept of precaution fitted into the
framework of environmental protection and provid ed brief overviews of how it was reflected in
national laws and international environmental instruments.  It also cited selected provisions of WTO
agreements and WTO jurisprudence that could be relevant to measures taken to protect theenvironment in the context of scientific uncertainty.  Three Annexes complement these overviews.
The second chapter described a number of measures, steps and tools that could be used to identify and
evaluate risks and to manage such risks in situations of insufficient scientific certainty about potential
environmental damages.  The third chapter raised  several issues for discussion emerging from the
previous chapters.  The paper provided views of different analysts and stakeholders (governments,business, NGOs, etc.);  it did not attempt to reach any conclusions but, rather, provided an overview
of different arguments and opinions expressed.
30
83. The representative of Argentina stressed that very special care had to be taken with the term
"Precautionary Principle".  While the issue had been sufficiently clarified by the OECD
representative, he wished the certainly unintentional error in the Annotated Agenda, which did not
prejudice the position of any Member of the WTO, to be noted in the report of the meeting.
84. The Chairman confirmed that there had been a factual mistake in the Annotated Agenda.
85. The representative of Brazil asked why the OECD had taken the initiative to advertise this
specific paper while not mentioning other papers that the OECD had produced in the past month and
which were of greater interest to developing countries.  She recalled, for example, papers on topics
such as environmental requirements, the impact of  agricultural subsidies on the environment, the
impact of standards related to organic food, etc.
86. The representative of the OECD noted that there had been no particular motivation on their
part in respect of introducing the current paper.  It was one more paper that was mentioned in the
same way as other work had been mentioned in previous meetings.  This particular paper had been in
                                                     
30 The paper is available in English and French at the OECD Trade and Environment web page
http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/LinkTo/com-env-td(2000)114-final.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 23
preparation for two years and it had been mentioned several times by delegates.  Hence, the OECD
had considered it appropriate to mention that it was now available to a broader public.
87. The representative of Saudi Arabia hoped that the OECD would present a paper on
agricultural and energy subsidies in the OECD.  On precaution, the representative of Saudi Arabia
was aware of at least one convention where the precautionary principle had been stated in a veryconditional manner to the effect that despite scientific uncertainties action could be taken, but this
action had to be cost-effective and at a global level.
88. The representative of the European Communities believed that the paper could help to
assuage some of the concerns and fears which had been aired when the CTE had last discussed the
issue of precaution, a year ago.  Since the paper neither drew any conclusions, nor made any
recommendations – it was simply a factual overview of where precaution existed and how it was
being implemented – it was not controversial;  even those who were "allergic" to the issue ofprecaution could find some enlightenment therein.
89. The representative of Australia noted that, as an OECD Member, Australia had been involved
in developing the paper.  However, Australia was conscious of the fact that this represented the
outcome of an OECD sub-committee that comprised a small group of WTO Members.  Precaution,
which was an important issue, was raised and discussed in many fora with different insightsdepending on the countries and individuals involved – it was not surprising that many individuals
were starting to suffer "precaution fatigue".  Hence, Australia was encouraged by the outcome of the
WSSD which clearly recognized the need to improve and promote science-based decision-making,
and science-based risk assessment.  The WSSD outcome also reaffirmed Rio Principle 15 in the
context of environmental protection.
C. I
TEM 9
The Decision on Trade and Services and the Environment.
90. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had asked the Secretariat to prepare a background
note and asked the Secretariat to introduce it.
91. In introducing the document31, the Secretariat noted that the paper was relevant to item 9 (of
the CTE work programme) to the extent that it looked at the relationship between trade in services and
the environment in the context of sustainable development, but was also relevant to item 6 as it
considered the environmental benefits of removing trade restrictions.  It was noted that while there
existed a significant number of studies on the environmental effects of trade liberalization as well as
studies on various effects of trade liberalization under GATS, fewer linked the two (the potential
effects on the environment of services trade liberalization).  On substance, the paper focused on three
sectors:  tourism, transport and environmental services, as a way of illustrating some of the linksbetween liberalization of trade in services and the environment.  The Secretariat stressed that the
paper was aimed at promoting discussions and adding value from the CTE side.
92. The representative of Saudi Arabia noted that the Secretariat, in the paper, had referred to
Agenda 21 and transportation under Chapter 9 (Protection of the atmosphere).  This was somehow
misleading because Agenda 21 contained more than 33 sectors and some of these issues were equallyimportant.  Giving an indication that transport was the most important was somehow misleading.
This was a very sensitive issue, so there was no reason to give transportation special importance, even
as an example.
                                                     
31 WT/CTE/W/218, 3 October 2002, "Discussion Paper on the Environmental Effects of Services Trade
Liberalization", items 6 and 9, Note by the Secretariat.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 24
93. The representative of the European Communities noted that it was too early for a substantive
discussion of the paper, as it had only been circulated recently.  Nevertheless, the
European Communities appreciated the paper and found the focus on sustainability impact assessment
at the end of the paper to be vital.
94. The representative of Switzerland noted that the intention behind the original request made by
Switzerland for the paper had been to help Members of the GATS Council to take into account the
environmental impact of negotiations and services liberalization.  Switzerland believed that the paper
would serve as a useful tool for such an exercise .  Furthermore, Switzerland supported the concluding
remark in paragraph 45 that the methodology, which helped focus policy on the most significant
environmental effects, was of key importance.
95. The representative of Venezuela believed that the CTE would need to address the issue of
subsidies in the area of environmental services.
96. The Chairman confirmed that the paper would be on the agenda of the next meeting for a
substantive discussion.
D. CANCUN
97. Before concluding the discussion on paragraph 32, the Chairman drew the attention of
Members to one pending issue that had not yet been discussed:  the preparation of the CTE Report tothe 5
th Ministerial Session, in Cancun, 10-14 September 2003.  There was a need for Members of the
CTE to start thinking about the form and content of this report.  Hence the Chairman asked Members
to prepare themselves for a discussion of this at its next meeting.  That would give Members sufficient
time to prepare the report.
VI. PARAGRAPH 33
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 en vironmental reviews at the national level.
A report shall be prepared on these activities for the Fifth Session.
98. With respect to this issue, the Chairman not ed that the Committee normally considered two
aspects of paragraph 33 separately:  (i) technical assistance and capacity building and (ii) national
environmental reviews.
A. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING
99. The Chairman noted that the Secretariat had circulated a note which provided Members with
an overview of technical assistance activities during 2002.32  This note was subsequently introduced
by the Secretariat.
100. The representative of Canada found the list of events organized by the WTO Secretariat
in 2002 impressive, and was pleased to see that many of the activities were being held with the
participation of the UNEP and MEA Secretariats.  It was noted that Canada had provided support to
both the WTO and UNEP for the first event held in 2002 (Caribbean countries, in St Lucia).  Canada
would be making an additional contribution to UNEP of approximately 100,000 Canadian Dollars forMEA-WTO related capacity building activities.
                                                     
32 WT/CTE/W/216, 30 September 2002, "Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Activities
in 2002", paragraph 33, Note by the Secretariat.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 25
101. The representative of the Czech Republic informed the Committee that his government had
taken part in one of the Regional Seminars for Central Eastern European and Central Asian countries
in Riga, Latvia in September.  In comparison with previous WTO regional seminars, his delegation
considered that this last activity had benefitted from the active participation of representatives of
UNCTAD, UNEP and UNFCCC;  it had been a successful and informative event with livelydiscussion.  The Czech Republic considered this form of capacity building and information
dissemination efficient.
102. The representative of Switzerland informed the CTE that UNEP and Switzerland had agreed
on a new specific project on trade, environment and development which corresponded to the
Doha Declaration, paragraph 33.  One of the aims of this programme was to help developing countries
engage effectively in the negotiations.  A second was the strengthening of UNEP's contribution to the
CTE's Regular session, especially regarding the effect of environmental measures on market access.Specific activities would be undertaken:  workshops would be organized back-to-back in Geneva with
the CTE Regular and Special Sessions and UNEP would organize briefings for the Geneva-based
missions so as to inform them of its activities and of the progress achieved.
103. The representative of the European Communities backed the comments made by Canada on
the participation of UNEP and of MEAs, as well as UNCTAD, in the seminars organized by the
Secretariat, and expressed the hope that this would continue in 2003.  Without wishing to make an
exhaustive presentation of EC technical assistance activities, the EC representative underlined two
points:  (i) the significant participation of the EC Commission and member States in the Doha Global
Trust Fund and (ii) the participation of the EC Commission in the Capacity Building Task Force33 set
up by UNEP and UNCTAD for trade and development.  The European Communities commendedUNCTAD for the expert meeting it had organized as it had allowed for the identification of concrete
cases which could be worked on further.  He also called for input from developing countries on
technical assistance and reminded them of the EC 's offer to exchange information on methodologies
for sustainable impact assessments.
34
104. The representative of the United States thanked the Secretariat and looked forward to
reviewing the plan for next year, as adopted by the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD).  It
was noted that the United States expected to provide information on relevant US initiatives by the
next meeting of the CTE in early 2003.
105. The representative of the People's Republic of China noted that his country had participated in
a regional seminar on trade and environment in May 2002, and had found it very helpful.  The
Doha Ministerial Declaration recognized the importance of technical assistance and capacity building
in the field of trade and environment for developing countries, in particular the LDCs.  Regionalseminars could help improve Members' understanding of what was a truly complicated issue, as well
as promote effective participation of developing countries and LDCs in both negotiations and
deliberations as mandated by the Doha Declaration.  It was noted that a national seminar would be
held in Beijing in November 2002 and China appreciated the close cooperation with the WTO
Secretariat in preparing for this workshop.  The representative of China also took the opportunity tothank other intergovernmental organizations such as UNCTAD and UNEP, and donor countries.  He
stood ready to discuss the need for assistance which was more targeted to specific needs.
                                                     
33 http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/index.htm.
34 WT/CTE/W/208, WT/COMTD/W/99, TN/TE/W/3, 3 June 2002, "Sustainability Impact
Assessment", Communication from the European Communities.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 26
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
106. The Chairman recalled that at the last mee ting, the European Communities submitted a paper
on Sustainability Impact Assessment35, circulated in the CTE, the CTE Special Sessions and the CTD.
107. The representative of Canada recalled that the basis for Canada's work on Environmental
Assessments (EA) of trade negotiations was a fr amework which had been released in February 2001,
and which had been presented to the CTE in March 2001.36  It essentially underlined a four-stage
process for undertaking an EA.  The first stage was a notice of intent.  The second stage was an
"Initial EA", which was essentially a scoping exercise between economic activity and various
environmental mediums such as air and water quality.  The third stage entailed a "Draft EA" which
was an elaboration of the initial EA in the light of ongoing negotiations.  The final stage was the
"Final EA" which was an ex post assessment.  Canada was undertaking EAs of a number of
negotiations aside from the WTO:  the Free Trade of the Americas Area, the Canada-Singapore andthe Canada Central American Four ("CA4").
37  Hence, this was being done in a global (WTO),
regional and a bilateral context.  Specifically on the WTO EA, the notice of intent had taken place in
June 2002, followed by a public comment period which had lasted for approximately 60 days.  The
Initial WTO EA was just being finalized and would shortly be issued for public comment.  It would
be brought to the attention of the CTE when it met in 2003.  The representative of Canada wished tohighlight that after each phase in the EA process, public and stakeholder views were sought and
integrated into the next phase;  in this sense the EA was a series of elaborations.
108. The representative of the United States reiterated his country's long-standing commitment to a
policy of conducting written environmental reviews of major trade agreements.  It was a policy which
dated back to 1991 and the initial review that had been undertaken of the NAFTA.  The policy, whichwas set forth in a 1999 Executive Order (EO), had recently been made a statutory requirement in trade
promotion authority legislation.  The Trade Act of 2002 required environmental reviews of future
trade agreements consistent with the EO and Guidelines pursuant to that EO.  Moreover, it required
that a report be made to Congress on the results of these reviews.  As had been noted at the last CTE
meeting (June 2002), the United States had initiated the review of the WTO negotiations.  Thedeadline for initial public comments had passed and the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) had received a number of comments in response which it was in the process
of carefully considering.  As could be expected at an early stage of the negotiations, the comments
were relatively general although they did address many areas of the negotiations.  The United States
would volunteer more specific information regarding its review in the context of the next agenda item,
under paragraph 51 of the Doha Declaration.
VII. PARAGRAPH 51
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 to
help achieve the objective of having sustainable development appropriately reflected.
109. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting, in June 2002, it had been decided to hold "an
overview event".  This meant that delegations were  free to raise, or to identify, any environmental
aspects they wished regarding the ongoing negotiations.
                                                     
35 Supra  note 34.
36 WT/CTE/W/183, 15 March 2001, "Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade
Negotiations", Communication from Canada.
37 Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 27
110. In the context of paragraph 51, the representative of New Zealand raised the issue of
environmental goods and how these were handled in the negotiations.  He noted the complexity of the
issue as it came up under paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Doha Declaration and potentially involved the
CTE meeting in Regular Session and Special Session, as well as the Negotiating Group on
Market Access.  There were major issues of scope and definition.  It seemed, to New Zealand,appropriate to address the issue under the paragraph 51 heading.
111. To begin with, the representative of New Zealand was struck by the complexity of even a
limited definition of environmental goods, one focusing on end use.  There were issues regarding
multiple-use products, customs and trade classification.  Going beyond that, it might be a sensitive
issue to attempt to expand the scope to a classification on the basis of process and production methods
(PPMs), which would be the case if one were to go ahead with the sort of definition put on the table at
an earlier occasion in the Special Session by one delegation.  The heart of the matter was that therewould be scope for discrimination against like products purely on the grounds of PPMs, rather than
product characteristics.  Whether Members chose to debate this point (on PPMs) in the CTE Special
Session or in the Negotiating Group on Market Access, New Zealand felt that environmental goods
defined by PPM criteria would remain a no-go area for many delegations.  Yet Members had an
interest, whether commercial or environmental, in  promoting trade in environmentally friendly goods.
New Zealand was selling plantation pine and sustai nably harvested fish and was happy to take the
premium that was available.  Others would have similar interests.  New Zealand's experience was that
there were ways of doing this without discrimination, for example through voluntary labelling
schemes, which were part of the CTE agenda.  Therefore, New Zealand was particularly interested in
the outcome of the discussions on environmental goods at the WSSD in Johannesburg.  The WSSDPlan of Implementation, which was included in the document set
38, refered to "voluntary WTO
compatible market-based initiatives for the creation and expansion of domestic and international
markets for environmentally friendly goods …".  Discussion along these lines in the CTE could
actually be useful to the work that had been identified in the Johannesburg text, and be a potentially
useful element in the CTE Report to the 5th Ministerial Conference.  It could also go some way to
accommodating the needs of those delegation that were seeking a discussion on environmentally
friendly goods without getting into a sterile debate on PPMs.
112. The representative of the European Communities agreed that the WSSD outcome was a clear
signal that the CTE Regular Session needed to be more proactive in fulfilling the paragraph 51
mandate.  The European Communities still believed that their proposals made in March 2002 were
pertinent in a general sense:  a joint meeting of the CTE and the CTD, a form of outreach event to
speak to the public, and a checklist or some sort of documentation which allowed for further progress.While the Secretariat (in the Annotated Agenda) had referred to the minutes from various negotiating
groups, this did not allow the CTE to progress much further;  it left resource-constrained delegations
to go through hundreds of pages in order to find out what had happened at these meetings.  The
European Communities had proposed a more ambitious background exercise for the Secretariat by
asking them to actually draw out relevant paragraphs from the minutes from the negotiating reportsand thus identifying relevant issues for discussion.  In fact, New Zealand had just mentioned one such
relevant issue:  environmental goods.  The minutes from the Market Access Negotiating Group on this
particular item gave food for thought.  Hence, the European Communities reiterated their wish to see
the Secretariat produce something with more substance on which a discussion could be started.  He
hoped delegations would show some flexibility on en gaging the Secretariat more in preparing the
debate.  Referring to New Zealand's quotation from the WSSD, the EC delegate noted that the text
also referred to services (not only goods), as well as organic products, which other delegations had
mentioned when making the link to better market access for such products.  The
European Communities would be a "taker" for such a debate under paragraph 51 as suggested by
New Zealand but with one proviso:  such work c ould not precondition the market access discussions.
                                                     
38 WT/CTE/W/220, WT/COMTD/W/106, 7 October 2002, "World Summit on Sustainable
Development", Note by the Secretariat (New Zealand referred to paragraph 93(b) of this document).WT/CTE/M/31
Page 28
It was necessary to continue with the market access and goods negotiations even if there was not a
common vision of what an environmental good was.
113. The representative of the United States, referring to the EC's statement, thought that the CTE
had put procedural issues aside at the last meeting.  In fact, the United States had welcomed the
decision made at the last meeting to commence a discussion of the substance.  The United Statesviewed paragraph 51 as an important part of the Doha Agenda and wished to start by highlighting
some areas of priority with clear environmental implications.
114. Starting with agriculture, the United States stressed that distortions in agricultural production
policy created a heavy cost for the environment.  When farmers made planting decisions based on the
provisions of government programmes rather than the carrying capacity of their land,
environmental quality was under threat.  Trade reform had the potential to help remedy this problem;
a more market-oriented agricultural system would lead farmers and ranchers to make more accuratecost and benefit calculations.  The objectives for agriculture in the Doha mandate called for the
substantial reduction of tariffs, reductions with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidies,
and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic supports.  Tariff reductions would create
opportunities for farmers to grow crops best suited to their environment, and the reduction of export
subsidies and distorting domestic support would decrease incentives for overproduction, cultivation ofmarginal land and application of chemicals.  In addition, economic growth associated with the gains
from trade would increase the ability of people everywhere to pay for environmental amenities.  In the
view of the United States, it was a false choice to say "it is either more production and environmental
degradation or less production and more starvation".  A more market-oriented agricultural system
could foster innovation and efficiency that woul d allow the world to meet the growing demand for
food and fibre in a manner that was environmentally sustainable.  The US proposal for agricultural
reform in the WTO would significantly eliminate market distortions that lead to unsustainable
resource use and overproduction.
115. Regarding the Rules negotiations, the United States wished to highlight the negotiations on
fisheries subsidies.  The United States took quite literally its role as a "Friend of Fish".  This area ofthe Rules negotiations was one of the best exampl es of how the WTO could achieve true "win-win-
wins" as part of the Doha Development Agenda.  There was already a large cache of information -
authoritative research by a variety of organizations - on the environmental effects of subsidies that
generated overcapacity in the fisheries sector and contributed to too many boats chasing too few fish.
The United States expected to draw from some of this research in a paper that would be submitted to
the Rules Negotiating Group shortly.  The United States believed that new disciplines in the WTO
could have a measurable positive impact on conservation efforts worldwide, and could be an excellentexample of how the WTO and international environmental agreements, specifically those addressing
management issues, could be mutually supportive.
116. On services, the United States pointed at the mandate with respect to environmental services.
It was clear that Members could accomplish a win-win, or even a win-win-win, with respect to these
negotiations.  The United States wished to highlight the potential environmental effects of certainproposals in the ongoing negotiations under GATS Article VI:4.  It was stressed that the right to
regulate was a fundamental notion in the GATS, one that was highlighted in paragraph 7 of the Doha
Declaration.  The United States was pursuing the ongoing negotiations under Article VI:4 with this
idea as a central tenet.  It should not be a question of what was proper for governments to regulate –
for example, to address national priorities with respect to environmental protection – but rather howthey should do it.  In particular, the United States viewed the negotiations to enhance transparency in
domestic regulation as an opportunity to ensure that the development and implementation of
regulatory measures was a participatory one.  It was important that all voices could be heard as part of
the regulatory process, including those that identi fied important environmental considerations.  The
United States was somewhat concerned, however, a bout suggestions that an across-the-board, one-
size-fits-all necessity test was a priority in the GATS.  This type of new requirement could be veryWT/CTE/M/31
Page 29
difficult to implement and could hamstring regula tory efforts in the environmental sphere, among
other areas of regulation.  It would create new unpredictability and confusion, and it would be bad for
services trade liberalization and bad for governments seeking to achieve important public objectives,
such as environmental protection through regulation.  As an alternative, increased transparency could
address many of the concerns that Members had with regulation being unnecessarily trade restrictive,while also offering greater opportunities for environmental considerations to be part of a balanced
assessment of proposed regulations.
117. Referring to the ongoing negotiations on environmental goods in the context of the
non-agricultural Market Access negotiations, the United States felt that this clearly had the potential
for positive environmental effects.  With respect to other areas of negotiation, the United States
thought it was too early to assess the environmental implications, positive or negative.  On the
procedural issue regarding keeping abreast with what was going on in all areas of negotiations, theUnited States did not think that the Secretariat could easily compile information from the minutes of
the negotiations.  To do so would require the Secretariat to make some kind of judgement as to what
aspects of these negotiations might be relevant in terms of their environmental implications.  It was
clear to the United States that the process of id entifying environmental effects was a Member-driven
one;  it was the responsibility of individual Members to raise these under the CTE's paragraph 51review.
118. The representative of Brazil supported New Zealand's suggestion to try to target primarily
environmental goods under paragraph 51.  However, Brazil was concerned with a lack of structure in
the debate:  if one tried to tackle all areas of the negotiations that had environmental implications one
would end up talking about too many different issues at  every meeting.  It would facilitate preparation
if one or two areas were targeted.  While Brazil agreed with the United States that it was up to
Members to select specific elements for discussion, it would nevertheless be useful if the Secretariat
could select relevant documents, or identify certain parts of the documents in order to facilitate the
task of reviewing them.  Regarding the EC's statement, Members had already reacted to their past
proposals:  Brazil was not against the possibility of holding a joint CTE-CTD session, but what wouldbe the content of the session?  What was the benefit?  It was Brazil's view that at present it would not
be very useful.  Furthermore, Brazil did not feel that "outreach activities" pertained to the mandate
under paragraph 51.
119. The Chairman noted that, regarding a possible joint meeting with the CTD, he had been in
contact with the Chairman of the CTD on the issue.  While the option was still there, apparently the
conditions were not yet ripe for holding such a meeting.
120. The representative of Japan, referring to New Zealand's statement, noted that it was his
delegation's understanding that the non-agricultural Market Access Negotiating Group and the Special
Session of the CTE were in close collaboration on this issue, which was one of the three negotiating
items falling under the Special Session of the CTE.  At present, Japan was not convinced about the
need to enlarge the forum for this discussion.
121. The representative of Australia emphasized the importance his delegation attached to
paragraph 51.  He recalled that Australia viewed discussion under paragraph as a Member-driven
process, not a process-driven process.  Members themselves had to decide on the issues that
needed to be discussed;  Australia was concerned about asking an already over-burdened Secretariat
to mind-read what countries were proposing on this issue.  Referring to the statements from
New Zealand and the European Communities, he noted that it would be more useful if those Memberswere to come forward with some specific proposals in writing.  He noted the useful contribution from
the United States in respect of the environmental benefits of agriculture reform.
122. The representative of Korea recalled that at the last meeting his delegation had stressed the
need for a structured debate;  otherwise the CTE risked losing its sense of direction.  There was a needWT/CTE/M/31
Page 30
for some form of "mental benchmark" so as to avoid possible situations where the scope of the
mandate under paragraph 51 was tailored to convenience.  This was particularly important
considering the ambiguity among Members when discussing paragraph 51.  Korea believed that
discussions under paragraph 51 were relevant to the situation in other negotiating groups.  For
example, the agriculture negotiations were now at the critical stage of preparing an overview paper tohelp reach modalities on negotiations by March 2003.  In view of this, it was perhaps better for the
CTE to refrain from attempting to provide input for the time being.
123. The representative of Venezuela noted that the Chairman had just mentioned that the
possibility of having a joint meeting with the CTE and CTD was still open.  However, if this joint
session took place there was a need to address the issue of poverty in the context of development and
environmental degradation.  Venezuela was worried that it was still unclear how the issue of poverty
was being addressed in the negotiations on environment.  It had been recognized, in the bestinternational fora, that one of the main causes of environmental degradation was poverty.  A positive
way to achieve results would be to have an interchange of opinions with the CTD on the effects of
poverty on the degradation of the environment.
124. The Chairman noted that such a meeting could only take place following the decision of
Members, and the agenda would be determined by the Members themselves.
125. The representative of Brazil recalled that the US's proposal reflected the Report of the last
meeting39 on the possibility of bringing in Secretariat staff to brief the CTE on certain aspects of the
negotiations.  Brazil considered that it would be a good idea for the Chairman take up this suggestion.
It could be useful to start with someone from the Market Access Division to give the CTE, under
paragraph 51, an overview on the state of play with respect to the discussions on environmental goodswithin the Negotiating Group on Market Access for non-agricultural products.
126. The representative of the United States was somewhat frustrated by the lack of substance in
the discussion under paragraph 51.  His delegation had been under the impression that process-related
issues had been put aside, and that there was going to be a readiness to engage in some kind of
substantive discussion at the current meeting.  He urged delegations, for the purposes of futurediscussions, to be prepared to discuss the substance and to see whether there were environmental
effects or implications with respect to the areas of negotiation covered in the Doha Agenda.  On the
question of process, Brazil had highlighted the US's idea that relevant Secretariat staff could provide
updates for all areas of negotiation, and that this would be a better alternative to asking the Secretariat
to search minutes for issues that they might find to be environmentally relevant.
127. The representative of the European Communities noted that his delegation had reverted to
some of their earlier proposals simply in the spirit of helping delegations to prepare in an adequate
manner for a debate.  Certainly, the European Communities was prepared to speak about agriculture;
in fact, there was much the EC delegation could say on non-trade concerns, and the role of the
environment in agriculture.  However, the European Communities emphasized the need for
preparation, so the ideas from Brazil and the United States were welcome as long as other ways could
not be agreed upon.  The idea of bringing in Secretariat staff so as to brief the CTE was not incontradiction to the EC proposal.
128. The Chairman noted, in conclusion, that while the purpose of the current meeting had been to
have a substantive horizontal discussion ("overview "), only a few delegations had actually approached
the issue in that manner;  the majority of the delegations had chosen to address procedural issues.  In
other words, there appeared to be uneasiness in the Committee on how to address paragraph 51.Looking back, prior to the idea of having a substa ntive horizontal discussion, there had been the idea
                                                     
39 See paragraph 134 in WT/CTE/M/30, 11 September 2002, "Report of the Meeting Held
on 13-14 June 2002", Note by the Secretariat.WT/CTE/M/31
Page 31
of a sectoral approach which, at that time, had been refused, but apparently the overview approach did
not work either.  So now there was a new suggestion, or, rather, a reiterated suggestion, that staff from
the Secretariat be invited to brief the CTE on what was going on in the other negotiating committees
or groups.  This could be useful, particularly in the light of the fact that other approaches were not
working.  On the basis of such factual briefings,  the CTE could then try to launch some meaningful
discussion so as to be in a position to fulfill the mandate under paragraph 51.  Since Members had
raised the issue of agriculture and environmental goods, this could perhaps be a starting-point.  He
suggested, therefore, that at the next meeting relevant Secretariat staff would brief the CTE about the
negotiations on agriculture and environmental goods so as to enable the Committee to contemplate the
relevance of these issues under paragraph 51, and revitalize the debate.  It was so decided.
129. The representative of the European Communities suggested that it would perhaps be useful to
refer to the first issue as "market access", and not just simply "environmental goods".  His view was
that the discussion needed to encapsulate the whole debate in that negotiating group.  This would not
change the substance, as it could be expected that the debate would be on environmental goods, but
this approach would also allow Members to raise other issues, and the Secretariat to prepare some
other aspects.
130. The Chairman noted that if the other Members agreed to the EC's suggestion, the next
meeting of the CTE would look at agriculture and market access, including environmental goods.  It
was so agreed.
VIII.  OTHER BUSINESS: 2003 MEETINGS
131. The representative of the European Communities su ggested that in structuring the work of the
Committee in 2003, the Committee needed to concentrate its work on the Report for the
Cancun Ministerial Conference.  In order to ensure that there was enough time, the
European Communities proposed that the CTE schedule three meetings before the
Ministerial Conference;  the third one being dedicat ed to the discussion of the Report.  This would
entail a slight deviation from current praxis to have  the first meeting in March, the second in June and
the third in October, but it was likely that there wo uld, in any case, be a need for informal meetings,
and it was perhaps better to reserve the time at this early stage.  The only open question was whether
there was a need for a fourth meeting after the Ministerial Conference.  This issue could, however, be
left open.
132. The representative of India was not sure whether a decision could be taken about the number
of meetings in 2003.  This was a horizontal issue and it would be necessary to look into the number of
meetings in other areas.  Hence, India reserved its comments as far as the number of meetings to be
held on the environment in 2003.
133. The Chairman stressed that between Committees there was a strong competition for
reservation of rooms in 2003.
134. The representative of the United States supported the EC's proposal, which he felt to be rather
modest.  He pointed out that the Secretariat needed to reserve rooms well in advance – and the
United States was expecting a very robust discussion under Paragraph 51 at future meetings as well.
135. The representative of Canada stressed that his delegation was also concerned about having
enough time for to complete the report for the Cancun Ministerial Conference.  Canada was also of
the view that the CTE should consider having three meetings before the 5th Ministerial.
136. The representative of Japan echoed the views of many of the previous speakers with regard to
the number of meetings for next year and believed three meetings before the Cancun Ministerial were
necessary.  Also, given that the current meeting was the last substantive meeting of 2002 and the needWT/CTE/M/31
Page 32
to prepare for the Report for the Cancun Ministerial Conference, Japan believed it was appropriate to
have the first meeting of next year either in late January or early February 2003.
137. The representative of the European Commun ities, referring to India, noted that the
European Communities had not asked for more meetings than the Committee would normally have.
At issue was the timing:  to have three meetings before Cancun, leaving open the question of whethera fourth meeting would be necessary afterwards or not.  Also, he recalled that all Members, including
the European Communities, had shown enormous flexibility in accommodating some concerns on the
number of meetings in other fora, the most pertinent example being discussions on Special and
Differential Treatment (where there would be four meetings by the end of the year because of another
very important deadline).  Finally, the European Communities supported the Japanese request to have
an early first meeting.
138. The representative of Brazil noted that her delegation would be flexible regarding the number
of meetings.  She pointed out, however, that smaller delegations faced severe constraints in terms of
human resources and there was hence a need to consult with them.  In terms of timing, with regard to
a meeting in late January 2003, there was a need to avoid a clash with dates of other meetings and also
to ensure that all delegations would be back in Geneva.  She wondered whether the
European Communities was planning to have back-to-back meetings with the CTESS, in other wordsthree meetings of the CTESS in the first trimester of next year.
139. The representative of India reiterated that whether the full quota of the meetings of any
Committee would be held before the Ministerial was a horizontal decision which needed to be taken.
India was not in a position to say that the full qu ota of the 2003 CTE meetings would be held before
the Ministerial while the matter was not clear in other Committees.
140. The Chairman noted that there seemed to be no objection to advancing the date of the next
meeting.  He emphasized that there was a lot of work to be done before Cancun.  There was a need to
have at least one substantive discussion of Paragraph 51 as well as to revisit the items of focus which
had been discussed in 2002 with a view of reaching some conclusions.  Hence, the first point of
agreement was to advance the dates of the first meetings, and leave open the option of holding allthree meetings before the Cancun Ministerial.  The Secretariat would look into possible dates.
Depending on work achieved at the next meeting, the CTE could further consider the matter.  The
possibility of holding informals had to be kept in mind, also based on progress achieved.  Hence, the
chairman proposed that the CTE decide to advance the dates of the first meetings in 2003 while
keeping an open mind on the number of meetings that would be held before Cancun.  It was so
agreed.
141. The meeting was concluded.
__________